Intertextuality and Religious Language

The main topic of the present article is whether the theory of intertextuality - in its classical form and narration formulated by Julia Kristeva, the author of the word intertextuality - can be used as a way to understand the meaning of language and religious texts? And that using intertextuality can achieve a single, complete and final meaning? And assuming meaning, what will be the state of objectivity in understanding the language of religion and religious texts? We have also answered the question that by emphasizing the intertextuality of texts, such as the dynamics and continuous processing of texts, during intertextuality, can the meaning of the text be equated with the author of the text? To gain meaning, Kristeva emphasizes the two components of subject and language alongside structure. Based on these two important components of Kristeva, which form the basis of the formation of intertextuality, the discussion is examined in two axes. Given that meaning is the result of cooperation and connection between language and subject, what is the purpose of understanding the meaning of religious propositions and basically the language of religion in both written and spoken forms? Does intertextuality provide a way to understand the meaning of the language of religion? As a result, we find that the use of intertextuality in the Valley of the Language of Religion cannot achieve a single meaning due to the dynamics of the language and the subject matter of Kristeva.