Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.
>
> This is exactly what I am saying about Genesis 2:4, belonging to what
preceded it.


>

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.
>

What problematic handling?

>
>  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.
>
The only clue that you have presented so far has been JEP. Other than that,
there is no complete shift in style. I have totally rejected JEP for other
reasons, therefore see no reason to consider the addition of the Name as a
clue to different styles. Furthermore, I see contextual clues that link 2:4
with chapter one, as well the style is closer to chapter one.

>
>
>
>>  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'.
>
Your statement implies a question of “Why”? Why is it important that this
distinction be made? The text is not clear in answering your question.

>
>
>
>>
>>>  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.
>
> I already was more explicit, twice, and see no reason to repeat myself.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>  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?
>
> Look at chapter one of Exodus, there’s your answer.


> 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.
>
> Where do you get this “greater purpose”? Where is it spelled out? Which
chapter and verse can I look up to find it? Or is this “greater purpose”
part of a theological school which I have already rejected for other
reasons?


> James Chrsitian
>
> Karl W. Randolph.