Intertextuality: A Recent History of Interpretation

Intertextuality: A Brief History of Interpretation by B. J. Oropeza1 Intertextuality has been influential in the field of literary studies ever since Bulgarian philosopher Julia Kristeva coined the term in the late 1960s (Kristeva, 1986 [1969]:64-67). It can be understood as the study of how a given text is connected with other texts outside itself and how those texts affect the interpretation of the given text. The outside texts are likewise connected with other texts that affect their respective interpretation. An assumption being made here is that literary discourses are dependent not only on codes and conventions but also on other discourses (cf. Aune, 2003:233). The number of studies on the subject continues to escalate, among the reasons include its interdisciplinary emphasis and its postmodern character (cf. Pfister, 1991:207–24; van Wolde, 1989). In biblical studies intertextuality provides a creative way to understand thoughts, phrases, verses, or passages in relation to other texts. Biblical texts are read in light of other texts with the aim of adding new insight to their interpretation, and text relationships are not limited to canonical citations of earlier canonical references as is commonly done in studies entitled with variations of the phrase, “New Testament Quotations of the Old Testament.” Even so, intertextuality is theoretically complex, and a uniform definition for the term remains quite elusive. A number of its foremost theorists promote a diversity of meanings and A revised, edited, and reformatted version of this study is entitled, “Intertextuality,” and appears in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation. Steven L. McKenzie, editor-in-chief, volume 1, pages 453–63 (London/New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), and is highly recommended. 1 methods (e.g., Plottel and Charney, 1978; Plett, 1991:3–29; Orr, 2003). This article considers intertextuality in relation to: (1) its origin; (2) metalepsis and echoes in biblical studies; (3) poststructural interpretation in biblical studies; (4) various intertextual approaches to biblical studies; and (5) prospects for further study. Origin of Intertextuality The original instances of the meaning and use of intertextuality begin with the Tel Quel (“as is”) editorial group in Paris to which Julia Kristeva belonged. This group included thinkers such as Jacques Derrida, Philippe Sollers, and Roland Barthes (McAfee, 2004:4–8; Moi in Kristeva, 1986: 3–9). In this intellectual environment Kristeva introduced the Russian theorist, Mikhal Bakhtin, to a Western audience (see M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, tr.; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). In Kristeva’s work Semeiotiké (Kristeva 1969 [1980]; 1986), Bakhtin had replaced the “static hewing” from texts with “a model where literary structure does not simply exist but is generated in relation to another structure. What allows a dynamic dimension to structuralism is his concept of the ‘literary word’ as an intersection of textual surface rather than a point (a fixed meaning), as a dialogue among several writings.” These writings include those of the author, the author’s addressee or character, and the cultural context, whether earlier or contemporary (1986: 35–36). She uses the term “intertextuality” when discussing that “any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another” (1986:37). Kristeva developed intertextuality not only as a means of criticizing literary texts as independent units, but also as an attempt to overturn the political and ideological climate of her day leading up to the student uprisings in France in 1968. Whereas traditional notions of structuralism affirmed scientific stability, objectivity, hierarchy, and “language used,” Kristeva’s post-structuralism challenged these ideas with uncertainty, subjectivity, relational networks, and “speaking beings.” As an ideology intertextuality was viewed as a deconstruction of texts and “semiotic lever to unhinge all bourgeois notions of an autonomous subject” (Pfister, 212). Kristeva wrote further that the term identifies, “the transposition of one (or more) system(s) of signs into another,” which is not to be confused with the “banal sense of ‘study of sources’” (Kristeva, 1984:59–60). The original conception of the term also encourages productivity, plural meanings, and a creative redistribution of language (Kristeva, 1969:52; 1984:60; Orr, 2003:27). Barthes, Kristeva’s mentor, likewise believed that intertextuality could not be mitigated to source or influence theory because its “anonymous formulae” is rarely ever located. The text assumes the presence of other texts and is a woven “tissue of past citations,” a redistribution of language at various levels (Barthes, 1981:39). The text is therefore not an independent unit of communication isolated from other texts; it is interconnected with others to the extent that it cannot be properly appreciated without recognition of other texts that are related to it. In more recent years the trajectory of intertextuality has travelled both in the direction of poststructuralism/ deconstruction, and, as it continues to be recontextualized, in the direction of more structural patterns of interpretation (cf. Mai, 1991). Michael Riffaterre (1980) and Gérard Genette (1997) provide alternative taxonomies of the latter model. Intertextuality, moreover, has extended beyond the boundaries of poetry and literary fiction into other disciplinary fields such as art, music, film, computer science, and religious studies. The last of these categories finds a large number of adherents in biblical studies. Intertextual Metalepsis and Echoes in Biblical Studies Although certain biblical interpreters merely adopt the term “intertextuality” to their historicalcritical methods of inquiry, other interpreters explain their use of the term and support their task with a generally workable set of criteria. Similar to the literary field from which the term originated, intertextual biblical studies evince both structural and post-structural approaches. The former has been more influential than the latter. The study of biblical sources prior to 1989 frequently focused on the pursuit of explicit citations and their location in earlier scripture in an attempt to distill a final, historical meaning to a given text. In more recent decades a shift may be detected through the newer discipline of biblical intertextuality, which often pursues scripture’s more subtle or latent references, whether communicated by the author consciously or unconsciously. The aim of such studies frequently centers on what the text might have evoked for the early readers and auditors. This shift contributes toward a trend advancing literary and relational models of reading scripture. Richard Hays’s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (1989) is frequently addressed as perhaps the most influential study on the use of intertextuality and its criteria within the field of biblical studies (e.g., Stanley, 2008: 126). Hays sets out to pursue Paul’s readings of Israel’s scriptures, readings which are often puzzling to the contemporary person who studies Paul’s letters. As an example, the Mosaic Law in Deut. 30:11–14 is transformed by the apostle to mean the “word of faith” in Rom. 10:5–10. Hays suggests that Paul, along with ancient rabbis, presupposed the validity of novel readings of the scriptures to unveil latent truths behind the texts they read. He then proposes intertextuality as a productive way to encounter Paul’s reading of earlier texts, and he defines the term as “the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a later one” (1989:14). Hays’s method pays homage to John Hollander’s Figure of an Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), a work that advances continuity within poetic traditions by exhibiting the poet as “honoring the voices of the dead even while forming echoes that transform their words in new acoustical environments” (1989:19). The first task of literary criticism in this regard draws attention to the echo so that others might hear it, and the second duty is to provide explanation of the new figures and distortions the echo might generate. Along with Hollander he understands as an important property of an echo the term metalepsis, a devise that links texts together through an echo with the effect of recovering suppressed or unstated points that resonant between the texts: “Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed” (20). Hays provides an example through his interpretation of the phrase, “this will turn out for my deliverance” found in Philippians 1:19, which is said to echo Job 13:16 (LXX). The neighboring verses in the context of the latter convey Job as a figurative prisoner suffering for the sake of righteousness. As such, Paul, who is imprisoned when he writes to the Philippians, takes on the subtle role of Job as a righteous sufferer. The echo from text B draws the reader into a delicate set of comparative ideas from text A that might enlighten the reader’s perspectives of text B. Scholars who interpret scripture along the lines of echoes and metalepsis consider the way this intertextual approach invites fresh and creative readings of the text. Another example from Paul’s letters comes from Galatians 2:2. Scholars traditionally interpret the phrase, “run in vain” from this verse as agonistic discourse with an athletic footrace for its figurative background. A study of the phrase through its intertextual echoes, however, draws the reader to prophetic discourse from Israel’s scriptures. The phrase “in vain” may be echoed from Habakkuk 2:2-4 (LXX) in which the herald or courier of the prophet’s message runs from town to town and proclaims a vision that will come to pass and not be “in vain.” The prophet’s message includes a promise that “the righteous shall live by my faithfulness.” That vision Paul reconfigures as the gospel fulfilled in his day and characterized by the righteous person living by faith(fulness), a message which the apostle as Christ’s prophetic herald proclaims both to the Galatians and as a missionary who “runs” or travels from city to city (Oropeza, 2009). The echo of the words “run” and “in vain” from text B invites readers to ponder from text A the related notions of a prophet’s courier and the message of faith and righteousness that is proclaimed in public gatherings. Paul ponders on his own prophetic commission through the intertext, though perhaps only his opponents and the Galatian auditors possessing adequate knowledge from Israel’s scriptures would be conscious of the latent ideas in the subtext. Hays (1989:29–32) suggests seven tests for detecting intertextual echoes, which are not intended as ironclad rules but can be used as interpretative guidelines: (1) availability: was the source available to the author who allegedly echoes it, and the readers who read it? (2) volume: does the given text contain words and/or related syntax with the source text, how prominent is the source text, and is the given text rhetorically stressed by the author? (3) recurrence: does the author refer to the same source text elsewhere? (4) thematic coherence: does the reported echo fit with the author’s use elsewhere, and does it illuminate the author’s argument? (5) historical plausibility: could the author intend the meaning and the readers be assumed to know it? (6) history of interpretation: have other readers of later periods heard the same text behind the text? (7) satisfaction: does the echo make sense of the text and enlighten the contextual discourse? Of the seven points some propose that the first two are the only criteria essential for proper intertextual hermeneutics (e.g., Litwak, 2005: 63). Hays’s intertextual method finds both supporters (e.g., Wagner, 2003; F. Watson, 2004) and critics (e.g., Hübner, 1991; Evans and Sanders, 1993). Responding to Hays’s criteria, Stanley Porter (1997:82–84, 92; 2008:29–40) argues that the notion of availability is too inadequate to explain whether an echo is present when the audience is not aware of it. Likewise, Hays’s echoes is thought by Porter to be confusing because Hays does not make clear enough distinctions between echoes and allusions. Porter’s criticisms raise awareness of the importance of properly defining one’s terms. Both allusions and echoes remain distinct from the more explicit biblical references that quote earlier scriptures and use citation formulae such as “it is written” (Rom. 3:10), “it/he says” (Heb. 1:6–9), and “to fulfill what was spoken” (Matt. 1:27), but a consensus among biblical scholarship regarding widely accepted meanings that clearly and consistently distinguish between allusions and echoes remains to be seen. Current discussions sometime center on whether the terms are used consciously or unconsciously by the authors and the degree to which the authors’ audiences would have been aware of them. Hays, referencing Hollander, provides a generalized distinction between allusions and echoes: allusions depend on “authorial intention” and the assumption that the reader will recognize the allusion’s source; an echo “finesses such questions” and is not dependent on the conscious intention of the author. But since one could only know the audience of scripture hypothetically, Hays wishes to be flexible with the terminology: “allusion is used of obvious intertextual references, echo of subtler ones” (Hays, 1989:29). Typically for those who make minimal distinctions between the terms, the use of echo mainly identifies the activity of metalepsis, namely those reverberations from the larger context of the subtext referenced by the biblical author (Wagner, 2002: 9–10; Fewell, 1992:21). Christopher Stanley (2004; 2008:125–36) takes issue with Hays’s intertextual approach for assuming that Paul’s echoes of Israel’s scriptures would be recognized by his predominantly Gentile audiences. Not only would they not be as familiar with Israel’s scriptures as would the Jews, but they lived in a world in which the literacy rate would be about 10 percent of the population, and mainly the wealthy and elitists alone would have access to the scriptures. For Stanley, Paul uses quotations in his letters as rhetorical acts involving audience responses, and three levels of ancient hearers are determined: (1) the informed audience who was widely familiar with the Jewish scriptures; (2) the competent audience who possessed some basic knowledge of the scriptures, enough to grasp Paul’s point through his citations; and (3) the minimal audience who had very little knowledge of scriptures. Among his conclusions he suggests that Paul often directed his quotes to an implied audience which had a certain level of biblical competency; his rhetorical references are potentially incomprehensible to the minimal audience. Certain scholars (e.g., Wagner 2002:36–39; Abasciano 2007) respond that illiteracy should not be equated with the emergent Christian audience’s ignorance of earlier scriptures. This is especially the case when congregations as corporate entities could possess scriptures and apostolic letters, hear repeated readings with regular discussions about those readings, and, as far as Pauline churches are concerned, possess a teaching office (1 Cor. 12:28–29; cf. Eph. 4:11). Biblical Intertextuality and Post-Structuralism Hatina (1999) focuses on the post-structural framework from which intertextuality originated. He finds fault with the way biblical scholars adopt the term while at the same time neglecting its ideological matrix that arose in response to the type of historical-critical influence models these scholars attempt to maintain. His critique highlights the chasm between traditional influence criticisms and classic intertextuality. He challenges biblical scholars who wish to identify their study as intertextuality to be familiar with, and hopefully engaging in, this discussion. Two scholars escaping his critique are George Aichele and Gary Phillips, who edit a volume from the academic journal Semeia 69/70 (1995) with the thematic title, Intertextuality and the Bible. They take seriously the post-structural framework that undergirds the original meaning of the term. The editors’ leading article emphasizes Kristeva’s approach and then suggests that, by such a measure, intertextuality ought to disturb the biblical reader whose task is to determine specific textual arrangements and study texts within the framework of history and societies (1995:11). “This means nothing less than a deconstructive search for the inherent conflicts, tensions, and aporias in the transposition of systems and subjectivities, in the violent juxtaposing, to borrow the Gospel of Matthew’s words, what is new and what is old from the treasure room (13:52).” They continue that the approach scrutinizes the role readers play as “subjective agents” perpetrating such systems, and as such “intertextuality is not a matter of allusion or source tracking; it is a matter of transformation.” Beal (2000:129) articulates shared sentiments for biblical studies after discussing Kristeva’s method: “The tracing out of intertextual relations is endless and, quite literally, pointless. Therefore, any interpretive conclusion is a matter of giving up, shutting down, or maybe petering out. The interpretant makes a de-cision, a cut, which cuts off other possible relations, positions roadblocks against other intersections. And where I make my cuts and set up my roadblocks is likely determined not only by accident and oversight but also by the hermeneutical and ideological norms—spoken and unspoken—established within my academic discipline and within my other networks of affiliation and accountability.” An important corollary for Beal is that intertextuality focuses on what is unstable and uncontainable in the biblical text as it exudes into the contemporary readers’ clashing cultural and societal constructs, whether past, present, or future, and it “demands self-critical honesty, at least, about why and how we cut it off where and when we do” (2000:130). He suggests that the way for the reader to determine legitimate intertextual relationships is through the reader’s own ideology. Three guideposts for methodological direction regarding intertextually-based studies may be considered in this regard (Beal, 1992): The first centers on how the interpreter imposes limitations on the countless amounts of intertextual possibilities for a biblical text. The second aims at the pursuance of which ideologies the production admits as containment strategies. Issues of canon, genre, form, and decisions about which voices are to be foregrounded and which ones marginalized come into play here. The third focuses on how the “established boundaries (or ‘critical consensus’) of intertextual relationship” might be “transgressed” for the purpose of uncovering new relationships and foregrounding other voices. An important goal of such an approach seeks to overturn “the established strategies of containment and loosen their control” over the “procession of production” (1992:36). An example of post-structural intertextual use can be viewed in Aichele (2002), who breaks the biblical text free from the ideological control of canonical boundaries to engage with external texts as he produces an interface between scripture and scenes from popular films. Within such an environment depictions of savior-heroes who suffer execution or are hanged on trees take on new culture meanings and may speak back to the biblical texts. These approaches attempt to follow patterns akin with the Tel Quel originators of intertextuality, and their viewpoints implicitly and sometimes explicitly raise concerns against biblical interpretations that use intertextuality as a trendy banner under which to hang one’s traditional studies of source criticisms. Even so, there are biblical scholars who maintain their interpretations as intertextual, and although they recognize the importance of Tel Quel’s influence on the term, they prefer not to adopt post-structural ideologies. To support their view such scholars follow the lead of literary theorists who criticize the original approach (e.g., Litwak, 2005:48–51). Culler (1981:105), for example, suggests that when one assumes Kristeva’s model, which claims that other discourses impose a “universe” on a given text, the study of intertextuality becomes impractical. The model is difficult to adopt on account of the immense and undefined space it appropriates, and “when one narrows it so as to make it more usable one either falls into source study of a traditional and positivistic kind (which is what the concept was designed to transcend) or else ends by naming particular texts as the pre-texts on grounds of interpretative convenience” (109). Others respond that a genetic fallacy is committed by those who insist that intertextuality must always be done within the confines of poststructuralism. Similarly, one’s insistence on a stable and fixed meaning for the term based on its original use stands at odds with the unstable and decentralized nature of discourse supported by its originators. Friedman (1991:154) points out this problem when writing that “discourses of influence and intertextuality have not been and cannot be kept pure, untainted by each other.” It might be expected that intertexuality can be reconfigured as it constantly travels to different locations within the vast constellation of text relationships, including biblical spaces. It can be suggested that Kristeva’s idea of intertextuality is more descriptive than programmatic (Pfister, 1991:210). The term is constantly being transformed, a development that seems compatible with the originator’s thoughts on the instability of language. Steve Moyise (2002:429) writes that the term “has taken on a life of its own, and now has to be interpreted (or abandoned) in light of current practice rather than the originating moment.” Biblical Intersections Hays’ influential work resulted in a surplus of Pauline intertexual studies. More than this, interpreters have taken up the mantel by employing the method on other portions of biblical texts including the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Allison, 2000; MacDonald, 2000; Huizenga, 2009), LukeActs (e.g., Brodie, 2004; Litwak, 2005), Johannine literature (e.g., Manning, 2004), the General Epistles (e.g., Popkes, 1999; D. Watson, 2002; Guthrie, 2003), and Revelation (e.g., Moyise, 1995; Paulien, 2007). Quite often such works establish their own criteria for determining intertexts. Dale Allison, for example, distils scriptural allusions from Q, and to determine when allusions are “illusions,” he establishes six criteria, the first of which considers the history of interpretation. An allusion can either intensify or diminish in presence based on whether it has been detected by some other readers throughout the centuries (2000:5–13). Although text relations in biblical studies frequently examine the New Testament’s use of the Hebrew and Septuagint scriptures, intertextuality transcends the boundaries of traditional canonical readings to engage with inter-canonical and non-canonical texts. Fewell (1992) compiles intertextual studies from scholars who start from the Hebrew scriptures and explore its relationship with other Hebrew scriptures including, among other comparisons, Isaiah’s relation to Genesis, Judges 19 in relation to Genesis 19, and the golden calf of1 Kings 12:28 in relation to Exodus 32:4. The antiquity of Genesis provides fertile subtexts for subsequent intertextual ventures (Giere, 2006), as does prophetic literature when echoing earlier texts (Willey, 1997). The same could be said of texts from Wisdom literature and the Apocrypha (e.g.,Corley and Skemp, 2005). Vassar’s study on the Psalms and Pentateuch (2007) espouses a four-fold literary approach to allusions derived from Ziva Ben-Porat (1976). First, there is an activation of the alluding text (text that is read) and the evoked text (text alluded to by the alluding text). This takes place by means of a “marker” that signals or triggers the intertextual process. Second, there is recognition of the text that is being evoked, the “marked.” Third, there is the recognition and modification of a pattern that results between the interaction of the texts. Fourth, there is a maximizing of patterns activated from the evoked text “as a whole,” which formulates connections between texts apart from the marker and marked. The reading of the two texts when read together may generate novel interpretations in which not only the evoked text interprets the latter text, but the latter texts can modify the interpretation of the evoked texts. Vassar adopts this study to derive intertextual aspects between Psalms and the Pentateuch in which Psalms contains the “marker” of five books (Psa. 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–116; 107–150), which in turn triggers the thought of the five books of the Pentateuch. Non-canonical texts from the Ancient Near East also can become the intertext for the Hebrew scriptures (Moor, 1998; C.B. Hays, 2008). Conversely, the Hebrew scripture may become the intertext for later non-canonical texts. A growing number of studies from Second Temple literature are illumined by their intertextual play with Israel’s scriptures (e.g., Rothstein, 2010). A sampling of these works include the use of scripture in the Pseudepigrapha (van Ruitan, 2007), Qumran literature (Brooke, 2010), Philo (Goff, 2009), and Josephus (Swart, 2006). Boyarin (1990) considers Kristeva’s mosaic of texts being absorbed and transformed by other texts as a constructive hermeneutic for the use of Torah in the Midrash. Stahlberg (2008) considers ancient Jewish retellings of the scriptures under the aspects of approach (quantity of material retold), stance (attitude toward the retelling), and filter (interpretative lens for the retelling). In his study on Pauline hermeneutics Francis Watson (2005:2–6) opens up a three-way conversation between the New Testament author, the earlier texts referenced from Israel’s scriptures, and Second Temple literature that appeals to the same subtexts. These writings along with Paul’s letters are shaped by Israel’s scriptures from which they derive theological interests that can be fruitfully compared. Paul’s hermeneutic turns out to be intertexual, and he derives his Christological, ecclesiological, and soteriological foci through his reading of the scriptures. For Watson (24), Paul’s seemingly contradictory way of speaking about Mosaic Law in his letters is derived from his discovery of “the tension-laden dynamics of the scriptural narrative itself, in its diachronic unfolding—a discovery that serves to illuminate the logic of the gospel. Scriptural dissonance is both uncovered by the gospel and resolved by it, since its theological function is to testify to the gospel.” The socio-rhetorical method of Vernon Robbins (1996:40–70) positions intertextuality as the second of five major components of biblical interpretation (the other four are inner texture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture, and sacred texture, respectively). For Robbins (40), intertexture involves the text’s “representation of, reference to, and use of phenomena in the ‘world’ outside the text being interpreted.” This takes place through oral-scribal, cultural, social, and historical intertextures. Oral-scribal intertexture includes the recitation, recontextualization, reconfiguration, amplification, or thematic elaborations of texts. Cultural intertexture centers on insider knowledge, which for Robbins includes allusions and the more subtle echoes. Social intertexture includes social roles, social institutions, social codes, and social relationships. Historical intertextures reference events at precise times and locations. The task of intertexture from the socio-rhetorical perspective reminds the reader that the text is not limited to canonical and non-canonical literature. Robbins’s approach highlights the significance of looking at texts both inside and outside of ancient literature. Inscriptions and oral traditions are two of many non-canonical examples of texts that are coded without the use of ink and pen, and yet they evoke audiences to ponder on new spaces within a network of ideas. Moyise (2002) presents five types of intertextuality: (1) the intertextual echo as characterized by Hays’s use; (2) narrative intertextuality which uses the framework of popular stories such as the exodus; (3) exegetical intertextuality which pursues the ancient author’s exegesis of a scriptural passage; (4) dialogical intertextuality which allows for the reshaping of the retold story; the influence of the text works both ways with the old text affecting the new and new affecting the old; and (5) postmodern intertextuality in which both the writer and reader, mindful of the text belonging to a web of texts, assign subjective meaning to the text. Moyise sides with view number four but suggests that intertextuality should be used as an umbrella term for the complexity of interactions between texts. He aspires that his classifications would lead to further clarifications on the plurality of intertextual use. More recently Moyise teams up with Oropeza (2016) to edit a volume that collects diverse intertextual approaches, a number of which were presented at the Society of Biblical Literature conferences, specifically in the Intertextuality in the New Testament sessions chaired by Oropeza. The Future of Interextuality Prospective intertextual studies might include further resolutions about discerning allusions and echoes, and either making plausible and consistent distinctions between the two, or finally establishing their interchangeable character. Although studies continue to increase on the canonical texts’ echoes of earlier canonical texts, more studies on the biblical use of non-canonical materials might be in order. Such probings not only might include further ventures into Ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple texts, but also Greco-Roman literature. A method that justifies the interplay of social and culture dimensions of the text, such as Robbin’s approach, would be complementary with this endeavor and allow for unwritten texts to enter the conversation. The blending of rhetorical and intertextual methods, especially as they engage with external textures, would also help increase the amount of creative projects in the field. MacDonald’s studies on Intertextuality and mimesis might provide a suitable starting point for studies comparing biblical and Greco-Roman literature (2000; 2001). More fusions of interpretative methods, new and old, also seem warranted for the intertextual horizon. Alkier (2009: 223–48) presents a framework through semiotics that endeavors to bridge the gap between synchronic and diachronic readings of texts and allows for both historical-critical and poststructural approaches to have an intertextual voice. Likewise, intertextuality as a method need not be irreconcilable with ancient Jewish hermeneutics, as Boyarin (1994) argues. Earlier than Boyarin, Stegner (1986) posited that midrash texts often did not include the “catch words” (key words) in their citations of scripture; the words would be found instead in the larger context of the source text, which the rabbis would know from memory. He suggests that Paul may be using such an approach when he cites Genesis 25:23 (Rom. 9:12), where the key word of sonship from Rom. 9:6–7 does not appear in Genesis 25:23 but 25:25, and when he cites Malachi 1:2–3 (Rom.9:13), where the key word “call” is found in Malachi 1:4. An application of this technique blended with metalepsis is given by Oropeza (2007) on Romans 9-11. The catch word approach seems to find connections with Hillel’s traditional middoth (norms) which are grounded in a context and culture more compatible with the biblical authors than postmodern literary theories (see Baron and Oropeza 2016). Hays’s criticism of the way interpreters use midrash (1989:12; cf. 197) admits that even though they might produce some positive results, “the yield rarely seems to justify the investment of large sums of hope.” Only further studies will determine the level of yield, however, and whether such a method, or others like it, could be thought of as important precursors to intertextuality and metalepsis. Biblical structural and post-structural methods of interpretation that venture into film, art, music, drama, and Internet hypertexts, to name a few places, might find fertile discussions that would generate much cross-disciplinary interest. Other interdisciplinary venues worthy of pursuit might center on how intertextual concepts interact with alternative patterns of biblical and literary references including allegory, foreshadowing, pastiche, parody, plagiarism, insider jargon, clichés, erratic references, form criticism, text variants, Vorlage, and oral performances. The future for intertextual studies seems promising as its interpretative methods continue to move throughout the vast space of textual connections and be transformed by them. Bibliography Abasciano, Brian J. “Diamonds in the Rough: A Reply to Christopher Stanley Concerning the Reader Competency of Paul's Original Audiences.” NovT 49 (2007): 153–83. Aichele, George, and Richard Walsh, eds. Screening Scripture: Intertexual Connections between Scripture and Film. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002. Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips. “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis.” Semeia 69/70 (1995): 6–18. Alkier, Stefan, “New Testament Studies on the Basis of Categorical Semiotics.” In Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, Leroy A. Huizenga, eds., Reading the Bible Intertextually, pp. 223–48. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009b. Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. 2nd Edition. New Critical Idiom. London: New York: Routledge, 2011. Allison, Dale C. The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. Aune. David E. “Intertextuality.“ In The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric, David E. Aune, pp. 233–34. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Baron, Lori, and B. J. Oropeza, “Midrash.” In Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Edited by B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise, pp. 63-80. Eugene: Cascade, 2016. Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Paris: Points Seuil, 1970. Barthes, Roland. “Theory of the Text.” In Untying the Text: A Post-Stucturalist Reader, edited by Robert Young, pp. 31–47. Boston, London, and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul,1981. Beal, Timonthy K. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production.” In Danna Nolan, Fewell, ed. Reading Between Texts: Interetextuality and the Hebrew Bible, pp. 27–39. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Beal, Timothy K. “Intertextuality.” In Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, A. K. M. Adam, ed. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Nottingham: Apollos/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105–28. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Brodie, Thomas L. The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings. New Testament Monographs 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004. Corley, Jeremy, and Vincent Skemp, eds. Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 38. Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Culler, Jonathan. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Revised Edition. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2001. Evans, Craig, and James A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNTSup 83. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1. Sheffield: Sheffiled Academic Press, 1993. Fewell, Danna Nolan, ed. Reading Between Texts: Interetextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Friedman, Susan Stanford. “Weavings: Intertextuality and the (Re)Birth of the Author.” In Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein, eds. Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, pp. 146–80. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Giere, S. D. A Glimpse of Day One: Intertextuality, History of Interpretation, and Genesis 1.1–5. Berlin: New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Goff, Matthew. “Genesis 1-3 and conceptions of humankind in 4QInstruction, Philo and Paul.” In Craig A. Evans, and H. Daniel Zacharias, editors, Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. v 2, pp. 114-25. Exegetical studies. London; New York, NY: T & T Clark, 2009. Guthrie, George H. “Hebrew’s Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271–94. Hatina, Thomas R. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies,” Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999): 28–43. Hays, Christopher B. “Echoes of the Ancient Near East? Intertextuality and the Comparative Study of the Old Testament.” In. The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb, pp. 20– 43 .Cambridge/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1989. Hübner, Hans. “Intertextualität—Die hermeneutische Strategie des Paulus.” [Intertextuality: The Hermeneutical Strategy of Paul] TLZ 116 (1991): 881–98. Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Introduction by Leon S. Roudiez. Translated by Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. [translated from Semeiotiké. Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Collections Tel Quel. Paris: Le Seuil, 1969]. Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language; New York: Columbia University Press, 1984. Litwak, Kenneth Duncan. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually. JSNTSup 282. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. MacDonald, Dennis R., ed. Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001. MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2000. Mai, Hans-Peter. “Bypassing Intertextuality: Hermeneutics, Textual Practice, Hypertext.” In in Intertextuality, edited by Heinrich F. Plett, pp. 30–59. Text Theory 15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Manning, Gary T. Jr., Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 270. London: T&T Clark, 2004. McAfee, Noëlle. Julia Kristeva. Routledge Critical Thinkers. New York: Routledge, 2004. Moi, Toril, ed. The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Moor, Johannes C. de. Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the tenth joint meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie held at Oxford, 1997. Leiden: E J Brill, 1998. Moyise, Steve. “Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review.” Verbum et Ecclesia 23 (2002): 418–31. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. JSNTSup 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Oropeza, B. J., and Steve Moyise, eds. Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Eugene: Cascade, 2016. Oropeza, B. J. “Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God’s Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9-11.” New Testament Studies 53.1 (2007) 57-80. Oropeza, B. J. “Running in Vain, but Not as an Athlete (Galatians 2:2): The Impact of Habakkuk 2:2–4 on Paul’s Apostolic Commission.” In Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, a Festschrift for his 70th Birthday. B. J. Oropeza, C. K. Robertson, Douglas C. Mohrmann, eds., pp. 139–150. LNTS 144. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009. Orr, Mary. Intertextuality: Debates and Contexts. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003. Paulien, Jon. “Elusive Allusions in the Apocalypse: Two Decades of Research into John’s Use of the Old Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis MacDonald and Stanley E. Porter, eds., pp. 61–68. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Pfister, Manfred. “How Postmodern is Intertextuality?” in Intertextuality, edited by Heinrich F. Plett, pp. 207–24. Research in Text Theory 15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Plett, Heinrich F., “Intertextualities.” In Intertextuality. Heinrich F. Plett, ed., pp. 3–29. Research in Text Theory 15. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Plottel, Jeanine Pariser, and Hanna Charney, eds. Intertextuality: New Perspectives in Criticism. New York Literary Forum 2. New York: Literary Forum, 1978. Popkes, Wiard. “James and Scripture: An Exercise in Intertextuality.” New Testament Studies 45, no. 2 (1999): 213-229. Porter, Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” In Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, pp. 29–40. SBLSS 50. Atlanta/Leiden: Scholars Press/Brill, 2008. Porter, Stanley E. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” In Early Christian Interpretation of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, Craig Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., pp. 79–96. JSNTSup 148. Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. Robbins, Vernon K., Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1996. Rothstein, David. “Leviticus 17,3-4, Deuteronomy 12,20-21: Exegesis and Intertextuality as Reflected in the Ancient Textual Witnesses and Second Temple Sources.” SJOT 24, no. 2 (2010): 193-207. Ruitan, J. van. “The Intertextual Relationship between Genesis 50:15-Exodus 1:14 and Jubilees 46:1-16,” In Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert J C. Tigchelaar. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Stahlberg, Lesleigh Cushing. Sustaining Fictions: Intertextuality, Midrash, Translation, and the Literary Afterlife of the Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies 486. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul’s “Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters.” In Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, eds. As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, pp. 125–55. SBLSS 50. Atlanta/Leiden: Scholars Press/Brill, 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Stegner, William Richard. “Romans 9.6–29 – A Midrash,” JSNT 22 (1984): 37–52. Swart, G. J. “Rahab and Esther in Josephus--An Intertextual Approach." Acta Patristica Et Byzantina 17 (2006): 50-65. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Vassar, John S. Recalling a Story Once Told: An Intertextual Reading of the Psalter and the Pentateuch. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2007. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Watson, Duane F. “The Oral-Scribal and Cultural Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in Jude and 2 Peter.” In Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, Duane F. Watson, ed., pp. 187-213. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Willey, Patricia Tull. Remember the Former Things: The Recollection of Previous Texts in Second Isaiah. SBLDS 161. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1997. Wolde, Ellen van. “Trendy Intertextuality?” In Sipke Draisma, ed. Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, pp. 43–49. Kampen: Kok, 1989.