W. Dennis Tucker, «Psalm 95: Text, Context, and Intertext», Vol. 81 (2000) 533-541
In a previous issue of Biblica (76 [1995] 540-550)
W.H. Schniedewind argued that Ps 100 had a major influence on the psalmist who
wrote Ps 95. In this study, I argue for a diachronic approach to
intertextuality, which examines both the literary and the social environment. I
contend that the two together actually create an intertextual hermeneutic which
allows the psalmist to incorporate previous traditions and texts in such a way
as to address changing social and religious demands.
Based on citation, allusion and
reversal, I contend that the
psalmist of Ps 95 did in fact incorporate element of Ps 100, but in addition,
the psalmist added the Massah-Meribah tradition, while adding a deuteronomic slant
to the psalms. The use of the Massah-Meribah tradition along the
deuteronomic influences, created a psalm that would have been particularly
appropriate for a community still reeling from the devastation of exile.
from rabbinical exegetical methods, Fishbane offered a framework for classifying what he considers to be inner-biblical exegesis. In a another work, Fishbane explains his approach by suggesting that ‘textual exegeses in the Hebrew Bible oscillate between the authoritatively given lemma and its renovation ... the received text is complexly compacted of teachings and their subversion, of rules and their extension, of topoi and their revision’5. Building off the work of Fishbane, Rex Mason has indicated four possible methods of inner-biblical exegesis: 1) the appearance of glosses; 2) the way biblical material has been arranged in its present form; 3) direct quotation; and 4) the re-use of earlier scriptural themes and traditions6. The last three methods will be of particular interest in the study of Ps 95.
Although Fishbane’s work remains the benchmark in inner-biblical exegesis, other works have levied challenges against his methodology. J. Kugel has criticized Fishbane, suggesting that he has relied too heavily on later rabbinical models in his investigation7. Some, such as L. Eslinger, have criticized the diachronic component of Fishbane’s methodology8. He contends that it is problematic to make historical determinations concerning the primacy of one text over the other. As a result, Eslinger dismisses the term ‘inner-biblical exegesis’ in favor of ‘inner-biblical allusion’. But his suggestion is much more than name only. Eslinger contends that a synchronic, intertextual reading of the Bible which ‘follows the sequence of the Bible’s own plot’ would actually serve as a better methodology than that proposed by Fishbane9.
A response to Eslinger and those who espouse a synchronic approach to intertextuality has been mounted by Benjamin D. Sommer and W. M. Schniedewind10. Sommer agrees with Eslinger in that the dating of texts and the determination of the vector of influence may prove difficult. But contrary to the conclusions drawn by Eslinger, Sommer contends ‘the proper response to such difficulties is not a flight to the synchronic but careful construction of an argument’11. He further admits that at times the arguments may seem speculative, but this need not ‘vitiate the project as a whole’ 12. Instead of abandoning the process and opting for a synchronic approach, Sommer avers