a native taxonomy of intertextuality, it does place these works within a broader modern critical stream of thought. Intertextual study is not some special mode of engagement with these works, but a basic to its analysis in every way, precisely because of the ubiquitous reuse of traditions as a basic form of literary composition. The final point I want to point to is the book’s emphasis on methodological issues. So much has been written on the contentious methodological approaches to intertextuality. and often the terminological stakes seem small. But this book has brought the issue to the fore in a dialectic way, as the authors of the articles often differ in their take on the relationship between reader-oriented and author-oriented approaches. Some authors, including the editors and notably Matlock, are skeptical of author-centred approaches that rely upon post-modern literary studies, since these approaches rely on modes of reading not usually associated with biblical studies. Others, notably Hogan and Bautch, emphasize the validity of reader-centred approaches, placing works into conversation, but disregarding authorial intention as a relevant criterion. This antipathy within the book is, I think, its greatest strength, because it not only shows the breadth and complexity of ‘intertextuality’ as a topic, but also that both authorand reader-centred approaches are inherently necessary and valid for understanding the dynamics of interpretation, composition, transmission, and change that define early Jewish literature. The book actively works to undermine the dichotomy of author-centred vs. reader-centred approaches, even if it explicitly sets up these options as polar opposites. Both are necessary and a spectrum exists between them. This book shows that no single method is sufficient, nor will a definitive and simple one ever be devised (much to the chagrin of some of the contributors who whinge at the methodological vagueness afflicting the field); instead, we should take the example of this book and work collaboratively to continue to interrogate the complexities of our ancient literary heritage. My most substantial issue with the book is that it almost entirely ignores the material discovered at Qumran, even though fragments of the deuterocanonical works (e.g. Tobit and Ben Sira) were discovered there. The people responsible for the production of the Scrolls read these works too and engaged in a process of interpretation and literary composition similar to the one that led to the composition of the deuterocanonical works. The Dead Sea Scrolls and deuterocanonical works are not siloed corpora sealed off from one another, but co-equal witnesses to the diversity of Jewish literary practices at the end of the Second Temple Period. This book leaves much work to be done in negotiating this relationship. But for those who work with early Jewish literature, and deuterocanonical texts in particular, this book is a useful resource that raises an important set of larger disciplinary questions.

中文翻译：

---

书评：基督是创造之心

作为互文性的原生分类法，它确实将这些作品置于更广泛的现代批判性思想流中。互文研究并不是对这些作品进行某种特殊的接触方式，而是对其各方面分析的基础，正是因为传统作为一种基本的文学创作形式无处不在。我想指出的最后一点是本书对方法论问题的强调。关于互文性的有争议的方法论方法已经写了很多。并且通常术语的风险似乎很小。但这本书以辩证的方式把这个问题推到了前台，因为文章的作者在以读者为导向和以作者为导向的方法之间的关系上往往有不同的看法。一些作者，包括编辑，尤其是 Matlock，对依赖后现代文学研究的以作者为中心的方法持怀疑态度，因为这些方法依赖于通常与圣经研究无关的阅读方式。其他人，特别是霍根和巴奇，强调以读者为中心的方法的有效性，将作品置于对话中，但不考虑作为相关标准的作者意图。我认为，书中的这种反感是其最大的力量，因为它不仅显示了“互文性”作为一个主题的广度和复杂性，而且还表明作者和以读者为中心的方法对于理解动态定义早期犹太文学的解释、构成、传播和变化。这本书积极致力于破坏以作者为中心与以读者为中心的方法的二分法，即使它明确将这些选项设置为对立面。两者都是必要的，并且它们之间存在范围。这本书表明，没有单一的方法是足够的，也不会设计出明确而简单的方法（这让一些对困扰该领域的方法论模糊的一些贡献者感到懊恼）；相反，我们应该以这本书为例，共同努力，继续探究我们古代文学遗产的复杂性。我对这本书最大的问题是它几乎完全忽略了在库姆兰发现的材料，即使在那里发现了氘代正典作品（例如托比特和本西拉）的片段。负责制作《古卷》的人也阅读了这些作品，并进行了类似于导致《后经》作品创作的解释和文学创作的过程。死海古卷和后世正典作品并不是相互隔离的孤立语料库，而是第二圣殿时期末期犹太文学实践多样性的共同见证。这本书在谈判这种关系方面还有很多工作要做。但对于那些研究早期犹太文学，尤其是后世正典文本的人来说，这本书是一个有用的资源，它提出了一系列重要的学科问题。死海古卷和后世正典作品并不是相互隔离的孤立语料库，而是第二圣殿时期末期犹太文学实践多样性的共同见证。这本书在谈判这种关系方面还有很多工作要做。但对于那些研究早期犹太文学，尤其是后世正典文本的人来说，这本书是一个有用的资源，它提出了一系列重要的学科问题。死海古卷和后世正典作品并不是相互隔离的孤立语料库，而是第二圣殿时期末期犹太文学实践多样性的共同见证。这本书在谈判这种关系方面还有很多工作要做。但对于那些研究早期犹太文学，尤其是后世正典文本的人来说，这本书是一个有用的资源，它提出了一系列重要的学科问题。