In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

31 i Steve Moyise 2 Models for Intertextual Interpretation of Revelation Introduction the intertextual interpretation of biblical texts is not a new phenomenon but has always been practiced by the Christian church. texts are not viewed as isolated units of meaning but are interpreted in the light of other texts (canon) and traditions (“rule of faith,” creeds). this was not an innovation by the church but was widely used in the ancient world. in Jewish circles, it was later formulated in terms of certain exegetical rules (middoth) that governed the relationship between texts, while in the church, it found expression in the exegetical schools of antioch and alexandria and the fourfold meaning of scripture practiced by medieval exegetes. as George aichele puts it: “the canon opens a semiotic space within which creative interpretation of biblical texts is encouraged.”1 However, the dominance of historical criticism in biblical studies over the last two centuries has changed all this. no longer can an interpretation be deemed correct because it is in agreement with traditional Christian doctrines. rather, it must demonstrate that it was what the original author had in mind or (at the very least) could plausibly have had in mind. on this view, it is not only unnecessary to relate a text like isaiah 7:14 (“look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son”) to Matthew 1:23 (“look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son”), it is positively to be avoided. the meaning of isaiah 7:14 is determined by its grammatical form and historical context and not by associating it with later texts or traditions. texts can be applied to analogous situations, but changes in meaning are said to be a distortion of the original and are generally regarded as self-serving. 32 Steve Moyise it is into this situation that the introduction of intertextual theory in biblical studies is best understood. the term (intertextualité) was first coined by Julia Kristeva in 1967 as a way of describing the dialogical relationship between “texts,” broadly understood as a system of codes or signs. Moving away from traditional notions of agency and influence, she suggested that such relationships are more like an “intersection of textual surfaces rather than a point.”2 no text is an island and, contrary to structuralist theory, a text cannot be understood in isolation but as part of a web or matrix of other texts. Each new text disturbs the fabric of existing texts as it jostles for a place in the canon of literature. intertextuality suggests that the meaning of a text is not fixed but open to revision as new texts come along and reposition it. thus it was inevitable that the Christ-event and the texts that followed would reposition or reconfigure what went before. it was not simply an imposition on the texts, as historical critics have tended to argue; it is what texts do. this does not of course legitimate the particular reconfigurations found in the new testament or in the councils and creeds that followed. But it challenges the view that such developments are automatically invalid because the meaning of earlier texts has been altered. therefore , the use of intertextual theory in biblical studies has not only led to fresh insights,3 it has also helped to rehabilitate what historical critics have often referred to as “pre-critical” interpretation. However, as anthony thiselton points out, the application of such a broad understanding of intertextuality would result in an “infinite chain of semiotic effects”4 and would therefore not be a viable mode of study. thus in practice, the only way of applying intertextual theory to biblical texts is to reduce the number of intertexts to something more manageable . one way of doing this is to require the intertext to meet certain criteria, such as a level of common wording or a parallel sequence of ideas or themes. the interaction is then explored by considering the “semiotic effects” produced by the various “voices” in the text. Here, such things as the meaning of the intertext in its original setting, its relationship with other texts in the history of its tradition, and its role or function in the new work are understood as “voices” to be heard and in some way configured. in addition, modern interpreters will bring intertexts of their own, such as the history of the text’s interpretation or specific events, such as the Holocaust or 9/11. scholars differ in how much weight they...

Share