1.2 Intertextuality in Modern Biblical Studies and the Ancient World
INTRODUCTION
through similar reading strategies. The rest of the chapter provides a summary of the variety of intertextual reading strategies that Irenaeus applies to Gen
1–3. This summary provides a more comprehensive analysis of the meaning and function of Gen 1–3 in relation to the rest of scripture than previous studies and explains precisely how Irenaeus works these significant passages intertextually. But before I work through a more developed treatment of Gen 1–3 in Irenaeus, below I describe the nature of the intertextual analysis carried out in this study and situate this analysis with the stream of studies on Irenaeus' use of scripture.
1.2
Intertextuality in Modern Biblical Studies and the Ancient World Within contemporary Biblical Studies the expanding interest in "intertextuality" has generated a variety of definitions and methodologies.11 Julia Kristeva, building upon the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, first introduced the term in 1966, with the often repeated description that "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another."12
Poststructuralist theorists lauded her literary studies and the term "intertextuality" was met with instant approval. But since this initial coinage, the term has assumed an assortment of definitions in a variety of disciplines that extend beyond Kristeva's original intention. Kristeva herself eventually abandoned the term because it was applied too often as simply the "banal sense of 'source criticism' "13 In her poststructuralist sense Kristeva used the term to focus on the extratextual realities in which a text is received. A text is never a closed system of signs, but read within a contextual environment that opens up the text to ever changing new productions of meaning. Given this ambiguity, some
11 For a summary of these approaches see: Stephen Moyise, "Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament," in Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North ed. Stephen Moyise JSNTSup 189 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2000), 14–41; Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (New York: T&T Clark,
2009), 19–27; Stefan Alkier, "Intertextuality and the Semiotics of Biblical Texts," in Reading the Bible Intertextuality, eds. Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, 1–21
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), and Alkier, "New Testament Studies on the Basis of Categorical Semiotics," in Reading the Bible Intertextuality, eds. Richard B. Hays,
Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga, 223–248 (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009).
12 Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1980), 66.
13 Kristieva, Revolution in Poetic Language (Paris, Éditions du seuil, 1974). See also: Julia
Kristeva and T. Moi, The Kristeva Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 59–60.
chapter 1 biblical scholars have suggested dropping the use of the term altogether.14 For others, though, the theory of intertextuality provided new ways to analyze the historical reception and transmission of texts.
In order to clarify the meaning of "intertextuality" for Biblical Studies, the recent volume, Reading the Bible Intertextually, described the methodological framework for intertextual evaluation. The method of intertextual study, as Stefan Alkier defines it, simply assumes the perspective of "investigating the relationships that a text can have with other texts."15 He distinguishes between three forms of intertextual criticism. First, "Intratextuality" explores the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic elements of texts in relation to general categories of literary criticism. Second, "Intertextuality" examines the effect of meaning that develops from the merging of two or more texts. Third, "Extratextuality" isolates the effect of meaning located in references to extratextual material.16
Alkier also distinguishes limited and unlimited concepts of intertextuality that can be further delineated into three perspectives: a production-oriented perspective, a reception-oriented perspective, and an experimental perspective.
This present study applies what Alkier terms a "production-oriented perspective," which develops through the evaluation of a series of identifiable texts within a particular work.17 Alkier classifies the contributions of Richard Hays and Daniel Boyarin under this method of investigation, who have applied intertextuality to the fields of New Testament and Jewish studies. The receptionoriented perspective focuses on received texts in distinct historical contexts, while experimental perspective considers the meaning that arises from the potential merging of texts not grounded in verifiable contexts. For Irenaeus, textual harmonization is a natural part of his own interpretive framework, and thus textual integration and conflation pervades his whole exegetical project.
The methodology of this study, therefore, offers a new perspective from which to analyze these scriptural networks. His scripture intertextuality, therefore, is
14 William Irwin, "Against Intertextuality," PL 28 (2004): 227–42.
15 Alkier, "Intertextuality," 3.
16 Ibid., 8–9. In a similar framework Steve Moyise identified "intertextuality" as an umbrella concept comprising at least three approaches including: "Intertextual Echo," "Dialogical
Intertextuality" and "Postmodern Intertextuality." Moyise "Intertextuality" 17–8. See also: Porter, "The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology," in Early Christian interpretation of the scriptures of Israel: investigations and proposals, Craig A. Evans, James A. Sanders (Continuum, 1997). T.K. Beal,
"Intertextuality," in Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, ed. A.K.A. Adam
(St Louis: Chalice, 2000), 129. T.R. Hatina, "Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New
Testament Studies: Is there a Relationship?," BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43.
17 Alkier, "Intertextuality," 10.
INTRODUCTION
not entirely determined by a modern method of literary criticism, but explicit in Irenaeus' own summaries of the exegetical task and applied exegesis.
This focus on Irenaeus' hermeneutic does not overlook that reality that his interest in textual relationships participates in a broader concern for textual harmony in the ancient world. The attentiveness to textual relationships in Biblical Studies has isolated elements of intertextuality in Jewish, Christian, and Hellenistic studies. The works of Fishbane and Boyarin examined the "intertextual" or "inner-biblical" nature of composition of the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic midrash.18 Their works are some of the first to evaluate the intertextual nature and composition of midrashic texts. In general, Irenaeus' relationship to Judaism is an undeveloped aspect of Irenaean scholarship.
Irenaeus mentions some dependence upon Jewish midrash and conversations with Jews over the interpretation of particular texts, but midrashic interpretation is not prominent in his exegesis.19 Following Paul, Irenaeus is more concerned, with refuting the Gnostic use of Paul by connecting Paul's texts to the Old Testament.
Along these lines, Richard Hays championed intertextual analysis for New Testament Studies with his work on Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul.20
Hays defined his intertextual approach as "reading the letters [of Paul] as literary texts shaped by complex intertextual relations with Scripture."21 Hays' evaluation distinguished Paul's reading of the Old Testament from a strict application of Jewish Midrash, and establishes the complexity of his Christian reading of the Law and Prophets. But given his focus on the New Testament,
Hays' analysis is more focused on determining the precise nature of the echoes, allusions, and citations themselves. Irenaeus, on the other hand, works from a 18 Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1985). Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington, IN,
Indiana University Press: 1990). Other discussions of intertextuality and midrash include:
S. Handelman, The SlAyres of Moses: The Emergence of Rabbinic Interpretation in Modern
Literary Theory (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982), J. Faur, Golden Gloves with Silver Dots: Semiotics and Textuality in Rabbinic Tradition (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986).
19 For example, see: Epid. 43, Haer. 3.8.1, Haer 3.12.12, Haer 4.7.1, Haer 4.15.1, and Haer 5.33.3.
20 See also John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). Richard Hays, "Die Befreiung Israels im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Intertextuelle Narration als kulturkritische Praxis," in Die
Bibel im Dialog der Schriften: Konzepte intertextueller Bibellektüre, 117–136 (Tübingen:
A. Francke, 2005), 118. For conceptual and categorical connections between apostolic exegesis and Jewish exegesis see: Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic
Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
21 Hays, Echoes of Scripture, xi.
chapter 1 different vantage point, and endeavors to correlate both the New Testament and Old Testament writings into a coherent theological framework. In this sense, he represents one definitive example of an early Christian interpreter modeling the apostolic hermeneutic in the late second century.
In addition to Jewish midrash and apostolic hermeneutics, several studies have considered Irenaeus' indebtedness to rhetoric.22 Robert Grant analyzed the rhetorical aspect of Irenaeus' work and suggests Irenaeus Christianizes at least three key rhetorical terms: hypothesis, oikonomia, and anakephalaiosis. Each of these, according to Grant, serve as "structural beams" in his theological framework.23 According to Grant these rhetorical concepts reflect the "method of correlation" Irenaeus used to relate the concepts and ideas of the various authorities in the tradition. These terms, primarily Pauline in nature, are derived from grammar and rhetoric and developed from their context within the New Testament. But Grant's analysis remains at the theoretical level and does not develop the function of rhetorical arguments in particular instances of Irenaeus' exegesis. More recently Scott Moringiello also stressed this relationship and went so far as to bestow the Bishop of Lyons with the title "Irenaeus Rhetor." He argued that the five books of Adversus Haereses correspond to the five movements in forensic speech.24 The strict framework, though, is not entirely convincing, because Irenaeus' organization is more theological and scriptural than rhetorical.25 His work does extend the appreciation for Irenaeus' dependence upon rhetoric, but the present study gives more attention to the contours of his arguments with specific tropes that shape his textual integration. This study of Irenaeus' use of Gen 1–3 uses analytical descriptions of Irenaeus' intertextual exegesis that, in certain instances, may draw on specific rhetoric tropes, but rhetorical discourse is not the sole means through which his textual networking is expressed.
Finally, Frances Young described how the concept of intertextuality characterizes the complexity of early Christian exegesis throughout the patristic tradition.26 According to Young, "Discerning cross-references was taken up with great enthusiasm in the second century."27 From the second century
22 Grant, Irenaeus, 46–53.
23 Ibid., 53. W.R. Schoedel, "Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Adversus Haereses of Irenaeus,"
VC 12 (1959): 22–32.
24 Moringiello, Irenaeus Rhetor, 7–15.
25 See, for example, the organizational function of scripture in Haer. 4 in work of Philippe
Bacq. Philippe Bacq S.J., De l'ancienne à la nouvelle Alliance selon S. Irénée: unite du livre IV de l'Adversus Haereses (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Namur, 1978).
26 Frances Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1997).
27 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 133.
INTRODUCTION
onwards both the Old Testament and the New Testament texts were received together in a complex web of intertextual relationships that extend apostolic exegesis. She located the practice of intertextual readings in the classical and rhetorical education saying, "[t]he fact that education was premised on the imitation of classics meant that intertextuality was an important feature of ancient literary culture. Allusions and quotations laced the correspondence of the literary elite, as well as public discourse."28 The blending and assembling of texts was an essential part of classical education and a key aspect of rhetorical discourse. The fathers of the church, who were schooled in this classical education, drew from some of these intertextual practices. This included especially the philological technique of "cross-referencing" in the Fathers and the fact that early Christian theological disputes were often located in the disagreements over what constitutes an appropriate cross-reference.29 Similarly,
Elizabeth Clark's study on asceticism also acknowledged that " 'intertextual exegesis' is one of the most frequently employed modes of interpretation found in patristic literature.30 These summaries begin to explain how textual integration was received and even debated in the later patristic tradition.
At the same time, the reason that textual integration flourished in Irenaeus was not merely polemical, but also cultural and technological. The development of the codex in second century meant that "scriptural texts became randomly accessible: one was able to page through a whole codex to check the exactness of a quotation, on parallel texts, and on various small details in the wording much more quickly than was possible when the text was on scrolls." While we cannot be certain of the form of Irenaeus' documents, at the very least, he must have possessed a codex containing the four Gospels, otherwise his discussion of their canonical arrangement in Haer. 3.11.8 would be unnecessary. Thus, in Irenaeus the shaping of the codex was helpful for the theological harmonization of the prophets and apostles in order to defend the church's faith from those who misused the scriptures. Those who came after Irenaeus modified this "new exegetical approach" in the formal scriptural commentaries that developed from the third century, but this " 'compounding' of texts with other texts seems characteristic of second-century Christian use of the Bible."31
28 Ibid., 97.
29 Young, The Art of Performance, 125.
30 Clark, Reading, 122.
31 Young, Biblical Exegesis, 133. The relationship between the intertextual networking in Irenaeus and the latter tradition is well beyond the scope of this study, but based upon the works of Young and Clark, the textual relationships developed in Irenaeus are extended and debated in subsequent generations.