Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:28 PM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting 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.
> >
>
> Just so we're absolutely clear here. I don't buy into the whole JEP
> thing either. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, we have to
> recognise that there is a shift in style from Genesis 1:1-2:3 to
> Genesis 2:4 onwards and that shift in style can be characterised by
> the use of 'Yhwh God'. This sudden shift in style does not sit well
> with the colophon theory independently of whether someone goes for the
> JEP thing, which, I cannot stress enough, I don't either.
>
> One verse is usually not long enough to indicate a shift in style, nor does
the inclusion of the name YHWH indicate a shift in style. The inclusion of
the name at the end of a document where it is not mentioned earlier is
within the variability of expression that is normal for individual human
discourse.

That’s why I emphasize that one must read it in context, which context does
it fit with? The context of the first chapter is the creation of the
universe. The context of the second through fourth chapters is man’s
relation to God, i.e. the story of man’s corruption from a perfect
beginning. Therefore, the conclusion is that Genesis 2:4 fits the context of
the first chapter, not the following.


> > [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.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but I'm not. Even the internal evidence shows that this
> story is about much more than just being about Joseph. If it was just
> about Joseph then let's sod his 11 brother and let starve in Canaan
> and have Joseph living happily ever after being best buddies with 'The
> Man'.
>
> That’s part of Joseph’s greatness is that he was not that sort of man. That
he saw himself as the caretaker of his family, which included his brothers,
was an important part of the story. But thematically, this is the story of
Joseph.

>
> > [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.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but it is. I thought I could rely on people's memory of
> reading Genesis and not have to go away and dig them all out (there
> are so many of them) but there doesn't seem to be any other option now.
>
> Genesis 3:15
>
> (snip quotes)

First of all, many of the quotes you have do not mention “seed”. Secondly,
“seed” is often used merely as a synonym for “descendant(s)”, sometimes in a
way that includes “descendants” who are not physical descendants. Thirdly,
in some of the quotes you are imputing promise where promise is not there in
the text itself.

>
> Doesn't that strike supporters of the 'this is a story about Joseph'
> as just a little odd. Joseph is the hero of the day but according to
> his fathers blessing he will bow down to Judah who will hold the
> scepter just like the rest of the brothers.
>
> No that’s not odd, just part of the story. Secondly, where in Genesis 49
does it say that he is to bow down to Judah? I don’t find it. I find it
neither explicit nor implicit. That again sounds like eisegesis. Just
because Judah is specifically mentioned as having a scepter does not negate
that the other brothers also held scepters, just that they’re not mentioned.


>
> James Christian


Karl W. Randolph.