1980

Geyer's article centers on two distinct issues in the recent treatment of the ‘Joseph and Moses Narratives’ in Hayes and Miller's Israelite and Judaean History, namely, the use of comparative literature in exegesis as an alternative to the traditional interpretations of Pentateuchal stories, which have proceeded from questionable assumptions about the tradition's genesis and historicity, as well as the question of whether the Pentateuch tradition is relevant to the work of the historian as evidence of Israel's origins. The first issue was raised by Dorothy Irvin in an essay in which she extends to the Joseph and Moses stories her earlier analysis of some of the tales of Genesis.

Geyer poorly understands Irvin's use of analogy. She neither identifies nor equates the literature compared. Nor do assumptions about literary origins, borrowing, or dependence have a legitimate place. What is comparable is at the same time – and by that fact – understood as different. One classifies, and classification enables one to clarify the individuality of each text in its own context. Irvin's comparative analysis of some of the tales of Genesis and Exodus demonstrates a procedure by which one can define and clarify the intention and the implicit values borne by the narrative. Geyer's claim that the Old Testament is ‘theological reflection on events believed to have taken place’ may well be true of the deuteronomistic redaction of the former prophets.