Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

Just a few comments:

On 17 May 2009 at 10:12, James Read wrote:

[snip]
> 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?

He acknowledges it, but like me, he doesn't consider it significant.  I find 
the whole JEP
thing unconvincing, and to deal with a theory such as this one based on it is 
nothing but
presupposition.

[snip]
> > 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.

No, Karl is correct here.  You're reading it in light of subsequent events in 
Exodus.  But if
you read it strictly from the POV of the Genesis material it's about Joseph, 
not the location
of his family.

> >> 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.

Wrong again, James.  Once again you're reading it in light of subsequent 
materials as well
as theological assumption.  That's not an appropriate way to read it for 
determining things
like authorship or the validity of this colophon hypothesis.

[snip]
> > 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.

No, this is not a recurring theme *in Genesis*.  It becomes a theme later, 
but again, that
doesn't help us when we look at Genesis by itself to try and determine 
sources, authors and
all that, unless one is predisposed to the whole JE business.  The fact is, 
if this theory has
merit, then it contradicts, not to say negates, the JE idea.  Once again, I 
won't go to the wall
for this idea, but to simply write it off because it doesn't fit another 
theory is not a legitimate
approach.

[snip]
> > 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

No.  Eisegesis is reading things in that aren't there, such as this whole 
"promised seed"
business that is anything but prominent in Genesis, and is only really seen 
later on.  After
some subsequent events, narratives and interpretations, it's possible (though 
not
necessary) to see hints of it in Genesis, but it's not a prominent theme in 
Genesis when
Genesis is read on its own.  Hence, pulling that out and making it a 
prominent or
overarching theme is eisegesis.  Exegesis is reading what's there and sorting 
it out, such as
looking at the structure of a certain narrative and recognizing that it 
strongly resembles
some other ancient documents.  This is how genre criticism has been done for 
ages.  Now
all of a sudden it's eisegesis.  Fascinating.


Dave Washburn

Ibuprofen, Hebuprofen, Shebuprofen, Theybuprofen, wouldn't you like to be a 
profen too?