Second Wave Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible

After Julia Kristeva coined the term intertextuality in the 1960s, scores of scholars have applied her insights to the study of the OT. These subsequent analyses have diverged in aim, focus, form, and method. This diversity all under the name intertextuality is on full display in this collection of essays edited by Marianne Grohmann and Hyun Chul Paul Kim.The collection comprises 16 essays based on invited papers from the Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible section at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. With eight essays in each, part 1 is entitled “Inner-Biblical Intertextuality,” and part 2 is named “Post-Biblical Intertextuality.”The editorial introduction surveys the history of intertextuality in hermeneutics and biblical studies before concluding with an overview of the book’s contents. Due to its depth and denseness, the introduction serves not as an entryway into the field for a newcomer but rather as a brief orientation for those already familiar with the main contours of biblical intertextuality. Giving rise to the volume’s title, Grohmann and Kim hope that the intertextual analyses in the volume will spur a “second wave of intertextuality in biblical scholarship” (p. 2).All of the essays in part 1 examine interrelationships within the OT, but a few examples will illustrate the diversity of methodological approaches. Marvin A. Sweeney undertakes a redaction-critical analysis to argue that laws about the dedication of firstborn sons in the supposed E stratum (Exod 14–19; 22:28–29; 23) are reworked by the supposed J stratum (Exod 34:18–26) and finally the P stratum (Num 3:11–13, 40–43, 44–51; 8:13–19).Whereas Sweeney analyzes conscious reuse, J. Todd Hibbard juxtaposes Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit in Gen 3 with Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac in Gen 22. Hibbard does not argue for dependence but instead looks at thematic and lexical parallels to justify reading them as a mutually informing pair. Hibbard concludes that the author expresses ambivalence about the protagonists, so that Eve is—in some ways—commendable for eating the fruit and Abraham is condemnable for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Similar to Hibbard, Kirsten H. Gardner uses lexical and thematic links between Judg 19 and various OT texts to argue that Judg 19 subverts the reader’s expectations in order to underscore the distortion of the world it projects.Other contributions include essays by Francis Landy and his analysis of select connections between the 8th-century prophets that underscores their thematic and interpretive uniqueness; Klaus-Peter Adam, who eschews diachronic questions in his analysis of the literarily related Ezek 22:6–12 and Lev 19:11–18 in order to discern meaningful differences in their respective contexts; Hans Decker and his exploration of how the reader’s frustrated expectations for coherence in Ecclesiastes mirrors Qoheleth’s search for wisdom; Timothy J. Sandoval, who argues for a dialogic—but not literary—relationship between Amos and Proverbs; and Tim Finlay, who explicates the databases and usefulness of computer software for intertextual investigations.The first two essays in part 2 (“Post-Biblical Intertextuality”) are theoretical. In a learned and provocative contribution, Patricia K. Tull expounds the history, theory, and implications for biblical studies deriving from the work of Mikhail Bakhtin. Tull wades beyond trite summaries of Bakhtin’s thought while also making the complexities of this theorist graspable to the biblical scholar. Soo J. Kim employs the metaphor of a guided tour to articulate how specialists should interact with laypeople.The remaining six contributions include essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls reworking the OT (Lawrence H. Shiffman), Jewish and Christian canonical contexts of Lam 3:25–33 (Grohmann), reception history of Solomon in art and literature (Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher), Christopher Columbus’s use of Isaiah in Libro de las Profecías compared to the modern genre of FanFic (Steed Vernyl Davidson), the works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Dongju Yun as informing the contexts of Jeremiah and the Suffering Servant (Kim), and a defense of personal involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement as a response to the Gideon story (Valerie Bridgeman).Ultimately, the book succeeds in its primary aim: to illustrate multiple ways to apply insights from intertextual theory to the study of the OT that might suggest methodological possibilities and reveal textual insights. Unfortunately, the work’s success in being so diverse also obscures the ideal audience. Given the multiplicity of OT texts that are examined, at best there is only limited engagement with specific books and corpora. For example, Job receives no sustained treatment in the volume, and the Pentateuch—which receives the most overt attention—is the focus of only three essays.In addition to the diversity of texts being analyzed, the methodological differences between both parts and even within each part further limit the appeal of reading the whole volume. Few readers will find equally enthralling Sweeney’s redaction-critical arguments for inner-biblical reuse, Gardner’s synchronic interplay of the lexical-thematic links between Judges and the Pentateuch, and Davidson’s comparison between Christopher Columbus’s use of Isaiah and FanFic. Finally, while ample attention is given to intertextuality within the OT and between the OT and later works, there is a surprising omission of any sustained analysis of intertextual relations between the OT and texts from the ancient Near East.Nevertheless, for those interested in learning about the current state of biblical intertextuality inductively, this collection provides exposure to a variety of approaches that each rightfully claims to be intertextual and extends beyond questions of influence into new directions that are informed by intertextual theory. Even if reading the whole volume will be useful only in limited cases, the work stands as a prime exemplar of how drastically different studies equally fit under the banner of intertextuality. Given the flexibility of the concept, Grohmann and Kim’s hope of sustained interest in intertextuality by biblical scholars seems assured

Art · Biblical studies · Hebrew Bible · Intertextuality · Literature · Scholarship · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Law · Philosophy