Read on Twitter
In the #WisdomWebinar on Tuesday, @eshetbaalathaov claimed that "intertextuality is not a method." I wrote my dissertation on intertextuality in biblical studies, so I want to share my thoughts. https://twitter.com/WillKynes/status/1387469142605848577
In the first half of the 20th century, scholars understood texts to influence in one direction. Older texts influenced newer texts. Scholars who understood influence as unidirectional tended to think of interpretation as an objective enterprise and meaning as fixed in the text.
In biblical studies, this often meant the first step of interpreting two texts with shared language required the texts to be dated relative to one another. This activity allowed one to identify which text was influencing the other text.
Because influence was a genetic concept, relative dating was necessary to determine the fixed textual meaning that was fixed in the text.
In 1969, Julia Kristeva and her French colleagues were complicating our understanding of literary ideas like author and text. Kristeva wanted to incorporate Bakhtin's concept of dialogism into her understanding of French Sassurean linguistics. But what does that mean?
She was questioning those who argued that language enabled authors to control meaning as outlined above. Moreover, she argued that authors like Bakhtin might actually exploit the messiness of language and create work that was incapable of being reduced to the author's intention.
Her concept—intertextuality—is as much a theory of language as it is of texts. When she speaks of intertextuality, she isn't speaking of allusions (though intertextuality applies to allusions) but of all texts and the complex ways that readers make sense of their meaning.
In biblical studies, we started using the word as an adjective to describe things—intertextual references, allusions, echos, etc. But this is weird. Are there non-intertextual references? Non-intertextual allusions? Non-intertextual echoes?
Its a similar problem to our use of inner-biblical as an adjective. Some biblical scholars write about inner-biblical allusions, but does anyone write about outer-biblical allusions? No. The adjective is unnecessary.
I think @eshetbaalathaov nails it when she says that what these adjectives are actually doing is reinforcing certain ideas about the canon. https://twitter.com/eshetbaalathaov/status/1387479038529212416
I would add that intertextuality is just the kind of abstract neological nominalization that scholars love to use to sound smart. (Do you see what I did there?) Why talk about a "relationship" or a "connection" b/w texts when you can talk about the "intertextuality" b/w X and Y?
But the answer is obvious. Because most of the other words we use are more precise. The implication of intertextuality is that we must argue for the relationships we identify between texts. There are many kinds of relationships, and none of them can be taken for granted.
You can argue for a genetic relationship, a relationship produced by the historical encounter of the texts regardless of chronological sequence (HT: @CMitchellSask), or because texts resonate in light of contemporary culture. https://twitter.com/CMitchellSask/status/1387619602297868292
The possibilities are endless, which is why there is no intertextual method. There is no methodological unity to the realization that textual meaning is complicated and influence need not be reduced to moving in one direction.
In biblical studies, most people using the term intertextuality are studying literary allusions. What I love about allusion is how Classicists and literary theorists who study allusion have been able to incorporate intertextuality in meaningful ways. https://twitter.com/josephrkelly/status/1387618034823700481
While allusions are fundamentally genetic, this doesn't mean that literary influence is reduced to the influence of the older on the younger text. Either text can be an agent of influence, and the verbs we choose to describe this influence are diverse. https://twitter.com/josephrkelly/status/1387620801332092929
But this is why it is problematic to rely on intertextuality as a catchall for textual relationships. Intertextuality isn't a feature in the text but a feature of all texts. The feature in the text (at least the feature biblical scholars are often interested in) is allusion.
And that is why I don't use intertextuality when I am talking about textual relationships. At this point, the implications of the term are obvious. What isn't obvious and does need language is the nature and basis of the textual relationships we identify. https://twitter.com/SethLSanders/status/1387610771912155140
For more, you can read chapters 3-5 of my dissertation: https://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/4861/Kelly_sbts_0207D_10225.pdf?sequence=1.
The latter third of chapter 4 and all of chapter 5 were condensed and published here: https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/view-chapter/?id=26710
The latter third of chapter 4 and all of chapter 5 were condensed and published here: https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/view-chapter/?id=26710
