Vtus Testamentum XLII, 1 (1992)

INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A N D
INNER-BIBLIGAL ALLUSION:
T H E Q U E S T I O N OF CATEGORY

by

LYLE ESLINGER
Calgary

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

sions. Hardly a journal issue goes by without an essay on some
aspect of the network of literary linkages. No doubt such literary
richness is a product of the Bible's lengthy production history
within the same literary and cultural stream; most modern effort
has been spent uncovering and describing its history. The work
continuessome suggest with diminishing prospects of accomplish-
ment. Recently the study of inner-biblical allusions 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-biblical exegesis (i.b.e.).
The hope is that examples of i.b.e. provide a more concrete avenue
into the editing and anthologizing process that resulted in the inter-
connected compendium we know as the Bible.
Throughout the the Bible's received history different reading
communities have made different things of inner-biblical allusion
(i.b.a.). T o the Jews it showed the fulness of TorahTorah inter-
preting Torah, a book whose literary form reflects the 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 from old to new covenant. And now the com-
munity of historical-critical readers take i.b.a. as evidence of the
Bible's extended composition and try to use it as an entry point to
a historical understanding of the book. These three reading com-
munities share a common reading perceptionliterary
repetitionand a common psychology of response to it
recognition. From that commonality, however, each travels a direc-
48 LYLE ESLINGER

tion determined by the varying hermeneutical assumptions brought

along to the text.

Traditional readings of b a

For most critical readers, traditional ways of interpreting literary

interconnections in 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. 1 O u r fondness for causal
analysis and our historical mindset have displaced these traditional
assumptions.

Fishbane3s work on b e

Michael Fishbane has tried to systematize the modern study of

i.b.e. with a scheme of generic categorization. 2 H e 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 heuristic model for
coming to grips with i b.e. Fishbane's generic scheme, which pro
vides a comprehensive structure for his book, has been criticized for

1
Of course, I a m 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 Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1985) Having
written an article on "inner-biblical exegesis" in 1980 ( " H o s e a 12 5a and Genesis
32 29 A Study m Inner Biblical Exegesis", JSO 18 [1980], pp 91-9), I have
since begun to doubt the appropriateness of this epithet as a blanket description
for the literary interconnections in the Bible T h e noun " e x e g e s i s " implies an
authorial intent at exposition or interpretation M a n y instances of literary inter
connection in the Bible do not go beyond the playfulness of simply touching on
a literary antecedent and some may even be unconscious on the part of the author
yet emminently significant to the reading community T h e other literary
phenomenon to which this epithet is applied, especially by Fishbane, is the exposi-
tional comment or gloss Again there is a primary difficulty in the application of
this term, with its attendant literary-historical assumptions, to a text for which we
have so little of the necessary background materials to make informed historical
judgements Is an apparent gloss in the text the product of a secondary authorial
hand (the infamous " r e d a c t o r " ) or the expositional comment of the self-same nar
rative voice that describes the sequence of events in a piece of narration?
 INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A N D ALLUSION 49

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

for his generic typing of i.b.e. is a historical approach squarely
within the province of literary history. His book is known for adopt-
ing D . A. Knight's traditio/traditum terminology to describe the pro-
cess of tradition formation and adaptation. This distinction 4 and
the overarching framework of traditio-historical literary history set
the limits and assumptions within which the book came to
expression.
According to Fishbane, inner-biblical exegesis, 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. T h e first assumption is that
an author does not write an interpretative gloss on his own text.
Exposition always comes from the pen of some other since an
author has no need to reinterpret what he says. The second assump-
tion is that if there is some interconnection of separate texts, say a
prophetic book and a pentateuchal book, any discussion of the sup-
posed exegesis presumes a demonstrable precedence. You cannot
discuss the qualities of diachronic interpretation in the detailed way
that Fishbane does if you are not sure which way the literary con-
nection points.
Some examples will highlight the assumptions. The first assump-
tion allows only straight description, without asides or any sort of
expositional comment, in any unilaterally authored document.
This assumption is characteristic of the literary naivetea one-
sided simplicity to be sureof historical criticism. Only with com-
plete disregard for narrative voice structure, especially the diverse

3
"In other words, this act of categorization rather than some other approach
that not only would not adopt these specific categories, but might even, in a man-
ner to be detailed presently, seek to present the material in an entirely different
fashion betrays a desire (perhaps only subconscious) to say: exegesis in biblical
times was not terribly different from what we know in postbiblical times; indeed,
it was really rather proto-rabbinic" (J. Kugel, "The Bible's Earliest Inter-
preters", Prooflexts 7 [1987], pp. 275-6).
4
Cf. P. Hffken's review of Fishbane's book in BibOr 44 (1987), p. 752.
50 LYLE E S L I N G E R

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

assumption. Ch. 2 of Fishbane's book, "Lexical and Explicative
C o m m e n t s " , 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
explicatory comments" (p. 46).
T h e verse reads as follows:
To whom can you be compared for glory and greatness among the
trees of Eden? Yet you shall be brought down with the trees of Eden
unto the netherworld, and you will lie among the uncircumcised,
with those slain by the sword
He is Pharaoh and all his multitude, says the Lord GOD (M D parcoh
wekol-hamn ne^m ^dny yhwh, Ezek xxxi 18)
For Fishbane the deictic function of the pronoun h? is a formulaic
marker of a gloss (pp. 44-5) and this makes for " a relatively objec-
tive identification" as opposed to more impressionistically isolated
examples (p. 56). The assumption is that the "original a u t h o r " of
Ezek. xxxi would not have used the deictic h? 5 Yet a reader
Fishbane is an exampleor an authorthe supposed inner-biblical
exegete would be an examplemight find the pronominal objects
in 18 ambiguous. As Fishbane says, "this leads to an ambiguity,
subsequently corrected by a later scribe . . . " (p. 47, my emphasis).
Why later? Why not by the " o r i g i n a l " author? Does it not make
as much sense, maybe more, for the " o r i g i n a l " author to clarify an
ambiguity? O r do we assume that ambiguity is dysfunctional and
always expunged instead of clarified when perceived by an author?
These questions must be dealt with before the assumption of a tem-

5
A Even-Shoshan A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem and G r a n d Rapids,
1989), 282 lists 45 parallel deictic constructions to that found in Ezek xxxi 18
(Josh m 1, vn 6, vin 10, 14, 7, J u d g vii 11, vin 4, ix 33, 48, xviii 30, xix 9,
1 Sam ix 26, xvm 27, xix 18, xxvn 2, 3, xxvm 8, xxix 11, xxx 9, 10, 31, 2 Sam
xvii 24, 1 Kgs xi 17, xx 12, 16, 2 Kgs 15, ix 14, xiv 11, xxiv 12, xxv 1, J e r
xxii 4, xxii 28, xxxvn 2, xh 7, hi 4, Ezek xxx 11, xxxi 18, Amos 15, R u t h 1,
N e h 2, in 12, xn 8, 1 C h r o n xxni 13, xxv 9, xxvi 26, 2 C h r o n xxv 21, xxxn
26) T h e r e is good rhetorical reason to reidentify the Egyptian subject of 18
P h a r a o h and his a r m y were introduced in 2 but then the subject shifts to the
likenessthe Assyriansuntil 18 T o conclude 18 by reidentifying the
second person object of Yahweh's wrath as P h a r a o h " t h a t is Pharaoh " i s as
acceptable as any other deictic specifying clause
 INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A N D ALLUSION 51

poral dissonance in the voice structure of the verse can be brought

into play.
This particular example 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 structure that 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 think in terms of a later redactor? Of course, for Fishbane this
literary integrity would 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. rather than 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 " t r a d e n t e " .
Obviously the opposite assumptionthat expositional comments
should always be traced to " t h e original author"is equally unfor-
tunate. Fishbane's approach here is not fundamentally wrong-
headed; it is just not well-thought out. 6
A more serious weakness in Fishbane's approach arises from his
reliance on historical-critical literary history. James Kugel 7

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 fairly verbatim reuse of 2 Sam. 15:34 in 17:4b makes it clear that
while a later interpreter received a traditum like that found in 2 Sam. 15, he rejected
itand therewith sought 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, O 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 contradictory historiosophy to that behind the description of
David's purely human strategy. There are many problems with Fishbane's sug-
gestion. He neglects entirely the matter of the narrative's voice structure. But even
on a more basic levelthat of the verisimilar details of the storyis it not entirely
conceivable that within one and the same piece of narratorial reportage King
David might have one thing in 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 circularity of
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
editorsthe old and well worn fallacy of historical-critical literary history.
7
(above, n. 3), p. 276.
52 LYLE ESLINGER

criticized Fishbane's generic scheme and proposed, instead, that we

study instances of i.b.e. from a simpler, literary-historical perspec
tive. But Fishbane's categorical analysis is already premised on the
diachronic assumptions of historical-critical literary history. Such
an approach to i.b.a. can only be as good, as reliable, and as useful
as the literary history on which it is based. If the model of the
Bible's literary history is wrong, the analyses of inner-biblical
8
exegeses can only compound the fallacy.
Unfortunately, recent historical work on the Bible is increasingly
pessimistic about using it as a source for writing about its own or
ancient Israel's history. There is now strong criticism for
historiographical work 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 histories of ancient Israel offer little more than
paraphrase, following hard on the heels of the biblical narrative
presentations. 9 All notions about the literary history of the Bible
depend on prior notions about Israel's national history, especially
its social and cultural history. Literary history is written with a view
to organizing the Bible's literature according to the known
sequence of events in Israel's history. In turn, the latter has been
based, in part, on the former. In consequence, history writing
about the Bible and ancient Israel is often rife with circular reason
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 literary history. 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 literary priorities implied in the Bible and we
end up with commonalities like the assumption, once more growing
in popularity, that the prophets depend on the the Pentateuch. T o

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
W Whitelam, " R e c r e a t i n g the History of I s r a e l " , JSOT 35 (1986), pp
45-70, L T h o m p s o n , The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel I The Literary Forma
tion of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 (Sheffield, 1987), G Garbini, History and Ideology in
Ancient Israel (London and New York, 1988) Speaking of traditio-histoncally
based reconstructions of ancient Israel's beginnings, T h o m p s o n says, " S u c h a
method is self-consciously inconclusive and, objectively, inconsequential" (p 27)
 INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A N D ALLUSION 53

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

on the traditions of the Pentateuch.
The study of i.b.a. as i.b.e. requires knowledge of literary-
historical precedence for the texts involved in allusions: we need to
know which way the vector of allusion points. The inquiry is
jeopardized by the unstable foundations of current biblical literary
history because the manner of understanding the literary connec-
tions is historical. Compounding the problem, as R. G. Moulton
noted in the early part of this century, 10 many biblical books lack
sufficient reference to the date of the events they describe or to the
date of their own creation. Such dismal historical resources simply
will not support the luxury of a contemplative historical interpreta-
tion. 11 But without a historical focus 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-sister motif in Gen. xii, xx, and xxvi.
Fishbane says,
even the discernible variations in such parallel scenarios as the
'Matriarch of Israel in Danger' may not be exegetically
interrelatedso that Gen. 26 is not a reworking of Gen. 20, and it,
in turn, a moralistic revision of Gen. 12:10-20, as contended by Koch
and Sandmel. For it may rather be the case that a core tradition
preexisted or underlies these diverse narratives. If this be the true
nature of things, each of the scenarios would then be a separate
development of a common type-scene, and the notable variations
between them would indicate different versions of this type-scene in
different cultural circles: none would be a specific exegetical com-
ment on the other, ... (pp. 283-4).

The problem of literarily related passages of indeterminate prov-

enance is crucial for a historical approach to biblical intertextuality.
First, Fishbane is in a bad position to determine which of Gen. xii,
xx, or xxvi is dependent on the other(s). Second, it may indeed be
that there is a common antecedent to all three versions 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 uncertainty is congenital

10
The Literary Study of the Bible (Boston, Mass., 1908), pp. vi-vii.
11
Cf., more recently, B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(Philadelphia and London, 1979).
54 LYLE ESLINGER

to the approach to literary interrelationships in the Bible through

literary history.
When we look at Fishbane's discussions of literary connections
what we get, most often, is an assumed vector of influence. In his
discussion of Amos' reliance on the Pentateuch Fishbane says,
4
'even this lack of explicit references is not sufficient to gainsay the
strong impression made by the sources that Amos was aware of
ancient Israelite legal traditions, and that he 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 offer a " s t r o n g impression". Some may
share Fishbane's assumptions about the historical precedence of the
Pentateuch over the prophetic books; others may not. Ironically it
was precisely that assumption against which the early historical
critics such as Wellhausen had to argue so strongly. Each claim for
Pentateuchal priority requires demonstration, not assumption. The
literary arguments that Wellhausen and others proposed were not,
after all, entirely dependent on any supposed scheme for the evolu
tion of Israelite religion. Hence, one cannot sweep Wellhausen's
readings aside for reason of ' ' H e g e l i a n " notions about religious
evolution. 1 2
Another example is Fishbane's analysis of the supposed
exegetical connection between J e r . iii 1 and Deut. xxiv 1-4, with
the former depending on the latter (p. 308). Fishbane lists this
example under the heading, " D . T H E E X E G E S I S O F C I V I L
LAWS W I T H F O R M U L A E O F C I T A T I O N A N D C O M
P A R I S O N " . T h e suggestion, when one compares this heading
with the one that follows it ( " E . T H E E X E G E S I S O F C I V I L
LAWS W I T H O U T F O R M U L A E O F C I T A T I O N A N D C O M
P A R I S O N " ) , is that here we have some clear-cut examples.
Inevitably, Fishbane supplies no arguments to support his assump
tion, which again follows the traditional view about the priority of

12
Cf J o h n D a y ' s recent comments on b e in the prophets, in which he too
wants to assume Pentateuchal priority " I n the present century, however, there
has been a general acceptance that, though the final form of the Priestly legislation
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
appear that they were indebted to the tradition of the l a w " ( " P r o p h e c y " , in D A
Carson and H G M Williamson (ed )y Itis Written Scripture Citing Scripture C a m
bridge, 1988, 39, my emphasis) T o arrive at any real information in the
literary-historical study of b e requires far more than appearance or intuition
 INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A N D ALLUSION 55

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

passages in parallel columns to highlight vocabulary parallels. Then
he says, "if one may validly conclude from the foregoing that the
lexical and topical components of Deut 24:1-4 provided the
substantive matrix for Jeremiah's speech, it is none the less the
aggadic variations of this latter which constitute its uniqueness" (p.
308). Tautology aside, we are left with nothing more than an asser-
tion, perhaps a shared assumption about the Pentateuch's priority,
and a bit of distracting literary appreciation. The real question is
whether it is at all possible to prove the dependence of the Jeremiah
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). 13 Perhaps an argument from syntactic allusion might do; a
simple assertion will not.
One last example: the supposed exegetical relationship between
Ps. viii 5-7 and J o b vii 17-18. Here, the assumption stands out
quite nakedly. Fishbane assumes that the book of J o b plays on the
Psalms and not vice versa ("the exegetical revision of Ps. 8:5-7 by
J o b 7:17-18 is sharp and clear" p. 285). The literary connection is
indeed clear; what is not is the assumed priority of the passage from
the Psalms ("the older question is thus inverted"). We could as
easily read the Psalm as an allusive corrective of J o b ' s excessive
cynicism, a pious riposte to J o b ' s exaggerated sense of personal
right and freedom. And one might just as well argue for the Psalm's
priority: neither the book of Psalms nor this particular psalm pro-

13
Fishbane's answer to the problem of textual precedence is insufficient; in
fact, it is only a restatement of his assumptions: "the identification of aggadic
exegesis where external objective criteria are lacking is proportionally increased 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-
ically reorganized and topically rethematized 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 adversin to theories of intertextuality offers a 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).
56 LYLE ESLINGER

vides much to bar or support any dating. Nor does the book of J o b .
But that is just the point: Fishbane does not, Even if he did want
to make the argument, he probably could not for lack of historical
data.

An alternative the study of b a

An alternative study, one that avoids these difficulties, is to study

i.b.a. as i.b.a.: as allusions and as biblical intertextuality. In the
case of the former there should be some literary reason to assume
a vector of dependence; in the latter, there is none and we must
come at the semantics of the relationship from both ends (texts).
Most biblical literature already follows the 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
literature is implicated or within which it can be situated on the
basis of literary evidence in the books. 1 4 T h e well-known psalm
titles provide a precedent for such contextualizations. If a book or,
in the case of the Psalms, a particular psalm provides no such
referent then we are compelled to read the literary connections as
they appear: atemporally and without assumptions about vectors of
dependence. For such a study, the developed theory of intertex
tuality provides a rich theoretical foundation. 1 5
I propose, then, a self-consciously literary analysis of the textual
interconnections in biblical literature. In it, we continue to use the
indications of sequence that historical-critical scholarship has
(improperly) relied on, but in full awareness of this reliance and
without the conceit that we use a "scientific" historical framework
independent of it.
An example of the resulting methodological clarification will
illustrate the proposed methodological attitude. Referring to
Fishbane's book, J o h n Day says,
in Jer 4 23 the prophet describes the reversal of the process of crea
tion, and included are the words looked on the earth, and lo, it was

14
Of course, there are similar, inclusive readings for the text of the Hebrew
Bible alone (see, e g D a n Jacobson, The Story of the Stories The Chosen People and
Its God [New York, 1982])
15
See, for example, the annotated bibliographic survey by D o n Bruce,
"Bibliographie Annote crits sur L'Intel textualit", Texte 2 (1983), pp 217-58
 INNER-BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND ALLUSION 57

waste and void (thu wbhu), which recalls the description of

primeval chaos in Gen. 1:2. According to Fishbane (1985, p. 321)
Jeremiah is directly dependent on Genesis 1. However, in view of the
widely accepted evidence that did not attain its final form before
the sixth century BC. I incline to see here an allusion to the tradition
behind the account of Genesis 1 rather than Genesis 1 itself
([above, n. 12] p. 41).

Both Day and Fishbane rely predominately on the implications

supplied by the biblical plot. T h e Jeremianic text alludes to the text
from Genesis, and not vice versa, because Genesis comes before
Jeremiah as naturally as creation comes before the exile. From the
perspective of the Bible's own plot line it would be absurd to look
at it any other way. Fishbane leaves it at that, though of course he
views it from the perspective of a literary historian and in the belief
that the Jeremianic text truly does flow from that in Genesis. Day
also accepts the direction of the biblical plot but refines it with the
condition that it must be the traditional antecedent to the Genesis
text that Jeremiah refers to because the text did not yet exist in
Jeremiah's day. O n e wonders what stops Day from suggesting that
the text of Genesis alludes to the Jeremianic text or to the contem
porary tradition reflected in the book of Jeremiah? H e wants to say
that the Genesis text is later than the Jeremianic, so why not com
plete the inversion by saying that the Genesis text also depends on
the tradition from Jeremiah's day? Could the reason be the estab
lished indication of vector provided by the biblical plot?
T h e study of the Bible has moved through at least two stages.
Just now it seems caught between the second and a new third
stage. 1 6 First, it was read as history and 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. Robert Polzin, who characterizes me as someone trapped in the middle:
"Eslinger is at least one step behind contemporary humanistic scholarship because
he recognizes that biblical scholarship itself remains more than two steps behind
many of its disciplinary partners in the humanities" ("1 Samuel: Biblical Studies
and the Humanities, Religious Studies Review 15 [1989], p. 303). For my part, in
the work that Polzin comments on, I made the conscious decision that it was worth
dating my own work, though not, I hope, myself, to engage in a dialogue with
historical-critical literary observations. It seems to me that this is the way that the
discipline can go forward. Simply ignoring previous work in order to advance a
new approach will only create a loose association of methodological camps whose
energies are absorbed by interminable factionalism.
58 LYLE ESLINGER

suspicious of the history of the plot it portrays, the Bible was read
as a reflection, both of the history that its plot lays out and, more
clearly, of the period and society in 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
history and historicity. This shift in focus should not, as it so often
is, be taken as a rejection of historical study: 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
purposesthe wringing of history from a literature whose
historiographical purpose, if it 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
through from creation to apocalypse.
The analogy between a literary study of i.b.a. and the Christian
method of typological interpretation is instructive, both for the
similarities and the differences it reveals. The study of i.b.a. is com-
patible, to a certain degree, with Christian readings that find
typological chains running through the Bible. It is conceivable that,
as with Rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, we will find that many
of the literary connections have already been observed and dis-
cussed. Of course, some of these chains will be labelled as more the
product of the Christian presuppositions than any literary feature
inherent in the text: the same is true of traditional Jewish observa-
tions about i.b.a. But the modern study of i.b.a. and Christian
typological exegesis will surely part when they reach the historical
component of the Christian reading. Christian typologies see the
literary interconnections as proof of the marvelous providence
behind history and its record in the Bible. God guides certain
sequences of events to their conclusions primarily to demonstrate
that same providence when their subsequent anti-types came to
historical fruition. Historicity seems 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 matters for faith and best left to the privacy
of personal reading.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.