Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>]

On 7/4/06, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk> wrote:
> JCR: But this would present a number of problems which
> are irreconcilable with the biblical account. The most
> important obstacle you would have to overcome is why
> on earth the children would grow old and die if they
> had never committed this original sin. Secondly, you
> would have to come up with a reasonable internal
> textual reason for why the birth of children is only
> mentioned after the expulsion narrative in a new
> narrative which is clearly post-expulsion in context.

I think Shoshanna has made clear that she accepts these traditions as
equal in authority with the written text. So from her perspective
there is not a need to defend this position with the written text. She
only needs to come to terms with what insight this gives her about the
written text. The first problem you raise is a theological one.
Punishing the children for the act of the parents is not unheard of
and even mentioned elsewhere in the Torah. The second problem assumes
a strictly chronological order to the entire text. There is no reason
to assume this and understanding the text to contain a collection of
individual stories that may overlap solves this nicely.

> Joel wrote:
> It important to note that she is the mother of _all_ living. This is
> not just humans but part of her calling. Just as Adam gets to till the
> earth and take care of things, Eve gets to mother everything. These
> are archetypal symbols.
> END QUOTE
>
> JCR: Enjoying the 4th July festivities? Haven't been
> drinking by any chance have you?
>
> So, let me get this straight... Contrary to accepted
> tradition and the internal testimony of Proverbs 8:22-24
> the earth, heavens and water already existed before
> Genesis 1:1, barah doesn't mean create because that
> would contradict your theory that the author of Genesis
> copied from ancient creation myths, and in line with
> other mythical stories Eve was the mother of all the
> animals? I'm noticing an interesting pattern in all of
> your theories. They all seem to share the same basic
> common elements:
>
> a) They contradict accepted tradition
Darn. I'd hate to think something new.
> b) They could be offensive to many who hold their faith
> dear
Sorry about that. (And here I am being sincere. I would not encourage
anyone to abandon faith)
> c) They all seem to be influenced by extra biblical
> texts and or pagan religious texts
Yes let's stay away from contemporary documents.
> d) They all depend on an entirely spurious linguistic
> line of 'evidence'
Well at least your giving me evidence.
> e) They are all completely unprovable
As opposed to traditional views? Have you heard of this thing called science?
> f) None of them stand up to close linguistic and/or
> textual scrutiny/analysis
Which is why anyone trained in linguistics or textual criticism
accepts traditional views.

You got me James. Dead to rights. I am an uneducated drunken
Babylonian Druid hellbent on destroying judeaochristian faith. Get the
stake and light the bonfire. Hurry before I sacrifice some children or
something :)

Happy fourth everyone.

Joel Stucki