05_AN_Krause_416_co_416-427 30/10/15 13:13 Pagina 417 417 AESTHETICS OF PRODUCTION AND AESTHETICS OF RECEPTION 417 developed 3. For the sake of convenience, these concepts of intertextuality may be labeled structuralist or hermeneutic 4. Aiming at textual analysis proper, they focus on written texts; they presuppose that texts are written by authors pursuing a certain intention vis-à-vis their addressees; and, as a consequence, they look for intertextual references established by the author of a given text. To put my point bluntly: analyzing intertextual re- lationships within the Hebrew Bible, we are served better by the second set of concepts. II. Analysis of Intertextual Relationships within the Hebrew Bible But what is an intertextual relationship within the Hebrew Bible, and what is not? In an age of electronic concordances, we are quick to note affinities between texts. But are they always significant? And significant for what? After all, there is more than one explanation for such affinities 5. If two texts belong to the same system, any affinity between them which betrays that system cannot be counted as evidence for a proposed intertextual relationship. For example, two texts written in the same lan- guage may feature the exact same idiomatic stock phrase and still be in- dependent of each other. This holds true for two texts belonging to the same genre or addressing the same topic as well. If none of the above (affinity due to common language, genre, or topic) applies, there is reason to assume that the affinity in question is a textual affinity, that is to say, that one of the texts influenced the author of the 3 This is not taken into account by MEEK, “Intertextuality”, 282-284. Fol- lowing the lead of B.D. SOMMER, A Prophet Reads Scripture. Allusion in Isa- iah 40–66 (Stanford, CA 1998) 6-9 and others, Meek argues for a narrow definition of intertextuality which excludes the realm of “author-centered” studies altogether. Admittedly, this allows for a neat distinction. Yet I would be reluctant to draw this distinction, for it deprives whole schools of literary studies of their own terminology; see, e.g., the pertinent contributions in BROICH – PFISTER (eds.), Intertextualität; J. KLEIN – U. FIX (eds.), Textbeziehungen. Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität (Tü- bingen 1997); H.F. PLETT (ed.), Intertextuality (Berlin 1991), to name but three classic volumes. 4 Following PFISTER, “Konzepte der Intertextualität”, 1-30. 5 See the recent discussion in KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 46-66. See also B.D. SOMMER, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible. A Response to Lyle Eslinger”, VT 46 (1996) 479-489; ID., A Prophet Reads Scripture, 6-31; J.M. LEONARD, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions. Psalm 78 as a Test Case”, JBL 127 (2008) 241-265; and the seminal study by R.B. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT 1989).