Studies in
this area first seek to establish criteria which make the identification of
allusions as objective as possible. The following presents a list, as outlined
by the above-mentioned scholars, of those requirements deemed essential or important
for identifying the presence of this literary feature:
(1) The
source text must have been available to the writer. This demands as a basic
requirement the fact of the document’s existence prior to the time of the
writer who is alleged to allude to it.
(2) There
should be a significant resemblance of wording. There is some subjectivity with
regard to what constitutes resemblance and the amount of matching items
involved. It is possible that one word, if unique and used to convey the
exactly the same idea as in the source text, could constitute an allusion.
Obviously the more verbal correspondence that exists, or “volume” as Hayes
terms it, the greater the likelihood of deliberate allusion. The question of
uniqueness also factors importantly at this point, especially if the intertext
is located within the Synoptic Gospels. Since phraseology here may differ even
in parallel passages, it is sometimes the case that one particular author’s
wording contains words and phrases not found in the others. The appearance in
the alluding text of terms distinctly unique in the earlier text makes a much
stronger case that the association is in fact deliberate. On the other hand,
more general vocabulary is harder to claim as allusive. The question of
specificity of grammatical forms or syntactic structures is likewise highly
relevant.
(3) Another
criterion listed by Hays is that of recurrence. If there are other instances
where reference is made to the same intertext within the one document, then
this strengthens the case. The weight of this increases in proportion to the
narrowness of the intertext. A series of citations or well-established
allusions to the same book would lead some support to the claim of further
possible allusion. Yet if there are recurrent references to the same chapter or
same passage within that book then the probability of the definite allusion
increases considerably.
(4) Thematic
coherence is another essential consideration. The themes and ideas, as well as
the original context, of the intertext should all cohere with the contents and
context of the later text.
(5) Next is
the question of historical plausibility. It must be readily believable that a
writer living some distance of time after the publication of the earlier text
should have intended his words to be a reference to that text. It ought also be
credible that his readers or headers would have perceived the fact of the
allusion and its significance.
(6) Hays also
includes the matter of history of interpretation. The possibility that an
allusion has actually been made is given some confirmation if previous
interpreters of the secondary text have identified the same allusion to the
source text. This particular criterion, however, needs some qualification. It
is of course quite possible that the allusion has been previously discerned yet
not documented, or if documented not generally known. Furthermore, the new
allusions may be detected remains a distinct possibility. This criterion is
therefore perhaps the least reliable of all.
(7) Finally
comes the element of satisfaction. This criterion, Hays confesses, is the most
difficult of all to articulate. Its precise definition need not detain us here.
The basis of it is to ask in Hays’ own words, “does the proposed reading make
sense? Does it illuminate the surrounding discourse?” (Nicholas P. Lunn, The
Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
[Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2014], 63-64)
