WTJ 47 (1985)46-67

FORM CRITICISM, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN GENRE THEORY, AND THE EVANGELICAL*

TREMPER LONGMAN III

TTITUDES toward form criticism are undergoing some significant changes in both liberal and evangelical circles. Critics are becoming increasingly wary of form criticism as developed by Gunkel and others 1 and are seeking change either in an emphasis on other critical disciplines, particularly rhetorical,2 or by refining form criticism.3 In general, the feel-

* A shorter version of this article was delivered as a paper at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in December 1982. 1 While Gunkel is the best known of the early form critics, M. Dibelius's, H. Schmidt's, and H. Gressmann's studies are also fundamental; see M. J. Buss, "The Study of Forms," in Old Testament Form Criticism (ed. J. H. Mayes; San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974) 39fF. For a history of the rise of modern form criticism, see G. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). 2 M. Weiss, The Bible From Within: The Method of Total Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984) represents the approach of rhetorical criticism (working with categories developed by New Criticism) and places this approach over against a form critical approach. 3 For example, M. J. Buss, "Appropriate and Not-so-Appropriate Ways of Relating Historical and Functional Methods: A Draft," SBLSP (1972) 2.41348; W. G. Doty, "Fundamental Questions about Literary Critical Methodology: A Review Article, "JAAR 40 (1972) 521-27; P. D. Hanson, "AResponse to J* J. Collins' 'Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch/ " SBLSP (1978); M. Kessler, "From Drought to Exile: a Morphological Study of Jer. 14: 1-15: 4," SBLSP (1972) 2.501-22; R. Knierem, "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered," Int 27 (1973) 435-68; J. O. Lewis, "Gen. 32: 2333: Seeing a Hidden God," SBLSP (1972) 2.449-57; F. Letzen-Deis, "Methodologische berlegungen zur Bestimmung literarische Gattungen im Neuen Testament," Bib 62 (1981) 1-20; R. F. Melugin, "The Typical Versus the Unique among the Hebrew Prophets," SBLSP (1972) 2.331-41; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, "Reflections upon Reflections: A Response to J. Collins' 'Methodological Issues in the Study of I Enoch'," SBLSP (1978) 311-14; N. R. Petersen, "Literary Criticism in Biblical Studies," Orientation by Disorientation (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph; Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980) 2550; E. Eberhard von Waldow, "Some Thoughts on Old Testament Form 46

FORM CRITICISM

47

ing is growing that Gunkel's method too rigidly defines genres, identifies exemplars, and derives benefits. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are slowly coming to a cautious appreciation and more explicit use of form criticism.4 There are still some evangelicals who on the basis of an identification of form criticism with a critical, negative application of this method would say along with one scholar in the late sixties:
. . . it is obvious that a consistent, thorough-going form criticism will have no appeal to those who desire to recognize the inspiration of the Scriptures and the historical continuity between the Lord Jesus and the early church. And let all "conservatives" who are inclined to adopt some form critical terminology and viewpoints be apprised of the basic nature ofthat to which they are accommodating themselves.*

Nevertheless, many evangelicals believe that form criticism has worth: "If form criticism is properly handled, the results can shed light on the Scriptures, although the values depend on the kind of literature being considered."6 A real difference of viewpoint is represented in these two quotations and the present opinions on the matter are likely even further apart than they illustrate.7 The thesis of this paper is that the move toward a positive and constructive form criticism as a hermeneutical tool is a proper one and that evanCriticism," SBLSP (1971) 2.587-600; A. M. Vater, "Story Patterns for a Sitz: A Form or Literary-Critical Concern?" JSOT 11 (1979) 47-56 which also criticizes rhetorical criticism for ignoring the diachronic dimensions of a text. 4 A very recent case in point is the penetrating and technical study by G. Osborne, "Genre CriticismSensus Literalis," Trinity Journal 4 (1983) 1-27. 5 S. N. Gundry, "A Critique of Form Criticism," BibS 123 (1966) 148-49. 6 H. M. Wolf, "Implications of Form Criticism for OT Studies," BibS 127 (1970) 302. It is interesting to note that Gundry's comments pertain directly to Gospel research, whereas Wolf deals with the OT. Their respective attitudes may be at least partially influenced by the negative conclusions of form criticism on the historicity of the Gospel accounts, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the obvious benefits of applying a form critical study on such OT books as the Psalms. 7 1 detect in the opposition aimed at R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) an underlying fear of form and redaction criticism; see my article "Genre, History, and Inerrancy," which is forthcoming in a volume on inerrancy produced by the faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary and edited by H. Conn. A. F.Johnson, "The Historical-Critical Methodology: Egyptian Gold or Pagan Precipice?" JETS 26 (1983) 3-4 notes that evangelicalism is polarized as regards historical-critical methodology in general.

48

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

gelicals should continue to formulate and apply such a method which is shorn of the negative presuppositions of the method as applied by critics. This paper further contends that some recent developments in genre theory will aid in such a constructive approach. I. Traditional Form Criticism The best place to begin is with a description of Gunkel's approach to form criticism. Needless to say, refinements and modifications have been suggested over the past decades, and many have been accepted. Indeed, I will incorporate many of these more recent insights into my own approach. Nevertheless, form criticism as generally practiced today does not substantially differ from that of the earlier periods. In any case, Gunkel's thought constitutes a convenient starting point in that it contains many of the elements which have rankled the sensibilities of evangelicals8 and also provides the foundations, at least, for modern critical practice of formal analysis. Gunkel was concerned to isolate and define the various forms (Formen) and genres (Gattungen) of Scripture (see terminological discussion below). In this he was reflecting concerns which engaged other scholars in the field of literature, particularly folklorists like P. Wendland and E. Norden. Furthermore, his dependence on the brothers Grimm9 is well known. Unfortunate, though, for Gunkel and his followers down to the present day is the fact that he adopted a view of genre which was obsolete even while he was writing.10 This may be noted in at least four areas.
8 L. Coppes, "Hermann Gunkel: A Presentation and Evaluation of His Contributions to Biblical ResearchChiefly in the Area of Old Testament" (Unpublished Th.D. dissertation: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1968) and idem., "The Contribution of Hermann Gunkel to Old Testament Historical Research/' in The Law and the Prophets (ed. J. H. Skilton; Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974) 174-94. 9 Noted by G. Tucker, Form Criticism, 4-5, and M. J. Buss, "The Study of Forms," 50. 10 It should be observed, however, that even though his genre theory was obsolete in comparison to literary theory of his day, his approach was nonetheless revolutionary in comparison with other biblical scholars. The latter field was dominated at the beginning of Gunkel's career by Wellhausen's influence with his heavy emphasis on source criticism.

FORM CRITICISM

49

First, Gunkel believed that genres are pure, that they are separate categories of literature. This doctrine of the purity of genres, well known from his negative evaluation of mixed genres in the Psalms,11 was not current in his own day, but rather was the predominant opinion of neoclassical literary scholars of the nineteenth century who were repeating an Aristotelian view of genre.12 Second, Gunkel set up certain criteria for the identification of the genre of texts. He examined three factors in order to generically classify a text: (1) the mood and thought(s) of the text; (2) the linguistic forms (grammar and vocabulary); (3) the social setting (Sitz im Leben).1S Third, form criticism as developed by Gunkel and others was primarily applied to literature which was believed to be oral in origin. Indeed, Gunkel considered the inscripturation of an oral composition to result in the degeneration of the text. Another tenet of Gunkel's approach to form criticism, one which has been a source of irritation to evangelicals, is his contention that each genre has a social setting and furthermore that each genre has one and only one social setting. His position must be set over against earlier opinion that the psalms originated in a specific historical event, either in David's life (conservatives) or the Maccabean period (critics). Indeed, Gunkel's original position was to assert that all the early poems originated in the cult and that it was only the late poetry which had managed to free itself from the shackles of organized religion and find its roots in individual piety. This is Gunkel's view in a nutshell, a view, furthermore, which is the norm for many recent form critical studies. Furthermore, it is this view of form criticism which has been attacked by evangelicals. I believe that Gunkel and his folH. Gunkel, The Psalms (trans, by T. M. Horner; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967) 36-39. 12 G. N. G. Orsini, "Genres," in Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. by Alex Preminger; Princeton: Princeton Univerity Press, 1965) 307-9. Note also P. Humbert, a contemporary adherent of Gunkel's method, who in "Le problme du livre de Nahoum," RHPR 12 (1932) 5 praises Gunkel's method as delineating "les 'genres' prcis, permettent de saisir objectivement les intentions de l'auteur." 13 Gunkel, The Psalms, lOff.
11

50

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

lowers perpetuated many misconceptions about genre analysis, and it is high tim to get back in touch with what people are doing in genre theory. But first a terminological note. There is general confusion in the use of the two terms "genre" or Gattung and "form" or Form. Sometimes these two words refer to the same literary unit; at other times they are used for different levels of abstraction from the literary text. Usually both terms are employed to describe the literary category of a small portion of a text which has been isolated from a larger work. The situation is confusing, however, since scholars use genre to categorize the whole work as well. I tend to reserve "form" to refer to the smaller units and "genre" for larger units, but principles apply to both. For instance, "lament" may be used as a genre category to describe whole psalms (like Psalms 69 and 83) or as a formal category to describe cases like Job 3, where it is only part of the whole composition.

II.

Modern Literary Theory

What can literary theory teach biblical scholars about genre? In the first place, we can benefit from a more flexible definition of genre. What is a genre?

1. A Communicative-Semiotic Approach to Genre In the act of reading, a transaction takes place between the author and the reader, a transaction which is a form of communication.14 Now, there is an adage which instructs: "the individual is ineffable."15 That is, something which is totally unprecedented is incommunicable. In literary terms, a text which bears no similarities of structure, content, or the like
The following is a communicative-semiotic description of genre. That is, it both highlights the sign nature of genre and its function as a tool of communication between reader and writer. For more background on this approach and others, see K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie (Munich: W. Funk Verlag, 1973). 15 Cf. M.J. Buss, "The Study of Forms," 32, and R. Pascal, Design and Truth in Autobiography (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960) 2.
14

FORM CRITICISM

51

with anything previously written cannot be understood by a reader. The reader, in fact, approaches a text with certain "expectations" which arise at the beginning of the reading process and which are grounded in previous reading experience. When a reader begins reading, (s)he makes a conscious or unconscious genre identification, which brings along with it certain expectations concerning the whole of the text. Furthermore, not only is "genre" recognizable in the expectations of the reader, but it also directs the author as (s)he composes the text.16 It shapes or coerces17 the writer so that his/her composition can be grasped and communicated to the reader. Genre theorists have offered a number of metaphors or models (though the theorists themselves do not consider them as such) to describe a communicative understanding of genre.18 Chief among these theorists, R. Wellek and A. Warren speak of genre as an "institution,", similar to the state, university or church.19 An individual joins an institution, follows its rules and regulations in the main but may opt to fight for change in either a subtle or radical manner. Genres, similarly, compel authors,20 but can be changed subtly or radically by
G. Dillon, Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and Style (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). 17 R. Wellek and A. Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1963) 226, and D. Kambouchner, "The Theory of Accidents," Glyph 7 (1980) 149-75. 18 It should be pointed out that the theorists described below are not agreed concerning the ontological status of genres. Some are realists or conceptualists; others are nominalists (see Osborne, "Genre Criticism," 9ff). There are also other significant differences between them concerning literary critical theory. There has been no attempt to adopt a "party line" approach in this article. 19 R. Wellek and A. Warren, Theory of Literature, 226. 20 This is not to deny that some authors consciously break literary conventions in an effort to compel rather than be compelled. J. Culler, The Pursuit of Signs (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981) 37, addresses this issue when he states: "... the flouting of linguistic and literary conventions by which literary works bring about a renewal of perceptions testifies to the importance of a system of conventions as the basis of literary signification." He compares this to conventions of social behavior. When someone is impolite, it does not throw the existence of social conventions into question. The same is true when a writer breaks literary conventions.
16

52

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

them. Though R. Wellek and A. Warren are realists in terms of the question of genre ontology, their "institution" analogy demonstrates that such a viewpoint is not necessarily regu21 lative and prescriptive, but can be descriptive. The former approach was correctly discredited by the Romantics.22 A second metaphor compares genres with legal "contracts."23 Genres are expectations commonly agreed on by authors and readers. A similar conception is found in the work of T. Todorov, the eminent structuralist, who refers to genres as codes.24 In both cases the metaphors emphasize the communicative nature of genre. That is, it is the literary phenomenon which allows the writer to communicate to the reader in an intelligible way. Another metaphor enters genre theory via philosophy, specifically language philosophy. E. D. Hirsch25 draws on L. Wittgenstein's analogy of the sentence as a game. Just as a sentence is a game, so too is genre. In games there are rules, and these rules shape the play of the game. His game analogy is apt . since language (syntax, diction, etc.) and genre also have rules which govern their successful operation.26 A further metaphor which illumines the nature of the rer lationship between a genre and its exemplars comes, like the Wittgensteinian game-analogy, from the sentence-level and is secondarily applied to classes of texts. K. Hempfer,27 P. Ri28 29 coeur, and others borrow the terminology from transfor21 Aristotle and the neoclassical school of the nineteenth century regarded genres as regulative and prescriptive, cf. G. . G. Orsini, "Genres," 307. 22 G. . G. Orsini, "Genres," 308. 23 M. Billson, "The Memoir: New Perspectives on a Forgotten Genre," Genre 1 (1977) 259-82. 24 T. Todorov, The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre (trans. R. Howard and with Introduction by R. Scholes; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974); cf. J. Culler, The Pursuit of Signs, 11-12, 37. 25 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967) 68ff. 26 M. . Amsler elaborates on this using the specific example of a football game, cf. . E. Amsler, "Literary Theory and the Genres of Middle English Literature," Genre 13 (1980) 389-90. 27 K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie, 107-9. 28 P. Ricoeur, "The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation," Philosophy Today 17 (1973) 136. 29 E. Guttgemanns, Studia linguistica neotestamentica (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971).

FORM CRITICISM

53

mational grammar as developed by N. Chomsky. Chomsky's fundamental insight is that an infinite number of actual sentences in a language is generated by a finite number of basic sentences. The finite basic sentences are the deep structure of the language, while the infinite number of sentences are the surface structure. Similarly, some scholars refer to the infinite (potentially speaking) number of texts in a language as the surface structure, behind which one finds a finite group of literary kinds or genres which generate the texts themselves. Lastly, R. D. Abrahams30 focuses on the communicative function of genres when he calls them 'patterns of expression' and explains that authors conform to such patterns and readers expect them. In summary, contemporary genre theorists employ various analogies for their understanding of genre. Association of genre with institution, contract, game, code, deep structure and patterns of expression underlines three points concerning genre: (1) Genre explains the possibility of communication in a literary transaction; (2) Genres rest upon expectations which arise in readers when they confront a text; (3) Authors can be coerced in composition to conform to genre expectations. 2. The Ancients and Genre Now that genres have been described, we need to ask the question of their utility in interpreting ancient (particularly biblical) texts. Indeed, a frequently asked and legitimate question concerns whether or not we are imposing modern, Western notions of literature on ancient Semitic literature. Are we not running into the danger of distorting the material by imposing modern concepts and even modern generic titles on ancient texts? After all, the concept of genre was not explicit until the writings of Plato and Aristotle.31 Israelite and other Near Eastern scribes were not concerned with a precise and self-conscious generic classification of their literature.32
R. D. Abrahams, "The Complex Relations of Simple Forms," Genre 2 (1969) 104-28. 31 Plato in his Republic and Aristotle in his Poetics, cf. G. . G. Orsini, "Genres," 307-9. 32 A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975) 5.
30

54

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

A number of points could be made concerning this issue, but let me keep my remarks brief. D. Ben-Amos33 and R. D. Abrahams34 correctly deny the possibility of a culture-free genre system. A finite set of genres which appears in the literatures of many cultures and of every historical period does not exist. We must admit that there is no universal generic similarity. New genres develop; old ones die out.35 In addition, certain cultures utilize some genres and neglect others. For example, in the ancient world there is nothing comparable to the modern novel. In the same way, twentiethcentury American literature contains few omens, if any at all. Nevertheless, though a culture-free genre system does not exist, the native literary classification of each culture (or lack of it) need not be (uncritically) adopted in order to identify the genres of that culture. The separation of etic and ernie36 approaches to literature deal with these cultural determinants in literary classification. The ernie seeks native designations and classification of literature. The advantage of this method is that the researcher gains insight into the native consciousness of a particular text and also the relationship between that text and others bearing the same designation. The etic view of literature imposes a non-native grid or classification scheme onto the texts in order to categorize them. While there is always the danger of distorting understanding of the texts by imposing foreign stand33 D. Ben-Amos, "Analytical Categories and Ethnic Genres," Genre 1 (1968) 275-301. 34 R. D. Abrahams, "The Complex Relations of Simple Forms," 104-28. 35 See A. Fowler, "The Life and Death of Literary Forms," New Literary History 2 (1970/71) 199-216. 36 K. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (The Hague: Mouton, 1967) chap. 2, and V. Poythress, "Analysing a Biblical Text: Some Important Linguistic Distinctions," SJTS2 (1979) 11337; idem, "Analysing a Biblical Text: What Are We After?," SJT 32 (1979) 319-31. The emic/etic distinction was first proposed in linguistics where it was used to distinguish native understanding of language from modern linguists' analysis. K. Pike was the first to generalize the distinction into a principle which could be used in the study of any aspect of culture. V. Poythress further refined the concept. For the tendency of taking linguistic categories and applying them to other disciplines, see J. Culler, The Pursuit of Signs, 27-29.

FORM CRITICISM

55

ards on them, benefits abound, as will be shown below.37 In thefirstplace, it should be pointed out that the Israelite (and Mesopotamian for that matter) scribes were not concerned with a precise and self-conscious generic classification of their literature.38 Both were innovations of the Greeks. While the Mesopotamians did provide many of their literary texts with labels which partially categorized them, these are not always generic names. For instance, the widespread use of z-mi "praise" occurs in texts of various genres (hymns,39 myths,40 epics,41 Lehrgedicht*2) and should be referred to as the mode of the texts.43 Other names assigned to individual texts by the native scribes (tigi and so on) principally concern musical accompaniment, not generic relationships. Still other native labels reflect the method of recitation (sir-gid-da). A second locus of native literary classification occurs in the literary catalogues.44 Yet, here too the classificatory principle is not systematically generic. While texts of the same genre are occasionally listed together in a catalogue,45 usually they are not. In a catalogue from Ur published by S. N. Kramer,46 for example, there are many different genres represented.47 While the Israelite and other Near Eastern peoples were not concerned as far as we know with genres on a theoretical level, their writings are conducive to a generic approach, perhaps even more than modern literature. The latter frequently
37 J. Cooper, The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (AnOr 52; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978) 5, notes the advantage of "transcending" ancient attempts at classification. W. W. Hallo, review of Cooper, The Return, in fAOS 101 (1981) 253-57, takes issue with Cooper on this subject. 38 Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts, 4ff. 39 Hymn to Enlil, the All-Beneficent, ANET 573-76 (line 170). 40 Cf. Enki and Ninhursag, ANET 37ff. (line 279). 41 Cf. Gilgamesh and Agga, ANET 44. (line 115). 42 See Cooper, The Return, 5. 43 Z-mi refers to the fact that these are compositions for praise. 44 J. Krecher, "Literarische Kataloge," RLA 5 (1976-80) 478-85. 45 W. W. Hallo, ' O n the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature,"/OS 83 (1963) 168-69; idem:, "Another Sumerian Literary Catalogue?" StudOr 46 (1977) 77-80. 46 S. N. Kramer, "The Oldest Literary Catalogue," BASOR 88 (1942) 10-19. 47 There are hymns, epics, myths, laments and so on among the titles recognized by Kramer in his edition of the literary catalogue.

56

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

prides itself in being innovative and iconoclastic, but ancient Near Eastern literature was much less so.48 Thus, generic similarities do exist in ancient texts. The value of an etic approach, a generic classification based on modern rather than ancient analysis and identification,49 is supported by the discussion of the next few pages (see below section III).

3. Genres and Generality (A Fluid Theory of Genre) At this point, I will begin to critique traditional form criticism and formulate a positive approach to biblical genre study, utilizing the insights of modern literary theory. The first area in which I would like to subject form criticism as traditionally practiced to the analysis of modern genre theory is in Gunkel's attitude toward forms as discrete entities. The neoclassical approach gave the impression that genres were pure and fixed, also that they existed at only one level of abstraction. Actually, though, genre and its synonyms (literary kind, type, class) have been employed in various ways even when restricted to the text as a whole. Beginning with Plato,50 there is a tradition which names three genres: drama, epic, and lyric. Others take genre in the sense of the so-called "historical" genres:51 novel, sonnet, memoir, etc. or as an even narrower category like E. D. Hirsch's intrinsic genre.52 In other words, scholars in the past and the present have expended much effort to determine the correct abstractionlevel of "genre." How many traits must be shared by texts in order to classify them as belonging to another type? Another
R. Knierem, "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered," 435-36. Emic approaches are considered to be the ideal in Assyriology, cf. . Landsberger, "The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World," in Sources and Monographs on the Ancient Near East (Malibu: Undena, 1976). This is only occasionally possible and perhaps less significant than previously thought. 50 G. N. G. Orsini, "Genres," 307. 51 K. Vitor, "L'histoire des genres littraires," Potique 29 (1977) 490-506. 52 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 78-88, and The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) 112ff.
49 48

FORM CRITICISM

57

way to state the problem is as follows: Are genres finite or are they infinite in number?53 The answer to this problem is that genre exists at all levels of generality and that the make-up and nature of a particular genre depends on the viewpoint which the researcher adopts. In other words, it is possible to speak of a broad genre of many texts which have few traits in common, or of a narrow genre of as few as two texts which are identical in many ways. It depends on the decision of the researcher, and his/her decision arises from his/her research needs.54 Thus, with T. Todorov,55 for example, it is correct to speak of genres on a scale which ranges from one ("jedes Werk stellt eine eigene 'Gattung' dar") to the maximum ("alle Texte gehren zu einer 'Gattung' ").56 Such a notion of genre suggests that genres are not rigid categories.57 Thefluidityof genre designations is best demonstrated with an example. Psalm 98 may be classified in a variety of different genres, depending on the level of abstraction from the text itself.58 It may be classified very broadly as a poem and share a few general similarities with other texts which we call poetry.59 On the other extreme, Psalm 98 may be classified narrowly as in a genre with only Psalm 96. Psalm 96 is virtually identical to Psalm 98 with the exception that the former inT. Todorov, The Fantastic. G. S. Morson, The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky's 'Diary of a Writer' and the Traditions of Literary Utopia (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981) vi-viii. 55 See also Morson, The Boundaries, 5, 7ff. and C. Di Girolamo, A Critical Theory of Literature (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981) 74, 75. 56 As cited in K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie, 137. 57 The Wittgensteinian concepts of "blurred edges" or "fuzzy concepts" are appropriate to describe the overlapping which does occur between genres, cf. . E. Amsler, "Literary Theory and the Genres of Middle English Literature," 390. 58 For a more complete treatment, see my "Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Hymn" (forthcoming JETS 1985). 59 The question of what distinguishes poetry from prose is a complex one. The distinction is even denied by J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). I believe poetry may be distinguished from prose on the basis of a heightening and intensification of the ornamentation of language. I hope to publish on this subject in the near future.
54 53

58

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

eludes a diatribe against idol worship. Between these two extremes are a variety of other potential classifications for Psalm 98. Moving from broad to narrow, Psalm 98 may be treated as a poem, a cultic hymn, a hymn concerning God's kingship, a divine warrior victory psalm and finally as most closely related to Psalm 96. One of the benefits of such a fluid approach to genre is that it demands that the exegete attend as closely to the peculiarities of the text as to its similarities. 4. Classification of Texts into Genres The second area in which traditional form criticism needs revision concerns the method of classifying texts into genres. What criteria do we use to place genres in their proper category? Stated quite simply, if we are going to conceive of genres as fluid and overlapping, any type of similarity is appropriate. Gunkel restricted his criteria to three: content, mood and setting, but there is no reason why we cannot use many types of similarities. The following two sections address the question of the determination of a genre of a text. ( 1 ) The relationship of a genre to its member texts. By what means does one recognize a genre? There have been three answers to this question: historical, deductive, and inductive. The historical method pays attention to historical notices, titles of books and so on. H. R. Jauss60 and G. P. Firmat,61 in their generic criticism, seek "poetological documents," i.e. evidence from the time period of the literary category under discussion, which groups and labels the documents as a class. The main sources for reconstructing a genre are the critical treatments which were contemporary with the texts under consideration. The main problem with this approach, however, is that contemporary critical observations on a text may be incorrect. It seems better to work with the texts in the present. A second difficulty arises which is particularly acute in the study of ancient documents. What if there are no "po60 H. R. Jauss, 'The Alterity and Modernity of Medieval Literature," New Literary History 10 (1979) and "Littrature mdivale et thorie des genres," Potique 1 (1970) 79-101. 61 G. P. Firmat, "Genre as Text," Comparative Literature 17 (1980) 16-25.

FORM CRITICISM

59

etological documents" to be found, that is no critical observations for reconstructing genres. If this method or approach has any utility, it is in the modern period of literature when critical works abound. N. Frye represents the deductive approach to generic criticism.62 He develops a complex modal grid which he then imposes on the texts.63 The third approach, the inductive,64 is best. It starts neither with the literary class nor with individual texts, but with both in interaction with each other. In brief, the whole (genre) can only be understood through the parts (the texts) and the parts only through the whole. This is a version of the hermeneutical circle (or better stated, spiral),65 which states that the meaning of a text can only be comprehended from the individual words, phrases and sentences which constitute it; conversely, however, the individual elements of the text can only be grasped through a knowledge of the whole. In short, genres can be elucidated only from the texts themselves. (2) Genre-identifying elements. Part of the confusion surrounding the identification of texts which cohere into a genre originates in unclarity concerning the kind of similarities among texts which signal that they belong to the same genre. Gunkel, as mentioned, felt that a text could be generically classified according to three criteria: (a) the mood and thought(s) of the text; (b) the linguistic forms (grammar and vocabulary); (c) the social setting.66 Gunkel is followed by many other scholars.67 Ben-Amos renames these the "cognitive, expressive and behavioral levels."68 There are, however, other traditions of literary typing. N. Frye in his genre theory types texts on the basis of motifs and
N. Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957) 243ff. 68 Criticism of N. Frye in T. Todorov, The Fantastic, 8ff. 64 Described by T. Todorov, The Fantastic, 3-23; K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie, 128ff., and E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation. 65 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 76ff. 66 H. Gunkel, The Psalms; cf. M.J. Buss, "The Study of Forms," 1. 67 R. Knierem, "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered," 435-68; M. Kessler, "From Drought to Exile," 501; G. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament, 10-17. 68 D. Ben-amos, "Analytical Categories and Ethnic Genres," 297.
62

60

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

themes,69 whereas H. R. Jauss and G. P. Firmat type texts on the basis of historical associations.70 The approach of the present study is to accept similarities between texts on many levels and the interrelationships between these similarities as evidence of generic identity. These similarities can be divided into two categories: inner and outer forms.71 The outer form of a text includes the structure of the text and the metrical or nonmetrical speech rhythm. On the other hand, the category inner form of the text refers to the nonformal aspects of the texts, the mood, setting, function, narrative voice and content. The following chart lists some of the similar characteristics which unite Psalm 98 with Psalms 18, 47, 68, 93, 96 into a single genre (at one level of abstraction): Psalm 98 Outer Form Poetic style (parallelism, imagery, etc.) Inner Form Kingship theme (content) Praise (mood) Divine Warrior Hymn (function) Kingship theme Praise Divine Warrior Hymn Poetic style Psalms 18, 47, etc.

III. The Benefits of a Generic Approach to Biblical Texts What is the value of genre analysis? How does our study of the form of a text aid in exegesis? At this point, I will present what I consider to be the four main benefits of genre analysis.
N. Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 243ff. See R. Finholt, "Northrup Frye's Theory of Countervailing Tendencies: A New Look at the Mode and Myth Essays," Genre 13 (1980) 203-57. 70 See footnote 60. 71 R. Wellek and A. Warren, Theory of Literature, 23Iff., and K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie, 154.
69

FORM CRITICISM

61

1. Genre Identification as the Key to the Meaning of a Text The importance of identifying the genre of a text extends beyond that of classification. As E. D. Hirsch72 persuasively argues, the meaning of a text is genre-bound. In other words, the reader can arrive at a correct understanding of a text only through a correct genre analysis. Thus, in interpreting a text, the reader must take steps toward determining its proper genre. Hirsch demonstrates his contention that genre identification is significant as a guide to the meaning of the text by showing what results from misinterpretation. Genre misidentification leads to misinterpretation. The following quote from Hirsch illustrates his point even though I admit it is a little flippant:
The central role of genre concepts in interpretation is most easily grasped when the process of interpretation is going badly or when it has to undergo revision: 'Oh! you've been talking about a book all the time. I thought it was about a restaurant.. .'7S

According to Hirsch, recognition of a faulty interpretation jars the readers into revising their genre identification and therefore their genre expectations as well. Hirsch conceives of the process of reading and/or interpretation as the development of successive genre identifications until the final decisive identification which determines the reader's interpretation of the whole. These successive identifications are also a continual narrowing process from broad genre to intrinsic genre. The broad genre serves a heuristic function in the interpretive process; the broad class provides a basic framework within which the researcher can work. As more of the text is read and understood, the researcher can identify it as a member of smaller and smaller classes until, finally, the text is located in, to use Hirsch's words, an "intrinsic
72 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation; idem., "The Norms of Interpretation," Genre 2 (1969) 57-62; idem., The Aims of Interpretation. Also see the statements and arguments of W. G. Doty, "The Concept of Genre in Literary Study," SBLSP 2 (1972) 413-48; idem, "Fundamental Questions about Literary Critical Methodology: A Review Article," 521-27, and M. Gerhard, "Generic Studies: Their Renewed Importance in Religious and Literary Interpretation," 309-25. 73 E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 71.

62

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

genre." The latter is more than a heuristic tool; rather, it is constitutive of meaning.74 Hirsch's connection between genre identification and interpretation of meaning is significant; however, his characterization of intrinsic genres is vague. He locates them somewhere between the broad genres and the individual text itself. It is difficult, therefore, to understand what he means by intrinsic genre. This vagueness is especially unfortunate since the concept is central to his interpretive method. While he believes that genres are flexible in terms of their abstraction level, he, places greater value in the narrower, intrinsic class. Yet, in principle, he is correct. If one extrapolates from a known to an unknown, the greater the degree of similarity between the two, the more likely the analogy will bear up. Let me illustrate the importance of this point with an example.75 For years debate has raged over the proper translation of y hwh mahk, an expression which occurs in a number of psalms (Ps 47:9; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1). Should it be rendered "Yahweh reigns" or "Yahweh is becoming king"?76 Grammatically, either translation is defensible. However, the difference in translation results in a radical difference in interpretation. The former translation assumes that Yahweh's ever-present and ever-past kingship is being affirmed, whereas the latter supposes that Yahweh's kingship is being (re)established. As one studies the history of the problem, one can observe how the translation depends on a previous genre identification. Those who have identified these psalms
E. D. Hirsch, Validity, 116ff. S. B. Parker, "Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology," Maarav 2 (1979) 7-41, and also P. D. Hanson, "Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern," JBL 92 (1973) 37-59 are other examples. Parker uses Hirsch's concept of genre to move Ugaritic research beyond its present tired state. Comparative philology has gone about as far as it will go in terms of elucidating the Ugaritic texts. 76 S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israels Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 1.107F; E. Lipinski, "Yahweh Malak," Bib 44 (1963) 405-60; and D. R. ApThomas, "An Appreciation of Sigmund Mowinckel's Contribution to Biblical Studies,"/5L 85 (1966) 315-25; A. G. Hebert, "The Idea of Kingship in the OT," Reformed Theological Review 18 (1959) 34-45; E. J. Young, "Thy God Reigneth," in Isaiah, appendix II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 3.550-52 and K. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity, 1966) 102-6.
75 74

FORM CRITICISM

63

as having a central role in an annual enthronement ceremony will choose to translate "is becoming king," but those who reject such a genre identification77 will go along with the alternative. In short, generic identification determines the translation of yhwh mlk in these poems. In summary to this section, the meaning of a text is genrebound thus providing impetus for the researcher to identify the type of literature he is in the process of interpreting. 2. Genre and the Identification of the Setting of a Text (Sitz im Leben) As mentioned, H. Gunkel developed the idea that each "form" has a particular "setting" in the life of the community (Sitz im Leben). He separated himself from earlier practice where effort was expended to discover the historical occasion for a particular text's composition and instead focused on its place within the religious-social community. For example, in the study of the psalms it became the practice, after Gunkel, for OT exegetes to search for the place which each psalm occupied in the cultic ritual rather than for the historical event which stimulated its composition (an episode in the life of David for conservative scholars or an event in the Maccabean period for critical ones).78 Gunkel and his followers felt that if the form of a textual unit could be identified, that form could be connected with one particular social setting. While there is value in this insight, Gunkel's position requires modification. The idea that each form had one and only one Sitz im Leben is too rigid. Similarly his contention that the setting is exclusively social is questionable. (1) As W. G. Doty has pointed out in connection with NT form criticism, Gunkel's position must be altered to allow for multiple social settings that each form may occupy, and conversely, that one particular social setting may generate more than one specific genre.79
See Longman, "Psalm 98" (forthcoming). We are referring here to nineteenth and early twentieth century scholars. The tendency among modern conservatives is to be less speculative about pinpointing historical events alluded to in the psalms, and modern critics for the most part are agreed that most of the psalms are pre-exilic. 79 W. G. Doty, "The Concept of Genre in Literary Analysis," 422ff.
78 77

64

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

(2) The idea that each form or genre has a social setting has been challenged recently by Andre Jolies. He contends that a genre80 arises from a purely intellectual origin, what he calls an Occupation of the mind' (Geistesbeschftigung).81 R. Knierem well states Jolies' position82 in contradistinction to Gunkel's:
It does not matter here whether Jolies was right in some of his interpretations or not. What matters is the fact that once more we are confronted with a position according to which generic formations of language and literature have their correlatives in the typical operations of man's mind. Genres are the forms of expression through which these mental operations function. For Jolies, generic identity is constituted by the typical occupation of mind as it expresses itself in language. In view of Jolies' impact, especially in Old Testament form criticism, it is worthwhile to mention that his linguistically oriented understanding of genres is significantly different methodologically from Gunkel's sociologically oriented understanding.89

In conclusion, genres may help us recover the original setting of a text. But there is no necessity to identify one particular social matrix as the setting. Settings may be multiple and social, historical and/or intellectual. 3. Genre and the Exposure of Literary Relationships Northrup Frye is to the point when he states the following concerning the value of generic criticism:
The purpose of criticism by genres is not so much to classify as to clarify . . . traditions and affinities thereby bringing out a large number of literary relationships that would not be noticed as long as there were no context established for them.84

In other words, the very practice of examining a collection of generically related texts will result in the illumination of each individual text.
He works primarily with what he calls "elementary" forms (einfache For men). 81 A. Jolies, Formes Simples (trans. A. M. Buguet; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1972) 10. 82 See also D. A. Knight, "The Understanding of 'Sitz im Leben* in Form Criticism," SBLSP (1974) 105-25. 83 R. Knierem, "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered," 442: 84 N. Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, 247-48.
80

FORM CRITICISM

65

Among the authors who elaborate on this point is T. Todorov.85 He arrives at a formulation of a genre by distancing, abstracting or generalizing from specific texts. After doing this, he does not believe, of course, that a description of the genre as a whole will be a perfect and complete statement of each individual text. He does believe, however, that the grouping together of similar texts into a single coherent genre will highlight the literary relationships among texts; these relationships can then be applied to the interpretation of individual texts. For example, speaking generally, if a particular text is difficult to understand but can be grouped within a genre, the clearer texts within a genre may bring some light to the more obscure one. E. D. Hirsch has drawn the same conclusion and has applied it to probability theory.86 While recognizing that probability theory is native to the realm of science, he notes that most everyday probability judgments87 are nonetheless made based on numerically unquantifiable factors. While probability judgments often produce uncertain results, uncertainty is true of probability judgments per se. They are only as certain as the evidence upon which they are based. In other words, they are "informed guesses." Probability judgments are guesses made about an unknown on the basis of known facts. How does genre enter into this discussion? If a particular text is unclear at a point, then it is an unknown. The clear representatives of the genre are known facts. An informed guess about the unclear texts is then made on the basis of the clear (known) texts. The certainty of such a probability judgment is grounded on the uniformity of the class or in this case genre. That is, increasing generic similarity enhances the certainty of a judgment based on probability. Since the psalms are a collection of individual and separate texts, they have no normal literary context. More benefit may be gained studying a psalm in the context of its genres than by examining the immediately preceding and following psalms. To be specific, it is most fruitful to study Psalm 30
Cf. the discussion in K. Hempfer, Gattungstheorie, 128ff. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 173F. 87 Hirsch, Validity, 174 with reference to J. M. Keynes, A Treatise on Probability (New York: Torchback, 1962).
86 85

66

WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

in the context of other thanksgiving hymns rather than in comparison with Psalms 29 and 31. For most other texts, insight is gained by studying both the immediate literary context and its generic context. For instance, Nah 3: Iff. must be studied in its literary context (as occurring between two metaphorical taunts [Nah 2: 12-14 and 3: 4-6]), but as a second essential step in understanding Nah. 3: Iff. the exegete must compare and contrast it with all other occurrences of hoy oracles in the prophets and the historical books.

4. Genre and Comparative Studies The grouping of texts into genres is a necessary prerequisite to comparative studies. Once a genre of texts is clearly defined, it can then be compared to the same genre in another culture. One must take into account, however, as W. W. Hallo has recently suggested,88 that when comparisons are being made between two cultures or literatures, dissimilarities as well as similarities need to be demonstrated. The importance of genre in comparative studies has been emphasized in a recent article by P. Craigie where he attempts to develop some methodological controls on Ugaritic-Hebrew comparisons.89 One of the preconditions for making such a comparison between two texts is that the texts belong to the same genre. The use of the comparative method has deeply enriched our understanding of the OT as it helps us rediscover the cultural and generic background to the text. Meredith Kline has forcefully demonstrated that OT covenant texts bear a close generic relationship with Hittite treaties and has drawn significant and helpful implications from this relationship.90
88 For a recent discussion, see W. W. Hallo, "Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: The Contextual Approach," in Scripture in Context: Essays on the Comparative Method (eds. C. D. Evans, et al.; Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1980) 1-26. 89 P. C. Craigie, "The Poetry of Ugarit and Israel," Tyndak Bulletin 22 (1971) 3-31. 90 M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963).

FORM CRITICISM

67

In another article,91 I have argued that Qphelet's speech (Ecc 1: 11-12: 7) is a didactic autobiography similar to three Akkadian literary compositions (Cuthaean Legend of NaramSin, the Adad-guppi inscription and the so-called Sin of Sargon text). In my opinion, the comparison helps explain some of the problems encountered in interpreting this difficult book. These examples could be multiplied many times over, but the point is that such studies can only be done on the basis of a previous genre analysis. Summary There is no escape from genre analysis. The question for the exegete is whether his or her analysis will be conscious and methodical or unconscious. Whenever we read anything we make at least an unconscious genre identification which triggers a certain reading strategy in our mind. The intention of this article has been to encourage a conscious approach to genre identification in exegesis. Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia

Tremper Longman III, "Comparative Methods in OT Studies: Ecclesiastes Reconsidered," TSF Bulletin 7 (1984) 5-9.

91

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.