07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 24/07/14 09:40 Pagina 285 INTERTEXTUALITY 285 mantological exegesis 25. Though the type of exegetical maneuvering dif- fers, the principles for determining textual relationships remain the same. Inner-biblical exegesis seeks to isolate texts and examine texts that have in some way revised previous texts. In the case of scribal exegesis, the revision occurs most frequently in the form of explanatory comments that intend to enable later readers to understand unfamiliar terms or phrases, such as Josh 18,13 and Esth 3,7 26. For Fishbane, even such minor revision indicates “that the authoritative text being explicated was not considered inviolable but subject to the invasion of a tradition of inter- pretation which rendered it more comprehensible” 27. However, since the scribes chose to explain a difficult text rather than simply remove the in- comprehensible phrase(s), they “insured that future readers would be forced to a realization not far removed from their own: that they are late- comers to the text, who must read it with the guidance of an oral — now written — exegetical tradition” 28. The other three types of inner-biblical exegesis modify the text more significantly to apply an older text to a new situation. Thus, legal exegesis “is singularly concerned with the reinterpretation (or extension or reappli- cation ) of pre-existing legal texts” 29 in cases where “lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render such laws exceedingly problematic — if not functionally inoperative — without interpretation” 30. Eugene Mc- 25 See M. FISHBANE, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis”, JBL 99 (1980) 343-361; ID., “Inner-Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies of Interpretation in Ancient Israel”, Midrash and Literature (eds. G.H. HARTMAN – S. BUDICK) (New Haven, CT 1986) 19-37; ID., Biblical In- terpretation in Ancient Israel; ID., “The Hebrew Bible and Exegetical Tradi- tion”, Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. J.C. DE MOOR) (OTS 40; Leiden 1998) 15–30; ID., “Types of Biblical Intertextuality”, Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (eds. A. LEMAIRE – M. SÆBØ) (VTS 80; Leiden 2000) 39-44. 26 FISHBANE, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies”, 21. See also M. BAR-ASHER, “The Bible Interpreting Itself”, Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. The Biblical Patriarchs in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (eds. D. DIAMANT – R. G. KRATZ) (BZAW 439; Berlin – Boston, MA 2013) 1-18. Bar- Asher’s essay deals with instances in which the biblical authors provided con- textual explanations of individual words. While he does not specifically address “scribal exegesis”, his comments are instructive for understanding the process by which scribes explained words they viewed as unfamiliar to their audience. 27 FISHBANE, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies”, 21. 28 FISHBANE, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis: Types and Strategies”, 22. 29 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 282. 30 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 92. See also B. ROSENSTOCK, “Inner- Biblical Exegesis in the Book of the Covenant: The Case of the Sabbath Com- mandment”, Conservative Judaism 44 (1992) 37-49.