The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies

Abstract

Much confusion surrounds the term 'intertextuality', especially regarding its usage in biblical studies today. Though the origin of the technical usage of the term is casually noted by many authors, few seem to note its implications. This essay will retrace the postmodern origins of 'intertextuality', namely in Julia Kristeva, and show that its usage in biblical studies today is dissonant to its original intent. In the second part of this essay, I will focus on the work of Richard Hays, who is commonly understood to have first applied the term in biblical studies, in relation to the presence of the Old Testament in the New Testament. After my analysis, I propose an alternative that I consider to be a clearer option, so as not to confuse the current usage of the term with its original intent.

‘For a Man Is Born to Suffer’: Intertextuality between Job 4–5 and Gen. 2.4b–3.24

“…In the field of Old Testament studies, some scholars have emphasized the disparity between reader-oriented and author-oriented intertextuality (Carr, 2012 and Yoon, 2012). Others have opted for terms such as ‘inner-biblical exegesis’ and ‘influence’ against intertextuality when referring to author-oriented intertextuality (Fishbane, 1985 and Sommer, 1998).…”

Intertextuality and New Testament Studies

“…Hays’s primary interest is the rhetorical and semantic features of intertexts. Though he differentiates his notion of intertextuality from the traditional comparative approaches, Hays does not pay attention to the contemporary reader’s social and cultural aspects of intertextuality (Yoon 2013: 71). Rather, Hays attempts to elucidate how the later writer employs oblique citations––which he labels as an echo of the OT––as the literary technique of the author (Hays 1989: 29-31; and Hays 2005: 34-45).…”

“…As Jonathan D. Culler rightly points out, if one adopts Kristeva’s notion completely, the study of intertextuality becomes impractical (Culler 2001: 116). Given this, it is conceivable to argue that Kristeva’s concept of intertextuality is an ideology, not a methodology (Yoon 2013: 74). Put differently, Kristeva’s model may be seen as more descriptive than programmatic, which makes it difficult to adopt on account of the numerous undefined and unorganized aspects of her theory (Pfister 1991: 210).…”

Is Ancient Jewish Studies (Still) Postmodern (Yet)?

“…Reader-response and intertextual approaches to canonical Scripture have been enormously popular among biblical scholars. While some embrace the full range of deconstructive possibility in these approaches, others embrace the language and methods of reader-response while rejecting or ignoring its more radical challenges to scriptural authority (an issue explored in Yoon 2012). Assumption of a particular kind of reader, or a particular play of text on text, can serve to deconstruct the authoritative center of the text or indeed to reinscribe authoritative meaning, while clothing that reinscription in a version of postmodern garb (for engagement with some of these issues, see Moore 1989).…”