The question of genre

At the end of the last chapter, our attention turned to the second synchronic orientation of narrative criticism, that of genre criticism. There I intimated how I considered the description ‘narrative Christology’ to be an appropriate term for the gospel genre. In giving this impression, I may have implied that attempts by genre critics to identify comparisons between the gospels and known genres, such as Graeco-Roman or Jewish biographies, should now cease. Was I really suggesting that the description ‘narrative Christology’ means no further work is needed in the area of genre criticism? Certainly not. Even though the gospels as a whole do not fit neatly into the categories of known genres, they are not brand new literary creations. The gospels, like all literary texts, have affinities and literary relationships with other works of literature. They are not isolated phenomena in the streams of literary tradition running through the cultures of the four evangelists. Mark and John, who seem to me to resemble each other more closely than any other combination of the gospels, certainly have analogies with Graeco-Roman literature. Bultmann was therefore overstating the case when he posed himself the question, ‘what analogies can be suggested between the gospels and other literature?’ and responded with the comment, ‘There are none in the Greek tradition!’ (1921, p. 227). Similarly, he was certainly guilty of exaggeration when he argued that the gospel type is ‘an original creation of Christianity’ (p. 228).