07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 15/07/14 12:24 Pagina 288 288 RUSSELL L. MEEK from intertextuality, placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the one proposing a relationship between texts. Whereas with intertex- tuality one need not be concerned with issues of textual origins and di- rectionality of influence, inner-biblical exegesis requires that scholars make known and defend their view of a text’s provenance 43. For example, when Jeffrey Leonard examines the relationship between Psalm 78 and various texts in Exodus, if the psalm predates the Pentateuchal texts, then the whole enterprise falls apart 44. An intertextual study, on the other hand, need not concern itself with which text came first because all that matters is the reader-discerned network of traces between them. Second, authorial intention plays a significant role in attempts to dis- cern if and in what ways later texts reinterpreted previous texts. This sec- ond principle of determining authorial intention makes paramount that the reader use objective criteria that will help to discern whether or not the au- thor intended for the reader to notice a textual relationship. The search for objective, measurable criteria sets apart inner-biblical exegesis from inter- textuality in that the reader must discover multiple areas of overlap in an effort to demonstrate intentional borrowing. For this reason, scholars have developed criteria such as “otherwise unattested forms, words, or phrase- ology, as well as more common expressions which are utilized in a uniquely peculiar way”, similar context or structure, “transformation and reactualization of a common element”, and thematic similarities 45. Fur- thermore, the case for intention is strengthened as the evidence increases. Thus, shared vocabulary alone may point to intentional borrowing or lit- erary influence, but when that shared vocabulary occurs in a similar con- text, but is reactualized for a different purpose, the chances increase that the author intends for the reader to make such a connection. In sum, inner-biblical exegesis is methodologically preferable if a scholar is attempting to make a case that later authors are referring to a previous text in order to explicate, comment on, expand, or in some other way make it applicable to a new situation. This methodology differs from intertextuality in that it requires its proponents to defend directionality of influence and to demonstrate through objective criteria that a later text is 43 On criteria for determining directionality of influence, see R. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT 1989) 29-32. 44 LEONARD, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions”, 27. 45 EDENBURG, “How (Not) to Murder a King”, 72. E.g. Isaiah’s use of sim- ilar vocabulary in 40,1-10 as was used in 28,1-5. In the first instance the lan- guage was used to castigate the people, but in the second instance comforted them; see B. SOMMER, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of Isaiah in Light of Deutero-Isaiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition”, New Visions of Isaiah (eds. R. MELUGIN – M. SWEENEY) (JSOTSS 214; Sheffield 1996) 156-186, here 158.