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: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:40:59 +0100

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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page