Robert said

BruceRMcF said
Especially if one of the "tribes" of Israel have many names of early patriarchs of the tribe which some consider to reflect Egyptian more than Semitic names, as with the Tribe of Levi.

I've always been sympathetic to this view of Richard Elliott Friedman. Why make up a story that Moses was really a Hebrew baby found by Pharoah's daughter and raised as an Egyptian if there was no need to argue for the true Hebrew nature of the Levites?
  

Quite. Something like, "An Egyptian and his brother tries to strike a deal with a group of Semitic former refugees from the general Palestine area in a fight for political power, loses the fight, and are forced into exile from the core of Egypt into their Palestinian territories along with the cabal who had supported him. The cabal worshipped a southern Storm god YHWH rather than Baal, and spread the worship of YHWH as the primary national God ('you shall have no other Gods before me'), among the confederation of Hebrew tribes in the Palestinian hill country. It became well enough established that it spread into the neighboring small kingdom to the south of the confederation." makes for a much less dramatic story than the one that they eventually settled on.

Fascinating stuff.  I'll likely read more on it.

I’m not sure I’m how much this last quotation relates to my question above, and perhaps my question relates more to how I personally approach and attempt to integrate formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, and other forms of new criticisms to historico-critical methodologies.

I think basically, I was trying to clear out the impression that Geller was simply focused on the literary value without consideration to other, ‛socio-historical’ aspects. The quote was an attempt to illustrate that this was not the case.

What does Geller owe to the new criticisms outlined above? Is it merely the focus on the final text as a literary expression, which he then further appreciates as an author’s perspective engaged with an historical audience? Or does he more specifically embrace and utilize elements of formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, etc?

These questions are a bit more difficult. In order for me to respond in any coherent fashion, I will need to further study in depth of detail his observations and how they relate to those disciplines, i.e., formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, etc. There I am also handicapped as I have little exposure to those disciplines, so I’ll also be learning as I go along. That is, I don't find he specifically mentions any 'that school tells us this' or 'this school tells us that'.  No worries though. I’m thinking, too, as I share what I find, you may be able to glean answers as I go along with the posts.

When Jesus prophesies  the destruction of the temple to his disciples (13,26) and to the high priest when he ironically pronounces judgment upon Jesus (14,62-65), when it is the Sanhedrin that is rightfully to be punished with death:

“Then they [the Jews remaining in Jerusalem after the followers of Jesus have fled the city] will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. ...

Jesus said, “I am, and

‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power’
and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?” All of them condemned him as deserving death. Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” The guards also took him and beat him.

That’s a great point about the repetition. Robert Alter actually mentions that particularity in his notes. 

In his Bible translation? I started it a while back and am only in Leviticus, but I shall skip ahead to see - also his notes on Jeremiah.

I was taken by the word “pursue”. Of all that a man can pursue, only justice — so that they may live in the land.

Indeed.  Yet, nothing more worthwhile. 

I'm inclined to start my first word study with pursue.  I'm not sure if it's the same word in Hebrew, but another favorite verse of mine is Proverbs 28:1.

Jill_L said
What a question! Yes, that does come up!
He says this:

“The goal of true understanding certainly became blurred after Gunkel, so that literary criticism came to refer primarily to the dissection of the text into it putative sources; and form criticism, introduced into the study of the Hebrew Bible mainly by Gunkel, became quite as isolating and atomizing, quickly losing sight of his true aims. . .
“When interest in a truly literary approach revived, it took a polemical stance against history, justified by its models in linguistics and modern literary criticism. Once again, Gunkels’ goal of total understanding, of the integration of all the disciplines and all their foci, literary, aesthetic, comparative, and historical, receded even further into the distance. ..”
“Today, the atomizing approach dominates, often contemptuous of any attempts at sympathetic, synthetic comprehension of different periods and cultures. Solipsism rules, and critics write only for the like minded.”

He writes:

“Originally, the aim of the type of interpretation of religious texts presented in this work was, in the mind of its author, simply to display the utility of deep exegesis in drawing meaning of religious as well as literary significance out of the texts. Gradually, however, the broader, and more radical, thesis of the privilege of the literary approach as an aid in understanding biblical religion began to emerge. In addition, a basic similarity in the religious messages in the texts, with a new awareness of the relative limitation to a certain period and set of historical and cultural circumstances, led gradually to an awakening intimation of a general hypothesis about the origin and nature of biblical religion itself. In many respect, it is similar to that long proposed by many scholars, from Wellhausen on, but differs from them precisely in its dominantly literary orientation, that is, it views the phenomenon of biblical religion as a primarily, and essentially, literary expression. . ..”

Source and form criticism and the history of religions school, while they do have some utility, did come to dominate and required a strong corrective. I certainly agree with this.

and later,

“Chapters 7 and 8, analysis, respectively, of the story of the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34 and of the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2 and 3, will attempt to illustrate that even the seemingly most concrete topics in the Hebrew Bible take on a different range of meaning when viewed as literary images. Specifically, the historical role of the Canaanites, enemies of covenant Israel and supposedly addicted to unnatural sexual practices, is really a metonymy, an image for an aspect of biblical religion that is struggling to formulate itself through that image. And, moreover, even sexuality itself is employed in the Bible as a literary metaphor to enable yet deeper aspects of religious intuitions, new at the time, to reach the level of expression. This is probably the most abstract and certainly the most controversial portion of the book, the one that touches most directly on its thesis. The claim will be made that the kind of interpretation offered is valid not only as a literary reading but that it also has historical value, as a timely expression of that complex of intended and unintended meanings we personify as the author of the text.
“The final chapter deals openly with the historical circumstances of the type of religion uncovered by the literary approach: its place in the culture of its time, its relationship to earlier forms of religion, and its leading ideas as products of their age.”

Thanks, Jill! I'm not sure I'm how much this last quotation relates to my question above, and perhaps my question relates more to how I personally approach and attempt to integrate formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, and other forms of new criticisms to historico-critical methodologies.

It certainly seems as if Geller is focusing on the final text as a literary expression within its own historical context, and I certainly applaud that. And this no doubt involves a subjective apprehension of meaning, which I think is unavoidable.

What does Geller owe to the new criticisms outlined above? Is it merely the focus on the final text as a literary expression, which he then further appreciates as an author's perspective engaged with an historical audience? Or does he more specifically embrace and utilize elements of formalism, structuralism, deconstruction, etc?

Though much ingenuity has been exercised by exegetes to explain the repetition, its function as a verbal gesture of sheer emphasis is self-evident: justice, and justice alone, shall you pursue.

I was taken by the word "pursue". Of all that a man can pursue, only justice -- so that they may live in the land.

I love that repetition, and it brings to mind ** you do not have permission to see this link **, which I’ve always taken a liking to.  I’m sure there are other examples of the same thing, but I can’t think of any offhand.

That's just a beautiful beautiful verse. So telling.

I love that repetition, and it brings to mind Jeremiah 6:14, which I've always taken a liking to.  I'm sure there are other examples of the same thing, but I can't think of any offhand.

I do love his talk of the wisdom tradition meandering throughout the other sections as well as the prophet tradition at heart untamable!  

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Justice, justice, shall you pursue, that you may live and take hold of the land that the Lord your God is about to give you.

Deuteronomy 16:20

How many angels can dance on a needle's point? Or is that a needless point? 

I'm not sure my love of literature would have survived a literary career.   

He says this:

“The goal of true understanding certainly became blurred after Gunkel, so that literary criticism came to refer primarily to the dissection of the text into it putative sources; and form criticism, introduced into the study of the Hebrew Bible mainly by Gunkel, became quite as isolating and atomizing, quickly losing sight of his true aims. . .

“When interest in a truly literary approach revived, it took a polemical stance against history, justified by its models in linguistics and modern literary criticism. Once again, Gunkels’ goal of total understanding, of the integration of all the disciplines and all their foci, literary, aesthetic, comparative, and historical, receded even further into the distance. ..”

“Today, the atomizing approach dominates, often contemptuous of any attempts at sympathetic, synthetic comprehension of different periods and cultures. Solipsism rules, and critics write only for the like minded.”

He writes:

“Originally, the aim of the type of interpretation of religious texts presented in this work was, in the mind of its author, simply to display the utility of deep exegesis in drawing meaning of religious as well as literary significance out of the texts. Gradually, however, the broader, and more radical, thesis of the privilege of the literary approach as an aid in understanding biblical religion began to emerge. In addition, a basic similarity in the religious messages in the texts, with a new awareness of the relative limitation to a certain period and set of historical and cultural circumstances, led gradually to an awakening intimation of a general hypothesis about the origin and nature of biblical religion itself. In many respect, it is similar to that long proposed by many scholars, from Wellhausen on, but differs from them precisely in its dominantly literary orientation, that is, it views the phenomenon of biblical religion as a primarily, and essentially, literary expression. . ..”

and later,

“Chapters 7 and 8, analysis, respectively, of the story of the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34 and of the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis 2 and 3, will attempt to illustrate that even the seemingly most concrete topics in the Hebrew Bible take on a different range of meaning when viewed as literary images. Specifically, the historical role of the Canaanites, enemies of covenant Israel and supposedly addicted to unnatural sexual practices, is really a metonymy, an image for an aspect of biblical religion that is struggling to formulate itself through that image. And, moreover, even sexuality itself is employed in the Bible as a literary metaphor to enable yet deeper aspects of religious intuitions, new at the time, to reach the level of expression. This is probably the most abstract and certainly the most controversial portion of the book, the one that touches most directly on its thesis. The claim will be made that the kind of interpretation offered is valid not only as a literary reading but that it also has historical value, as a timely expression of that complex of intended and unintended meanings we personify as the author of the text.

“The final chapter deals openly with the historical circumstances of the type of religion uncovered by the literary approach: its place in the culture of its time, its relationship to earlier forms of religion, and its leading ideas as products of their age.”