Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:09 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>:
>
>
>>>>  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?
>
> Duh ....! Look at two paragraphs above your question.

>
> 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.
>
> Here’s where I have to disagree with you. These questions have relevance as
to why Moses included these particular documents when he compiled Genesis,
but are irrelevant as to who composed the original documents nor even who is
the main subject of a document. You are focusing on the wrong place.

>
>
>>> James Christian
>>>
>>
Karl W. Randolph.