07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 15/07/14 12:24 Pagina 284 284 RUSSELL L. MEEK readers to expect something entirely different than a diachronic study, making diachronic studies guilty of pulling a bait-and-switch, even if it is unintentional 22. Third, the intertextual method is unconcerned with developing criteria for determining intertextual relationships between texts. As Miller states, “intertextuality is an inherent feature of all texts, and therefore such cri- teria are not essential” 23. In a synchronic study of textual relationships, in which responsibility for determining textual relationships rests with the reader, there is little or no concern for proving that such a relationship resulted from authorial intent. This enables the reader to make connections without regard for homogeneity and propinquity, opening the door for the examination of textual relationships across vast spectra of time and place. This is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as authors of such studies are transparent about their enterprise. For those who use methodological la- bels appropriately, this is hardly a concern. However, the intertextual label becomes problematic when scholars use it but then develop criteria for demonstrating that textual relationships were intended. Once this occurs, the author has departed from intertextuality and entered into another realm altogether, for intertextuality presupposes that the connection of texts lies solely with the reader. Readers likewise play an important role in inner- biblical exegesis and inner-biblical allusion, but their role is to recognize and prove intended textual relationships 24. From these three criteria it becomes apparent that many so-called in- tertextual studies are something altogether different. What terminology remains for studies that utilize some of the insights of intertextuality yet begin with a different set of presuppositions? III. Inner-Biblical Exegesis As noted above, Michael Fishbane has done the most seminal work in inner-biblical exegesis. In a series of articles and books, he outlined the methodological principles for determining instances of inner-biblical exe- gesis, which he divided into three, and later four, categories: scribal exe- gesis (i.e. comments and corrections), legal exegesis, haggadic exegesis, and 22 For an example of this, see MEEK, “The Meaning of hbl in Qohelet”. 23 MILLER, “Intertextuality”, 285. 24 This is an important distinction between intertextuality on the one hand and inner-biblical exegesis and inner-biblical allusion on the other. See L.C. STAHLBERG, Sustaining Fictions: Intertextuality, Midrash, Translation, and the Literary Afterlife of the Bible (LHBOTS 486; London – New York 2008) 28-58.