One of our bloggers, Stanley E. Porter, has recently come out with a new book published by Baker Academic called Sacred Tradition in the New Testament: Tracing Old Testament Themes in the Gospels and Epistles. It is not your standard OT in the NT treatment but examines rigorously the methodology behind the subject of the OT in the NT, including critical assessments of current ways of approaching the subject. Porter also picks out some key passages where sacred traditions (i.e., the OT but also tradition in general) appear in the NT. One of the chapters is a contribution by Bryan Dyer, who examines the use of Esau in Romans and Hebrews. Porter’s final chapter before the conclusion, the theme of “Jesus Christ” in Paul’s letters, is a unique one in this discussion.
While all of the chapters make a contribution to this subject, I think that his chapters on background and methodology are the most helpful for readers who have an intermediate understanding of “how” the NT uses the OT. He addresses the difficulties of terms such as allusion, echo, and intertextuality that sometimes are used loosely and in an overlapping way. Readers will find this book to be a helpful resource.
— David I. Yoon
DOMAIN THIRTY-THREE 
David,
I recently read your article on intertextuality or inter-textuality in CBR. I found you overall analysis and explanation of the post-modern underpinnings enough to deter me from using the term in reference to inner-biblical allusion. However, I was left disappointed by your suggested solution–insert a hyphen i.e. “inter-textuality”–as a means of making a distinction between what a biblical scholar like Hays means and a literary critic like Kristeva means. The reason being, it doesn’t help if one is speaking orally, say, in a lecture or classroom setting. I am wondering if Porter takes the same approach in this book, or if he offers another suggestion.
LikeLike
Daniel,
Thanks for this question, although it’s not relevant to this post. But glad you came across my article and thought it was helpful. I completely understand your disappointment, however, with my suggestion for “inter-textuality.” My reason for it, though, was a bit of a compromise, because the term has been advanced so much nowadays, and I thought some minor distinction might be agreeable. Who knows? But I appreciate your thoughts. All the best.
— Dave
LikeLike
Daniel,
Also, to address your other questions, Porter has written on the term intertextuality and does not like it either, for very similar reasons, unless it was used consistently with Kristeva’s objective. But also regarding your disappointment of “inter-textuality,” most of the discussion is in written form, so the distinction does help. But if you or any others had another suggestion for a replacement word, I’d be happy to hear it.
— Dave
LikeLike
Dave,
Unfortunately, I don’t have a novel suggestion, but I am surprised that with all the work done by literary critics there isn’t a term suitable for what biblical scholars are trying to communicate when writing/speaking about inter-textuality. In general, your suggestion does work, when applied to written forms. Just thought I would point out an exception and see what you thought. Thank you for the follow up!
LikeLike
Dan,
Right, it does make a difference when spoken; that’s a good point. Thanks for that. No problem, thanks for the interaction.
— Dave
LikeLike