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 18:04:01 +0100

Hi,

Quoting 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.

What exactly is poetic about the structure earth and heavens? This a prose summary.



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.


No, I'm not. So, do you envisage Joseph to have authored this with no purpose? Purpose only came into play when Moses purposefully included a purposeless text?

There is absolutely no logic to this whatsoever.

James Christian






James Christian


Karl W. Randolph.




--
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