Now in Paperback! Best Book on Inner-Biblical Exegesis Ever!

About a year and a half ago, I reviewed Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. I'm pleased to announce that this thought-provoking volume is now available in an affordable paperback edition. My hope is that it will reach a wider audience in biblical studies, especially graduate students interested in the formation of the Hebrew Bible and inner-biblical exegesis. Here are some of the published reactions highlighted by the publisher.

"This would be an excellent addition to any theological library and it is to be hoped that the publisher will soon release a paperback version so more students can enjoy the fruits of Levinson’s labours. —Theological Book Review 21 (2009)

“With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies.” —Journal of Ancient Judaism

“The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase.”—Review of Biblical Literature

“Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me to be beyond any reasonable doubt that, behind the final form of the canonical, biblical text lies evidence of a lively, imaginative, and creative use of interpretation, reinterpretation, and reapplication of earlier texts. It is a complex, living, creative achievement which, for just this reason, invites constant, continuing invention, as Levinson maintains. I certainly find this book itself a delightful, informative, and stimulating one to read.” —Journal of Theological Studies

Does Psa 33 Allude to Gen 1?

Last weekend at the Upper Midwest Regional SBL meeting I heard a Hebrew Bible paper on Wisdom Theology in the Creation Psalms. At several points, the presenter indicated that he felt the psalmist had been aware of the creation accounts of both P and J. It was clear that he was still developing an understanding of how one would demonstrate such a textual connection that was more than a “feeling.” During the Q&A, I asked for specific examples he’d found supporting his assertion, but he answered mostly about thematic connections and the idea of creation by speech. I hate to be the one to burst his bubble, but after examining the shared locutions between Psa 33 and Gen 1, I have to conclude that it is very unlikely that the psalmist knew of or used the Priestly Creation Account in Gen 1-2:4a. The idea of creating by speech is known from ANE mythology (e.g., the deity Ptah creates by naming things in one Egyptian account). Beyond that, the only thematic connection is that both are creation texts.

So, I started thinking about what would constitute a clear allusion to Genesis 1. The shared locution should be distinct and recognizable in order to function as an allusion. I found 10 lexical items in Psa 33 that are also found in Gen 1: ארץ, שמים, רוח, עשה, צבא, מים, ים, תהום, היה, אדם.

With the exception of תהום , all occur over 350 times in the Hebrew Bible. So, do common words like “earth” (2498x), “to make” (2573x), and “to do” (3514x), constitute an allusion?

I think not.

Are there any terms that are sufficiently concentrated in Gen 1 and fairly rare overall in the Hebrew Bible to possibly support an argument for allusion? The words above come from very common vocabulary used in Gen 1.

Here are a few terms from Gen 1 that are sufficiently uncommon to serve as markers of allusion: תהו, בהו, רקיע, בדל, רמש, שרץ, מין, צלם, תנין. Most of these terms occur 20x or less in the Hebrew Bible. The verb בדל “to divide” (42x) and the noun מין “type, kind” (31x) are the only exceptions, but בדל occurs 5x just in Gen 1, raising its profile for allusion.

Unfortunately, none of those terms occur in Psa 33. I have yet to search whether they occur in any other creation texts in the Hebrew Bible, but that is another question that I’m interested in: Does any of the Hebrew Bible allude to Genesis 1 at all?

What else in Gen 1 is sufficiently distinct to be considered a clear allusion to that creation account in a psalm or other Hebrew text?

From Law to Prophecy

My friend Michael Lyons recently had his dissertation published with Continuum/T&T Clark. Someday I hope to be able to read it and perhaps even review it here.  That will happen when either A) Continuum sends me a review copy, B) Michael sends me a copy for Christmas like I asked, or C) I head over to the library to track down a copy. In the meantime, here's the publisher's description:

This work examines text-referencing practices and ideas about sacred texts in antiquity.  This book shows how Ezekiel, an ancient Israelite author, borrowed from and transformed an earlier text containing religious instruction.

Ezekiel used this earlier text (Lev 17-26, the "Holiness Code") in order to explain the sixth-century destruction of his city and the exile of its inhabitants, and to create hope for the exilic community of which he was a part.  It was precisely because he regarded this text as authoritative and paradigmatic for his own day that he borrowed its words and phrases and transformed them for inclusion in his own work.  The techniques behind these transformations include syntactic modification, inversion of word order, creation of word pairs, split-up and recombination of locutions, creation of word clusters, conflation, wordplay, and reversals.

By transforming the Holiness Code's legal instructions and covenant rhetoric into accusations and descriptions of imminent or recent punishment, Ezekiel could explain the tragedy by creating a causal connection between the people's behavior and the disaster they experienced.  By selectively and paradigmatically using the Holiness Code's covenant blessings, Ezekiel envisioned a future characterized by physical and spiritual restoration.  Ezekiel transformed law into prophecy in his attempt to meet the needs of his community.

SBL: Legal Revision and Religious Renewal

Nearly a week ago now, I had the opportunity to attend an SBL session devoted to the discussion of Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (reviewed on this blog here).

The panelists included David Wright, Christophe Nihan, and Beth Berkowitz with a response by Levinson himself. Wright and Nihan offered more traditional, straightforward reviews of the book with an overview of the content and some discussion of its strengths and weaknesses. Their reviews were generally positive - so much so that their minor criticisms and disagreements were not particularly memorable. Most disagreement seemed to stem from fundamental differences in perspective regarding the relationship between ancient Near Eastern texts, their authors, and their audiences.

The presentation by Beth Berkowitz was more creative and less traditional as a review. She demonstrated, convincingly in my opinion, how the later rabbinic exegetes further transformed the biblical text with similar goals of religious renewal, but she raised an important issue regarding whether the mode of textual transformation itself would not have also been transformed over time. I enjoyed her presentation the most as it gave me a chance to practice my rabbinic Hebrew (a Mischsprache par excellence, if there ever was one), and it reminded me of something that had jumped out at me on first reading Levinson's book. I find it completely plausible that the mode of textual transformation would have remained very similar over time. The same processes that worked to transform the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period and late antiquity in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature were also at work among the tradents who transmitted the biblical text and shaped its canonical form. Even today, interpretation of sacred Scripture is a vital part of religious life; it is the essential work of making an ancient, out-of-date text relevant for contemporary life. The mode has not substantially changed, but the decisions on what is and is not Scripture have been made - differently by different groups all over the world.

Overall, the reaction to Levinson's book was positive and responses were generous in recognizing the important contribution he has made. The discussion time at the end, however, seemed dominated by some who seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the central tenet of this book. This point could have been made more explicity--earlier texts were preserved because they had a measure of canonical authority. Later texts had to be subtly subversive to recast the reader's understanding of the earlier texts because they couldn't just make the earlier texts go away. I think Levinson's book demonstrates perfectly how that process was at work in the Hebrew Bible. Anyone involved in a living religious community will be able to see that the process is still at work today.

Genesis Rabbah I.IV: First Things First

Sometimes I think I picked the wrong corpus of texts to study. Don't get me wrong - I like Hebrew Bible a lot - but reading later interpretations of the Hebrew Bible can be a lot more fun. Studying how the New Testament, or the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, or rabbinic literature interpret the Hebrew Bible is exciting. Their Scripture-drenched worldview and ability to creatively weave texts together is fascinating.

Continuing on with Genesis Rabbah, we find Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22 intersecting again in section I.IV, but here the connection between Torah and wisdom is already established and assumed right away.

ו׳ דברים קדמו לבריית עולם. יש מהם שנבראו ויש מהם שעלו במחשבה להבראות. התורה וכסא הכבוד נבראו. התורה דכת׳ י״י קנני ראשית (משלי ח כב). כסא כבוד דכת׳ נכון כסאך מאז וג׳ (תהלים צג ב). האבות עלו במחשבה להבראות דכת׳ כבכורה בתאנה בראשיתה ראיתי אבותיכם (הושע ט י). ישראל עלו במחשבה דכת׳ זכור עדתך קנית קדם (תהלים עד ב). בית המקדש עלה במחשבה דכת׳ כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו (ירמיה יז יב). שם המשיח עלה במחשבה דכת׳ לפני שמש ינון שמו (תהלים עב יז

Six things existed before the creation of the world. Some were created and some of them were planned for creation.

The Torah and the throne of glory were created.

1. The Torah, as it is written, “The LORD made me, the beginning” (Prov. 8:22).

2. The throne of glory, as it is written, “Your throne is established from of old, etc.” (Psa. 93:2).

3. The fathers were considered in the plan to be created, as it is written, “Like the first fruit on the fig tree in its first season (lit. “her beginning”) I saw your fathers” (Hos. 9:10).

4. Israel was considered in the plan, as it is written, “Remember your congregation which you acquired beforehand” (Psa. 74:2).

5. The Temple was considered in the plan, as it is written, “Throne of glory on high from the beginning, place of our sanctuary” (Jer. 17:12).

6. The name of the Messiah was planned, as it is written, “Let his name be established before the sun” (Psa. 72:17).

The textual connections that link all of these verses to creation, or, more accurately, to the time before creation, are striking for their creativity. Hosea 9:10, for example, uses the catch-word "beginning", but in context, it clearly refers to the beginning of the fig tree's ability to bear fruit, not the ultimate beginning of all things. The intention to create Israel is very important, and here, it appears to link through sharing the verb קנה "to acquire, create" with Prov. 8:22. Jeremiah 17:12 should be the best support for the existence of the "throne of glory" as it is in the only example I could find of that exact phrase in the Hebrew Bible, but the rabbis use it to support the existence of the Temple. This language likely reflects the belief that the earthly temple was merely a copy or reflection of God's heavenly abode. But using Jer. 17:12 makes it seem like the throne of glory = Temple. So do we really only have 5 things?

As this section continues, the rabbis begin to argue over which one of these things existing before everything else existed before all the others.

To be continued

Genesis Rabbah I.I: The Pre-Existent Torah

Here is the text, my translation, and a discussion of the second half of Genesis Rabbah I.I (first half here). Finally, we’ll find out what ‘amon means and what Proverbs 8 has to do with Genesis 1:1!

ד׳א] אמון אומן התורה אומרת אני הייתי כלי אומנתו שלהקב״ה, בנוהג שבעולם מלך בשר ודם בונה פלטין ואינו בונה אותה מדעת עצמו אלא מדעת אומן, והאומן אינו בונה אות מדעתו אלא דיפטראות ופינקסות יש לו לידע היאך הוא עושה חדרים ופשפשים, כך היה הקב״ה מביט בתורה ובורא העולם, והתורה א׳ בראשית ברא אלהים ואין ראשית אלא תורה היך מה דאת אמר י״י קנני ראשית דרכו וגו׳׃

Translation:

Another interpretation: ‘amon means artisan (‘uman – Jastrow 27). The Torah says, “ I was the skilled tool of the Holy One, blessed be He” (Aramaic paraphrase of Prov 8:30). In the way of the world, [when] a king of flesh and blood builds a palace (Jastrow 1180, Gk loan word), he does not build it from his own knowledge but from the expertise of an artisan. And the artisan himself builds it not from his expertise alone but through plans (“documents” Jastrow 304, Gk loan word under alt. spelling)  and  descriptions (“tablets” Jastrow 1165-66, Gk loan word) in order that he might know how to make the rooms and doorways (“wickets” Jastrow 1248). Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, looked in the Torah and created the world, for the Torah says, “In the beginning, God created” (Gen 1:1a), and there is no “beginning” except the Torah, as it is written, “The Lord made me, the beginning of his way, etc.” (Prov. 8:22).

The discussion of the potential meaning of ‘amon continues in the same vein – trying out words that have a similar consonant pattern. There is an entry for ‘umannu in Aramaic in Jastrow, so I think Brooke’s (Anumma) comment on this earlier post about the potential Akkadian connection is possible. Based on the only other biblical occurrence of this word in Jer 52:15, I think “master-workman”, “artisan”, or “architect” give the best sense for ‘amon which fits nicely with the meaning the rabbis want to give Prov 8:30. However, the sense seems odd in the context of Prov 8:30: “I was beside him like a master workman, and I was his delight daily, rejoicing in his presence all the time.”

The importance of Proverbs 8 is that the speaker is Wisdom personified. She seems to be simultaneously depicted as a pre-existent co-creator of the world AND a little child playing in the sand while Yahweh does the heavy lifting. When I used to teach this passage to undergrads for Intro to Judaism, some of them had a hard time wrapping their minds around the rabbinic logic.

Here are the steps (or leaps, if you will):

1. Prov 8:22 and Gen 1:1 both use the same word for “beginning” ראשית.

2. Wisdom = beginning in Prov 8.

3. Therefore, beginning = wisdom in Gen 1. (i.e., With Wisdom, God created . . . )

4. Wisdom = Torah. I’m not sure if there’s a precise trigger for this connection. Perhaps it was intuitive. Perhaps Ps. 119 helped facilitate the connection by applying some of the ideals of Proverbs to the study of Torah. Ps 119:77 could create that connection - “Your Torah is my delight” – using the same word for “delight” as Prov 8:30. Key words are important connectors in midrashic exegesis, especially a relatively rare word like שעשעים that occurs only 9 times in the Hebrew Bible (5x in Ps 119 and 2x here in Prov 8:30-31). The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced of the role Ps 119 must have in making this equation, even though it isn’t explicitly cited in this passage.

5. Therefore, “With the Torah, God created.”

What’s really amazing is how these connections are assumed and expected to be understood. This type of intertextual reading of the Torah seems almost intuitive to the rabbis. This is definitely an “insider” text – written by elites for other elites. Complete knowledge of the Torah and the oral tradition is safely assumed.

From the moment Prov 8:30 was invoked by R. Hoshea, the end goal of the exegesis was this one unified point: God created the world using the Torah. What seemed at first glance to be an odd way to begin exegesis of Gen 1:1 flowed back into a main point that underscored the rabbis’ own authority and connected it to the creation of the world. Saying that God used the Torah to create puts God in the role of the ultimate Torah sage. In some way (though I doubt they would explicitly say this), God is subject to the terms of the Torah and must abide by the rules of interpretation. This is significant because the rabbis were establishing themselves as the final arbiters of the interpretation of Torah. They controlled access to the divine now.

The story of the oven of Aknai underscores this tension between divine revelation and human interpretation. “The Torah is not in heaven” (Deut 30:12). But that’s a story for another time . . .

P.S. If you think this rabbinic logic is too easy, try to wrap your mind around the way the Zohar (a medieval kabbalah text) reads Gen 1:1 as a depiction of the emanation of the Sefirot (symbols of divine energy) from heaven to earth. “With Hokhmah (wisdom, the 2nd sefirah), Ein Sof (the ineffable unnameable, utterly transcendent divine source) created Elohim (the 3rd sefirah). Fun stuff.

P.P.S. Prov 8 also plays into Christian interpretations of a pre-existent Christ. Wisdom = the Logos = Christ (cf. John 1). It gets more complicated, but this post was about Genesis Rabbah.

P.P.P.S. Hebrew text is from J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, 1965, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem: Wahrmann. Scribal errors are possible. I caught one instance of parablepsis myself. Scribal errors are much easier to understand once you’ve caught yourself caught yourself making them.

Creation in Rabbinic Literature

In an attempt to explore what rabbinic literature has to say about Creation, I've begun reading Genesis Rabbah, a midrashic commentary on Genesis likely composed between 200-500 CE. I'll be posting text, translation, and analysis as I work through the text.

Genesis Rabbah I.I.1

בראשית ברא אלהים וגו׳. ר׳ אושיא פתח ואהיה אצלו אמון ואהיה שׁעשׁעים

אמון פידגוג[1], אמון מכוסה[2], אמון מוצנע[3], אית דא׳ אמון רבתה[4], אמון פידגוג

היך מה דאת אמר[5] כאשר ישא האומן[6] את היונק, אמון מכוסה היך מה דאת אמר

האמונים עלי תולע, אמון מוצנע היך מה דאת אמר ויהי אומן את הדסה,

אמון רבתה היך מה דאת אמר התיטבי מנא אמון ומתרגמינן האת טבא

מאלכסנדריא רבתא דיתבא ביני נהרותא.

Translation: “In the beginning, God created, etc.” R. Hoshea opened [the discourse by quoting]: “And I was beside him – an ‘amon, and I was a delight” (Prov 8:30). ‘Amon means tutor; ‘amon means covering; ‘amon means hidden; some say ‘amon means great. ‘Amon means tutor: [This is] like what you read – “just as a guardian (‘omen) carries the nursing child” (Num 11:12). ‘Amon means covering: as in the verse that says “those who were brought up (ha’emunim) on purple” (Lam 4:5). ‘Amon means hidden as in the verse that says “and he was bringing up (‘omen) Hadassah” (Esth 2:7). ‘Amon means great as in the verse that says “are you better than No-Amon?” (Nah 3:8) which is translated “are you better than Alexandria the Great situated between the rivers?”

You can almost hear the inner monologue of the sage:

Amon, amon . . . what’s an amon? Hmm . . . we don’t know this word. This is both a problem and an opportunity. It’s a problem because, well, we don’t really know what the text says. It’s an opportunity because we can interpret according to what we want the text to say. Where to begin? Words that use the same consonant pattern-aleph, mem, nun? Well, we have omen, emunim, and No-Amon. Those could work.

The problem is that in biblical Hebrew the word in these contexts is all the same word. It is used in the sense of legal guardianship or of child-rearing. The word doesn’t denote “covering” in Lam 4:5 or “hiding” in Esth 2:7. However, it is a good example of the method used to determine the semantic range of a word when you don’t have a lexicon—look at other cases of how the word is used. The fact that these words are imbued with unusual meanings is significant because it highlights the esoteric nature of the discourse. The sages are about to reveal secret and hidden things encoded in the Torah. This section is just the teaser building up to the preferred meaning attributed to ‘amon in the next paragraph.

At first glance, it appears to be a rather oblique way to get at interpreting Gen 1:1a by immediately embarking on a discussion of the meaning of a rare word in Proverbs 8. A master plan seems to be at work shaping the interpretation with a singular purpose. The context of Prov 8 is essential to interpretation because nowhere does the writer of Genesis Rabbah make the connection explicit. The reader is expected to know who is speaking in Prov 8 and why that’s significant for understanding Gen 1:1.

To be continued . . .

Hebrew text is from J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, 1965, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem: Wahrmann.

---

[1] “pedagogue, tutor” (Jastrow 1136)

[2] “covering” (BDB 491-2)

[3] “hidden” (Jastrow 1292)

[4] “capital, great city” (Jastrow 1446) or “chief, great” (Jastrow 1438).

[5] היך מה דאת אמר: “even as you read in the Scriptures” (Jastrow 345). Lit: “like that which you say/read.”

[6] “nurse, guardian; foster-father or foster-mother” – see Isa 49:23, 2 Kgs 10:1, 5.

Thoughts on Intertextuality

I love intertextuality. It's fundamental to how we interpret life. It shows up when we weave dialogue from TV and movies or song lyrics into our everyday speech. Our perception of the world around us and all our interactions with others are affected by it. Every experience with language, spoken or written, every encounter with visual media informs our understanding of and reaction to new experiences or new texts.

When we immerse ourselves in a particular text, we effortlessly make connections between that text and a new text. Those connections can be linguistic or conceptual. Certain phrases stick with us, and we make an instant connection every time we hear it. [For me, it's the word "honestly." It calls up the line from Austin Powers every time: "Who throws a shoe?! Honestly!!"]

In the arena of biblical interpretation, it surfaces in some way nearly every time we read a text that somehow evokes ideas or phrases from texts we've read before. For example, I became very familiar with the text of Job going through it for text class in one semester. Over a year later when we hit Isaiah 35 in class, I heard echoes of Job frequently (cp. Job 4:3-4 and Isa. 35:3).

Intertextuality can be a fruitful phenomenon to apply to biblical interpretation despite its inherent subjectivity and often idiosyncratic results. Methodological controls are necessary to produce replicable results. Textual dependence, especially at the level of meaningful allusion instead of evocative echo, is notoriously difficult to demonstrate.

If our interest is intertextuality and biblical interpretation, the best place to start is with the masters of biblical intertextuality -- the rabbis of the exegetical midrashim (see Boyarin, 1990). If you want to know what biblical passages are relevant to the topic of creation (as I do), you might benefit from a look at Genesis Rabbah.

Tonight I read through Genesis Rabbah Parashah 1 in English. Sadly, the only copy left at our library was Neusner's deplorable translation (1985; I have it on good authority that all of Neusner's translations of rabbinic texts are deplorable. I mean, what can you expect when one man thinks he can speed-translate the entire corpus of rabbinic literature in his lifetime?)

I also have the standard Hebrew edition by Theodor and Albeck (1965). I plan to work through some passages in detail in Hebrew. From what I've read thus far though, the writers made very effective use of intertextuality to support their highly sophisticated theological exegesis.

More will be coming soon.

References:

Boyarin, Daniel. 1990. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Neusner, J. 1985. Genesis Rabbah. Vol. 1. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Theodor, J. and Ch. Albeck. 1965. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jerusalem: Wahrmann.

Echoes of Mark 5 in Acts 9

I was reading Acts 9, the story where Peter raises Dorcas from the dead, and it reminded me of the story where Jesus resurrects Jairus's daughter in Mark 5. I wondered if Luke was intentionally trying to invoke a parallel or if it was coincidental. The circumstances are somewhat similar but what caught my attention was that Mark uses an Aramaic phrase.

Mark 5:41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

The word for "little girl" talitha sounds very close to the Aramaic word for "gazelle" tabitha which was Dorcas's real name (dorcas being a Greek word for a kind of deer).

Acts 9:40 But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.

Unfortunately, the Greek verb for "arise" in the Acts verse is not the same verb as used at the end of Mark 5:41 when Mark translates the Aramaic phrase. However, I wonder if Luke had used an Aramaic phrase there in Acts 9 if he would have used the same word as in Mark 5. This logically raises another question - would Peter have been speaking to Dorcas in Greek or Aramaic? I think Aramaic is likely and the words were simply rendered into Greek for the report in Luke.

Or the similarity between the two passages might be coincidental. Or Mark may have intentionally used the Aramaic phrase to invoke a parallel with the Acts story. Whichever direction the echo may go, I think it's an interesting connection.

Reading the Book of Acts Intertextually

I’ve been on vacation, so to speak, for the last six weeks or so, recovering from my last full semester of graduate coursework. I hope to post on a weekly basis now, probably on Sundays or Mondays.

For this post, I’ve been thinking about intertextuality and interpretation again. While I’m skeptical about using intertextuality to determine how ancient readers were interpreting and connecting their texts, I find it satisfying as a reader to make connections between various texts, even if I can’t prove that the ancient writer intended those connections or that the ancient reader would have made the same connections. Intertextuality is really about the reader making those connections, not about the scholar identifying allusions that may (or may not) have been intended by the ancient writer targeting another ancient reader.

I especially enjoy reading the New Testament because new connections with the Hebrew Bible almost always occur to me. Some of these connections legitimately belong in the background of the New Testament. Directly or indirectly, they make up the conceptual worldview of a Jew from the first century CE. Some of them would certainly have informed the thinking of the early Christians. I can only suggest a connection, however. I can’t really prove that the NT writer was thinking of the connection or that an early NT reader would have made the connection. Intentional textual dependence and deliberate use seem to me to be impossible to prove without direct quotation or citation when we are dealing with a culture as religiously literate and text-focused as ancient Judaism or early Christianity.

I was recently reading in the Book of Acts where a new connection presented itself. There’s no specific textual marker connecting the passages, but there is a thematic connection. Acts 11 depicts the Apostle Peter commanded to spread the Christian message of salvation to the Gentiles (non-Jews). He reports back to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem in vv. 15-18.

Acts 11:15-18 (ESV)

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life."

The Jewish Christians listen to Peter and acknowledge that God wants the Gentiles to believe and be saved as well as the Jews. When I read this, I wondered why they seemed surprised that God was widening the scope of salvation. It reminded me of Isaiah 42 where the Servant figure will “bring forth justice to the nations” (v. 1) and is given as a “covenant for the people, a light for the nations” (v. 6). In fact, several other places in Isaiah depict this concern for the nations, sometimes with the image of the nations worshiping Israel’s God (i.e., Isa. 2, 9, and 11). With the word for “nations,” we do have a minor verbal connection between the passages. The Hebrew goyim is translated in the Septuagint with a form of ethnos which is the same Greek word used for “Gentiles” in Acts. 11:18. It’s not the kind of marker that jumps off the page as a true allusion, though, because it is such a common word and the correspondence between the Greek and Hebrew for this word is typical.

It seemed to me that the early Christians should have been familiar with the imagery of Isa. 42:1-7 because the imagery seems to be clearly in the background of Isa. 61:1, especially when we look at the Septuagint Greek of Isa. 61:1 and the quoted text from Luke 4:18. In Luke, Jesus quotes Isaiah 61:1 and applies it to himself.

Luke 4:17-21 (ESV)

17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." 20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Isaiah 42:6-7 (ESV)

6 "I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

Isaiah 61:1 (ESV)

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Isaiah 61:1 (translated from the Septuagint)

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach good news to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;

It should be apparent that Isa. 42 & 61 are dealing with similar subject matter. We also have the same textual difficulties that I’ve mentioned before when looking at Hebrew Bible quotes in the New Testament. The quoted version doesn’t exactly match the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint and the New Testament both contain a phrase about the blind, missing from the MT but possibly a variant arising from the influence of Isa. 42:7. The Septuagint and the MT both have a phrase about the broken-hearted, missing from the NT quote. Finally, Luke’s quote ends with the freeing of prisoners, following the MT but with a phrase not in the Septuagint version.

It might appear that I’m going off track but remember where we’ve been. Acts 11:18 reminded me of Isaiah 42:1-7 which reminded me of Isaiah 61:1 which reminded me of Luke 4:18 that quotes it. So pondering the potential religious thought behind Acts 11:18 has led me to a number of inter-related passages. The Jewish Christians in Acts should have been familiar with Isaiah 42 because the Servant imagery is central to their interpretation of Jesus’ role and ministry. As proof that it should have been familiar, I offer Isaiah 61:1 which is explicitly quoted in the NT where Jesus explicitly takes on the anointed Servant role described by Isaiah. A closer look at the quote in Luke 4:18 has led me to a completely separate issue of textual criticism. The text critical issue is irrelevant for the question of intertextuality. For me it seems clear that the Servant imagery is appropriated by the NT in numerous places and that Acts 11 should be read with a consideration of the influence of passages like Isa. 42:1-7.

I can’t prove that any of this would have occurred to an ancient reader or that the writer of Acts was aware of these inter-connections, but it is satisfying as a reader to make those connections and point them out because it enriches the reading experience and allows for teaching opportunities to enrich the experience of others as they read the biblical text. Even if the first century audience didn’t make these exact connections, it seems likely that they made connections of this sort frequently. Therefore, learning to read intertextually helps you read the Bible a little more like the early Jewish Christians did.

Fructification and Excessive Mastication: The Dangers of Intertextuality

Inner-biblical exegesis is trendy now in biblical studies. By searching for similar vocabulary, themes, and style, it is sometimes possible to determine that a certain writer was using and interpreting another biblical book as a source.

I have doubts, however, about our ability to detect textual borrowing, and many of those who draw parallels between biblical texts seem to be grasping at straws sometimes. Even if textual borrowing is detected, it is then virtually impossible to detect the direction of literary dependence without following a priori assumptions about the relative dating of biblical books.

For example, Second Isaiah likes to use the image of the ecological transformation of the desert into a fertile oasis accompanying Israel's return from exile. Thematically, those passages share concepts with the creation accounts of Gen. 1-2. But can we say that Second Isaiah was envisioning a renewal of creation with the Gen. account of creation in mind?
One of the passages speaking of the transformation of the desert is in Isa. 41:17-20.

Isaiah 41:19-20
I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive. I will set in the desert the cypress, the plane and the pine together, that men may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it.

This is reminiscent of the initial statement in Genesis about the growth of trees and other vegetation.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.

The specific language outlining the specific types of trees that will grow in the desert is completely absent from Genesis. In fact, the writer in Genesis did not give us lists of many plants and animals. The only word that the two passages have in common is the generic word for "tree," hardly evidence of textual influence. Some writers would take the accumulation of such common words as "tree," "land," and "seed" as evidence of dependence. It seems dangerous to base such a conclusion on such meager evidence.

If textual allusions which require the transference of meaning from the source text to the target text are not sufficiently marked, the importation of meaning from another context could completely obscure the meaning of a verse.

For example, Isa. 41:19 talks about trees growing in the desert. We can take that to allude to creation. Bringing in the creation theme reminds us of the Garden of Eden which recalls the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Recalling the tree reminds us of the forbidden fruit which reminds us of original sin.

Genesis 3:6
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Reading Isa. 41 in light of the Garden of Eden account reminds us that man sinned even in the wonderfully fructified Garden through the disobedient mastication on the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, man will likely just make a mess of things again after the return even if God turns the desert into a fruitful garden. In a way, bringing in the Genesis context cheapens the message of redemption from Isa. 41:14 by reactivating the depression and hopelessness that Second Isaiah was trying to overcome.

There is no reason to assume that Second Isaiah intended those allusions or parallels to be drawn. The conclusions drawn by intertextuality and allusion sometimes place too much emphasis on perceived allusions that may be purely coincidental. The danger of intertextuality is that intentional use of another text is very difficult to detect in the absence of specific citations. Many of the perceived allusions could be nothing more than shared language derived from common subject matter and similar concerns.