Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:
>
>
>>> 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'.


Not true. See Genesis 3:1 second use, 3:3, 3:5, most of chapter 4 has YHWH
only except for 4:25, then 5:1.

Furthermore, this argument is pure JEP which you claimed you reject; or do
you?


> 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.
>
> What does that mean? The text is not clear. There is more than one way to
take it. Without a clear answer, is not any answer we give pure speculation?
I have also learned the hard way that pure speculation can get one in a vat
of hot water, therefore to be avoided.


>
>> 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?
>
> I already gave my reasons for the problem, context.

>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Here you are speculating on something beyond the text itself, namely why
the story where Joseph is the main character was included here. I was
limiting myself to the text itself.

Now if you want to speculate, it could be that this was the only document
that Moses (the redactor) had that showed why Israel was in Egypt, therefore
that’s why he included it. But that is speculation that cannot be shown from
the text itself.

The reason I mentioned that text is because of Genesis 37:2, showing that
the concluding formula cannot be the heading for the following.

>
>
> James Christian
>

Karl W. Randolph.