Original Research

Repliek op Van der Watt se artikel oor ‘Intertekstualiteit en oorinterpretasie: Verwysings na Genesis 28:12 in Johannes 1:51?’

Hennie F. Stander
In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi | Vol 51, No 1 | a2266 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i1.2266 | © 2017 Hennie F. Stander | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 07 May 2017 | Published: 24 October 2017

About the author(s)

Hennie F. Stander, Department of Ancient Languages, University of Pretoria, South Africa

Share this article

Bookmark and Share


A response to Van der Watt’s article on ‘Intertextuality and over-interpretation: References to Genesis 28:12 in John 1:51?’ This article is a response to an article of Van der Watt titled ‘Intertextuality and over-interpretation: References to Genesis 28:12 in John 1:51?’ (2016). He states in this article that his aim is ‘to illustrate the dangers of over-interpretation when dealing with intertextual relations between texts, especially when allusion is assumed’. He then gives a brief survey of different interpretations of John 1:51. Van der Watt shows in his article how theologians use themes from Genesis 28:12 (like the ladder, Jacob or Bethel, which are not mentioned in John 1:51) in their expositions of John 1:51. Van der Watt regards some of these expositions as examples of over-interpretation. The aim of my article is to show how Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 28:12 and John 1:51. I show in my article that the Church Fathers saw several parallels between these two sections from the Bible. Furthermore, I suggest that the early theologians’ interpretations formed a tradition that probably influenced modern interpreters of the Bible. I also discuss the role of typology in the history of interpretation, specifically also in the case of Genesis 28:12 and John 1:51. I then argue that it is perhaps not so far-fetched to see an intertextual relation between Genesis 28:12 and John 1:51.


Intertekstualiteit; Bybelinterpretasie; Evangelie van Johannes; Jakob te Betel


Total abstract views: 279
Total article views: 479

Crossref Citations

No related citations found.