Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:4

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 2:4
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:41:24 -0700

James:


Karl:
According to an ancient, mid second millennium and before, literary
style, the title and author were appended on the end of a document,
not the beginning as today. It is the presence of that literary style
in Genesis, which was no longer used in Moses' day, that gives a clue
that Moses used older documents in compiling Genesis.
END QUOTE

JCR: How do we know this?

This I learned from scholars of ancient literature, and you can accuse
me of trusting them.

Karl:
You read it as a modern reader would, not as an ancient would have.
END QUOTE

JCR: But what do you make of Genesis 10:1?

The verse in question as it originally ended, according to literary practice:
ואלה תולדת בני־נח שם חם ויפת׃

Then the next section, as it started:
ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול׃

This is how I read it. This is where the original following document
was either written, or edited to fit by Moses, in relation to the
prior document.

....What follows
is clearly the account being referred to as prior there
is no mention of Shem's, Ham's or Japeth's children
except for the passing mention that Canaan was Ham's
progeny. And this is only supplied so that the context
for the malediction be understood. I hope to read this
as the ancient would but how could an ancient possibly
understand Genesis 10:1 as the close of the flood
account rather the beginning of the account of Shem's,
Ham's and Japheth's offspring which follows when the
wording explicitly points us in that direction?

Once one learns about the ancient literary practice, then the wording
explicitly points to the end of the flood account. But to those who
don't know the literary practice, I agree that it looks as if it is an
introduction to the following.

I ask out of genuine interest and accept that my first
instinct may well be wrong.

James C. Read
UK

Of course I could be mistaken in my division of Genesis 10:1. The
original document could very well have ended with the comment that
they fathered children after the flood.

Karl W. Randolph.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page