Just a few comments:
On 17 May 2009 at 10:12, James Read wrote:
[snip]
The second issue which you keep sidestepping and not dealing with
directly is the use of the name and title 'Yhwh God' which we do not
find in Genesis 1:1-2:3 but is typical of the language of the author
of Genesis 2:4 onwards. Do you intend to even acknowledge this at some
point?
He acknowledges it, but like me, he doesn't consider it significant. I find the whole JEP
thing unconvincing, and to deal with a theory such as this one based on it is nothing but
presupposition.
[snip]
> Read that section again: it starts and ends with Joseph, and in the middle,
> with a couple of minor exceptions, is about Joseph´s life in Egypt, his
> father´s reaction to his "death", how he dealt with his brothers as told
> from Joseph´s viewpoint, etc. That Israel ended up in Egypt is only
> incidental to the story.
>
Read it again. It starts with Isreal and his family not in Egypt and
in a land where they would have died through famine. It ends with
Isreal and his family in Egypt, eating as much as they like, with
their own land and very much in a privileged position.
No, Karl is correct here. You're reading it in light of subsequent events in Exodus. But if
you read it strictly from the POV of the Genesis material it's about Joseph, not the location
of his family.
>> The promised 'seed' is not through his lineage but through Judah's lineage.
>
>
> That is irrelevant to the story, as presented in Genesis.
>
I'm sorry but this is extremely relevant. The story of each and every
patriarch climaxes with which of his sons is to receive the blessing
and, therefore, in whose line we are to wait for the 'seed'. The whole
point about Eve being given Seth in Abel's place is for who the seed
would be born through. Eve is mentioned as having unnamed sons and
daughters but it does not concern us what they are called because the
whole account serves to track the seed.
Wrong again, James. Once again you're reading it in light of subsequent materials as well
as theological assumption. That's not an appropriate way to read it for determining things
like authorship or the validity of this colophon hypothesis.
[snip]
> Where do you get this thing about the original intention? And what´s this
> about "focus"? Again this does not sound like Genesis as written.
>
I'm sure you've read Genesis many times so I'm not going to go away
and get the references for you. But I'm sure you have noticed that
throughout Genesis there is this recurring theme of promises regarding
the seed and which partiarch gets the blessing concerning the seed
from his father. For Isaac and Jacob this is made more obvious and we
are left in no doubt. Having seen this pattern in Genesis when reading
it for the first time I was expecting Joseph to be the one to receive
the blessing and the promise about the seed. I was shocked to find
that he wasn't and that it was, in fact, Judah that received the
prophetic blessing. Granted, this is not as entirely obvious as with
Isaac and with Jacob. This is because Isreal is to become one united
nation with no further immediate refinements. The split between Judah
and the northern kingdom was to come much much later.
No, this is not a recurring theme *in Genesis*. It becomes a theme later, but again, that
doesn't help us when we look at Genesis by itself to try and determine sources, authors and
all that, unless one is predisposed to the whole JE business. The fact is, if this theory has
merit, then it contradicts, not to say negates, the JE idea. Once again, I won't go to the wall
for this idea, but to simply write it off because it doesn't fit another theory is not a legitimate
approach.
[snip]
> I´m sorry, I don´t mean to be rude or disrespectful, but this last section
> sounds like a bunch of theological gobbilygook of the sort I have learned to
> distrust and reject. It looks as if you are imposing an overarching theme of
> which I see no evidence from the text itself. In short, your objections
> sound like eisegesis, not exegesis.
>
No worries. I didn't interpret anything you said as rude or
disrespectful. I can see where you are coming from even if your theory
does present lots of problems which you still haven't addressed.
One observation I will make though. My understanding of eisegesis is
that when you are doing it you are 'reading things *into* the text'
e.g. reading a colophon into the text because you have seen other
ancient documents do this and are convinced that this must also be the
case for the document in question
Likewise, my understanding of exegesis is that when you are doing it
you are 'reading things *out of* the text' e.g. observing that each
individual narrative climaxes with the blessings and which son will
get the dominant blessing, be the carrier of the covenant for his seed
to become many and inherit the land flowing with milk and honey
No. Eisegesis is reading things in that aren't there, such as this whole "promised seed"
business that is anything but prominent in Genesis, and is only really seen later on. After
some subsequent events, narratives and interpretations, it's possible (though not
necessary) to see hints of it in Genesis, but it's not a prominent theme in Genesis when
Genesis is read on its own. Hence, pulling that out and making it a prominent or
overarching theme is eisegesis. Exegesis is reading what's there and sorting it out, such as
looking at the structure of a certain narrative and recognizing that it strongly resembles
some other ancient documents. This is how genre criticism has been done for ages. Now
all of a sudden it's eisegesis. Fascinating.
Dave Washburn
Ibuprofen, Hebuprofen, Shebuprofen, Theybuprofen, wouldn't you like to be a profen too?
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.