Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Snyman Speakingintertextualitytextual 1996
Snyman Speakingintertextualitytextual 1996
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
New Testament Society of Southern Africa is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Neotestamentica
Who is spe
Intertextuality
Gerrie Snym
ABSTRACT
This article, taking as its point of departure Julia Kristeva's problem of
intertextuality posing as banal source criticism, discusses the problems
of intertextuality masquerading as an indicator of textual influence. It is
suggested that much of the work done under the rubric of inter-
textuality rather fits source or redaction criticism. As a dialogue of
voices, intertextuality implies that on each text falls the reflection of
other texts, leading to an uncontrollable interaction between texts,
thereby destroying the monological concept of language and meaning.
Textual influence, regarded as an indication of a unidirectional
causality, is not intertextuality's cross reference. It is suggested that
source and redaction criticism fall under the rubric of textual influence
and cannot serve as an indication for intertextuality because of a dif-
ference in their views on the role of the human being in the information
process, the text as object and the problem of referentiality.
1 INTRODUCTION
a particular voice, but they are able to vary the time and circumstances
which they read, so that they can read the text with multiple voices.
The claim of voices embedded in a text and in the reading process
forth the matter of textual influence and/or intertextuality. In an effor
experiment with the new possiblities that other disciplines offer, b
scholars in the past drew literary theoretical categories into the biblical
tual debate without being able at that stage to distinguish the consequenc
drawing on those categories. One instance is the use of intertextuali
literary historical studies to establish the sources of a given text.
Is the critic's task to look into the origins of the voices in the text or
look at the unlimited possibilities of new arguments and texts opening u
result of the interaction of these different voices? In my mind, both ar
sible and necessary, but not under the common denominator of in
textuality. There is a marked difference between intertextuality and tex
influence, a difference that has not been taken into consideration in the
To establish the sources of the text, in other words, to establish those te
that influenced the target text in a significant way, is to do source criti
Looking at the interaction of the different voices in the text and within
reader, is to indicate the intricate intertextual relationship that come
being in the reading process. To my mind, intertextuality assumes w
relations producing texture. It is not a banal source criticism in the guise
textual influences.
What you are about to read in this article is nothing more than an Ein
of themes discussed in other essays by other authors. You will be trea
an academic (hopefully) discourse reflecting the variety of sources
influenced my own position(s). What about intertextuality in the en
debate? I am faced with a dilemma: I am talking about things postm
yet the mode in which I will do it is modern, simply because I will
inclined to define and establish certainty regarding the understanding of
tual influence and intertextuality in order to refute textual influences as i
textuality!
The article proceeds in the following way: it starts with a discussi
intertextuality and Julia Kristeva's fear of taking intertextuality as
criticism. Secondly, the article will look into the workings of source/
tion criticism within reader-response criticism. Thirdly, it will entertain
late Willem Vorster's use of intertextuality and the problems his use crea
Lastly, the article, emphasising intertextuality as an act of interpretation
evoke some aspects of ideological criticism.
2 INTERTEXTUAUTY
sible to set yourself free to lead a second life filled with ambivalent laug
sacrilege, and profanations. It was a time of familiar contact with every
The carnival celebrated polarities, reconciling the irreconcilable. All that
separated by the monolithic and hierarchical life now became unit
mixed. Bakhtin (1969:62) speaks of a 'fröhliche Relativität' in the plá
absoluteness, leading to an ambivalence of death and birth, laughter and
The carnival creates a public space for dialogue. It is the main are
which the entire people of a village could participate in enhancing th
and wretched and in embarrassing the rich and the powerful (Bak
1969:56). Every act is a relativising of another act, every symbol, clothin
escapade questions the absolute validity of other symbols, clothing or do
The powerful became parodied by the subordinates, subverting the
elite's monological acts. Yet, the dialogue is hidden, as if one sees on
partner talking and reacting to answers of the other partner without he
what the other is saying (cf Bakhtin 1969:124).
It is this double structure of the carnival that Bakhtin transposes to t
and words. He distinguishes between the object orientated word an
strange word (1969:107). However, as long as the context does not
and as long as the author remains in control, posing him or herself as th
signifying instance, the text remains monological. Ambivalence sets
soon as the author, as last signifying instance, is bypassed or overruled.
One example is the narrator functioning as a substitute for the au
word, The narrator as inscribed in a text remains dependent on the a
voice which, in turn, remains responsible for the double focusing of
brought into play. Bakhtin refers in this instance to Stilisierung wh
strange word sets in, yet the author stays in control and uses strange w
for his or her own purposes. It can be linked to what Van Wolde (199
calls 'marked intertextuality' involving the author's intention.
But what if the author is no longer in control, as in sskas , or th
word/dialogue or voice? Lachmann (1984:493) suggests one can
understand Bakhtin's dialogicky without knowing what he meant by
In oral speech, the narrator's voice is never 'objective': the narrator a
bring into play his or her own thoughts and experiences. S/he always br
into play a particular social voice, an intellectual level as well as a par
world view (Bakhtin 1969:116). It is as if the narrator and author a
dialogue with one another and the result is seen in ambivalent words.2
3 SOURCE/REDACTION CRITICISM
4 The postmodern Bible was a project of ten authors who wrote collectively on topics
such as reader-response criticism, structuralist and narratological criticism, poststruc-
turalist criticism, rhetorical criticism, psychoanalytical criticism, feminist and
womanist criticism and ideological criticism. They wrote in such a way that one does
not know who was responsible for which chapter, thereby raising the question of
intertextuality. From the very first word one is to expect different voices.
5 My colleague, Andreas Dierks (to whom I am extremely grateful), wrote the fol-
lowing gloss on the original manuscript: Acronyms are signs of positivistic hegemony. The
words have died...acronyms the mere epitaph ... RIP (Rot in pall). Within these guilds
What is important
ing strategies, socio
serve as texts and
cannot function as
and historical event
a reading tex of the
The major problem
is their veiling of p
al 1995:50). Because
ing process, involvi
community, reader
their readings. If r
ing production, th
involved in mainta
'textual power is p
The present non-re
camouflaging of th
cal critique everyon
jargon they see fit
criticism and intert
agendas. The reason
criticism to the mo
reader in the prod
response criticism i
tuality, influencing
it seems, its failu
criticism, has open
criticism as historic
interpretive convent
tions are signs that
point, the world of t
notion of history its
with other discursive
indefinitely.'
6 In a paper delivered at the farewell of Bas van Iersel in the Netherlands, to which
Vorster had contributed his article (1989b), Ellen van Wolde said that intertextuality
linked to the reader is less compelling (because of a fear for vagueness and
inderterminacy) and depends solely on haphazard choices made by readers (1991:339).
She drew a link between intertextuality and source criticism in the guise of text pro-
duction: the reader looks for the genotext used by the author in order to determine his
intentions. Mark and the Q-source become in this instance influencing sources for
Matthew and Luke.
al 1989:435-436)
1 information: sources are regarded as extrinsic phenomena, independ
human perception whereas intertextuality's assumption of textual
rests upon the ability of the reader to create such links.
2 form and criticism: textual influence distinguishes between the
influence and any discussion about it in a typical object-subject rel
ship, while intertextuality sees the reader and text both as texts refr
one another.
3 ideology: source criticism and textual influence does not take into a
the ideology of the observer, because science, art and morality belo
distinct forms of logic. Intertextuality maintains that all views
ideological, reflecting biases of a particular time.
4 structure : source criticism and textual influence focus on orderin
structuring, smoothing over inconsistencies and contradictions. In
textuality uses these contradictions and inconsistencies as the res
human communication where meaning is always deferred.
5 understanding: source criticism and influence work with parallels betw
human patterns in order to explain and order systems. Intertextu
emphasises the uniqueness of each situation and the particular nat
the circumstances.
When one deals with textual influence or with intertextuality, one sh
realise that these two concepts assume two different cultures of underst
ing. I doubt that the one can be used to obtain the goals of the othe
linear causality of textual influence and source criticism does not address
dialogicky underlying the notion of intertextuality. Similarly, the dialog
of intertextuality does not address the historical needs of finding the or
of a text. However, intertextuality questions the assumptions with which
torical criticism and textual influence work, namely the possibilit
ascertaining some sort of extra-textual reference, be it another tex
event. From an intertextual point of view, there will always be a r
filled to the brim with other texts, constructing such a reference. A
question is no longer whether the construction is true, but why it w
structed in that particular way.
Frow (1990:46), on the basis of text as differential and historical, pres
ing readers not with the presence of other texts but with traces and tra
of texts, argues that the identification of an intertext is an act of inter
tion: cThe intertext is not a real and causative source but a theoretic
struct formed by and serving the purposes of a reading*. The identificat
an intertext is not the same as the identification of a particular intertex
source. To Frow it is the identifying of the more general discursive stru
to which the intertext belongs. Intertextuality differs from source critici
its stress on interpretation rather than on the establishment of facts.
WORKS CONSULTED
Castelli, E A et al 1995. The postmodern bible. The Bible and Culture Colle
Haven: Yale University Press.
Chambers, R 1990. Alter ego: intertextuality, irony and the politics of
Wonon & Still 1990:143-158.
Clayton, J & Rothstein, E 1991. Figures in the corpus. Theories of influence and inter-
textuality. In Clayton, J & Rothstein, E (eds), Influence and intertextuality in
literary history , 3-36. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Corrington, G P 1993. Redaction criticism. In Haynes & McKenzie 1993:87-99.
Draisma, S (ed), 1989. Intertextuality in biblical writings. Essays in honour of Bas van ler-
sel Kampen: Kok.
Figuieredo, F de [1912] 1985. Comparative literature and source criticism. Yearbook of
Comparative and General Literature 34, 9-11.
Fohrer, G; Hoffmann, H W; Huber, F; Markert, L & Wanke, G 1973. Exegese des
Alten Testaments. Einführung in die Methodik. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Friedman, S S 1991. Weavings: intertextuality and the (re)birth of the author. In
Clayton and Rothstein 1991:146-180.
Frow, J 1990. Intertextuality and ontology. In Worton & Still 1990:45-55.
Haynes, S R & McKenzie, S L 1993. To each its own meaning. An introduction to Bibli-
cal criticsims and their application. Louisville: John Knox.
Ijsseling, S 1976. Rhetoric and philosophy in conflict. An historical survey. The Hague:
Mārtiņus Niihoff.
Ijsseling, S 1994. Apollo , Dionysos , Aphrodite en de anderen. Griekse goden in de
hedendaagse filosofie. Amsterdam: Boom.
Jameson, F 1981. The political unconscious. Narrative as a socially symbolic act. London:
Methuen.
Kraus, H-J 1988. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. 3.
Aufl. Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Kristeva, J 1974. La revolution du langage poetique. U avant-garde a la fin du XIXe siecle:
Lautréamont et Mallarmé. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Kristeva, J 1980. Desire in language. A semiotic approach to literature and art New
York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J 1986. Word, dialogue and novel. In Moi, T (ed), The Kristeva reader , 34-61.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Lachmann, R 1983. Intertextualität als Sinnkonstitution. Andrei Belyjs Petersburg und
die 'fremden' Texten. Poetica 154, 66-107.
Lachmann, R 1984. Bachtin's Dialogizität und die akmeistische Mvthopoetik als
Paradigma dialogisierter Lyrik. In Stierle, K & Warning, R (eds), Poetik und
Hermeneutik XI: Das Gespräch , 491-515. München: Fink.
McKnight, E V 1993. Reader-response criticism. In Haynes & McKenzie 1993:197-
220.
Miles, J R 1981. Radical editing. Redaktionsgeschichte and the aesthetic of willed confu-
sion. in Friedman, R E (ed), The creation of sacred literature , 95-99. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Phillips, G A 1992. 'What is written? How are you reading?' Gospel, intertextuality
and doing lukewise: a writerly reading of Lk 10:25-37 (and 38-42). Society of Bibli-
cal Literature 1992 Seminar Papers. 31:266-301.
Pondrom, C N 1991. Influence? or Intertextuality? The complicated connection of
Edith Sitwell with Gertrude Stein. In Clayton & Rothstein 1991:204-218.
Scott, J C 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance. Hidden transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Still, J & Worton, M 1992. Introduction. In Worton & Still 1990:1-44.