Joachim J. Krause, «Aesthetics of Production and Aesthetics of Reception in Analyzing Intertextuality: Illustrated with Joshua 2», Vol. 96 (2015) 416-427
That intertextuality has come into vogue in Hebrew Bible scholarship is hardly surprising given some general trends in the field. In fact, the reconstruction of redactional activity and 'Fortschreibung' as well as inner-biblical interpretation are heavily dependent on the perception of intertextual relationships. But therein lies the problem. Has the perceived relationship indeed been established by the author of one of the biblical texts in question (aesthetics of production), or does it merely lie in the eye of the beholder (aesthetics of reception)? Two competing claims regarding an intertextual relationship of Joshua 2 are singled out for discussion.
05_AN_Krause_416_co_416-427 30/10/15 13:13 Pagina 418
418 JOACHIM J. KRAUSE 418
other. To be influenced by a text, however, is not the same as intending to
refer to that text. If an author draws on school material or uses a template
in producing a text, this new text usually does not require the addressees
to be aware of, let alone consult, the source.
Unlike such cases of influence, an intertextual relationship is an affin-
ity between two texts which has been established as an actual reference:
one text is designed to be interpreted in conjunction with the other. It will
only fully disclose its message in light of that other text 6.
An initial and most basic distinction, however, has to be drawn be-
tween intertextual relationships intentionally established by the author of
a given text (aesthetics of production) and others that originate merely
with the reader’s response (aesthetics of reception). Trival as it might
seem, this distinction — or rather: the lack of it — has caused misunder-
standing upon misunderstanding in recent research 7. It is this problem I
wish to address in the present paper.
III. Joshua 2 as a Case in Point
A perfect case in point is provided by Joshua 2, the story of two anony-
mous Israelite spies who are rescued by the Canaanite “prostitute” Rahab.
The text is replete with intertextual references of all sorts, from verbal
quotations to subtle allusions. Just which texts are alluded to remains dis-
puted. At the heart of the Rahab story, we find a confession of the foreign
woman’s faith in the God of Israel (Josh 2,9-11). In this confession Rahab
offers, as is well known, a precise summary of the Exodus, verbally quot-
ing texts such as the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 and the monotheistic
creed found in Deuteronomy 4. As Wellhausen put it, Rahab acts as if she
had read the whole Pentateuch 8. While the references in Rahab’s confes-
sion are rather uncontroversial, recent research has seen two competing
claims regarding an intertext of the story as a whole. Both maintain that
Joshua 2 fully discloses its message only in light of another story — but
which other story?
6
While I heartily agree with most of what David Carr said in Helsinki
(cf. D.M. CARR, “The Many Uses of Intertextuality in Biblical Studies. Actual
and Potential”, Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 [ed. M. NISSINEN] [VTS 148;
Leiden 2012] 522-523 and passim), at this point I must disagree. Understood
in the sense described above, talk of intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible is
more than a fashionable face-lift for old-school influence studies.
7
See G.D. MILLER, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research”, Currents
in Biblical Research 9 (2011) 285-294.
8
J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin 41963) 117: “sie tut, ‘als habe sie den
ganzen Pentateuch gelesen’”.