Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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.