Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:25 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Karl,
>
> Genesis 2:4 seems to be the greatest evidence that your theory just doesn't
> work. We find the same construct relationship in Genesis 2:4 and yet if we
> were to follow the 'formula' then that would make the author of the initial
> creation account the skies and the land.


At this point, I’m inclined to say, “Don’t be foolish!” The heavens and
earth cannot be authors.

The formula had the author and title listed after the document, but did not
make the listing of both a requirement. Many cases the title is missing,
here’s a case where the author is missing.


> Also, one great item of evidence that prevents Genesis 2:4 from being
> linked with the preceding creation account is the use of the name YHWH,
> whish is consistently not used in the creation account from Genesis 1:1-2:3
> but begins to be used consistently from Genesis 2:4 onwards linking Genesis
> 2:4 with the following events rather than the preceding.
>
> While a consideration, does not rule out being the closing of the previous.


> …
>
> Genesis 37:2 gets us back on track and starts the history of Jacob.


Starts the story of Joseph. But that doesn’t make sense, i.e. the formula
and what follows don’t work together well.


> …
>
>
> James Christian
>
> The story of Isaac is told from Isaac’s point of view, not Rebecca’s,
lending credence to the indication that Esau was the author of that section.
Another thing these indicate is that Isaac and Ishmael remained on friendly
terms, and Esau and Jacob patched up their relationship. So I see no problem
having them at the end of their respective sections.

I have read these over several times, including times specifically focussing
on them, and my conclusion is that the best reading for them is that of a
concluding list of title and author.

Karl W. Randolph.