Marking Innerbiblical Allusion in the Book of Ezekiel How did ancient Israelite authors make it clear that they were purposefully alluding to other texts? After all, the presence of verbal parallels between two texts can be attributed to coincidence, to unconscious dependence, or to the use of formulaic language where words assume a fixed shape because of the social setting and literary genres in which they are used. If an author was concerned that the reader might not recognize the source of the allusion, he could simply identify the text in question (e.g., Num 21,14-15; Josh 10,13; Dan 9,2). But if it could be plausibly assumed that the reader was familiar with the source text, what techniques were available to an author who wished to mark the allusion so as to make it more conspicuous and highlight its purposeful nature (1)? Short of repeating such a large number of locutions that a reader would not fail to recognize the presence of allusion, an author could use two techniques: inversion of elements, and the splitting and redistribution of elements. In this article I will examine the use of these marking techniques in Ezekiel’s allusions to the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26). The large number of locutions common to Ezekiel and the Holiness Code has long been recognized, and there is a broad consensus that these shared locutions are due to literary dependence (2). * ** One way in which an allusion can be marked is by the inversion of the order of elements in the borrowed locution, a technique sometimes referred to as “Seidel’s Law” (3). P. Beentjes, who explored the formal qualities of such (1) On the marking of allusion and quotation, see H. PLETT, “Intertextualities”, in Intertextuality (ed. H. PLETT) (Research in Text Theory 15; Berlin 1991) 11-12; R. SCHULTZ, The Search for Quotation. Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSS 180; Sheffield 1999) 211-212, 225. The classic work on allusion by Z. Ben-Porat also includes a discussion of marking, though by “marker” she means the formal elements common to both texts (“The marker is always identifiable as an element or pattern belonging to another independent text”). See Z. BEN-PORAT, “The Poetics of Literary Allusion”, PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Language 1 (1976) 108. (2) Those who recognize this literary dependence account for it with a variety of compositional models for H and Ezekiel, since there is no consensus on the direction of literary dependence; see for example G. COOKE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh 1936) 63; G. FOHRER, Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72; Berlin 1952) 146-147; R. KILIAN, Literarkritische und Formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes (BBB 19; Bonn 1963) 164-179, 185; R. LEVITT KOHN, A New Heart and A New Soul. Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield 2002) 111-112; C. NIHAN, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17-26 in the Composition of the Torah”, in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. OTTO – R. ACHENBACH) (FRLANT 206; Göttingen 2004) 108-110. While I am in no way ignoring the complexities of the literary formation of H and Ezekiel, my own position is that Ezekiel was using H. For support of this position, see M. LYONS, “From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s use of the Holiness Code”, (Ph.D. diss., University of