Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure
  • Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 10:12:18 +0100

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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page