Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1998
DOI: 10.1163/9789004350298_005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shared Intertextual Interpretations in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Most copies are assigned to the period 50-25 bce, although 4Q391 is earlier, 'the last quarter of the second century bce' (Dimant 2001: 9). The analyses by Brooke (1992) and García Martínez (2005) are also noteworthy.…”
Section: B the Apocryphon Of Ezekiel And Pseudo-ezekielmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Most copies are assigned to the period 50-25 bce, although 4Q391 is earlier, 'the last quarter of the second century bce' (Dimant 2001: 9). The analyses by Brooke (1992) and García Martínez (2005) are also noteworthy.…”
Section: B the Apocryphon Of Ezekiel And Pseudo-ezekielmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…26.11-12 (Olley 1998), there may be intertextual influence by Ezekiel. There are a number of links between Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel (Hartley 1992: 459-60). In addition, Brooke (1992;1998: 52-54) has shown that, in 4Q LXX Lev a (4Q 119), and 11QT a (11Q19), there is an intertextual link between Lev. 26.9 and Ezek.…”
Section: Ezekiel Elsewhere In the New Testamentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As we have noted above, postmodern approaches purport to challenge authority by fragmenting the text and calling attention to the constructed nature of its authoritative formations. The manuscripts of the scrolls themselves come to us-through channels outside of authoritative religious structures-already in a state of serious fragmentation, and any reading of them begins with stage after stage of explicit reconstruction: building manuscripts from fragments, tracing readings from letters that are broken, faded, and sometimes scratched away, and then making sense of the textual formations that result from that process (by way of example, consider Brooke 1994, where the material evidence of the manuscript shapes the textual reconstruction, which in turn contributes to the literary interpretation; for a methodological reflection on this process, see Tigchelaar 2010). There is something a bit perverse about an effort to 'undo' all this careful work through the application of a deconstructive approach to its many reconstructions.…”
Section: Deconstructing the Dead Sea Scrollsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Brooke 1997Brooke , 1998. The earlier of these two essays explores a shared 'canon within the canon' of key texts (Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms), whose use in both the scrolls and the New Testament allowed their communities 'to justify their positions as the true representatives of Israel' (1997;updated in Brooke 2005a: 50-51). More explicitly theoretical is Brooke 1998, where Kristevan intertextuality provides a new means of understanding shared textual citations and interpretations.…”
Section: Deconstructing the Dead Sea Scrollsmentioning
confidence: 99%