Joachim J. Krause, «Aesthetics of Production and Aesthetics of Reception in Analyzing Intertextuality: Illustrated with Joshua 2», Vol. 96 (2015) 416-427
That intertextuality has come into vogue in Hebrew Bible scholarship is hardly surprising given some general trends in the field. In fact, the reconstruction of redactional activity and 'Fortschreibung' as well as inner-biblical interpretation are heavily dependent on the perception of intertextual relationships. But therein lies the problem. Has the perceived relationship indeed been established by the author of one of the biblical texts in question (aesthetics of production), or does it merely lie in the eye of the beholder (aesthetics of reception)? Two competing claims regarding an intertextual relationship of Joshua 2 are singled out for discussion.
05_AN_Krause_416_co_416-427 30/10/15 13:13 Pagina 424
424 JOACHIM J. KRAUSE 424
The Rahab story has been conceived of as a counternarrative, and to
phrase my claim in this manner implies that the intertextual relationship at
hand is not merely a fancy of the interpreter. Rather, it has been intended
by the author of Joshua 2. He or she actually wanted the addressees to un-
derstand the Rahab story in light of the Deuteronomistic example story of
Num 25,1-5, thus enabling them to fully comprehend the moral of the story.
Admittedly, it is rather bold to determine what a biblical author did or
did not intend. In order to support such a claim, we should seek further
evidence. And there is further evidence. In addition to the semantic cor-
respondence of Joshua 2 and Num 25,1-5 demonstrated above, there is
another feature linking the two texts. In Num 25,1 the camp’s location is
called Shittim (~yjXh), and Josh 2,1 explicitly states that Joshua sent the
spies from Shittim (taken up in Josh 3,1). Measured against the lengthy list of
observations adduced in favor of the alleged relationship with the spy epi-
sode, this single finding might seem negligible. Yet in contrast to the former,
it is significant. Apart from Numbers 25 and Joshua 2, there is no other
narrative in the Hebrew Bible connected with the place name Shittim 24.
Moreover, it should be noted that the mention of a place name in Josh 2,1
(and even more so its repetition in Josh 3,1) is superfluous from a narrative
point of view (cf. Josh 1,1). Hence this feature seems to serve a different
function. It is a textual marker, that is, a means used by the author to call
attention to the intertextual relationship 25. Especially in the context of the
theme of foreign women treated in both texts, the addressees of the Rahab
story can hardly have failed, I would argue, to notice this marker.
Finally, in light of Num 25,1-5 certain conspicuous peculiarities of
Joshua 2 are easily explained — if they do not explain themselves altogether.
First and foremost, this is the case for the role played by Rahab. Of course
the story is all about her. The foreign woman gains center stage, since ‘for-
eign women’ is the theme addressed by the author. In like manner Rahab’s
confession, too, can now be accounted for. The foreign woman is presented
24
Mention of it is made also in the itinerary of Numbers 33 (v. 49) and
in Mic 6,5; Joel 4,18.
25
For the marking of intertextuality, see J. HELBIG, Intertextualität und
Markierung. Untersuchungen zur Systematik und Funktion der Signalisierung
von Intertextualität (Heidelberg 1996); for the use of place names as textual
markers, see K. NIELSEN, “Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible”, Congress Volume
Oslo 1998 (eds. A. LEMAIRE – M. SÆBØ) (VTS 80; Leiden – Boston, MA 2000)
23. Another example where explicit reference to the locale is an essential part
of the narrative and provides the reader with a clue to a textual relationship
would be the preparation for Joshua 24 and its setting in Shechem in Gen
35,1ff.; see also Gen 33,19 with Gen 50,25b.26 and Exod 13,19; for a discus-
sion, see E. BLUM, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu
Richter. Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag”, Textgestalt und Komposition, 269-273.