Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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.