Inner Biblical Exegesis

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 13

Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category

Author(s): Lyle Eslinger


Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 47-58
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519119
Accessed: 25-11-2015 14:49 UTC

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)

INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND


INNER-BIBLICAL ALLUSION:
THE QUESTION OF CATEGORY

by

LYLE ESLINGER
Calgary

Taken as a book, the Bible is litteredwith self-referential allu-


sions. Hardly a journal issue goes by without an essay on some
aspect of the networkof literarylinkages. No doubt such literary
richness is a product of the Bible's lengthy production history
within the same literaryand cultural stream; most modern effort
has been spent uncovering and describing its history. The work
continues-some suggestwithdiminishingprospectsof accomplish-
ment. Recently the studyof inner-biblicalallusions has borne pro-
mise of supplying some much-needed evidence on which to base
theorizing about the Bible's compositional history. From such a
point of view the allusions are called inner-biblicalexegesis (i.b.e.).
The hope is thatexamples of i.b.e. provide a more concreteavenue
into the editingand anthologizingprocess thatresultedin the inter-
connected compendium we know as the Bible.
Throughout the the Bible's received history differentreading
communities have made differentthings of inner-biblicalallusion
(i.b.a.). To theJews it showed the fulnessof Torah-Torah inter-
preting Torah, a book whose literaryform reflectsthe intercon-
nected universe of God's ordered creation. For Christians it
revealed the hand of providence mapping out a course to the con-
clusive redemptive event, a series of foreshadowing historical
events along the path fromold to new covenant. And now the com-
munity of historical-criticalreaders take i.b.a. as evidence of the
Bible's extended composition and tryto use it as an entrypoint to
a historicalunderstandingof the book. These three reading com-
munities share a common reading perception-literary
repetition-and a common psychology of response to it-
recognition.From thatcommonality,however, each travelsa direc-

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

tion determinedby the varyinghermeneuticalassumptionsbrought


along to the text.

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

I Of course, I am not so naive as to presume that such assumptions do not play


a strong part in the implicit hermeneutics of much modern biblical scholarship.
2
M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in AncientIsrael (Oxford, 1985). Having
writtenan article on "inner-biblical exegesis" in 1980 ("Hosea 12:5a and Genesis
32:29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis", JSOT 18 [1980], pp. 91-9), I have
since begun to doubt the appropriateness of this epithet as a blanket description
for the literary interconnectionsin the Bible. The noun "exegesis" implies an
authorial intent at exposition or interpretation.Many instances of literaryinter-
connection in the Bible do not go beyond the playfulness of simply touching on
a literaryantecedent and some may even be unconscious on the part of the author
yet emminently significant to the reading community. The other literary
phenomenon to which this epithetis applied, especially by Fishbane, is the exposi-
tional comment or gloss. Again there is a primary difficultyin the application of
this term, with its attendant literary-historicalassumptions, to a text forwhich we
have so little of the necessary background materials to make informedhistorical
judgements. Is an apparent gloss in the text the product of a secondary authorial
hand (the infamous "redactor") or the expositional comment of the self-samenar-
rative voice that describes the sequence of events in a piece of narration?

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

forcingi.b.e. into a rabbinic mold.3 Nevertheless, the foundation


for his generic typing of i.b.e. is a historical approach squarely
withinthe provinceofliteraryhistory.His book is known foradopt-
ing D. A. Knight's traditioltraditum
terminologyto describe the pro-
cess of traditionformationand adaptation. This distinction4and
the overarchingframeworkof traditio-historical literaryhistoryset
the limits and assumptions within which the book came to
expression.
According to Fishbane, inner-biblicalexegesis, like its rabbinic
successor, tried to make the obscure clear, to expand the
applicability of the text (section two, "Legal exegesis"), and to
bring the sacred traditions up to date. Both Fishbane's rabbinic
model and his historical viewpoint lead him to make two key
assumptions about literary connections in the Bible. Alleged
exegetical comments are always marked by two things: temporal
distance and authorial differentiation between the exegetical com-
ment and the text commented upon. The firstassumption is that
an author does not write an interpretativegloss on his own text.
Exposition always comes from the pen of some other since an
authorhas no need to reinterpretwhat he says. The second assump-
tion is that if there is some interconnectionof separate texts,say a
propheticbook and a pentateuchalbook, any discussion of the sup-
posed exegesis presumes a demonstrable precedence. You cannot
discuss the qualities of diachronicinterpretationin the detailed way
that Fishbane does if you are not sure which way the literarycon-
nection points.
Some examples will highlightthe assumptions. The firstassump-
tion allows only straightdescription,withoutasides or any sort of
expositional comment, in any unilaterally authored document.
This assumption is characteristicof the literarynaivete-a one-
sided simplicityto be sure-of historicalcriticism.Only with com-
plete disregard fornarrativevoice structure,especially the diverse

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

modalities available in a narrator's voice, could anyone make this


assumption. Ch. 2 of Fishbane's book, "Lexical and Explicative
Comments", is full of supposed examples of i.b.e. that depend
entirely on it. So, for example, Ezek. xxxi 18b is supposed to
illustrate a certain kind of i.b.e. where "scribal tradents occa-
sionally supplemented indeterminate textual references with
explicatorycomments" (p. 46).
The verse reads as follows:
To whomcan you be comparedforgloryand greatnessamongthe
treesofEden? Yet you shallbe broughtdownwiththetreesofEden
unto the netherworld,and you will lie among the uncircumcised,
withthoseslain by the sword.
He is Pharaohand all his multitude,says the Lord GOD (hutpar?oh
neum do6nay
wekol-hamond yhwh,Ezek. xxxi 18).
For Fishbane the deictic functionof the pronoun hu' is a formulaic
markerof a gloss (pp. 44-5) and this makes for"a relativelyobjec-
tive identification"as opposed to more impressionisticallyisolated
examples (p. 56). The assumption is that the "original author" of
Ezek. xxxi would not have used the deictic hu'.5 Yet a reader-
Fishbane is an example-or an author-the supposed inner-biblical
exegete would be an example-might find the pronominal objects
in v. 18 ambiguous. As Fishbane says, "this leads to an ambiguity,
subsequentlycorrectedby a laterscribe ..." (p. 47, my emphasis).
Why later? Why not by the "original" author? Does it not make
as much sense, maybe more, forthe "original" author to clarifyan
ambiguity?Or do we assume that ambiguityis dysfunctionaland
always expunged instead of clarifiedwhen perceived by an author?
These questions must be dealt withbeforethe assumptionof a tem-

5 A. Even-Shoshan A NewConcordance oftheBible(Jerusalem and GrandRapids,


1989), p. 282 lists45 paralleldeicticconstructions to thatfoundin Ezek. xxxi 18
Josh.iii 1, vii 6, viii 10, 14, x 7; Judg. vii 11, viii 4, ix 33, 48, xviii30, xix 9;
1 Sam. ix 26, xviii27, xix 18, xxvii2, 3, xxviii8, xxix 11, xxx9, 10, 31; 2 Sam.
xvii 24; 1 Kgs xi 17, xx 12, 16; 2 Kgs v 15, ix 14, xiv 11, xxiv 12, xxv 1; Jer.
xxii4, xxii28, xxxvii2, xli 7, lii 4; Ezek. xxx 11, xxxi 18; Amos i 15; Ruth i 1;
Neh. i 2, iii 12, xii 8; 1 Chron. xxiii 13, xxv 9, xxvi26; 2 Chron. xxv 21, xxxii
26). There is good rhetoricalreasonto reidentify the Egyptiansubjectof v. 18.
Pharaohand his armywereintroducedin v. 2 but thenthe subjectshiftsto the
likeness-the Assyrians-untilv. 18. To conclude v. 18 by reidentifying the
secondpersonobjectofYahweh'swrathas Pharaoh-"thatis Pharaoh..."-is as
acceptableas any otherdeicticspecifying clause.

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

poral dissonance in the voice structureof the verse can be brought


into play.
This particularexample holds its own irony. Fishbane goes on to
show that v. 18, gloss included, is tied to the rest of Ezek. xxxi by
a chiastic structurethat depends on inclusion of the material in the
supposed gloss. The existing text, with ambiguity followed by
expositional clarification,thus creates a meaningful structure.So
why thinkin termsof a later redactor?Of course, forFishbane this
literaryintegritywould be an example of exegetical ingenuity,not
of the text's integrity.Thus the only thing that makes Ezek. xxxi
18b an example of i.b.e. ratherthan a piece of authorial exposition
of the same cloth as the rest of the chapter is the assumption that
the deictic use of the pronoun is a tool wielded by later "tradents".
Obviously the opposite assumption-that expositional comments
should always be traced to "the originalauthor"-is equally unfor-
tunate. Fishbane's approach here is not fundamentallywrong-
headed; it is just not well-thought out.6
A more serious weakness in Fishbane's approach arises fromhis
reliance on historical-critical literary history. James Kugel7

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

criticizedFishbane's genericscheme and proposed, instead, thatwe


studyinstances of i.b.e. froma simpler,literary-historical perspec-
tive. But Fishbane's categorical analysis is already premised on the
diachronic assumptions of historical-criticalliteraryhistory. Such
an approach to i.b.a. can only be as good, as reliable, and as useful
as the literaryhistoryon which it is based. If the model of the
Bible's literary history is wrong, the analyses of inner-biblical
exegeses can only compound the fallacy.8
Unfortunately,recenthistoricalworkon the Bible is increasingly
pessimisticabout using it as a source forwritingabout its own or
ancient Israel's history. There is now strong criticism for
historiographicalwork that relies heavily on the Bible as a source.
Scholars such as K. W. Whitelam, T. L. Thompson, and G. Gar-
bini say that past historiesof ancient Israel offerlittle more than
paraphrase, followinghard on the heels of the biblical narrative
presentations.9All notions about the literaryhistoryof the Bible
depend on prior notions about Israel's national history,especially
its social and culturalhistory.Literaryhistoryis writtenwitha view
to organizing the Bible's literature according to the known
sequence of events in Israel's history.In turn, the latterhas been
based, in part, on the former. In consequence, history writing
about the Bible and ancient Israel is oftenrifewithcircularreason-
ing. Inevitably, there is little basis for consensus about Israel's
history,once we set aside the plot of the Bible itself,and even less
for a dependent scheme of biblical literaryhistory.Of course, in
practice there is often a fair amount of agreement about literary
history,but this is precisely because scholarship relies heavily on
the Bible's own plot of Israelite history.With that reliance comes
common assent to the literaryprioritiesimplied in the Bible and we
end up withcommonalitieslike the assumption, once more growing
in popularity,that the prophetsdepend on the the Pentateuch. To

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

be sure, there is a difference:now we speak of prophetic reliance


on the traditionsof the Pentateuch.
The study of i.b.a. as i.b.e. requires knowledge of literary-
historicalprecedence forthe textsinvolved in allusions: we need to
know which way the vector of allusion points. The inquiry is
jeopardized by the unstable foundationsof currentbiblical literary
historybecause the manner of understandingthe literaryconnec-
tions is historical. Compounding the problem, as R. G. Moulton
noted in the early part of this century,10many biblical books lack
sufficientreferenceto the date of the events theydescribe or to the
date of theirown creation. Such dismal historicalresources simply
will not supportthe luxuryof a contemplativehistoricalinterpreta-
tion.11But withouta historicalfocus the study of i.b.e. is without
sense.
A good example of the problem and of Fishbane's awareness of
it is found in the wife-sistermotif in Gen. xii, xx, and xxvi.
Fishbane says,
even the discerniblevariationsin such parallel scenariosas the
'Matriarch of Israel in Danger' may not be exegetically
interrelated-sothatGen. 26 is nota reworking ofGen. 20, and it,
in turn,a moralistic
revisionofGen. 12:10-20,as contendedbyKoch
and Sandmel. For it may ratherbe the case that a core tradition
preexistedor underliesthesediversenarratives.If thisbe the true
natureof things,each of the scenarioswould then be a separate
developmentof a commontype-scene,and the notablevariations
betweenthemwould indicatedifferent versionsof thistype-scenein
differentculturalcircles:none would be a specificexegeticalcom-
ment on the other, ... (pp. 283-4).

The problem of literarilyrelated passages of indeterminateprov-


enance is crucial fora historicalapproach to biblical intertextuality.
First, Fishbane is in a bad position to determinewhich of Gen. xii,
xx, or xxvi is dependent on the other(s). Second, it may indeed be
that thereis a common antecedent to all threeversions of this inci-
dent: shall we ever know? As Fishbane's says, "if this be the true
nature of things ..."; only if the supposed "Q" of these chapters
were discovered could he be certain. Such uncertaintyis congenital

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

to the approach to literaryinterrelationshipsin the Bible through


literaryhistory.
When we look at Fishbane's discussions of literaryconnections
what we get, most often,is an assumed vector of influence.In his
discussion of Amos' reliance on the Pentateuch Fishbane says,
"even thislack of explicitreferencesis not sufficientto gainsay the
strongimpression made by the sources that Amos was aware of
ancient Israelite legal traditions,and thathe made use of them ... "
(p. 295, my emphasis). Here, where his literary-historical
endeavour requires hard evidence and a demonstrable vector of
precedence, he can only offera "strong impression". Some may
share Fishbane's assumptionsabout the historicalprecedence of the
Pentateuch over the propheticbooks; othersmay not. Ironically it
was precisely that assumption against which the early historical
criticssuch as Wellhausen had to argue so strongly.Each claim for
Pentateuchal priorityrequires demonstration,not assumption. The
literaryargumentsthatWellhausen and othersproposed were not,
afterall, entirelydependent on any supposed scheme forthe evolu-
tion of Israelite religion. Hence, one cannot sweep Wellhausen's
readings aside for reason of "Hegelian" notions about religious
evolution.12
Another example is Fishbane's analysis of the supposed
exegetical connection between Jer. iii 1 and Deut. xxiv 1-4, with
the formerdepending on the latter (p. 308). Fishbane lists this
example under the heading, "D. THE EXEGESIS OF CIVIL
LAWS WITH FORMULAE OF CITATION AND COM-
PARISON". The suggestion, when one compares this heading
with the one that follows it ("E. THE EXEGESIS OF CIVIL
LAWS WITHOUT FORMULAE OF CITATION AND COM-
PARISON"), is that here we have some clear-cut examples.
Inevitably, Fishbane supplies no argumentsto supporthis assump-
tion, which again followsthe traditionalview about the priorityof

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

the Pentateuch over the latter prophets. Instead, he sets the


passages in parallel columns to highlightvocabulary parallels. Then
he says, "if one may validly conclude fromthe foregoingthat the
lexical and topical components of Deut 24:1-4 provided the
substantive matrix forJeremiah's speech, it is none the less the
aggadic variationsof thislatterwhich constituteits uniqueness" (p.
308). Tautology aside, we are leftwithnothingmore than an asser-
tion, perhaps a shared assumption about the Pentateuch's priority,
and a bit of distractingliteraryappreciation. The real question is
whetherit is at all possible to prove the dependence of theJeremiah
passage on the book of Deuteronomy. At the very least an argu-
ment beyond vocabulary parallels would be needed, since these are
nicely accounted for by a theory of a common source (or tradi-
tion).'3 Perhaps an argument fromsyntacticallusion might do; a
simple assertion will not.
One last example: the supposed exegetical relationshipbetween
Ps. viii 5-7 and Job vii 17-18. Here, the assumption stands out
quite nakedly. Fishbane assumes that the book ofJob plays on the
Psalms and not vice versa ("the exegetical revision of Ps. 8:5-7 by
Job 7:17-18 is sharp and clear" p. 285). The literaryconnection is
indeed clear; what is not is the assumed priorityof the passage from
the Psalms ("the older question is thus inverted"). We could as
easily read the Psalm as an allusive correctiveof Job's excessive
cynicism, a pious riposte to Job's exaggerated sense of personal
rightand freedom.And one mightjust as well argue forthe Psalm's
priority:neitherthe book of Psalms nor this particular psalm pro-

13 Fishbane's answerto the problemof textualprecedenceis insufficient; in


fact, it is only a restatement of his assumptions: "the identificationof aggadic
exegesis where external objective criteriaare lacking is proportionallyincreased to
the extent that multiple and sustained lexical linkages between two texts can be
recognized, and where the second text ... uses a segment of the first... in a lex-
and topically rethematized
ically reorganized way" (p. 285, note his use of "re"). Cer-
tainly multiple lexical linkages arouse our suspicion of a literary relationship
between such texts, but they do not in themselves exhibit which text has simply
organized and thematized and which has" reorganized" and "rethematized" the
material. Once again, Fishbane's methodological rule betrays the operation of
fundamental assumptions about text sequencing in the Bible. The recent discus-
sion of Thomas Dozeman goes far beyond Fishbane in recognizing the problem.
His adversion to theories of intertextualityoffersa superior model to Fishbane's
rabbinic exegetes for dealing with the textual links within the Bible ("Inner-
Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh's Gracious and Compassionate Character",
JBL 108 [1989], pp. 207-9, 216, 223).

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

waste and void (tohulwabohu),which recalls the descriptionof


primevalchaos in Gen. 1:2. Accordingto Fishbane(1985, p. 321)
Jeremiahis directly dependenton Genesis1. However,in viewofthe
widelyaccepted evidence thatP did not attainits finalformbefore
thesixthcenturyBC. I inclineto see herean allusionto thetradition
behind the P account of Genesis 1 ratherthan Genesis 1 itself
([above, n. 12] p. 41).
Both Day and Fishbane rely predominatelyon the implications
supplied by the biblical plot. The Jeremianictextalludes to the text
from Genesis, and not vice versa, because Genesis comes before
Jeremiah as naturallyas creation comes beforethe exile. From the
perspectiveof the Bible's own plot line it would be absurd to look
at it any otherway. Fishbane leaves it at that, though of course he
views it fromthe perspectiveof a literaryhistorianand in the belief
that theJeremianic text trulydoes flowfromthat in Genesis. Day
also accepts the directionof the biblical plot but refinesit with the
condition that it must be the traditionalantecedent to the Genesis
text thatJeremiah refersto because the P text did not yet exist in
Jeremiah's day. One wonders what stops Day fromsuggestingthat
the P textof Genesis alludes to theJeremianictextor to the contem-
porarytraditionreflectedin the book ofJeremiah? He wants to say
that the Genesis text is later than theJeremianic, so why not com-
plete the inversionby saying that the Genesis text also depends on
the traditionfromJeremiah's day? Could the reason be the estab-
lished indication of vector provided by the biblical plot?
The study of the Bible has moved through at least two stages.
Just now it seems caught between the second and a new third
stage.16First, it was read as historyand its plot was taken for the
real sequence of events that it describes. Second, in a reactionary
movement still dominated by concern for history but now

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

suspicious of the historyof the plot it portrays,the Bible was read


as a reflection,both of the historythat its plot lays out and, more
clearly, of the period and societyin which it was written.It is out
of this second stage of reading that the study of i.b.e. has sprung.
Lastly, the Bible is being read without regard for the issues of
historyand historicity.This shiftin focus should not, as it so often
is, be taken as a rejection of historicalstudy: it is not. Rather, it
is a conscious decision to focus on a given, biblical literature,and
a rejection of an appropriation of this given for inappropriate
purposes-the wringing of history from a literature whose
historiographicalpurpose, ifit has one, is unstated and, so far,not
demonstrated. In the study of i.b.a. we can turn again to the
sequence of events actually described or implied in much of biblical
literature and follow the chain of reverse trajectory allusions
throughfromcreation to apocalypse.
The analogy between a literarystudyof i.b.a. and the Christian
method of typological interpretationis instructive,both for the
similaritiesand the differencesit reveals. The studyof i.b.a. is com-
patible, to a certain degree, with Christian readings that find
typologicalchains runningthroughthe Bible. It is conceivable that,
as withRabbinic interpretationof the Bible, we will findthatmany
of the literaryconnections have already been observed and dis-
cussed. Of course, some of these chains will be labelled as more the
product of the Christian presuppositionsthan any literaryfeature
inherentin the text: the same is true of traditionalJewish observa-
tions about i.b.a. But the modern study of i.b.a. and Christian
typologicalexegesis will surelypart when they reach the historical
component of the Christian reading. Christian typologies see the
literary interconnectionsas proof of the marvelous providence
behind history and its record in the Bible. God guides certain
sequences of events to their conclusions primarilyto demonstrate
that same providence when their subsequent anti-typescame to
historicalfruition.Historicityseems to be assumed throughout.In
a modern study of i.b.a. such concerns are, like their historical-
critical kindred, simply bracketed or even rejected as beyond
verification.These are mattersforfaithand best leftto the privacy
of personal reading.

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

You might also like