More about Intertextual Dialectics

An Outlined Sketch

Unlike intertextuality, which is largely comprised of the comparative study of texts in dialogue with one another, different and various contexts contrasting with and complementing one another, intertextual dialectics is the dialogical study of the manner in which texts of a comparatively given similitude conflict with or contradict one another. Whereas the emphasis of studies employing intertextuality is primarily upon the harmonization of and the interconnectedness between different texts, the emphasis of intertextual dialects is upon the differentiation and disharmony of the texts. Intertextual dialects takes the differences between texts, especially texts that are purportedly similar in form or nature, content or message, as, for instance, the synoptic gospels, and seeks to contradistinguish them, so as to not only emphasize their differences but also to draw conclusions as to why and how these differences obtain as well as what meaning arises from such contradistinctions.

Inasmuch as an individual relates to another person with all their contextual entrapments of culture, lived experience, and the like, so any given text will likewise relate to another text with all its contextual entrapments as well, the reader mediating between the texts as a kind of biased and arbitrary arbitrator, deciding which aspects or points of either text are of importance or note, which indeed depends upon the conditioned context of the reader: as the reader reads the text, so the reader really reads him or herself, both into and alongside the text, even as the texts map themselves upon the reader, thereby reading themselves into the reader. Thus, is intertextuality a means by which and a mode wherein given texts are experienced as anew as they might be, being interpreted by the reader with a given contextual lens whereby the reader imposes his or her own context upon the given texts and draws conclusions from the texts and the relationship between the texts and the reader him/herself.

Contrasting this with intertextual dialects, we might take some given texts and compare and contrast them for their differences, whereby we sort out that which distinguishes and differentiates them one from another. For inasmuch one individual relates or does not relate to another, the division of differences standing as a fission between them, so might any given text be differentiated or contrasted with another, thereby holding the texts in tension one with another. The space in the tension is the space wherein creativity might abound, as therein the necessary requirements for making sense connections obtains.

As the mind does not do well with cognitive dissonance but is constantly seeking to make sense of the world in which it finds itself, so the reader as arbitrator between texts might also seek to make such sense of the texts in contradistinction to one another. The resolution sought by the mind for harmony between thesis and antithesis unto synthesis might be a formula for a kind of harmonization or mental peace, but may not in fact be that which truly obtains, for the reality of a state might be more truly grasped in terms of tension and tensions, rather than a synthesis of synthetic solutions. Indeed, in the tension of the complex of chaos, indeterminacy, and unresolvedness arises the creative struggle for some sense, some understanding. The presupposed, that is, the presumed structure of order is not a case for such but is merely a wish, inclination, or intention of the mind, which cannot abide the cognitive dissonance of disunity or disharmony.

As we project upon reality our mental constructs of such, we may miss out on that which is both without and within us: what is without is reality in itself and what is within is, too, reality in itself, though one being of a kind of objective nature obtained by means of our subjective senses, conditioned by our past experiences and educations, and the other being a firsthand experience to which each one of us is alone privy. In very much the same way, each text with which a reader might engage is itself privy to some internal state, of which the reader is largely unaware, no matter how fully the reader might have engaged the text and its contextual history, for the reader is but possessing the remains of the author, who is now possibly only able to communicate that which has been inscribed upon the page.

The reader engages the text inasmuch as he or she might another person, reading and rereading the text in order to ascertain that which the text might (1) mean in itself and (2) mean unto the reader in him or herself: that is to say, the meaning of the text in itself is akin to the rather objective state of nature; however, it may also be otherwise argued that the meaning of the text in itself is not so much objective (in accordance with the text) but is a meaning wholly unknown to the reader and quite privy to the text itself, as if the text itself were a kind of entity with such internal knowledge. The meaning of the text in or unto the reader is akin to the rather subjective state of nature, which is within an individual and privy to that one alone; though here, too, again, it may be argued that such a state of subjectivity is rather objective in that the reader, after ascertaining his or her meaning of the text from the text and lodging it within, then becomes a kind of objective reiteration of the text.

The story that an individual tells of reality is much like the story a reader as the scholar tells of a text or texts, harmonizing these so that some sort of sense is made out of the rather displaced and disorderly place of chaos both within as well as without. Any story is one of justification, and even the verification of such is a justification itself, being that which justifies the first justificatory story. We are sense-makers of reality and of texts; thus, do we make justifications of texts so that they are harmonized in conjunction one with another. Intertextual dialects, however, calls forth the distinctions and the differentiation between any given texts. While utilizing the method of intertextuality to compare and harmonize texts, intertextual dialects seeks to take another, perhaps further, direction, namely, to lay out the distinctions and tensions between texts, so as to stand the reader in the space wherein no resolution is necessarily found, save for, perhaps, the resolution that is discontinuity.

The Importance of Intertextual Dialectics

The real importance of intertextual dialectics is that it might be a means whereby valuable insights and latent truths might be uncovered as well as rediscovered in fresh and new ways. This might be demonstrated in the way in which the synoptic gospels might be held in contradistinction, rather than harmonization, one with another; or the way in which the presumably various factions of the early church authored their letters and books of the NT in terms of their perspectives and views of the OT and messiahship, particularly that of Jesus; or the various editors and authors of the OT might be better revealed in terms of their distinctive purposes in redaction. The divergence of one text from another, rather than harmonized, might be pointed out as a distinct and unique, even contradictory, text in contradistinction to that of another.

Why would it matter to point out the differences between texts, to stand in the space of tension? It is precisely in the space of tension, when we look at given texts, which we might desire to accord one with another, that we find the mind most creative, seeking the resolution of the cognitive dissonance that comes with such tensions. Thus, do we stand in the space of tension, seeking understanding in the midst of it, even without coming to firm and conclusive resolutions about what must definitely be true of a text and its intertextual relationships, thereby defying equilibrium. We work to promote modest assertions in an effort to never fail to obtain unto the reality of the world in which the texts exist. For instance, the Christological doctrine of the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus is one wherein a space of tension obtains, as is the doctrine of the trinity. We must ever keep our sights set on humility in the reading of texts too lofty for many of us to ascertain with certainty.

Intertextual Dialectics for Biblical Studies

The way in which intertextual dialects might be applied and utilized in biblical studies is that it should afford the student as the scholar the means or mechanism by which to read and reread a given text of the Bible in light of not only the context in which the text itself was written as well as in light of other texts and their given corresponding contexts, but also in light of the contradistinctions, and even contradictions, that therewith obtain. The Bible might thus be illuminated anew with various facets and aspects that might have been formerly latent and unperceived by whole groups or generations, which, having been so entrenched in traditional readings, availed nothing but power to the powerful and poverty to the poor. Each generation of readers brings so much to the text that a previous or prior generation may not have even conceived or thought of, the differences therewith being evident by contrast.

For instance, take John 3:16, which is as known to any as any verse might be (though, perhaps, today not as many as in times past): the verse reads thus, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (KJV). Now, a great many theologians and preachers have made a great many notes and comments on this verse, but if we should read it in light of Judges 11:34, as it is one of the four places in the LXX that has the same term for “only begotten” as in John 3:16, namely, μονογενής, we might see this verse as well as the term anew.

While beyond the scope of this article, delving into the possible intertextual dialectical meanings of the term μονογενής in light of both of these verses as well as their original historical and literary contexts, we might see the old familiar verse of John 3:16 in a whole new light, coming to appreciate it as the author of it might have intended it to be, seeing as the author of the Gospel of John likely relied upon the LXX, as that was the book of Scripture in use at the time the Gospel was written.

Furthermore, we might also come to a better appreciation of the context in which such doctrines, as that of the nature of Christ and of the trinity, were hammered out in the pages of Scripture as well as the early church. Holding texts in tension affords us the opportunity to not only not have to be dogmatic or definite on rather complex and even confusing texts, from which arise complex doctrines, but also to affirm the contradictory and disharmonious state that obtains between these. We are but finite beings delving into the realm of the infinite; how could we ever be so sure and certain that we have every winkle ironed out or every connection attached?

Intertextual Dialectics as Biblical Criticism

Various Kinds of Biblical Criticism

Listing the various kinds of biblical criticism, I name the following eight: textual, philological, literary, tradition, form, redaction, source, and historical. Textual criticism deals with discovering the original text of documents based on what is available at present, exploring the creation and historical transmission of a given text and its variants. Philological criticism deals with the vocabulary, grammar, and style of biblical writings for accuracy of understanding. Literary criticism establishes the literary genres of various biblical documents, so as to draw conclusions about their structure, date, and authorship. Tradition criticism seeks to trace the development of the oral tradition behind the written text of the Bible. Form criticism seeks to determine the original form of the a given text based on its principal literary form, as represented in its contents, in order to examine the transmission of the text through tradition. Redaction criticism focuses on the final literary work, assessing the way in which editors redacted the text in order to shape it into what it presently is. Source criticism seeks to uncover the original sources behind texts. Historical criticism, also known as higher criticism, is the study of the historical context of a given text, interpreting the text in light of its contemporary historical context, as well as a critical analysis of the evidence as it stands before the critic: namely, the textual witness of the Bible itself, extra-biblical textual witnesses, archaeological discoveries, and any other available sources.

Intertextual Dialectics as Biblical Criticism

More than intertextuality, intertextual dialectics might be a kind of biblical criticism, in the vein of the aforementioned, so as to ascertain, reimagine, or exaggerate certain important items, namely, the original context in which the text was or texts were written, a greater comparative analysis of distinctions obtaining therewith, and the tensions within a text and between texts. By highlighting the differences and distinctions within a given biblical text as well as between biblical texts, we might thereby ascertain a clearer picture of what transpired in the historical context of both the writing as well as the transmission of the text(s). As context is always king when digging into a text, so we must appreciate the contrasts, distinctions, and disagreements that arise when comparing texts one against another, or even a text against itself.

The Assumption of Intertextual Dialectics

There is an underlying assumption of intertextual dialectics, which is that no two humans agree completely all the time in every way. Thus, as the texts of the Bible were written by humans, however much they were aided by the Spirit of God, there was no time in which they were in complete agreement in every way. For though the Spirit of God may have guided or transcended the writing of all biblical texts as well as the transmission thereof, the human mark upon the texts of the Bible is deep. The Bible, to be sure, is a particular book about a particular people at a particular time. It is not about your Aunt Sally and her need for salvation or your Uncle Tim and his need for healing. It is not even about you or me.

Personal as the text of the Bible may be, it is personal to us today vicariously, through the aid of the aforementioned criticisms, as we access the ancients through the texts that have been transmitted down to us through the ages. We might thereby touch God through faith, as we endeavor to access the experience of the ancients, who transcribed their encounters with God.