Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi,

this was your answer to the detailed breakdown of the structure of  
Genesis 5 that I gave you? I've started to notice that this is  
characteristic. When you are given major issues that need to be dealt  
with in order for your theory to be accepted you completely sidestep  
them as if they weren't there or were never even raised.

Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

> James:
> Why are you putting so much effort into trying to disprove this
> understanding of the text?

I'm not putting effort into disproving anything. On the contrary, your  
theory could only be given recognition if it proved to stand up to  
this kind of test. Evidently it doesn't and that's why you feel the  
need to completely sidestep the major issues being raised e.g.

To what context is the 'them' of Genesis 5:1b referring if Genesis  
5:1a is a colophon of the preceeding document?

You have also been given an outline of the literary structure of  
Genesis 5 that both works and stands in contradiction to your theory.  
Your refusal to face these issues head on does not do anything to give  
more credence to your theory. It just makes it look like something you  
have clearly already decided on and are not willing engage fully in an  
objective consideration of.

James Christian

P.S. I find most of what you have outlined below irrelevant as I have  
already made it clear that I agree that 'generations' doesn't work.  
The point is that 'document' doesn't either and you have been asked to  
consider the third possibility 'history' which works for all and has  
none of the problems associated with 'generations' or 'document'.  
Please, if you are going to continue, stay focused on this distinction  
otherwise we are both talking to straw men.


> One way I deal with lexicography is to start with the easy cases, then go to
> the hard ones. If the easy cases give one clear meaning, then I make the
> assumption that the harder to understand verses use the same meaning. There
> are times where that practice has allowed me to recognize idioms, literary
> conventions and sometimes just make sense of a verse.
>
> Now it is clear from Genesis 2:4, 6:9a and 37:2a that this does not refer to
> generations. This is an easy case. Further, there is a disconnect between
> Genesis 37:2a and what follows. Another easy case. Not so easy, but still
> noticeable, there is a disconnect, like a full pause, between Genesis 6:9a
> and 6:9b, and Genesis 2:4 contextually and stylistically belongs to chapter
> one. Then I look at harder to recognize verses, such as Genesis 5:1–2, and
> see that they can be understood as a closing title and authorship claim.
> None necessarily contradict that claim.
>
> In order to disprove that these are following title and authorship claims,
> you need to show that the only way to read the formula is as a preceding
> title. I don’t think you can.
>
> 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.