Skip to main content

Intertextuality?

I have a question that I would like to get input from you all on. I've been reading some of Richard Hays work on intertextuality and also am taking a course in biblical theology where this issue came up. When an New Testament writer alludes to or quotes the Old Testament, how often do they intend to pull in a wider context than the verses they just cited? To use a modern example, if you were delivering a speech on social justice, and you uttered the phrase, 'I have a dream' you probably would be doing more than just quoting a small phrase from Dr. King. You would probably be attempting to pull in the wider context of his speech and the moment in history and perhaps even of the character of Dr. King, himself. How often do biblical authors do the same thing and how integral is it to their arguments?

I am incluned to think that the above scenario does happen, so my follow up questions are, how conjectural should our exegesis be and what role this conjectural exegesis should have in the formation of our theology?

Any thoughts?

Comments

  1. Marcus--

    These are important questions. Speaking rather generally, I believe there are times when Paul does in fact allude to entire narratives. For instance, I believe Paul alludes to the entire Exodus narrative (Ex 32-34) in 2 Cor 3.7-18. N.T. Wright argues that Paul has the entire Psalm 116.10 in mind when he states "I believed; therefore I have spoken." (Paul for Everyone: 2 Corinthians--sorry no page #.) In the end, when doing exegesis and ultimately theology, we should probably not assume this is Paul's only method of interpreting the scriptures of Israel (e.g. Gal 4.21-31). In other words we should treat allusions on a case by case basis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Matthew,

    I think your answer is well balanced. I know that I have run into some who seemed very hesitant to see allusions or even if they think they might be there are tentative to allot much weight to them. That seems to run the risk of missing out on some of the beautiful texture of Scripture. On the other hand we do need to avoid finding allusions under every rock. I find Hays work helpful because he provides solid criteria for detecting allusions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5