J. Kristeva, “Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le man.” Critique 33 (1967), pp. 438-65.

J. Kristeva, “Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le man.” Critique 33 (1967), pp. 438-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

For example: E. van Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honor of Bas van Iersel (Kampen, 1989), pp. 43-49, rejects such approaches that are affirmed by scholars such as: K. Nielsen, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible,” Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSupp 80; Leiden, 1998), pp. 17-31; M. Fishbane, “Types of Biblical Intertextuality,” Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSupp 80; Leiden, 1998), pp. 39-44; etc.

For example: E. van Wolde, “Trendy Intertextuality” in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honor of Bas van Iersel (Kampen, 1989), pp. 43-49, rejects such approaches that are affirmed by scholars such as: K. Nielsen, “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible,” Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSupp 80; Leiden, 1998), pp. 17-31; M. Fishbane, “Types of Biblical Intertextuality,” Congress Volume Oslo 1998 (VTSupp 80; Leiden, 1998), pp. 39-44; etc.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

See such discussion in Tull, p. 75, on whether Isaiah used Nahum or Nahum used Isaiah. As will be discussed further below in the case of Psalm 51, the allusions between the prophets and the psalm are often discussed. While some point to the psalm depending on the prophets, as in F. L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalms 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 2005), pp. 15-18, others suggest the opposite, for example: W. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1986), pp. 150-55, who later appears to have changed his mind in The Psalms through Three Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis, 1993), p. 58.

K. Nielson, “ ‘From Oracles to Canon’—And the Role of Metaphor” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17 (2003), pp. 22-33; c.f. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield, 1989), pp. 65-66, argues that “imagery can be reused in another context” and that the transmission of images may have played a role in redactional processes. Imagery was open and available for use and reuse and that one image or metaphor could be used in a variety of situations and still have meaning. Nielson elsewhere (“Intertextuality”) argues that central metaphors may act as markers for intertextual readings, in which a subsequent text appropriates a metaphor from an earlier text, thereby cueing the audience to think of that prior text while readings/listening to the next.

K. Nielson, “ ‘From Oracles to Canon’—And the Role of Metaphor” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17 (2003), pp. 22-33; c.f. There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield, 1989), pp. 65-66, argues that “imagery can be reused in another context” and that the transmission of images may have played a role in redactional processes. Imagery was open and available for use and reuse and that one image or metaphor could be used in a variety of situations and still have meaning. Nielson elsewhere (“Intertextuality”) argues that central metaphors may act as markers for intertextual readings, in which a subsequent text appropriates a metaphor from an earlier text, thereby cueing the audience to think of that prior text while readings/listening to the next.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Sweeney, pp. 108-111, suggests this unit provides a “climactic conclusion” to the preceding section that describing the “cleansing of Zion” in 2:22-4:1. He classifies this unit as a “description of salvation,” even though it lacks the usual opening messenger formula.

Holladay, Jeremiah, p. 157, points out that this passage is unique in the Hebrew Bible in that its verb takes the object “heart.” He compares this to the reference in v. 4: “Be circumcised to Yahweh, remove the foreskin of your heart.” Both the washing of the heart and circumcision of the heart calls for “a radical renovation of the character, the will, to render it fit for covenant with Yahweh.” R. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (otl; Philadelphia, 1986), p. 163, connects this command to wash to Isa 1:16.

Holladay, Jeremiah, p. 157, points out that this passage is unique in the Hebrew Bible in that its verb takes the object “heart.” He compares this to the reference in v. 4: “Be circumcised to Yahweh, remove the foreskin of your heart.” Both the washing of the heart and circumcision of the heart calls for “a radical renovation of the character, the will, to render it fit for covenant with Yahweh.” R. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary (otl; Philadelphia, 1986), p. 163, connects this command to wash to Isa 1:16.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Holladay, Psalms, p. 58, points to the common use of כבס in Psalm 51 and Jeremiah 2 and 4, as well as the psalm’s use of other phrases from Jeremiah, to argue for Psalm 51’s dependency on Jeremiah. He further argues that Jeremiah appears to be dependent on Isaiah (specifically Isa 1:15-20 and Isa 5:1-7), although this is less evident. Holladay affirms that Psalm 51 here is dependent on Jer 31:33, as he argues not only from their common messages but also on the basis of the common roots for “[re]new,” and “heart.” Thus, Holladay dates Psalm 51 to the exilic or post-exilic period on the basis of its dependency on Jeremiah. Furthermore, he argues that Psalm 51 reflects the intense awareness of sin that emerged in the exilic and post-exilic period. The issue of dating will discussed further below.

Holladay, Psalms, p. 58, points to the common use of כבס in Psalm 51 and Jeremiah 2 and 4, as well as the psalm’s use of other phrases from Jeremiah, to argue for Psalm 51’s dependency on Jeremiah. He further argues that Jeremiah appears to be dependent on Isaiah (specifically Isa 1:15-20 and Isa 5:1-7), although this is less evident. Holladay affirms that Psalm 51 here is dependent on Jer 31:33, as he argues not only from their common messages but also on the basis of the common roots for “[re]new,” and “heart.” Thus, Holladay dates Psalm 51 to the exilic or post-exilic period on the basis of its dependency on Jeremiah. Furthermore, he argues that Psalm 51 reflects the intense awareness of sin that emerged in the exilic and post-exilic period. The issue of dating will discussed further below.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Kraus, p. 501, argues that the references to a “clean heart” and “spirit of obedience” in Ps 51:10-12 are reminiscent of similar values found in Jer. 24:7; 31:33; 32:39 and Ezek 36:25ff, and that the repudiation of the sacrificial system reflects common concepts in Amos 5:22; Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20, etc.

Sabourin, pp. 48, 242-3, dates Psalm 51 to the period of the exile based on similar themes found in Jer 24:7; 31:33; Ezek 11:19; 36:25ff; and Amos 5:22; Isa 1:11: Mic 6:7; etc. He points to certain “eschatological realities” of blood, the Holy Spirit and clean heart that would reflect the exilic period. Johnson, pp. 414-15, also views Psalm 51 as drawing extensively on prophetic material and thus argues that it must be dated according to its use of the prophets. See similar comments in: Mays, p. 199, Hossfeld and Zenger, p. 18; Edward Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Patternism (Leiden: Brill, 1962), pp. 220-30; etc. Hossfeld and Zenger, p. 18, go so far as to say that the prophetic texts of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are alluded to by Psalm 51 and should thus inform a reading of the psalm as reflecting a common collective experience of the community.

See, for example: Tate, Psalms 51-100, p. 9; Hossfeld and Zenger, p. 16; Kraus, p. 42; etc.

See, for example: Tate, Psalms 51-100, p. 9; Hossfeld and Zenger, p. 16; Kraus, p. 42; etc.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Hossfeld and Zenger, p. 16, suggest the mention of rebuilding does not necessitate a date of composition prior to the building of the second temple; rather, it points toward an eschatological restoration and is not dependent on the historical events of the rebuilding.