07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 24/07/14 09:40 Pagina 287 INTERTEXTUALITY 287 favour, Job inverts the liturgical teaching and mocks it, for he implies that God’s providence is less than beneficial for humankind” 35. Finally, mantological exegesis is confined to exegesis of “material which is ominous or oracular in scope and content” 36. Mantological ex- egesis is divided into exegesis of visual and auditory phenomena. For the former, the exegesis is limited to the interpreter’s explanation of the visual material, such as is the case with Joseph’s dreams in Gen 37,1-11. The traditio, or interpretation, occurs in the same text as the traditum and is not exegetically taken up again. The exegesis of auditory phenomena is similar to legal and haggadic exegesis in that later prophets will reinterpret the traditum when they think that it has for some reason or other failed or needs further explanation or expansion 37. Auditory mantalogical exegesis can be “non-transformative” exegesis, such as the “homiletical elabora- tion” of Zeph 3,3-4 by Ezek 22,25-28 38. It can also be “transformative”, as when a later text interprets a previous text with “additions, specifica- tions, or adaptations” 39, such as the reappropriation of 2 Sam 7,4-17 and 1 Chr 17,3-15 by the author of Psalm 89 40. As with haggadic exegesis, determining the relationship between texts requires that attention be paid to the repetition of linguistic and thematic elements and their reappropri- ation in a different context or to a different situation. This examination of inner-biblical exegesis reveals several important issues for using inner-biblical exegesis as a methodology. First, it is clear that diachrony matters 41. As Lyle Eslinger points out in his critique of Fishbane’s methodology, inner-biblical exegesis “presumes a demonstra- ble precedence” 42. If there is no diachronic relationship between texts, then there necessarily can be no inner-biblical exegesis, for in order for an author to explicate or elaborate on a text, it must have existed previ- ously. This principle immediately distinguishes inner-biblical exegesis 35 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 285. 36 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 443. 37 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 444. 38 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 461-462. See also T.B. DOZEMAN, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Char- acter”, JBL 108 (1989) 207-223. 39 FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 465. 40 See N. SARNA, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis”, Biblical and Other Studies (ed. A. ALTMANN) (Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University 1: Studies and Texts; Cambridge, MA 1963) 29-46. 41 See FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 465; FISHBANE, “Revelation and Tradition”, 344, 354, etc. 42 L. ESLINGER, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category”, VT 42 (1992) 47-58, here 49.