Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

INTERTEXTUALITY

A paper
Presented in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the class
OTST/NTST 612 Biblical Hermeneutics

by
Yvonne Gameti
December 4, 2018
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Definition…………………………………………………………………... 1
History……………………………………………………………………… 1
Proponents………………………………………………………………….. 3
Presuppositions………………………………………………………........... 3
Intertextuality in Scripture- A Perspective of Irenaeus……………….......... 4
Types of Intertextual References………………………………………….... 6
Arguments…………………………………………………………………... 6
Evaluation…………………………………………………………………... 7
 Definition

Intertextuality is defined as an old discipline which is the consideration of how

authors employ sources at their disposal in the course of composing new literary works1.

In the Biblical context, Dr. Berchie simply defines it as the use of a biblical text by

another biblical author2. This means that the biblical author used an earlier written text of

an earlier biblical author.

History

This method of Bible interpretation called at the time “inner biblical exegesis”

was practiced at an early age of history. Researchers have discovered for a long time the

success of teachers, philosophers and theologians in applying both literary and oral

sources that they themselves contemplated as authoritative for their respective traditions

which they in return taught to others. The Greeks and Romans are great examples for this

work with Socrates as a pillar of model for upcoming teachers or a source of critics for

others. 5th century philosophers like Protagoras, Hippias, Antiphon and Gorgias modeled

on Socrates’ work while Aristotle and Plato who were opponents also integrated the

wisdom and authority of Socrates in their instruction.

After a century and a half, the impact of all those debates and new works hit the Romans

society who came to appreciate and merge Greek traditions, texts, intellect; in

1
D. Jeffrey Bingham and Clayton N. Jefford, Intertextuality in the Second Century, 11th
ed. (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2016), 1.
2
Daniel Berchie, review of Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to
Interpreting Scripture, by Corley, Bruce Steve W. Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy, Nashville, TN:
Broadman & Holman, (2002): 9.

1
essence, culture as it enlarged with a sophisticated energy that anticipated a new role for

ancient values. But this intellectual revival did not affect the Roman society alone. Jewish

scholars also participated in the new trend. The Ancient Jews used it to interpret the Bible

from roughly 400 B.C.E to 200 C.E. That can be found in the writings of Philo of

Alexander and the historical memoires of Flavius Josephus. Jeffrey Bingham in the book

Intertextuality in the second century posits that: “for them, the wisdom of the world was

best recognized through appreciation of the divine hand at work in human affairs, and so

they brought both a Greek appreciation for historiographical reading of culture and affairs

and a Jewish acknowledgment of the great works of ancient Israel’s own writings as a

testament to what was true about life3”. The Mishnah and Talmud which are records of

rabbinic instructions testify of the wide presence of intertextuality in their works. And the

following lineage of rabbis also made use of the literary records made before them while

being themselves templates for future works. In the Jewish world, tradition pinpoints the

1st century figure of Yohanan Ben Zakkai as a primary pedestal of template for successive

rabbinic teaching while he himself used previous sources to design contemporary wisdom

that will become the source of understanding for latter rabbis.

Intertextuality as a methodology that was previously called “allusion”, surfaced

from the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin, but the terminology coined by Julia

Kristeva in 1966. Her goal was to provide a literary tool for the process of textual

transformation in cultural exchange.

3
Bingham and Jefford, Intertextuality in the second century, 2.

2
 For Bakhtin, intertextuality was a language which is found in the idea of

“dialoguism”, a theory which suggests a continual dialogue with other literary works and

other authors. Kristeva however extended that theory and she defined intertextuality as an

assembly of texts arranged in a way that in the space of a given text, several statements

taken from other texts intersect and neutralize one another. Kristeva noticed that texts

belong to three different levels which are linguistic, social and historical.

Proponents

As an old discipline, it is fair to say that the Ancient Jews were the first

proponents of this methodology. But it became more defended by poststructuralists like

Julia Kristeva and Mikhail Bakhtin. Roland Barthes, defending intertextuality added that

a text does not have only a single “theological meaning (God’s message)”, but it is like a

tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centers of culture. It was the idea of

biblical intertextuality of another proponent called Fishbane that influenced the

composition of the Midrash. He said that “for the rabbinic mind, scripture is intertextual

to the core”. David Carr and Benjamin Sommer are also proponents of Intertextuality.

Presuppositions

The Hellenists and Jews of the ancient world believed that “tradition interprets

authority”. This means that when a teacher gives words of wisdom either written or in

oral form, that message becomes the bedrock on which later tradition builds. The

sequential authors who expounded on the original teaching become themselves the

validated basis on which later commentators make their remark. So a member in a

tradition whose instructions are esteemed worthy becomes the force on which later

traditions build on and so on and so forth.

3
 Kristeva understood intertextuality in the frame of socio-cultural textuality; but

she realized that her new term was misused in other places as it was only understood in

the sense of “study of sources”. Post-modern linguistic theorists argue that no text can be

interpreted as a separate document, but they all can be read in an unlimited network with

other texts. It is called a communicative dialogue in cultural textuality. To explain this

better, the saying “no man is an island” has been adapted to this context and became “no

text is an island”. Intertextuality believes in giving up the traditional belief that texts have

a unified and unique meaning. It seeks to explain that texts are rigorously connected to a

continuum of cultural and social processes.

Intertextuality in the Scripture- A Perspective of Irenaeus

The intertextuality of Scripture is a paramount phase of the Christian theological

culture. Intertextuality as understood by Kristeva holds the claim that there is no

transcendental meaning or a hidden meaning apart from the literal, superficial meaning

that the reader drives to. Christians however find pleasure in bringing out different

meanings in Scriptural texts.

Irenaeus of Lyons who wrote in the middle of the 2nd half of the 2nd century

brought an essential change in Christian theology. He argues that the prophets proclaimed

principles later taught by Jesus and passed on by the apostles, and this depicts Scripture

as an intertextual patchwork that shows the very face of Christ. To provide an insight into

intertextuality, Irenaeus shares four assumptions. The first is Scripture is a fundamentally

cryptic text; Christ is hidden in Scripture and he is revealed by his death on the cross. The

second point is Scripture is a fundamentally relevant text: the meaning found in Scripture

is not only fixed in the past but it is also relevant for us now. The third point is that

4
scripture is perfect and perfectly harmonious; it is Christ who opens the scripture and he

is publicized throughout the book. It allows the reader to read synchronically as a

patchwork describing Jesus and diachronically as the purpose of God unfolded

throughout time and climaxing in Christ. And finally, scripture is divinely inspired.

These assumptions were dynamic for all readers of Scripture in ancient time. Paul

is an authentic example of it. His reading of scripture wholly changed after his encounter

with Christ. He was prompted to read scripture in a new light as he connected Adam and

Christ in a unique manner. He also blended materials from Old Testament literature and

Israelite teaching to explain Christ Jesus and the pathway through which the world can be

saved. Paul used the writings of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel to preach the

Gospel to the nations. It is also seen in the way Christ introduced the scripture to the two

disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:26-27). Those who read scripture in the light

of Christ are illuminated by God’s glory. In conclusion, for Irenaeus, intertextuality in

scripture is not between Old Testament and New Testament with the assumption that

these testaments contain two different subjects between which only typological analogies

can be drawn. For Irenaeus, intertextuality is between Old Testament and Christ plus his

cross. Christ’s death and resurrection are the catalysts that open all the books and become

the objects of interpretation. For Irenaeus that is “transcendental signified”. Yet, Irenaeus

ascertains that even though Christ is revealed through the cross and he is the link between

Old and New Testaments, he cannot be fully grasped in this realm. Christ was and

remains the “Coming One” according to Matthew 11: 3 while remaining present in those

who imitate him by taking up the cross. For Irenaeus, as God has acted in Christ in an

5
unexpected manner, making all things new, Scripture also must be read anew continually

yet upon the same principles and according to the same faith.

Another example of how intertextuality has been applied in the New Testament is

found in the Gospels where Jesus taught from texts from Deuteronomy and the Psalms

and the evangelists understood who Jesus was from those books.

Types of Intertextual References

There are primarily two types of intertextual references used in the Scripture and

the second type has a subcategory in it. They are:

 Quotations: the author gives a direct quotation as he cites the source or he notifies

that he is quoting from another source. For example, in John 19, passages from

Psalms 22; 34 and Zechariah 12 were used and quoted explicitly.

 Intertextual allusions: here the author makes an allusion in a text without quoting

the sources used or without indicating that another text was used. A literary

allusion is a reference to a text with a purpose of indirectly bringing something to

the reader’s mind. Matthew alludes to Psalm 22 in Matthew 27:33-54.

 Intertextual echoes: this is a subcategory of an allusion. An intertextual echo

subtly directs to a reader that the text should be understood in light of a major part

of another text.

Arguments

There are some arguments that seek to identify how Intertextuality should be

applied especially when it comes to Biblical Intertextuality. Intertextuality is conceived as

a synchronic concept but it is frequently used in a diachronic way and that is in vivid

contrast with its original purpose. Michael W. Holmes quoting Geoffrey Miller about an
6
observation he made in an essay surveying a decade’s worth of intertextual studies of the

Old Testament declares that some scholars employ a purely synchronic approach when

reading texts together, which is a reader-oriented approach while other scholars pursue a

more diachronic approach seeking to bring out the author’s intention. Over these two

approaches, disagreements persist on the right way to go. On the issue, Miller himself

suggested that the synchronic reader-oriented approach should be named intertextual

study while the diachronic author-oriented approach should be given another name.

Holmes posits that if he declares a preference for a particular version of

intertextuality, in itself it is an intertextual performance. In an attempt to not make any

suggestion that will be described as a preference of an option over the other, Holmes

reminds himself “that the discussion has not ended but merely paused”.

Evaluation

Intertextuality is a useful methodology in light of Biblical hermeneutics because

in one aspect it seeks the link between texts and all the texts in Scripture are linked to one

another. On the issue of whether the text should be read synchronically or diachronically,

I am of the view that both approaches are important for Intertextuality. While the

diachronic approach seeks a deeper meaning in the text pushing the reader to dig in

history and chronology, the synchronic approach sorts out the fresh application from a

contemporary view. I however propose that the diachronic approach be primary to the

synchronic taking into consideration that the Sacred Word was revealed by an omniscient

mind and penned down by inspired humans for a purpose.

7
 Bibliography
Bingham D. Jeffrey and Jefford N. Clayton. Intertextuality in the Second Century. 11th ed.
Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2016.

Kwon, Jiseong James. Scribal culture and Intertextuality: literary and historical
relationships between Job and Deutero-Isaiah. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.

Spellman, Ched. Toward canon-conscious reading of the Bible: exploring the history and
hermeneutics of the canon. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014.

Driver R. Daniel. Brevard Childs, biblical theologian: for the church’s one Bible. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2012.