Inner Biblical Exegesis
Inner Biblical Exegesis
Inner Biblical Exegesis
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VetusTestamentum
XLII, 1 (1992)
by
LYLE ESLINGER
Calgary
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 LYLE ESLINGER
Traditionalreadingsof i.b.a.
For most criticalreaders, traditionalways of interpretingliterary
interconnectionsin the Bible have become problematic.We are not
as open to assumptions like inspiration, divine authorship, or
typological engineering of history. With few exceptions the com-
munity of critical readers relativize the suggestions of Jewish
midrash or Christian typology as expressions of a particular
religious community. Their readings are not accepted as serious
guides to the biblical authors' intent.' Our fondness for causal
analysis and our historicalmindsethave displaced these traditional
assumptions.
Fishbane'sworkon i. b.e.
Michael Fishbane has tried to systematizethe modern study of
i.b.e. with a scheme of generic categorization.2 He groups all
instances of i.b.e. under four rubrics: scribal, legal, aggadic, and
mantological exegesis. These four genres anticipate categories of
rabbinic exegesis, which Fishbane proposes as a heuristicmodel for
coming to grips with i.b.e. Fishbane's generic scheme, which pro-
vides a comprehensivestructureforhis book, has been criticizedfor
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 49
3 "In other
words, this act of categorization rather than some other approach
that not only would not adopt these specificcategories, but mighteven, in a man-
ner to be detailed presently, seek to present the material in an entirelydifferent
fashion betrays a desire (perhaps only subconscious) to say: exegesis in biblical
times was not terriblydifferentfromwhat we know in postbiblical times; indeed,
it was really rather proto-rabbinic" (J. Kugel, "The Bible's Earliest Inter-
preters", Prooftexts7 [1987], pp. 275-6).
4 Cf. P. Hoffken's review of Fishbane's book in BibOr 44
(1987), p. 752.
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 LYLE ESLINGER
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 51
6
Another example of the influence of this same assumption on his reading
comes in his discussion of the supposed reuse in 2 Sam. xvii 4b of 2 Sam xv 34:
"Indeed, the fairlyverbatim reuse of 2 Sam. 15:34 in 17:4b makes it clear that
while a later interpreterreceived a traditum
like that found in 2 Sam. 15, he rejected
it-and therewithsought to promote his particular theological design on the whole
episode. And just this is the retroactive effect" (p. 383). In the first place,
Fishbane relies heavily on reading David's wishful thinking-"And one told
David, saying, Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom. And David
said, 0 LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness" (2
Sam. xv 31)-as an actual prayer, a reading that is easily mooted. Second, he sug-
gests that David's "second" strategy,to send Hushai as an enemy to Absalom's
camp, is, in contrast, of purely human motivation, as if the so-called prayer were
not. Finally, Fishbane claims that the external, unconditioned narrator's report
that Yahweh was behind the entire scheme to confuse Absalom's advisement (2
Sam. xvii 14) is of contradictoryhistoriosophyto that behind the description of
David's purely human strategy.There are many problems with Fishbane's sug-
gestion. He neglectsentirelythe matterof the narrative's voice structure.But even
on a more basic level-that of the verisimilardetails of the story-is it not entirely
conceivable that within one and the same piece of narratorial reportage King
David mighthave one thingin mind and Yahweh, his divine leader, another? The
assumption of temporal distance between the "purely human design" and the
divine is, in fact, the engine that propels Fishbane's reading. The circularityof
the reading is obvious: an instance of i.b.e. is concocted primarily by means of
assuming a perspectival disparity that arises out of temporal separation of the
editors-the old and well worn fallacy of historical-criticalliteraryhistory.
7 (above, n. 3), p. 276.
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 LYLE ESLINGER
8
This is especially true when it is a systematic study whose appearance wins
for it an audience that assumes a reliable piece of thorough work. In fact, this is
how Fishbane's work has been received if the reviews are any guide.
9 K. W. Whitelam,
"Recreating the History of Israel", JSOT 35 (1986), pp.
45-70; T. L. Thompson, The OriginTraditionofAncientIsrael. I. The Literary Forma-
tionof Genesisand Exodus 1-23 (Sheffield, 1987); G. Garbini, Historyand Ideologyin
AncientIsrael (London and New York, 1988). Speaking of traditio-historically
based reconstructionsof ancient Israel's beginnings, Thompson says, "Such a
method is self-consciouslyinconclusive and, objectively, inconsequential" (p. 27).
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 53
10 The
LiteraryStudyof theBible (Boston, Mass., 1908), pp. vi-vii.
11 Cf., more
recently, B. S. Childs, Introduction
to theOld Testamentas Scripture
(Philadelphia and London, 1979).
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 LYLE ESLINGER
12 Cf.
John Day's recent comments on i.b.e. in the prophets, in which he too
wants to assume Pentateuchal priority: "In the present century, however, there
has been a general acceptance that, though the finalformof the Priestlylegislation
is relatively late, the tradition of law in ancient Israel antedates the prophets.
Although the prophets were not constantly quoting the letter of the law, it does
appearthat they were indebted to the traditionof the law" ("Prophecy", in D. A.
Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (ed.), It is Written: Scripture Cam-
CitingScripture
bridge, 1988, p. 39, my emphasis). To arrive at any real information in the
literary-historicalstudy of i.b.e. requires far more than appearance or intuition.
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 55
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 LYLE ESLINGER
vides much to bar or supportany dating. Nor does the book ofJob.
But that is just the point: Fishbane does not, Even if he did want
to make the argument,he probably could not forlack of historical
data.
An alternative:
thestudyof i.b.a.
An alternativestudy,one thatavoids these difficulties, is to study
i.b.a. as i.b.a.: as allusions and as biblical intertextuality.In the
case of the formerthere should be some literaryreason to assume
a vector of dependence; in the latter, there is none and we must
come at the semantics of the relationshipfromboth ends (texts).
Most biblical literaturealready followsthe sequence of the Bible's
own plot. From Genesis to Revelation, the day of creation to the
day of destruction,there is a plot line in which almost all biblical
literatureis implicated or within which it can be situated on the
basis of literaryevidence in the books.14 The well-known psalm
titlesprovide a precedentforsuch contextualizations.If a book or,
in the case of the Psalms, a particular psalm provides no such
referentthen we are compelled to read the literaryconnections as
theyappear: atemporallyand withoutassumptionsabout vectorsof
dependence. For such a study, the developed theory of intertex-
tualityprovides a rich theoreticalfoundation.15
I propose, then, a self-consciouslyliteraryanalysis of the textual
interconnectionsin biblical literature.In it, we continue to use the
indications of sequence that historical-criticalscholarship has
(improperly) relied on, but in full awareness of this reliance and
withoutthe conceit that we use a "scientific" historicalframework
independent of it.
An example of the resulting methodological clarificationwill
illustrate the proposed methodological attitude. Referring to
Fishbane's book, John Day says,
inJer.4:23 theprophetdescribesthereversaloftheprocessofcrea-
tion,and includedare thewords'I lookedon theearth,and lo, itwas
14
Of course,thereare similar,inclusivereadingsforthe textof the Hebrew
Bible alone (see, e.g. Dan Jacobson,TheStoryoftheStories.TheChosenPeopleand
Its God[New York, 1982]).
15 See, for
example, the annotated bibliographicsurvey by Don Bruce,
"BibliographieAnnoteeEcritssurL'Intertextualite",Texte2 (1983), pp. 217-58.
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 57
16
Cf. RobertPolzin,who characterizes me as someonetrappedin themiddle:
"Eslingeris at leastone stepbehindcontemporary humanistic because
scholarship
he recognizesthatbiblicalscholarshipitselfremainsmorethantwo stepsbehind
manyofitsdisciplinary partnersin thehumanities"("1 Samuel: BiblicalStudies
and the Humanities,Religious StudiesReview15 [1989], p. 303). For my part,in
theworkthatPolzincommentson, I made theconsciousdecisionthatitwas worth
datingmy own work,thoughnot, I hope, myself,to engage in a dialoguewith
historical-critical observations.It seemsto me thatthisis thewaythatthe
literary
disciplinecan go forward.Simplyignoringpreviousworkin orderto advance a
new approachwillonlycreatea loose associationofmethodological campswhose
energiesare absorbedby interminable factionalism.
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 LYLE ESLINGER
This content downloaded from 84.88.136.149 on Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:49:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions