In response to Rabbi Yitzchak Blau's wide-ranging, latest post, I wish to limit my comments only to his last two topics:
I certainly never indicated that I think little about the significance of Ibn Ezra and Ramban (or, for that matter, the other classical meforshim) in terms of Jewish theological reflection. However, unless one has read extensively, for ex., Milgrom's and Moshe Greenberg's works (both their commentaries and articles on hashkafic Tanakh issues), I don't think that one can make the claim that they are any less relevant today than the medieval meforshim, particularly since they (a) are familiar with, and use, the meforshim, (b) use better analytical methods than the meforshim, and (c) are more knowledgeable about the Ancient Near East (due to the finds of archaeology). Thus, to the extent that these modern Jewish Tanakh scholars, and others like them, engage in understanding the text's ideology, today's educators should study their works. This doesn't mean that one has to accept their conclusions wholesale. Surely, one can ignore those parts (a small portion of their writings) which deal with issues of authorship and dating which run counter to traditional thinking. At the same time, one would be remiss to ignore ALL of their conclusions out of hand. Milgrom's work on kashrut, by the way, as well as his massive contributions on the ideology behind the sacrifices and other rituals, do make use of intertextuality, key terms/phrases, and many other tools of literary analysis.
While I agree with Rabbi Blau that the connection between Esther and Sarah is tenuous at best, significant connections of Esther exist to the Yosef story, to the Amalek story in 1 Samuel 15, to the story of the succession to David (particularly, 1 Kings 1), and to the first half of Daniel. While no hard and fast rules exist to guarantee intertextual connections, one must take into account such literary phenomena as rare terminology/phraseology/syntax (hence, the number 127 as tempting one to connect Esther with Sarah), numerous linguistic parallels, a parallel sequence of events, and common historical allusions. The conclusion does not depend on the claim for intertextuality made by a particular scholar, but rather what is the weight of evidence marshaled in support of such a claim. By the way, 127 might not tie in Esther to Sarah, but the 10 years mentioned at the beginning of Ruth might be a tie-in to the story of Avraham and Sarah (and see Yair Zakovitch's commentary on Ruth).
Jeremiah Unterman
