Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi,

Quoting 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.

On the contrary, I think I am best known on this mailing list as one  
who believes that Hebrew courses should focus on vocabulary and the  
meaning of words in combination rather than on grammatical form.

You based your argument on the construct relationship to defend your  
theory of authorship. I pointed out that your construct relationship  
exists here with no author coming after it to show that your formula  
is inconsistent. I have raised this issue several times and you  
continue to sidestep it rather than address it directly. So my direct  
questions to you are:

a) Do you recognise a construct relationship here?
b) What is it in construct with?
c) How do you chose to translate it?

For example, you may chose to answer that you would translate it as  
'document of the sky and the land' or 'document about the sky and the  
land' to preserve some kind of consistency to your argument.

The second issue which you keep sidestepping and not dealing with  
directly is the use of the name and title 'Yhwh God' which we do not  
find in Genesis 1:1-2:3 but is typical of the language of the author  
of Genesis 2:4 onwards. Do you intend to even acknowledge this at some  
point?

> 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.

That's not entirely true. It can fit the context of both depending on  
your understanding of the formula. Your understanding of the formula  
forces you to your interpretation. Your understanding of the formula  
is based on what a trusted professor told you which is in turn based  
on a non Hebrew practise. If you had not been told aforehand about  
this, it is extremely unlikely that you would have come to such an  
interpretation on your own.



> >  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.

Read it again. It starts with Isreal and his family not in Egypt and  
in a land where they would have died through famine. It ends with  
Isreal and his family in Egypt, eating as much as they like, with  
their own land and very much in a privileged position.

> > The promised 'seed' is not through his lineage but through Judah's lineage.
>
>
> That is irrelevant to the story, as presented in Genesis.

I'm sorry but this is extremely relevant. The story of each and every  
patriarch climaxes with which of his sons is to receive the blessing  
and, therefore, in whose line we are to wait for the 'seed'. The whole  
point about Eve being given Seth in Abel's place is for who the seed  
would be born through. Eve is mentioned as having unnamed sons and  
daughters but it does not concern us what they are called because the  
whole account serves to track the seed.

> > 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.

Yes. I agree. It does show the above qualities of Joseph. This is  
valuable moral stuff but not the bigger picture of the story which  
picks up again in Exodus. The bigger picture of the story is the  
promised seed, Isreal and his offspring, ended up in Isreal. But now  
instead of enjoying the prominent position they had they are now being  
mistreated. Moses is the hero who takes that promised seed from  
slavery, 'as promised in Genesis'. Joshua is the promised hero who  
takes the seed from the desert to the land flowing with milk and  
honey, as promised in Genesis. David is the start of the Davidic line  
of kings from whom 'the scepter would not be taken away', as promised  
in Genesis. To see the story as just about Joseph is extremely short  
sighted and does not sit well either with the internal context or the  
greater external context.

> > >  …
> > > > 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.

Which assumptions are those? These few lines were just intended to  
elicit why you mention Rebecca when her name never came up in the  
question of authorship.

> > 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.

Ok. Reasons elicited. We can get back on with the debate. Yep, I read  
the story. I know who was mummy's boy and who was daddy's boy. One or  
two observations we can make here. All of the patriarchal narratives  
have more focus on the partiarch rather than on his wife. This is  
hardly evidence about who wrote the story. The repeating theme  
throughout the narratives is who gets the blessing and therefore  
carries the covenant and through whom we are to expect the promised  
seed. This theme repeats throughout each individual narrative and is  
the climax of each of them. If you were therefore to look for clues  
about authorship then you would do better to look at the question:

'In whose interest is it to make a claim at having received the blessing?'

than the question:

'Who was mummy's boy and who was daddy's boy?'

It is evidently in Jacob's interest to show that he received the  
blessing and not in Esau's. No doubt, Esau's children were accustomed  
to hearing a different version of the story just as Ishmael's  
children, to this very day, are accustomed to hearing a different  
version of the story.


> >  Another thing these indicate is that Isaac and Ishmael remained on
> > > friendly

Did you ever here about this little competing religion from the Arabic  
descendants of Ishmael called Islam? Funnily enough they seem to have  
a slightly different version of the events.

> > > 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.

I'm talking about the narratives in Genesis. To the best of my  
recollection there is no explicit mention of who made friends with  
who. If I am wrong then please reference the sections that make this  
explicit and I'll retract the statement. Until then it still stands.

Even the deadliest sibling rival Mafia bosses call a one day truce to  
burry their fathers. Your reading stuff into the account that simply  
isn't there. I'm not saying they didn't patch things up and I'm not  
saying that they did. All I'm saying is that I simply don't know  
because a) I wasn't there and b) the text doesn't make this explicit.

> > 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'm sure you've read Genesis many times so I'm not going to go away  
and get the references for you. But I'm sure you have noticed that  
throughout Genesis there is this recurring theme of promises regarding  
the seed and which partiarch gets the blessing concerning the seed  
from his father. For Isaac and Jacob this is made more obvious and we  
are left in no doubt. Having seen this pattern in Genesis when reading  
it for the first time I was expecting Joseph to be the one to receive  
the blessing and the promise about the seed. I was shocked to find  
that he wasn't and that it was, in fact, Judah that received the  
prophetic blessing. Granted, this is not as entirely obvious as with  
Isaac and with Jacob. This is because Isreal is to become one united  
nation with no further immediate refinements. The split between Judah  
and the northern kingdom was to come much much later.

> >  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.

Sure. That would be the only logical conclusion given your  
interpretation. There were, after all, no witnesses to this event.

> > 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?

You gave a series of why nots. I don't make any direct answers here  
because my purpose was not to present reasons why not. My purpose was  
to provide a summary of your position. The problems it presents are  
further down the page. You sidestepped them. I'll point out where they  
are for you so that can address them next time.

> > 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?

Like I said. The account ends up with Isreal in Egypt. Before Jacob  
dies he hands out the blessings to each of his sons. These are the  
main points of the narrative:

a) how they all ended up in Egypt
b) who got what blessing

To say that the account is all about Joseph is like saying:

a) the rest of the Torah is all about Moses and not about the  
salvation of Isreal
b) the book of Joshua is all about Joshua and not about Isreal's  
conquest of Canaan
c) the book of Judges is all about the individual Judges and not about  
the kingless period of Isreal
d) the books of kings are all about some prophets and a few kings and  
not about how there came about the davidic line, the temple of  
Solomon, the split into two kingdoms and the eventual exile
e) the book of Nehemiah is all about Nehemiah and not about the  
rebuilding of the Jerusalem's walls
f) the book of Ezra is all about Ezra and not about the return of  
Isreal from Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem

I hope you are starting to see that the account is a little bit more  
significant than just a nice story about Joseph.

> > 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.

Ok This is where the problems that your theory causes starts and the  
bit that you have sidestepped and might want to consider addressing in  
your next reply.

> > 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.

This is where it ends. You have not addressed these three coincidences  
that your theory generates. On three separate occasions, just after  
your 'authors' are named they are given a quick summary by the  
'author' through whom the seed comes and on we go with the more  
important stuff.

> > 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.

No worries. I didn't interpret anything you said as rude or  
disrespectful. I can see where you are coming from even if your theory  
does present lots of problems which you still haven't addressed.

One observation I will make though. My understanding of eisegesis is  
that when you are doing it you are 'reading things *into* the text'  
e.g. reading a colophon into the text because you have seen other  
ancient documents do this and are convinced that this must also be the  
case for the document in question

Likewise, my understanding of exegesis is that when you are doing it  
you are 'reading things *out of* the text' e.g. observing that each  
individual narrative climaxes with the blessings and which son will  
get the dominant blessing, be the carrier of the covenant for his seed  
to become many and inherit the land flowing with milk and honey

James Christian

> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.