07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 24/07/14 09:39 Pagina 281 INTERTEXTUALITY 281 for examining the relationship between texts: intertextuality, inner-bib- lical allusion, and inner-biblical exegesis 6. After all the work that has been done, why an essay on the ethics of a methodology? Despite the advances in methodological consistency, there still seems to remain some confusion over exactly how and when to apply the appropriate term to one’s task. Furthermore, after thirty years of defin- ing and delineating terms, it is necessary that scholars begin to demon- strate transparency and clarity in their methodological vocabulary 7. Having myself committed the sin of misusing methodological terms, I am all too aware of the importance of using appropriate terminology 8, espe- cially for authors committed to treating texts and their readers ethically 9. Thus, in an attempt to call for clarity and transparency, the present paper will outline the three primary methods for studying the literary relation- ships between texts in order to make clear the presuppositions and pur- poses of each method. Our discussion will demonstrate that intertextuality as a methodological label is problematic for scholars whose hermeneutical presuppositions include authorial intent, unless they are willing to aban- don the diachronic element in their work. We will conclude by outlining principles of inner-biblical allusion and inner-biblical exegesis for deter- 6 See, e.g., MILLER, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research”; B. SOM- MER, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger”, VT 46 (1996) 479-489; J. LEONARD, “Identifying Inner- Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case”, JBL 127 (2008) 241-265; K.W. WEYDE, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible”, SEÅ 70 (2005) 287-300. 7 Weyde also reflects on the importance of using terms precisely. But, cit- ing the work of J. Nogalski, who utilizes synchronic and diachronic methods in his study, Weyde suggests that creating a sharp division between intertex- tuality and inner-biblical allusion and inner-biblical exegesis may not prove so helpful; see WEYDE, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation”, 290-291; J. NOGALSKI, Redactional Process in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin – New York 1993). However, I would still contend that once one moves to diachronic reflections, one is no longer employing an intertextual method. 8 R.L. MEEK, “The Meaning of hbl in Qohelet: An Intertextual Sugges- tion”, The Words of the Wise are Like Goads. Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century (eds. M.J. BODA – T. LONGMAN III – C.G. RATA) (Winona Lake, IN 2013) 241-256. 9 See K.J. VANHOOZER, Is There a Meaning in this Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Landmarks in Christian Scholarship; Grand Rapids, MI 21998) 367-452. Vanhoozer argues that “the mandate for the ethical interpreter [is] as follows: ‘Do not bear false witness.’ An interpreter, then, is one who bears true witness to textual meaning” (Mean- ing, 439, emphasis original).