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: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:03:30 +0100

Hi,

Quoting 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.

Genesis 3:1, 3:3, 3:5 and 4:25 are all direct quotations of somebody speaking. None of them are narrative.

Chapter 4 is clearly another story of another episode altogether. A change in style seems normal. This is not necessarily indicate of another author, though.

5:1 doesn't come into the discussion because I'm showing reasons why a colophon interpretation presents difficult issues. On the contrary, verse 5:1 is for you to explain. Which reminds me, you didn't deal with the problematic handling of SPR TLDTH )DM that your interpretation implies.

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


This isn't pure JEP. Pure JEP goes on to break texts up all over the place. I'm just noting a complete shift in style from up to and including 2:3 with 2:4 onwards. I am not concluding that these must therefore be different documents by different authors. Style can change for a number of reasons and different documents and different authors are just 2 explanations from a whole variety of possible explanations.



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.


I'm afraid it is perfectly clear. I've heard several attempts at explaining this verse but they are only inspired by attempts to explain the verse in light of other assumptions. The verse means exactly what it says 'At that time a start was made of calling on the name of Jehovah'.




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.


But the context fits fine with being a heading. You need to be a bit more explicit.




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.


Then this speculation begs the further speculation of why didn't Moses (or whoever the redactor was) see fit to include any details about what happened between the episode of Joseph and the beginning of Exodus? Did nothing happen in those hundreds of years?

The purposeful selection of what to tell cannot be simply ignored with the Genesis accounts. The nation of Isreal consists of 12 tribes. We don't need any more information from Genesis because it's all there for us. Who got what blessing, how Jacob and his family ended up in Egypt and how there came to be 12 tribes in Isreal. The greater purpose of the texts cannot be ignored or denied. It is what guided their inclusion in the first place.

James Chrsitian


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.
_______________________________________________
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