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 17:09:47 +0100

Hi,

Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:

James:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:40 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

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:


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.


Oh that’s the problem — miscommunication. I couldn’t understand why you kept
harping on what I thought was 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.


In Genesis 2:4, you have failed to show a shift other than the JEP
inspired one by use of YHWH.


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,

I thought you’d recognize that there is no exact equivalent in English for
YLD or its derivative TLDT, nor for SPR, therefore I made a quick nonliteral
translation just to keep the discussion going. I didn’t expect you to get
hung up on it.

Literally, as far as I can tell, YLD had the meaning of “to bring forth” as
in the bringing forth of ideas, events, actions and babies. To translate
this term literally would make for an awkward use of English, hence no
translation does so. Rather, we use equivalents to the meaning in English
according to each context. Another nonliteral translation that would give
the meaning in this context would be “narrative”.

Similarly SPR refers to (re)counting, both of narratives and numbers, and to
the physical object that preserves the recounting.



You've just done it again. You've completely sidestepped the issue and offered me *nothing*.

The issue here is that if we are to accept your understanding of TLDTH we get a ridiculous repetition with SPR and TLDTH both meaning the same thing.


'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?

Start with context: just as chapter one is about the creation of heavens
and earth, so this verse is about the creation of heavens and earth. This I
have mentioned repeatedly.

While stylistically chapter one is prose, it is a semi-poetic prose (i.e.
prose that has some poetic elements) that some have mistaken for poetry, so
also this verse has the poetic element of mirroring “the heavens and the
earth” with “earth and heavens”.

In contrast, chapter two has no poetic elements to its prose. The change in
style starts with Genesis 2:5.


So, which bits of 2:4 do you consider to be poetic exactly?




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?

While these questions are all legitimate, they are irrelevant to the
questions of authorship and even to who is the main subject of the
narration. That’s why I don’t understand why you keep harping on them.


I disagree. Purpose of the text is quite an important line of evidence when considering who its author was.



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

James Christian

Karl W. Randolph.

Ps: to Yitzhak:

I have specifically avoided the use of the term “colophon” because it is my
understanding that a colophon is a statement added later, sometimes much,
much later, by a publisher or other writer, that it is not part of the
original document. In contrast, the title and even author can be chosen by
the author himself for the document.

I admit that the lecturer that I heard could have been mistaken, but he
specifically stated that the author and title were what was at the end of a
narration, not a colophon.

Further, I notice in the case of Genesis 2:4, that the title is in the same
style as the preceding chapter, as I mentioned above.

Further, the lecturer specifically mentioned that the practice of appending
the title and author at the end of a document went out of use before 1500 BC
(replaced by the colophon?) which would make later examples such as that in
Ruth irrelevant to the discussion. Where he got his information? I don’t
know.

When I read Genesis, I see the TLDT formula as consistent with what the
lecturer said. As for the dates, the lecturer may yet be proven wrong.
_______________________________________________
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