C ritiq u e o f R ecen t In te rte x tu a l

C an o n ica l In te rp re ta tio n
By Brevard s. Childs
(Yale University, 409 ?ro sp ect St., N ew H aven, CT 06511, USA)

In the past several decades interest in canon as an exegetical and

hermeneutical issue has been largely pursued in tbe Englisb-speaking
world. Tbere bave been of course notable exceptions (Rendtorff, Doh-
men, JBTb 3), but in general this assessment is true. Recently, however,
especially within Germany, there has been a significant growth of inter-
est in the larger hermeneutical problems related to intertextual readings
of the Old Testament. Of particular importance has been the publi-
cation of an impressive book by Georg Steins1 that marks a new chapter
in the debate over so-called canonical i n te rpr eta ti on.

I. The Context o f the Modern Debate

Steins book commends itself immediately by showing a mastery of
the secondary literature on the subject which is presented with preci-
sion and fairness. There is no better way to acquaint oneself with the
ongoing discussion of issues on canon and exegesis than to study his
sixty-three page bibliography. Yet his m onograph is not merely a com-
pilation of earlier research, but the author offers a thorough and well-
argued form ulation of a highly creative tbeory of kanonisch-intertex-
tuelle Lektre.
In a real sense, Steins book marks a new stage in the continuing de-
bate over the relation of the biblical canon to exegesis. Many of the in-
itial issues that at first occupied greatest attention have been now rel-
egated to the background and a new set of hermeneutical questions have
assumed a central role. It is also of interest to note that many of the ber-
meneutical decisions that are now simply assumed of Steins to be self-
evident were only won after three decades of heated controversy and
struggle. It is not easy to forget that a scbolar as brilliant as ]ames Barr
could pronounce twenty years ago that canon had no bermeneutical sig-
nificance whatever to play in biblical interpretation.^

1 Die Bindung Isaaks im Kanon (Gen 22), HBS 20, 1999.

2 Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, 1983, 67.

ZAW 115. Bd., s. 173-184

Walter de Gruyter 2003
174 Brevard s. Childs

Quite rightly Steins wishes to clear the air for his fresh proposals
by first summarizing bis view regarding tbe relation of tbe canonical
approacb to modern historical criticism: eine kanoniscb-intertextuelle
Lektre (kann und will) die >klassiscben< bis^ iscb -k ritiscb en Metho-
den keinesfalls ersetzen (225). This position is now widely assumed by
the recent studies of canonical interpretation. For my part, I fully agree
and bave never conceived of its being a substitute for historical critical
research. M ore controversial for some is Steins second f o rmul ati on:
Die kanonisch-intertextuelle Lektre kann nicht als ergnzender Schritt
in das traditionelle Programm historisch-kritischer Methoden eingefgt
werden (22 In contrast, ]. A. Sanders^ along with many of his stu-
dents envisions canonical criticism as a necessary supplement and
even final exegetical stage within foe one framework of historical cri-
tical interpretation. I agree with Steins in arguing that foe two
approaches - historical critical and canonical - are different in kind
regardless of wbat specific form bistorical criticism takes (e.g., histori-
cal, sociological, literary). Neither can foe relationship be described as a
contrast between synchronic and diachronic levels, nor can a canonical
approach simply be relegated to one option within a pluralistic menu.
However, it should also be readily admitted, foe attempts to formu-
late with precision foe exact relationship between canonical and histori-
cal critical interpretation remain largely unresolved and illusive. This
failure is hardly surprising when one recalls that a similar bermeneutical
impasse was reflected in foe last hundred years when cbaracterizing
foe relation between confessional and critical exegesis. Terms were
used such as H is^ ie /G sc h ic h te (Kaehler), pneumatic (Girgen-
sohn), Word of God/Word of Man (Barth), existential (Bultmann),
typological (von Rad), and kerygmatic (H. . Wolff). Yet clearly
no hermeneutical consensus emerged and foe various solutions revealed
little in]^-coberence. Ferbaps foe one element held in common was foe
incboate conviction that there was a tbeological or figurative dimension
of foe Bible not adequately addressed by a scientific, critical analysis.
One of foe major contributions of Steins book is his new and bold at-
tempt to overcome fois impasse respecting foe exact nature of a canoni-
cal interpretation within foe scope of modern biblical exegesis.

II. The Need for Methodological Clarity

At foe outset Steins argues that a major deficiency in previous at-
tempts to develop a canonical approach to foe OT lies in its failure to

3 A Gift of God in Due Season, FS James A. Sanders, eds. R. D. Weis et ai., JSOT.S 225,
1996.
 C ritique of Recent Intertextual C anonical In terpretation 17

offer a comprehensive literary theory to support a canonical intertextual

reading {kein systematisches Konzept, 11). He suggests that this serious
deficiency can be remedied by taking into account tbe modern berme-
neutical advances made in the theory of intertextuality, the tbeory of re-
ception, and the cognitive psycbology of reading. He tben attempts to
exploit tbese new critical tools to provide a rational and sopbisticated
metbodological foundation for all future intertextual readings.
In order to develop a comprebensive new literary theory he makes
use of the post-structuralist tbeories of Kristeva and Bacbtin. It is not
my present concern to pursue in detail the bigbly complex and often
controversial debate over these models. One can immediately sense the
value of certain insigbts gained from them such as the increased liter-
ary precision offered to intertextual analysis by the use of the terminol-
ogy of bypertext and hypotext, as well as the illuminating func-
tion of the bypotbesis of das fremde Wort. However, the m ajor issue
at stake is the larger hermeneutical construal offered. Interpretation of
a text is viewed as a dynamic, dialogical activity between the narrator,
the addressee, and the context from wbicb the interpretive endeavor is
launcbed. Tbis interaction is an ongoing, indeed never-ending process
in which polyvalent meaning is continually exploited in fresb moments
of creative contextualization. Tbis concept allows interpretation to
engage the Bibles heterogeneity with a new mode of understanding of
the wbole, and tbus to overcome the pitfalls of fragm entation caused
by critical scholarships attem pts to disentangle the tex ts multiple
voices.
I do not deny the value of developing and applying to biblical in-
terpretation insights tbat can often emerge by making use of such new
critical disciplines. In the history of interpretation it bas often been the
imaginative application of new, fresh conceptual frameworks that bave
greatly enriched the Held. One tbinks, for example, of Augustines use of
Neo-?latonic categories, of Aquinas application of Aristotles critical
analyses, or of von R ads appropriation of Gunkels form-critical/tradi-
tion-historical techniques. However, the crucial point to make is that in
eacb case tbese new theories were constantly being altered and radically
transform ed in foe light of foe powerful theological coercion exerted
from foe biblical text itself.
My major criticism of Steins chapters which develop theories of
intertextuality, of reception, and of cognitive psycbology is that no theo-
logical corrective or modification is evident when he assesses foe appli-
cability of such tbeories to foe ]ewish and Christian Scriptures. Even
though be states in passing: die Bibel als Kanon ist kein Text wie jeder
andere, sondern der heilige Text einer Glaubensgemeinschaft (231),
fois eminently true observation remains a pious aphorism without any
serious development within foe book.
176 Brevard s. Childs

The theological problem in applying bis post-structural models

to his canonical interpretation of the Bible arises immediately from his
theory of reception and intertextuality. Stein introduces bis reception
theory when be speaks of die Rolle des Lesers als Mitscbpfer des Sin-
nes (85). Obviously much has been written along this same line since
S. Fishs provocative challenge was first issued in 1980.4 As a conse-
quence, few modern biblical interpreters would still defend the view
that there is only one fixed, objective meaning to a given text which
only needs to be critically excavated. Rather, it has become almost a
truism that meaning is determined by its usage and by the goals of the
interpreter. Yet how does the sacred canonical text of a community of
faith relate to Steins general theory of reception? M any crucial theo-
logical issues ride on the answer.
Tbe entire OT is consistent in confessing tbat tbere is a divine ad-
dress in Scripture to a covenant people, mediated tbrougb the law-
givers, propbets, and sages that continually break through the filters of
buman consciousness in spite of its claims of autonomy. Especially for
the propbets a divine word is proclaimed with its history-creating power
to fulfill itself in promise or judgment. Yet it bas long been recognized
that there is a subtle dialectical relation between the O Ts own view of
the prophet as simply a vehicle of divine address who, as a messenger,
communicates verbatim his cbarge, and the modern critical view that
propbetic speecb is always sbaped by tradition and literary conventions.
These words are not only adapted to the autbors psychological disposi-
tion, but are also constantly reapplied to Israels changing historical
condition. However, this necessary tension bas been completely lost in
Steins reception theory when author, text, and addressee are fused and
the divine voice of Scripture bas been rendered mute within a highly
ideological philosophical system. Exactly in recognition of the need to
encounter the divine reality of Scripture, the Cbristian cburcb struggled
to develop its own bermeneutical categories to include revelation, inspi-
ration, and faitb, to name but a few.
Tben again, the role of defining intertextuality witbin his postmod-
ern categories is a major concern of Steins. Re first outlines in detail bis
theory of intertextuality and then illustrates it by means of a canonical
intertextual reading of Gen 22, 1-19. Once again my critique is re-
stricted to its effect on his biblical interpretation rather than in pursuing
the philosophical coberence of his hermeneutical tbeory wbicb is a task
extending beyond the scope of this essay.
Central to bis argument is that intertextuality is the means by
which the dialogical quality of the Bible can be exploited in doing full

4 S. Fish, Is There a Text in This Class?, 1980.

 C ritique of Recent Intertextual C anonical In terpretation 177

justice to its polyvalance. The dialogical enterprise consists both in a

textual and transtextual contextualization in which creative new read-
ings are generated in tbe interaction of text, interpreter, and context.
Tbe process of tbis dialogical interaction is part of a continuing inter-
pretive activity tbat does not ever acbieve a fixed, privileged status.
Ratber a continuous movement emerges from the flexible openness of
the biblical corpus to limitless potential for ^contextualization. There
is no one way to judge the rightness of an interpretation because mean-
ing is not intrinsic, but relational, dynamic, and changing.
The initial theological difficulty with this proposal is that it runs di-
rectly in the face of the very concept of canon as it was developed in
botb ]udaism and Christianity. The form ation of a fixed corpus of lit-
erature to wbicb religious autbority was attached establisbed a privi-
leged status, fodaism distinguished sharply between text and commen-
tary. Christianity continued fois position in setting apart apostolic
witness (text) from later church tradition. To retain fois distinction botb
synagogue and church assigned a unique value to foe texts plain or lit-
eral sense. Implicit thereby was foe concern to m aintain some form of
authorial intent.5 The Torab was assigned to Moses; foe Cospel in its
four-fold form to designated Evangelists. Figurative meanings were not
rejected, but subordinated to foe literal sense.
The role of intertextuality served as a means by which foe coher-
ence of foe developing canonical corpus was sustained. By intentionally
signaling a linguistic affinity between foe past, present, and future, a
substantive coherence was developed. This shaping of foe text by foe
community was deemed constitutive for its authority. Of course, once
foe canonical corpus reached its relative stability, foe text as religious
Scripture continued to generate new intertextual relationships, but foe
distinction between text and figuration was maintained, at least in prin-
ciple. When Steins theory of intertextuality eliminates foe privileged
status of the canonical context and removes all hermeneutical value from
any form of authorial intent, an interpretive style emerges that runs di-
rectly contrary to foe function of an authoritative canon which con-
tinues to serve a confessing community of faith and practice.
The elimination of any role for autborial intent emerges as an ex-
egetical problem when Steins turns to illustrate his method in foe inter-
pretation of Gen 22. His initial interpretation of foe intertextual use of
Gen 22 and Gen 12, 1-9, and of Gen 22 and Gen 21, 1-21 (133-61)
proves to be one of foe most illuminating parts of foe book. Here he
offers a careful literary study of foe parallels between these two sets of

5 This statement is not an apology for authorial historicity, but for the bermeneutical sig-
nificance of the designated writer.
178 Brevard s. Childs

texts. By appealing to his theory of dialogue between text and reader be

is able to uncover a rich depth dimension by means of an intertextual
reading which allows a creative interaction between the structures. The
discovery of fresh features of interrelation does not call into question
the basic canonical distinction between biblical text and interpretation.
However, major difficulties arise when he next turns to the inter-
textual relation of Gen 22 and Ex 1 - 2 4 He anticipates some of the
problem when he recognizes a stylistic shift: Die hnlichkeiten sind je-
doch nicht so offensichtlich wie im Fall von Gen 12 und Gen 21 (164).
Yet rather than drawing the proper implications from tbis lack of clear
signs of an intertextual link between these sections, Steins strains to dis-
cover intertextual references. He falls back on citing conventional nar-
rative terms to create a linkage such as Yahweh called, on the third
day, and mountain. At this point Steins exegesis has been much in-
fluenced by the intertextual interpretation of R. w. E. M oberly on
Gen 22 and it is therefore necessary to enlarge my critique to include his
work as well.

III. Intertextuality in Recent British Interpretation

R. W. L. M oberly stands at foe forefront of British scholars in de-
veloping a new form of intertextual interpretation of foe OT. ?articu-
larly his exegesis of Gen 22, which bas extended over a decade/ has
evoked wide discussion and bas recently exerted a significant influence
on Steins.7 Because his work is of high quality, it calls for an equally seri-
ous critique.
Tbe first issue at stake lies in M oberlys use of word studies. At foe
beginning of his exegesis of Gen 22 he suggests that it is crucial to focus
on four key words (78): test, fear of God, provide/see, and bless. He
makes it clear that he does not intend to trace a history of foe growtb of
tbese terms, nor to establisb each use of a word witbin its particular lit-
erary setting. Rather he argues tbat Israels Scriptures as a wbole pro-
vide foe context in wbicb eacb text is now read. Tbus foe interpreter
may range more freely (81) in discovering parallels.
Wben M oberly turns to interpret foe fear of God, he finds a res-
onance in Ex 2d,2d and in fob 1,1 ff. In Ex 2d Moses says to foe people
that foe Decalogue has been given as a test to engender foe fear of God.
In fob 1, fo b s fear of God closely relates to foe concept of integrity.
M oberlys approach is then to combine foe various canonical reso-
nances together to form a unified portrait which he then summarizes:

6 R. w. L. Moberly, The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah, VT 38 (1988), 302-323;

The Old Testament of the Old Testament, 1992; The Bible, Theology, and Eaith, 2000.
7 Cf. M oberlys influence on Steins, 126ff.
 C ritique of Recent Intertextual C anonical In terpretation 179

>>[T]he term depicts human integrity, an integrity rooted in responsive

recognition of God, in which the potential of hum an life can be real-
ized (96). Tbis intertextually reconstructed figure of Abrabam is then
described as a sensitive hum an being whose pious response to Torah
serves to define mature humanity within the framework of enduring re-
lationsbips. Is tbis the voice of the OT or of Scbleiermacber?
Tbe semantic problem with this approacb was first exposed by
}ames Barr^ in his attack on Kittels Wrterbuch, namely of confusing
words and concepts. The error arises wben a reconstructed wbolistic
meaning, wbetber called concept, notion, or resonance, is read back
into a particular text as its wider meaning. Barr designates the move
as an illegitimate totality transfer. Moreover, in my opinion, it is also
a misunderstanding of the term canonical context to see it as a mono-
litbic, unstructured theological construct from which intertextual reso-
nances can be freely garnered to form patterns of moral behavior.
The second issue turns on M oberlys understanding of the function
of intertextuality within a larger narrative context. Be quite rightly dis-
tinguisbes between a history-of-religions approach that seeks critically
to discern a texts origin, growth, and historicity, and a tbeological, in-
tertextual approacb that seeks to view the O T s material according to
the perspective of its own storyteller. According to Moberly, both ap-
proaches are legitimate, but they have different goals. Be then explicitly
cbooses the tbeological approach tbat furtber implies his working from
the final canonical form of the text ratber than witb literary sources or
redactional layers.
In bis book, The Old Testament o f the Old Testament, Moberly
lays the foundation for his interpretation of Gen 22. Be is concerned to
understand the relation between the religion of the ?atriarchs in Gen
12-50 and that of Mosaic Yahwism in Exodus onward. Bis interest lies
in a theological investigation of the relationsbip rather tban witb a his-
torical ^construction. Tberefore, be does not pursue the problem by
means of a source, form, or redactional analysis, but mounts his own in-
novative literary analysis to defend his major thesis, namely, Gen 12-50
conveys the perspective of the Yahwist storytellers who are retelling
originally non-Yahwistic traditions from a new and later Yahwistic con-
text. Bis thesis that the patriarcbal material bas been shaped by later
Yahwistic tradition is hardly radical, but widely accepted in critical
circles. The innovative element of M oberlys thesis is how he uses it as
the grounds for bis intertextual interpretation of Gen 22.
Although M oberly does not offer a close redactional analysis by
which to determine the precise nature of this Yabwistic redaction, be as-

8 The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1206 ff.

,61
180 Brevard s. Childs

sumes in the case of Gen 22 that the primary redactional force extends
retrospectively from Ex 2d to Gen 22. He notes an intertextual linkage
between tbe two passages. Only bere is the fear of God linked witb test-
ing. Tberefore be concludes; the story of Abraham in Gen 22 has been
deliberately told in the language of Israels obedience to torab so that
Abraham can be seen as a type or model of Israel .
There are several troubling problems arising from this interpre-
tation:
1. First, M oberly has insisted that his theological interpretation
was built on Israels self-understanding, and not on a history-
of-religions reconstruction. Yet M oberly does not follow the
canonical structure of the pentateuchal narratives, but rather
reverses the sequence giving the Mosaic material of Exodus pre-
dominance over the Patriarchal of Genesis. Although it is true
that a case can be made according to a historical critical recon-
struction for a retrospective reading, this move is fully inconsist-
ent with M oberlys announced intention of following the final
form of the text as the vehicle of intertextual resonances.
2. Secondly, if one follows the present canonical sequence, a very
different interpretation emerges. Tbe intertextual relation be-
tween the two texts, Gen 22 and Ex 2d, only proves the strong
theological continuity between the will of the God of Abrabam
and that of the God of Moses. Both require a testing tow ard the
goal of engendering fear of God. However, tbere is no common
reference specifying tbat the required obedience is restricted to
Torah. Even the reference to A brabam s obedience in Gen 26,
5 lacks reference to Torah (note the plural). As the orthodox
Jewisb commentator, Benno Jacob,10 pointed out, this reference
must refer to the Noachian prohibitions, circumcision (Gen 17)
and the general laws of humanity, w b a t is omitted in Gen 26,5
is the reference to buqqab and torab, the very legal terms needed
to support M oberlys interpretation of Torah. For O rthodox Ju-
daism a canonical reading of the Pentateucb requires that Torah
was first given to Moses, not to Abrabam.
3. Tbirdly, and perbaps my most serious caveat, M oberlys inter-
textual interpretation of Gen 22 as designating Abraham to be a
model for the obedient worshipper of Torah has the effect of
completely domesticating the biblical text. The incredible ten-
sion of Gen 22 so brilliantly interpreted by Auerbachii and von

The Bible, Theology, and Faith, 83.

10 B. Jacob, Das Erste Buch der Tora, 1548 .
,34
11 E. Auerbach, Odysseus Scar, in: Mimesis, 12 0- 1 ,57 .
 C ritique of Recent Intertextual C anonical In terpretation 181

R ad12 is completely missing in M oberly as he flattens the text

into a model of Torah obedience. In spite of all the alleged defi-
ciencies of von Rad, one can only admire the shill and theologi-
cal profundity with which he has confronted his readers with die
Urgewalt of Gen 22. In a word, whatever the strengths of inter-
textual interpretation - there are indeed many - the approach
must be judged inadequate if it loses the sheer terror of this
patriarchal command or blunts the magnificent irrationality of
A b r a h a m s faith in God.

IV. Midrasb and Allegory

There is one final topic to be discussed in respect to recent intertex-
tual exegesis. Its importance and complexity belies its being handled
within a brief essay, but at least the nature of the issues involved needs
to be sketched.
Within the last two decades several outstanding ]ewish scholars!2
have reopened the question of midrash in terms of intertextual reading.
M ost of these scholars bring to their study not only a vast knowledge of
rabbinic materials, but they have also been trained in comparative Eng-
lish literature, w h a t emerges with clarity is that any discussion of the
phenomenon of biblical intertextuality is sorely deficient which does not
come to grips also with m idrashs working with a highly developed
understanding of intertextual referentiality.
A major emphasis of two of these scholars, Boyarin and Kugel, is
to describe midrash as a way of reading the Bible according to a radical
intertextual manner, assuming it is to be the authoritative Scriptures
of ]udaism. In opposition to the hermeneutical model of the historical
critical method, which postulates that the original text was clear and
transparent before its subsequent distortion through the passing of time,
m idrash assumes that the meaning of the original biblical text was often
hidden and ambiguous, and that its truth is only later revealed through
continual interpretation.
In midrash the biblical narrative is deemed heterogeneous and
characterized as gapped and dialogical.14 The role of midrash is
therefore to fill in the spaces through a strategy provided by intertextual

12 G. von Rad, Das Opfer des Abraham, 1 7 6 .

13 The following are of particular note: ]. K ugel, Two Introductions to M idrash, Proof-
texts 3 (1983), 131-155; M. Fishbane, biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985;
]. Neusner, W hat is Midrash? 1987; D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of
M idrash, 1990; j. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, 1993;
R. Alter, Canon and Creativity, 2000.
14 Boyarin, 16.
182 Brevard s. Childs

readings. A dialogical relation between the text and the reader affords
foe means of exploiting foe i]foe^m inances of one part of foe canon by
citing parallel passages from other parts of foe Scripture. M idrash as
Oral Torah is a program of preserving foe old by making it constantly
new. because original authorial intent is thereby overridden, other re-
straints of interpretation have been developed, such as determining foe
correctness of an interpretation according to its role within foe ideology
of foe interpretive community.
There are certain formal characteristics of midrash. First, it focuses
on foe surface irregularities as signaling a tension to be overcome in
reaching a new coherent understanding. Secondly, midrash is an exe-
gesis of biblical verses, not of books, which means that each verse is in
principle connected to foe most distant text as much as to its adjacent
neighbor. Thirdly, midrash remains concrete in its focus in moving be-
tween two texts rather than in seeking a hidden semantic level below or
above foe written corpus. The use of different strategies in expanding
a citation, whether paradigmatic or narrative, does not depart from
fois basic principle. Although classical rabbinic midrash developed in
foe later Tannaite and Amoraic periods, there is a wide consensus that
proto-midrashic techniques had already appeared in foe post-exilic bib-
lical period^ and provided a biblical w arrant for seeing a strong el-
ement of continuity between foe earlier and later periods.
A recurring feature of modern midrashic studies has been to com-
pare and contrast midrash with allegory as two forms of figurative read-
ing. Historically, foe two interpretive techniques were often related. The
allegorized bible of Alexandrian fodaism often shared features of both
approaches in seeking to avoid offensive incidents within foe biblical
narratives. Then again, modern NT studies have often concluded that
foe Apostle Fauls exegesis makes use not only of features from both
m idrash and allegory, but is at times akin to Q um rans pesber technique.
In an impressive article, G. Bruns^ has argued that both midrash and al-
legory have in common a deep concern to render foe biblical text in such
a way that it sheds light on foe self-understanding of foe interpreter. In-
terpretation thus always involves a dialectical movement of the self with
another, and between foe past and foe present.
However, foe major point to be made is that midrash and allegory,
in spite of large areas of overlap, are two very distinct and different in-
terpretive strategies, reflecting very different hermeneutical understand-
ings of how intertextuality functions, w hile midrash works at discern-
ing meaning through foe interaction of two written texts, allegory - 1 am

15 Fishbane, 23ff., 91ff., 281ff.

16 G. L. Bruns, M idrash and Allegory: The Beginnings of Scriptural Interpretation, in:
The Literary Guide to the Bible, eds. R. Alter and F. Kermode, 1646 - 625 .,87
 C ritique of Recent Intertextual C anonical In terpretation 183

using the term in its broadest sense - finds meaning by moving to an-
other level beyond the textual. It seeks to discern meaning by relating it
referentially to a substance (res), a rule of faith, or a hidden eschatologi-
cal event. Christian exegetical use of intertextuality moves along a tra-
jectory between promise and fulfillment within a larger christological
structure.17
In sum, it is not by chance that rabbinic ]udaism interprets its
Scriptures by means of midrash while Christianity has always found the
form of allegory most compatible along with its traditional figurative
subdivisions. My concern here is not to defend one approach as intrin-
sically superior to another, but simply to outline the very different inter-
pretive stances that reflect a different understanding of how the Bible
functions as a vehicle of revelation for these two religious communities.
Both ]udaism and Christianity have enlarged their sacred canons: Ju-
daism witb an Oral Torab, Christianity with a New Testament.
Tbe differences between the two interpretive approaches greatly
affect bow one understands the role of intertextuality within the Bible.
My aim is to argue that mucb exegetical and tbeological confusion
arises wben the distinction between the two approacbes is not recog-
nized.
Let me illustrate the point by returning to the debate over Cen 22.
According to V. 2 Abraham is commanded by Cod to go to the land of
Moriah and to sacrifice his son, Isaac, there. Nowhere in the OT is the
land of M oriab explicitly identified with ]erusalem. The closest refer-
ence is found in II Cbr 3,1, to the temple in }erusalem on M ount M or-
iab. Yet it was tbis indirect, below-tbe-surface relationship tbat caused
the midrasb to fill in the textual gap and identify the land of M oriab and
Jerusalem .18
It is significant to see bow M oberly bandies this problem. Be first
mounts a historical critical argument (geographical, historical, philo-
logical) in defense of the midrashic identification, much like that of
E. Blums.19 However, the stakes involved in the identification are much
bigber for Moberly. The significance of identifying M oriah witb Jerusa-
lem lies in the alleged, intertextual resonances by which to portray the
life and deatb of Jesus (according to M attbew) as analogous to the fear
of Cod exemplified by Abraham. In fact, an entire chapter is dedicated

17 C. Dohmen, Vom vierfachen Schriftsinn - Mglichkeiten und Grenzen neuerer Zu-

gnge zu biblischen Texten, in: T. Sternberg (ed.), Neue Formen der Schriftauslegung?,
QD 140, 1992, 21ff.
18 S. Speigel, The Fast Trial, 1967, for a profound analysis of the midrasbic interpre-
tations of Gen 22.
19 E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vtergeschichte, WMANT 57, 1984, 324-326.
184 Brevard s. Childs

to developing this intertextual relation between Abraham and ]esus at

]erusalem.
In response, I would argue that M oberly has been misled theologi-
cally by applying a midrashic approach as the grounds for developing a
theme never present intertextually in the NT. The analogy drawn be-
tween Abraham and ]esus (225ff.) is, at best, free-ranging homiletical
reflection. The differences in the N T s interpretation of the role of Ab-
raham is made clear by a comparison with the explicit references to
Gen 22 found in Rom 8,32, ]ames 2,18-24, and Heb 11,17-1 In all
three passages Gen 22 provides for the NT a figurative (allegorical) ap-
peal to the hidden substance undergirding the OT narrative whether de-
scribed as christology, faith, or justifying works.
When H. Frei,20 in one of his last essays, sought to defend bis her-
meneutical theory of narrative truth as self-referencing, be appealed to
midrash as a reality-creating text. In my judgment, be thereby moved in
a direction which for Christian tbeology can only end in confusion. In
sum, intertextual interpretation of Cbristian Scripture remains a useful
exegetical tool insofar as it retains its figurative linkage witb tbe tbeo-
logical content to wbicb it points. Tbis content is shared by both Old
and New Testaments, but it is disclosed in new and surprising ways to
each successive generation of serious readers.

The author offers a critical evaluation of recent intertextual interpretations. First, he

focuses on the hermeneutical proposals of G. Steins who seeks methodological clarification
by appealing to certain post-structuralist theories of intertextuality. Secondly, he offers a
critique of R.W.L. M oberlys exegesis of Gen 22. Finally, he addresses the problem of mid-
rash and allegory as two forms of figurative reading that appeal to intertextual construals.
Der Verf. bietet eine kritische Beurteilung neuerer intertextueller Interpretationen.
Zunchst geht er auf die hermeneutischen Vorschlge von G. Steins ein, der eine methodo-
logische Frzisierung durch den Rckgriff auf ^ s ttru k tu ra listis c h e Theorien von Inter-
textualitt zu erreichen versucht. Danach bietet er eine Kritik der Exegese von Gen 22
durch R.W.L. Moberly. Schlielich wendet er sich dem Frohlem von Midrasch und Allego-
rie als zwei Formen von figurativer Auslegung zu, die sich auf intertextuelle Konstruktionen
heziehen.
Tauteur propose une valuation critique des i^ erprtations intertextuelles rcentes.
11 se consacre tout dahord aux propositions hermneutiques de G. Steins, qui se fonde
sur certaines thories post-structuralistes de lintertextualit en vue dune clarification
mthodologique. 11 prsente ensuite une critique de lexgse de Gense, chap. 22 par
R.W.L. Moherly. Finalement, il ahorde le prohlme du midrash et de dallgorie, deux
formes dune lecture analogique qui fait appel une lahoration intertextuelle.

20 H. Frei, The Titeral Reading of Bihlical Narrative in the Christian Tradition, in:
F. McConnell (ed.), The Bihle and the Narrative Tradition, 174 ,86 .


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.