07_Biblica_AN_Meek_280-291 15/07/14 12:24 Pagina 290 290 RUSSELL L. MEEK context as the source text, the chances of intentional allusion are in- creased. Finally, Edenburg argues that “ungrammaticalization” clearly signals to the reader that allusion is occurring. She states: “‘Ungrammat- icality’ arises in a narrative due to expressions formulated or used without regard for language norms, or dysfunctional motifs” 50. The purpose of “ungrammaticality” is to cause the reader “to seek another text in which the marker is well integrated, and to create a link between the two (or more) texts” 51. As with inner-biblical exegesis, it is clear that inner-biblical allusion is appropriate when a reader is seeking to determine the relationship be- tween texts when the reader either presupposes or argues authorial inten- tion or a diachronic relationship between texts. The primary difference in these two methodologies is that inner-biblical exegesis argues that the re- ceptor text has in some way modified the source text, whereas inner-bib- lical allusion argues that the receptor text alludes to the source text with no attempt at modification 52. Thus, when arguing that an author has re- actualized or modified a source text, the term inner-biblical exegesis should be used and when arguing only for some type of allusion, the term inner-biblical allusion should be used. V. The Ethical Use of Methodological Vocabulary In 1989 Ellen van Wolde accused biblical scholars of misusing methodological vocabulary in order to make their work more appealing, and therefore more publishable. Despite the numerous works that have taken van Wolde’s criticism seriously and sought to distinguish between intertextuality and other, author-centered textual methodologies, in the two-plus decades since van Wolde’s essay we have seen no small number of studies that claim to employ intertextuality while in fact doing some- thing entirely different. This study has therefore reissued van Wolde’s call for methodological clarity by outlining the primary differences between intertextuality, inner- biblical allusion, and inner-biblical exegesis. We demonstrated that inter- textuality should be used when the scholar engages in synchronic, 50 LEONARD, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions”, 72-73. 51 LEONARD, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions”, 68. 52 See WEYDE, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation”. See also L. ESLINGER, “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:20: A Study in Inner-Biblical Exegesis”, JSOT 18 (1980) 91-99, here 91, who points out the importance of restricting the term “inner-biblical exegesis” to “instances of citation or use of an actual bib- lical passage”.