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 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?

This has been explained to you in detail. You consistently sidestep  
the issues that need to be dealt with and choose instead points which  
are irrelevant. I have made it perfectly clear that I don't go in for  
the JEP thing either. Your attention was brought to the fact that this  
is not a momentary lapse but a completely consistent shift. You showed  
cases which you believed to be exceptions and it was pointed out to  
you that these were direct quotations and not part of the narrative.  
It was further pointed out that chapter 4 is completely different  
story and a shift in style causes no surprises. You have completely  
sidestepped these issues by asking 'what problematic handling?' about  
an issue which has clearly been raised and explained.

You are theorising an understanding of TLDTH as 'document'. In Genesis  
5:1 this doesn't make any sense because there is already an explicit  
reference to a document with SPR. Forcing your understanding of TLDTH  
on this verse makes understanding and translation of it extremely  
awkward. Literally,

'This is the scroll/book/account of Adam's document' versus 'This is  
scroll/book/account of Adam's history'


> >  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.
Ok. Now you are making a claim that should be consider. Can you make  
explicit what stylistic features you believe to be shared with chapter  
1?


> > >  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?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that

a) the stories are not just a random collection?
b) the stories contain huge gaps that historians would have loved to  
have been filled?
c) the stories do not fill these gaps because they are concerned with  
giving us other details which the author considers more relevant?
d) recurrently the stories show us who gets what blessing and from who?
e) without this collection of stories you would have no idea of a)  
where Isreal came from b) how their came to be 12 tribes of Isreal c)  
how they ended up in Egypt in slavery d) why they have a legitimate  
claim to the land of Canaan e) that they are God's favoured and  
blessed nation?

If you cannot at least acknowledge these facts then I officially give  
up trying.

James Christian



> > James Chrsitian
> >
> > 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.