Id like to add 2 comments to each of the most recent contributions to this discussion. Nati stated that in his experience, people who adopt the standard mepharshim approach have a tendency to ignore the literary method, but not vice versa. While Nati has many years of experience in several of the premier yeshivot in the NY/NJ area and is certainly extremely qualified to make such a broad statement, I respectfully disagree with this assertion. It is true that proponents of the mepharshim approach will often ignore the literary method altogether, whereas proponents of the literary method rarely completely ignore mepharshim. However, I have seen countless examples of proponents of the literary method giving mepharshim a vastly smaller role in their classes (proportionately). Furthermore, if a teacher only quotes mepharshim insomuch as they fit his/her literary theory, I believe that one could argue that the teacher is not really teaching his/her students how to use mepharshim, but rather the teacher is just using another literary tool.
Not surprisingly, I completely agree with my brothers observations and I would to add to one of his points. He cautioned against having too quick a trigger finger to use inter-textuality and compare characters or stories in Tanach without a solid basis that they ought to be compared. I often heard (and granted no one in this current discussion has raised this point) the argument that if you give students a paper or regular homework assignment to compare 2 characters in Tanach, they will come up creative ideas. I submit that if you tell intelligent people that their grades depend upon them comparing any 2 anything, they will come up with something creative, even if the assignment was to compare Yonah to the guy who had to sweep up after the story at Har Hacarmel. Accordingly, I dont think that it is an appropriate gauge for whether or not the comparison is warranted. As my brother said, there needs to be a standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence of the Tanach referencing itself.
