Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting 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.
>>
>>
> Agreed. But you haven't addressed the real issue which is the fact that we
> see here the exact same construct relationship.
>
I focus on the meaning as backed up by the context, you on the isolated
form.

Looking at the context, the subject of the first chapter is the creation of
the universe. The subject of the second chapter is God’s and Man’s
relationship, extending through the fourth chapter. Genesis 2:4 fits the
context of the first chapter, not the second and following. This is what I
see as the real issue.

>
>  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.
>>
>>
> You've skipped past the important stuff here but I'll answer this anyway.
> This isn't simply a story about Joseph. This is the story of how 'Isreal'
> ended up in Egypt. Joseph is instrumental to the story but of no further
> importance.


Read that section again: it starts and ends with Joseph, and in the middle,
with a couple of minor exceptions, is about Joseph’s life in Egypt, his
father’s reaction to his “death”, how he dealt with his brothers as told
from Joseph’s viewpoint, etc. That Israel ended up in Egypt is only
incidental to the story.


> The promised 'seed' is not through his lineage but through Judah's lineage.


That is irrelevant to the story, as presented in Genesis.


> The story is far much more than just a nice story about Joseph. Is about
> how all twelve brothers ended up in Egypt in a status very much higher than
> that of slavery. Just because the narrative starts off with Joseph doesn't
> make the story *all* about him.
>
It shows the type of man Joseph was, loyal to his family even when they
mistreated him. His treatment of his brothers is a major part of the story
of Joseph, but the totality of the story is from Joseph’s viewpoint. And as
I wrote above, the story also ends with Joseph.

>
>
>>  …
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> You've totally lost me here. According to your interpretation of the
> formula we trust Esau as the faithful historian who tells us all about what
> Isaac did while Jacob just tells us about Esau's lineage.


Any reason why not? It looks as if you are making assumptions not brought
out in the text.


> What Rebecca has to do with the discussion is completely beyond me.
>
Didn’t you read the story? Jacob was mama’s boy, while Esau was Dad’s. That
the story is told from Dad’s focus with Mama hardly mentioned is a clue as
to the authorship.

>
>  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.
>>
>>
> Who made friends with who is not a part of the narrative.


What narrative are you talking about? It doesn’t sound like the one I read
in Genesis.


> The main points are that we understand is whose lineage the promised 'seed'
> is to come through and which neighbouring nations Esau is the father of. You
> are reading things into the narrative that it's original intention was not
> the focus of.
>
Where do you get this thing about the original intention? And what’s this
about “focus”? Again this does not sound like Genesis as written.

>
>  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.
>>
>>
> That's fine. But you haven't commented on the main issues being raised
> here.
>
> You are basically saying that:
>
> 1) We don't know who wrote the originally wrote the creation account from
> Genesis 1:1 -


All I said is that it is not listed, but from the contextual clues the
author is God.


> 2:3 but we do know that while consistently not using the name Yhwh he
> decided to use it in the colophon in a way which is typical of the language
> of the author of Genesis 2:4 onwards
>
> Any reason why he couldn’t?


> 2) Adam is the author of the episode in the garden of Eden
>
> Well, he lived through it, any reason why he couldn’t author a document of
his experience?


> 3) Noah is the author of what happened from Adam to his day.
>
> Any reason why he couldn’t?


> 4) Shem, Ham and Japheth are the joint authors of what happened in the days
> of Noah
>
> Why not?


> 5) Shem is the author of what became of his brothers
>
> Why not?


> 6) Terah is the author of what happened from Shem to his day
>
> Why not?


> 7) Ishmael is the author of all that Abraham did
>
> Why not?


> 8) Isaac is the author of what became of Ishmael
>
> Why not? He and Ishmael remained in contact with each other, buried their
father together (Genesis 25:9), and Isaac lived 180 years, so could very
well have followed his brother’s lineage for several generations.


> 9) Esau is the author of what Jacob did and how his brother extorted him
> out of his rights of first born and then stole his blessing by taking
> advantage of his father's blindness
>
> Why not? It made him furious enough to wish to kill his brother. Yet he
also told of the secondary blessing Isaac gave which gave him an out, that
he was the more powerful of the two while they were yet alive in that he
could head up an army, and they remained in contact with each other as can
be seen in that together they buried their father.


> 10) Jacob is the author of what became of Esau and his offspring
>
> Why not?


> 11) No author given to the final account which you reduce to a story about
> Joseph yet evidently missing it's greater significance.
>
> What greater significance? Are you reading something into the text that is
not there?


> In a way, I can see why you this is interpretation is appealing to you but
> you cannot ignore that in order to support this interpretation you have to
> ignore the fact that on three separate occasions we see the exact same
> phenomena.
>
> The next so-called 'author' in the series only gives a summary of what his
> brother's did for historical background knowledge of neighbouring nations
> while the next so-called 'document' is all about what happened from that
> 'author' on.
>
> This happens for:
>
> 1) Shem
> 2) Isaac
> 3) Jacob
>
> If this only happened once it would be easy to wipe aside. But as it
> happens three times it starts to get a little difficult to brush aside
> without addressing properly.
>
> And the corresponsing phenomenon which happens three times over for:
>
> 1) Shem, Ham and Japheth
> 2) Ishmael
> 3) Esau
>
> All three times for these people through whom the promised 'seed' is not
> destined to come the following account is a quick summary of which nations
> these guys fathered and with no further ado let's get back to what really
> matters which is recording the key events in the lineage of the 'seed' and
> with who Yhwh continues to reaffirm that promise.
>
> And finally, the observation that after Jacob there is not further TLDTH
> construct as there are no further refinements of in whose lineage the seed
> would be in the next generation. Although, there is a hint of a further
> refinement to the lineage of Judah in Genesis 49:5
>
> The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff
> from between his feet, until Shi´loh comes; and to him the obedience of the
> peoples will belong
>
> James Christian
>

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude or disrespectful, but this last section
sounds like a bunch of theological gobbilygook of the sort I have learned to
distrust and reject. It looks as if you are imposing an overarching theme of
which I see no evidence from the text itself. In short, your objections
sound like eisegesis,  not exegesis.

Karl W. Randolph.