Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Quoting 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.

I have to disagree. From Genesis 1:1-2:3 we see consistent use of  
Elohim. From Genesis 2:4 onwards we see consistent use of 'Yhwh God'.  
This is more than just a momentary shift. It is consistently one way  
before hand and consistently the other way afterwards. If we are to  
consider these histories as different documents then comparison with  
Genesis 4:26 may give us an important clue:

And to Seth also there was born a son and he proceeded to call his  
name E´nosh. At that time a start was made of calling on the name of  
Jehovah.

The implication is that the author of Genesis 2:4-4:26 who shows a  
preference for using the name-title combination Yhwh-El concludes his  
document with the above.

Then Genesis 5:1 starts with the statement 'This is the book of'.  
Granted we can translate as 'account' rather than book but this does  
give a certain amount of credence to a theory based on separate  
documents. But this brings us onto a valid point that a translation of  
'document' for TLDTH would make awkward sense here:

'This is the book of the document of Adam'
'This is the account of the document of Adam'

The only translation I can get to maybe work in English is 'This is  
the account of Adam's document' as a kind of statement saying  
something like 'I copied this from Adam's document but this is really  
stretching the boundaries of a translator's justifications.

However, the translation 'This is the book/account of Adam's history'  
doesn't stretch those boundaries and fits quite nicely with the  
context that follows.


> 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.

Anyway, getting back to your original objection Genesis 2:4 fits the  
context of what follows quite well. We are taken into the 'day of the  
skies and the land being created' and we focus on the creation of man  
and woman in a bit more detail. Where's the problem with 2:4  
introducing what happens in the immediately following context?


> > > [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.

I agree with everything you just said except for your conclusion that  
this story is just about Joseph.

Your reasoning, here, in fact contradicts itself. You postulate that  
Genesis was originally a series of documents that some later redactor  
saw fit to include before the rest of the Torah. If this story is just  
about Joseph and not at all about how Isreal and his family ended up  
in Egypt in the first place then the golden question is 'Why on earth  
did the later redactor feel it had contextual value right between  
Jacob's document and the Exodus'?

I think you are compelled to agree that the redactor must have agreed  
with my sentiments that the story is more than just about Joseph and  
what a nice guy he was.


> > > [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.

Many of the quotes I gave didn't have seed in them. I provided them  
for greater context and tracking of promises and blessings in general.  
This is the recurrent theme in Genesis. Who gets the blessing?

I know that many are used in the sense of descendents. That's the  
whole point. Who gets the blessing = who is going to be the father of  
Yhwh's people. This is why there are no further refinements at or  
immediately after the episode with Joseph. There is merely a hint at  
who will much later become King of the nation.


James Christian

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