The methodology of applying literary analysis to tanach has become very popular. When done well, it opens up new vistas to understanding layers of tanach which previous ways of learning did not necessarily perceive. However, I believe that many of the methods of this approach need to be applied judiciously and that an overuse of those same methods can produce, at best, poor scholarship. To that end, Id like to discuss some of the dangers of improper use of these methods.
Before discussing specifics, Id like to make 2 broad points. First of all, literary analysis is only meaningful if it adds to the understanding of the text. Noting a structural idea just to point it out is worthy of an aside, if that much, but ought not to be the main focus of a discussion. Second of all, this approach is meant to have a real methodology, and as such, could lead to many equally valid conclusions. Using it to say your vort while rejecting any other approach, without a clear reason why the same methodology can not be applied that other way, undermines the entire endeavor.
Let us examine some specifics:
1. Breaking up a perek. This is often described as a necessary skill and many tanach classes throughout the world start by asking the class to do that. I wonder how effective doing this really is. The students have, at that point, done, at best, a superficial reading of the perek. Generally they then offer several possibilities as to how break it up. Most of the time, several of those options are equally plausible, since the break up is basically an artificial construct. The students then either spend a good deal of time arguing as to which is correct, or the teacher just says what he/she thinks, when, in fact there is no compelling reason to pick one as many of the rejected options are just as valid. Is this really a healthy use of our time? How often is the structure decided upon then really critical to the rest of the discussion of the perek?
2. Milat Hamancha. When done well, it shows how the author subtlety added a layer of meaning. If, however, it is something obvious, such as the word aretz appearing often in the meraglim story, I dont think it is worthy of pointing out. Certainly if the meaning it adds is something simplistic, as in the previous example, something along the lines of Israel is important, then we could understand that point perfectly well without it. Additionally, one has to ask how often a word needs to appear before it is enough to show significance. The practice of looking for the milat hamancha in every new perek, regardless of the above considerations, is also, I think, not the best way to spend ones time.
3. Chiastic structure. Once again, when it adds meaning, it is a wonderful device. An example of this is in the end of Yishayahu perek 1 where the city of Yerushalyim is transformed from a city of justice to one of immorality. However, if it does not add meaning and is just an interesting literary device, I question how valuable it is and if that time would not be better spent understanding what the passukim mean. What's more, from a methodological perspective, if one has to assume a certain reading of the passuk just to make the chiasm work, I believe that is backwards. One should understand the passukim first and then, if there is a chiasm, see what it is adding, rather than re-interpret the passukim just to create the structure.
4. Intertextuality. This itself has 2 subcategories. The first is parallels between biblical characters. Once again, if this adds a new perspective, it is a wonderful addition. To just point it out and stop there is not, I think, all that meaningful. The second is parallel expressions. If the expression found in both places is somewhat unique, that is certainly telling and deserves consideration. However, if it is a fairly common phrase, I believe that much more support needs to be added to bolster the assumption that the tanach is making a connection between the 2 passukim. Furthermore, a close reading needs to be done of each passuk in context to make sure that it is really a parallel. If it is used in opposite ways, perhaps it should be understood as contrasting the 2 examples. Or, for that matter, if it is just a different use then perhaps it is not really parallel at all. Finally, I believe that the parallels need to be fairly precise, not just 2 words or phrases that are somewhat similar.
As with all methodologies, using the literary method well can very much advance our students understanding of tanach. Looking for it when it is not really there, or does not add anything all that meaningful, just leads to erroneous interpretation.
