âWhat is Language but a Sound We Christen?â Poetic Retellings as an Improper Surprise for Biblical Reception Historyâ©
In: Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Samuel Tongue in
Current site
Google Scholar
Although overtly poetic interaction with biblical material has often been deemed beyond the pale in critical biblical scholarship, much work in reception history now positions such literature as part of the afterlife of a biblical text. While this is a welcome turn, this article argues that acts of poetic biblical retelling and recycling are more disruptive, troubling the ways in which critical scholarship operates. Utilising Timothy Bealâs thinking around the âcultural history of scriptureâ and analysing Roland Boerâs sceptical attitude toward reception-historical practices, the first section teases out the nuances of how certain modes of biblical interpretation are deemed primary (and thus more legitimate) and others secondary (and thus anachronistic).â©
As such, the second section introduces poetic retellings of biblical material that foreground how poetry is a literary space where knowledge is articulated in particularly performative idioms. Reading poems from Kei Miller and Michael Symmons Roberts that appropriate biblical material, this analysis demonstrates that the poetic retelling of biblical material is an act of writing that refuses secondary status and cannot be simplistically yoked to traditional modes of exegesis. In this way, poetry problematizes the originary-secondary binary in reception-historical interpretation and, at the same time, recasts historical-critical exegesis as another form of âsupplementalâ writing. This opens up the discipline to rethink some of its most protected interpretative paradigms and engage more fully with other forms of biblical âsupplementâ across the disciplines.â©
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
D. Attridge, âPerforming Metaphors: The Singularity of Literary Figurationâ, Paragraph 28, no. 2 (July 2005), pp. 18â34.
-
2
J. Z. Smith, âReligion and Bibleâ, Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1 (Spring 2009), pp. 5â27.
-
3
R. A. Kraft, âPara-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible Studiesâ, Journal of Biblical Literature 126, no. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 5â27. As Kraft explains, âOur evolving perceptions of the âparabiblicalâ (or as I now prefer, âparascripturalâ) are really less a subcategorization than an awareness of that large body of material (both text and tradition, as well as artwork and stones and buildings) that was respected and taken seriously by the people and cultures we studyâ (27). Although Kraft is concerned with historic âparascriptural materialâ, I believe his framing of this term has contemporary resonance and application.
-
6
J. Roberts and C. Rowland, âIntroductionâ, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010), pp. 131â36 (132).
-
8
R. A. Kraft, âPara-maniaâ, p. 17. Kraft makes the point, often forgotten or elided in reception histories, that we import modern ideas of what constitutes âscriptureâ into our studies of ancient literatures. He introduces the term âparascripturalâ to makes sense of material before (antecedent materials) and beside (alternate tellings) the eventually canonized material that has come down to us. He also identifies âthe âbeyondâ, the continued development (or metamorphosis) of our identified âscripturesâ into other versions, by way of translation, or expansion and incorporation, or through excerpting and summarizing, and the likeâ (p. 18).
-
10
T. Beal, âReception History and Beyondâ, p. 368. Beal also acknowledges that this ideal of finalization is further constrained by assuming that âthe Bibleâ refers to a Christian canon of scriptures (p. 368).
-
11
T. Beal, âReception History and Beyondâ, p. 368. Beal also acknowledges that this ideal of finalization is further constrained by assuming that âthe Bibleâ refers to a Christian canon of scriptures (p. 368).
-
14
W. J. Lyons, âHope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to New Testament Stu-dies from Reception Historyâ, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010), pp. 207â220 (215).
-
15
R. Boer, âAgainst âReception Historyâ, The Bible and Interpretation (May 2011), http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/boe358008.shtml (emphasis original). Accessed 18 June 2011.
-
16
R. Boer, âAgainst âReception Historyâ, The Bible and Interpretation (May 2011), http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/boe358008.shtml (emphasis original). Accessed 18 June 2011.
-
18
C. Heard, âIn Defense of Reception Historyâ, Blackwell Bible Commentaries Website, http://bbibcomm.net/2011/06/in-defense-of-reception-history/#more-216. Accessed 12 January 2012.
-
19
C. Heard, âIn Defense of Reception Historyâ, Blackwell Bible Commentaries Website, http://bbibcomm.net/2011/06/in-defense-of-reception-history/#more-216. Accessed 12 January 2012.
-
21
J. F. A. Sawyer, âThe Role of Reception Theory, Reader-Response Criticism and/or Impact History in the Study of the Bible: Definition and Evaluationâ, Blackwell Bible Commentaries Website, http://bbibcomm.net/files/sawyer2004.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2011.
-
23
M. C. Callaway, âWhatâs the Use of Reception History?â, p. 4.
-
24
S. M. Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), p. 2.
-
26
J. Roberts and C. Rowland, âIntroductionâ, p. 132; my emphasis.
-
27
C. Rowland, âRe-Imagining Biblical Exegesisâ, p. 144; my emphasis.
-
29
J. Derrida and E. Prenowitz, âArchive Fever: A Freudian Impressionâ, Diacritics 25, no. 2 (1995), pp. 9â63 (9).
-
32
J. Derrida, Of Grammatology, pp. 144â145; emphasis original.
-
38
T. Beal, âReception History and Beyondâ, p. 364; emphasis original.
-
41
T. Beal, âReception History and Beyondâ, p. 369; emphasis original.
-
47
G. L. Bruns, On the Anarchy of Poetry and Philosophy: A Guide for the Unruly, (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), p. 157; emphasis original.
-
48
G. L. Bruns, On the Anarchy of Poetry and Philosophy: A Guide for the Unruly, (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy; New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), p. 156.
-
49
D. Attridge, Peculiar Language: Literature as Difference from the Renaissance to James Joyce (London: Methuen, 1988), p. 130.
-
51
K. Miller, âSpeaking in Tonguesâ, in There Is an Anger That Moves (Manchester: Carcanet, 2007), p. 33.
-
52
K. Miller, âSpeaking in Tonguesâ, in There Is an Anger That Moves (Manchester: Carcanet, 2007), p. 33.
-
53
K. Miller, âSpeaking in Tonguesâ, in There Is an Anger That Moves (Manchester: Carcanet, 2007), p. 33.; my emphasis.
-
54
K. Miller, âSpeaking in Tonguesâ, in There Is an Anger That Moves (Manchester: Carcanet, 2007), p. 33.
-
59
K. Miller, âPsalm 151â, in Kingdom of Empty Bellies (Coventry: Heaventree Press, 2005), p. 54.
-
60
P. Valéry and C. Guenther, âPoetry and Abstract Thoughtâ, The Kenyon Review 16, no. 2 (Spring 1954), pp. 208â233 (214; emphasis original).
-
64
R. Barthes, âThe Grain of the Voiceâ, in Image, Music, Text (London: Fontana Press, 1987), p. 181; emphasis original.
-
65
Ibid., p. 182; emphasis original.
-
68
D. Attridge, âPerforming Metaphorsâ, pp. 20â21; emphasis original.
-
69
M. Symmons Roberts, âChoreographyâ, in Corpus (London: Jonathan Cape, 2004), p. 25.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 426 | 66 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 173 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 57 | 8 | 0 |
âWhat is Language but a Sound We Christen?â Poetic Retellings as an Improper Surprise for Biblical Reception Historyâ©
In: Biblical InterpretationSearch for other papers by Samuel Tongue in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Although overtly poetic interaction with biblical material has often been deemed beyond the pale in critical biblical scholarship, much work in reception history now positions such literature as part of the afterlife of a biblical text. While this is a welcome turn, this article argues that acts of poetic biblical retelling and recycling are more disruptive, troubling the ways in which critical scholarship operates. Utilising Timothy Bealâs thinking around the âcultural history of scriptureâ and analysing Roland Boerâs sceptical attitude toward reception-historical practices, the first section teases out the nuances of how certain modes of biblical interpretation are deemed primary (and thus more legitimate) and others secondary (and thus anachronistic).â©
As such, the second section introduces poetic retellings of biblical material that foreground how poetry is a literary space where knowledge is articulated in particularly performative idioms. Reading poems from Kei Miller and Michael Symmons Roberts that appropriate biblical material, this analysis demonstrates that the poetic retelling of biblical material is an act of writing that refuses secondary status and cannot be simplistically yoked to traditional modes of exegesis. In this way, poetry problematizes the originary-secondary binary in reception-historical interpretation and, at the same time, recasts historical-critical exegesis as another form of âsupplementalâ writing. This opens up the discipline to rethink some of its most protected interpretative paradigms and engage more fully with other forms of biblical âsupplementâ across the disciplines.â©
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 426 | 66 | 10 |
| Full Text Views | 173 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 57 | 8 | 0 |
