Thomas L. Brodie, The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels.

A Michael Glazier Book Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000. Pp. xiii + 114. Paper, $11.95.

The more detailed a scholarly argument may be, the less likely it is to convince the readers and the more likely it is to be wrong! This aptly describes Brodie's thesis. Many of his suggestions are cogent, but the overall theory remains quite unconvincing. Simply put, he believes the Elijah-Elisha cycle has been shaped to follow the sequence of narratives of the Primary History, Gen through 2 Kgs, which also includes narratives that follow the Elijah-Elisha cycle. He makes the following equations in his structural outline: 1) 1 Kgs 17-18 (Elijah's drought) = Gen (Noah's flood), 2) 1 Kgs 19 (Elijah at Horeb) = Exod-Deut (Moses at Sinai), 3) 1 Kgs 20 (siege of Samaria) = Josh (conquest of Jericho and Al), 4) 1 Kgs 21 (Jezebel) = Judg (Deborah and Jael), 5) 1 Kgs 22-2 Kgs 3 (Ahab) = 1 Sam (Saul), 6) 2 Kgs 4 (prophet on roof) = 2 Sam (David on roof), 7) 2 Kgs 5 (Naaman, a foreigner) = 1 Kgs 1-11 (Queen of Sheba, a foreigner), 8) 2 Kgs 6-8 (wars and prophets) = 1 Kgs 12-16 (wars and prophets), 9) 2 Kgs 9-10 (Jehu's revolt) = 2 Kgs 14-17 (royal murders), and 10) 2 Kgs 11-13 (Josh's reform) = 2 Kgs 18-25 (reform of Hezekiah and Josiah).

Brodie also provides two other literary-structural arguments. 1) He builds upon the work of other First Testament scholars who observe form-critical and literary parallels between the separate Elijah and Elisha narratives. Brodie outlines a sequence of 8 diptychs wherein the tint 4 diptychs of Elijah narratives parallel the second 4 diptychs of Elisha narratives. 2) He also discusses parallels between the Elijah-Elisha cycle and the Gospels, especially Mark and Luke, perceptions supported by other Second Testament scholars.

These last two arguments are cogent, but his primary argument appears rather tenuous, especially in light of the detail to which he develops the parallels between the Primary History and the Elijah-Elisha cycle. All biblical scholars concur that there are inter-textual relationships between various narratives in the biblical text. The craft of the narration, both oral and written, prizes the use of formulae, expressions, and evocative vocabulary taken from older stories to generate new narratives. But to posit that large segments of literature are paradigmed in sequence by other significant segments of literature stretches the imagination.

Brodie selectively finds accounts in the Primary History to create the appearance of a parallel sequence with the Elijah-Elisha cycle for the most part, which by itself seems artificial. But to keep his theoretic model intact some incongruous equations have to be made: 1) Noah's flood equals Elijah's drought. (Elsewhere he finds parallels not opposites.) 2) War-like Deborah, stoned Abimelech, and the twelve parts of the dead concubine sent to the tribes parallel war-like Jezebel, stoned Naboth, and Jezebel's messengers. 3) Saul's pursuit of David equals Ahaziah's search for Elijah. 4) Elijah's bones revive a dead man just as Hezekiah recovers from illness. And 5) Joash hides in the Temple just as the Book of the Law was hidden. However, Brodie does provide good examples which merit our attention, some of which were isolated by scholars in the past, including: 1) Moses' flight into the wilderness after a murder and the flight of Elijah to Horeb after the slaughter of Baal prophets, 2) the siege of Jericho and the attack on Samaria (analyzed in detail, pp. 48-49), 3) deaths of Saul and Ahab, 4) the Jordan crossings by Joshua and Elijah, and 5) conception of children by Elijah and David upon a roof. Brodie does establish that certain accounts in the Elijah-Elisha cycle have literary and form-critical connections to other biblical accounts.

Brodie suggests that the Elijah-Elisha cycle was shaped to deliberately parallel the narratives in the Primary History and to imply that prophets were the more appropriate spokespersons for God than kings. However, other scholars might suggest the reverse. John Van Seters (Life of Moses, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994) proposes that the Deuteronomistic History emerged first and then exilic Yahwist and Priestly traditions articulated expanded and revised versions of these older accounts in the Tetrateuch. This reverses Brodie's suggestion that the Elijah-Elisha cycle deliberately shortened the earlier Pentateuchal narratives. I ("Redefining the Elohist," JBL 119 (2000): 201-20) tentatively proposed a 7th century B.C.E. date for oral "pools" of Elohist traditions in which the older prophetic narratives in Kgs might have influenced the shape of Elohist Pentateuchal narratives (and subsequent Yahwist narratives, if they indeed are exilic). Thus, those valid connections between accounts observed by Brodie really may be reversed from what he assumes.

Brodie's work deserves serious consideration for the suggestive observations he makes on specific texts which indeed reflect inter-textual exegesis. His work, however, could have been more valuable had he developed his analysis of individual texts in detailed fashion (in a scholarly monograph) rather than simply providing allusions to suggestive textual parallels. Only in a few instances does he flesh his observations out in detail. Nevertheless, his truly cogent observations can inspire insight for further speculation in the current debate about Pentateuchal origins.

Roben Kad Gnuse
Loyola University
New Orleans, LA 70118