Single Meaning, Reappropriated Inference

This analysis will begin by defining the mediums of biblical intertextuality. Biblical
intertextuality is a modern, critical-methodology concerned with the interrelatedness of the
Christian Bible. The Christian Bible is constructed of two distinct literary corpora: the Old and
New Testaments. The Old Testament consists of scriptures deemed authoritative for
constructing and maintaining Jewish identity. Correspondingly, the New Testament is the
collection of writings deemed authoritative for constructing and maintaining Christian identity.
Add to this is the Christian Bible which combines the distinct Old and New Testaments into one
canon of authoritative scripture.
The Old Testament, New Testament, and Christian Bible are all constructions of religious
communities. But the Old Testament was not the only source of Jewish literature which the New
Testament writers referenced. They also appealed to Jewish apocryphal and pseudopigraphical
literature.1 For these reasons, the phrase Hebrew Scriptures will be used to designate the full
library of Jewish writings available to the New Testament writers. Moreover, strict categories of
Old Testament, New Testament, and Christian Bible were anachronistic to the original
writers. Finally, the phrase Christian Bible can be misleading, however, because not all
Christian denominations currently agree on which biblical books should hold canonical status.
Scholars have generally recognized four major types of Jewish hermeneutic in antiquity:
(1) midrash, (2) pesher, (3) literal, and (4) allegorical. Other ancient hermeneutical methods
should be recognized such rewritten bible and the Seven Rules of Hillel should also play a
considerable role in the critical study of biblical intertextuality. Another factor that might
influence intertextuality is the genre of literature in which both the original reference and the
interpreter belong. Also, the sect to which a writer belonged should be important as this would
have influenced their hermeneutic and worldview. Finally, Jewish literary techniques such as
chiasm, parallelism, telescoping, etc. should be regarding as having some bearing on the way
Scriptures were interpreted.
The primary modes in which scriptures can be referenced include citation, allusion, echo,
and adaption. The passages cited by the New Testament writers could be utilized in a number of
ways. The cited passage could function as a proof-text. Recent studies have shown, however, that
much regard was taken in respecting the meaning of the reference in its original context. In the
case of the latter, a key passage would be cited which could prompt the reader to consider the
passages larger literary/historical context. Nevertheless, each mention of scripture must be
studied in order to determine its intended use. Scriptures can be cited to (1) show the significance
of an event, (2) provide evidence to a claim, or (3) enrich a teaching.
The methods and hermeneutics of Jewish Christians were characteristic of their identity;
thus explaining the ongoing difficulty with modern scholars to systematize ancient
intertextuality. Identity can be influenced and by a seemingly incalculable number of stimuli.
Consequently, identity can be expressed in numerous ways. By appealing to the Hebrew
Scriptures, the New Testament writers aligned their worldview with their Jewish heritage. The
Hebrew Scriptures thus became the means by which their identity could be maintained. Each
New Testament writers hermeneutic must therefore be understood in relation to
contemporaneous forms of Middle Eastern hermeneutics.

The New Testament writers did not restrict themselves to Jewish literature either. Paul cited from Aratus
in Acts 17:28 and Epimenedes in Titus 1:12.

Though the Old New Testaments are distinct literary constructs, they are related by the
social reality expressed in both. First century Christians identified themselves with Israelite
culture. The New Testament writers believed that Gods eschatological work in Christ was the
climax of Israels historical narrative. They appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures to show how their
proclamation was the continuation of this story. Intertextuality engages not only the Hebrew
Scriptures but also the Hebrews history. Intertextuality is therefore not only a literary
phenomenon, but one of cultural memory as well. Christians appealed to the Hebrew Scriptures
not only as a foundation for maintaining their subjective reality and for polemical validation, but
also to show how Gods plan for Israel (which the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated)
was ultimately directed toward the Christ event. By reappropriating the story of Israel around
Jesus, they were reimagining Jewish history and, consequently, Jewish identity. Reappropriating
scriptures implies that the New Testament writers recognized the original meaning of the textual
reference, but determined that certain aspects of the passage assist in narrating Gods greater
story.
Consider, for example, Matthew 2:15. The writer of Matthew tells of how an angel
informs Joseph, Mary, and Jesus that their lives are in danger from King Herod. The angel
instructs Joseph to flee to Egypt where the family stayed until the death of Herod. Upon Herods
death, they returned to Nazareth. Throughout this narrative, Matthew adds a comment that the
instruction to flee to Egypt was intended to fulfill Hosea 11:1 where the prophet professes, Out
of Egypt I called my son. By reappropriating this text to refer to Jesus, Matthew effectively
places Jesus within the meta-narrative of Israels history. Scholars have long recognized,
however, that Hosea is not speaking about a single child, but rather the Exodus event.
The reappropriation of a passage by New Testament writers does not imply that the
original meaning of the passage has changed. Reappropriation is performed by the interpreter
and not by the source. Thus, the theological notion of sensus plenior has no real bearing in
biblical intertextuality. Using the example of Matthew and Hosea, Hoseas statement should not
be retrojectively interpreted as referring to Jesus simply because Matthew reappropriated the
statement. Hosea originally intended to speak of Israels past. Peter Enns, commenting on the
same passage, states:
If Matthew were transported back in time and told Hosea that Hoseas words
would be fulfilled in the boy Jesus and that, furthermore, this Jesus would be
crucified and rise for Gods people, I am not sure if Hosea would have known
what to make of it. But if Hosea were to go forward to Matthews day, it would be
very different for him. There Hosea would be forced, in light of recent events, to
see his wordsprecisely because they are inspired by God, the divine authorin
the final historical contextAnd so Hoseas words, which in their original
historical context (the intention of the human author, Hosea) did not speak of
Jesus of Nazareth, now do (italics original). 2
This statement is faulty for several reasons. First, Enns presupposes an indefensible component
of inspirationnamely Gods involvement in the writing process. That God and the human
author corresponded and ultimately intended the same goal is a retrospective claim based on faith
and not verifiable evidence. Furthermore, as Enns recognizes, Hosea 11:1 is retrospective of
2

Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005), 153.

Israels past disobedience. Consequently, and in contrast to Enns, if Hosea were transported to
the first century, he likely would have still considered his words applicable only to the people of
Israel at the time of the exodus from Egypt. Any perceived tension between the two writers
should therefore be upheld and appreciated.