Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

---------- Original Message ----------


>POINT 1: So are you saying that Moses (or whoever) was such a careless
>editor that he just didn't notice that he had left doublets in his
>text, even when they were as close together as Genesis 6:2 and 4? And
>despite that he managed to produce such a brilliant literary work?
>Talk about schizophrenic authors! OK, I admit that the rather odd
>structure of this passage needs explaining, but I expect there are
>other ways to do that e.g. by interpreting 'ASHER in 6:4 to mean
>something like "as a result of".

No, I am saying Moses (or whoever) did indeed notice that his finished text 
had
doublets, and liked his text that way, as it best preserved his sources. Now 
we also
have to look at the possibility of sources that are also compilations. 
Perhaps Moses
was just putting together toldot accounts, but this particular toldot account 
was itself
a conflation of sources. Then, if Moses was redacting conservatively, he 
would not
dare mess with the content of the text to make it prettier or more logical. 
At any rate,
the text as it stands is quite beautiful, and the repititions of God's 
declaration of
Judgment (and its cause) are each different in style, and tell a much fuller 
story when
read next to its partner, even giving the story a sort of rhythm, and so if 
Moses
inherited a conflated text, then the initial conflator knew what he was 
doing, and if
Moses himself did the deed, then he produced a great text in so doing. Neither
redaction scenario demands that Moses or his predecessors be blind or
schizzophrenic.

And we may find ways to explain away doublets in scripture, but it will take 
hundreds
of explanations to get them all. Now I understand that explaining them all as
multiplicity in sources is ludicrous, and this has been my charge against 
JEPD for the
longest. But to allow this huge variety of explanations for the great number 
of doublets
in scripture, ranging from "they aren't really doublets", "God does things in 
twos",
"there are hidden spiritual pearls in there", "it is a literary device", etc. 
but not to allow
the fairly innocuous possibility of "various sources were involved" seems to 
me to be
biased thinking. It is highly probable that at least a small fraction of the 
doublets in
scripture are a result of source material.

>POINT 2: As for the divisions by the "toldot" formula, is it evidence
>of the multiple authorship of this E-mail (before the "Reply
>Separator"!) that there is a repeated formulaic heading "POINT n"?

It is evidence that can be interpreted as a thematic division or as a 
redactionary
division. My interpretation is that it signals a source, but it must not be 
interpret this
way. My interpretation rests on the fact that separate thematic units are not 
always
signalled by toldots. There is not a toldot between the account of the 
creation of the
garden and the temptation of Eve. There are many changes of style and theme 
where
there are no toldots.

My statement about topologically complete toldot accounts does not mean that I
believe that each one is restricted to one topic. All I am saying is that 
each account
CAN be read as a separate piece of literature, albiet some are merely 
geneologies.

>POINT 3 (relevant to some other recent postings): Is it evidence that
>a different Peter Kirk wrote this E-mail that I am adopting a
>tongue-in-cheek combative style for this one rather than the more
>academic style of some of my other recent postings?

I made no statement about changes in style being evidence of redaction, and I 
am not
sure if you are rebutting me or someone else. Anyway, I merely spoke of 
toldots and
doublets. I agree that authors can change styles, and do so both voluntarily 
for literary
effect, and involuntarily as they write their compositions over long periods 
of time or in
varied circumstances. I even dare to believe that Mark 16:9-20 is original.

Now I do have one more piece of evidence to add. As the others, it is not 
meant to be
some sort of absolute proof, but rather be a fact that lends itself to being 
interpreted
as evidence that sources were involved. The evidence is this: If one is not 
prepared to
believe that Genesis was in fact revealed by God on Sinai in a cloud of smoke 
and fire,
then to assume that one man, even from an advanced middle eastern 
civilization,
could write a history of the entire world which has even some degree of 
accuracy, and
has not to this day been proven untrue or mythical by modern science, without 
the aid
of any sort of source material from people who were close to the actual event 
is
absolutely ludicrous. The fact that Genesis is the literary work that it is 
is evidence
that it was either handed down by God, or that Moses (or whoever) was 
inhumanly
brilliant, or that there was source material involved. For those who don't 
buy the Sinai
theory, this is pretty convincing evidence for sources. Now, I have mentioned 
before
that I DO subscribe to some version of the Sinai story, but even those who do 
join me
in that endeavor are then faced with the fact that God either left mankind in 
the dark
until the moment of Sinai, or He had provided mankind from the very beginning 
with
accounts about where he came from and where he was going, either through 
inspiring
the men of old to write and redact them, or through previous acts of 
miraculous
intervention.

So from either world view (secular or fundamentalist), the existence of 
previous
sources is almost mandated, and in the former, their use is almost certain, 
while in
the latter, their use is a logical conclusion, particularly if one assumes 
that God and
Moses wanted to maintain continuity with previous stages of revelation.

Now please understand, I do not aim to do anything other than convince people 
that
Genesis came from Moses on Sinai under God's direction. I am just saying that 
there
was some redaction and compiling of pre-existing sources up on that mountain 
top.




Jonathan Bailey
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg