spin

I will deal with the assumptions here below.

I wrote this in my previous message:

As to the toledoth necessarily indicating an ordered list look at 37:2ff. for the toledoth heading regarding Jacob.

You have apparently conflated TWLDT with a toledoth formula. The formula doesn't imply the latter, as other examples of TWLDT show (eg 17:7, 9, 12).

Your problem here seems to be your restricted understanding of the verb YLD, the source of TWLDT. Look at Ps 7:14: "The conceive mischief and bring forth falsehood", or Job 38:29, "And the hoarfrost of heaven who gave birth to it?" What about Proverbs 27:1 talking of what a day may bring forth?

Because you are too literal with the significance of TWLDT. As God can bring forth hoarfrost in Job, he can also bring forth the whole cosmos.

If by "genealogy" you entail "human genealogy", I would disagree with your restricted interpretation of the Hebrew. And I would think that even "genealogy" may be too restrictive, if you consider the toledoth of 37:2.

The physical nature of YLD is naturally totally out of place with a theological outlook of God creating the cosmos simply by divine fiat.

I don't see the 2:4a toledoth particularly anomalous. I think you have to make it anomalous, because of your prior commitments!


spin

Apikorus

Sorry, spin but we cross-posted on 37:2ff; I had added a comment on that at the end. See above. What follows 37:2 is not a toledot of Jacob, but rather the story of Joseph. 37:2 is a redactional colophon. Like 2:4a, it refers to the material preceding it.

You failed to address Gen 25:13, which is clearly in toledot form and exactly parallels the structure of 10:32. You continue to miss my point about 10:32. It is not of the toledot structure simply because it uses the word twldt, although that clearly is significant. eileh mishpachot b'nei noach alone suffices. Again, a toledot formula (in P) is something that says "here is/was a genealogical list". 10:32 and 25:13 do just that.

You say that 2:4a doesn't go well with 1:1 - 2:3 because toledot is "physical" and the P narrative "theological". This is perhaps more a matter of personal taste, but even if I were to agree with your views here, it is quite irrelevant. 2:4a was written by a different author than that of 1:1 - 2:3 or of 2:4b - 2:25. The goal of the author of 2:4a was to link two different sections of material. Surely the redactor had neither the theological views of P nor the storytelling impulse of J.

As for the psalter, I think it confuses the issue to bring additional authors into the picture.

spin

Redactional colophon to what though? This toledoth talks of the family of Jacob, who incidentally went into Egypt after Joseph. But you are looking for a nice ordered list. "Redactional" I would also argue. "Colophon" definitely not.

You're right. The redactional formula is in 25:12. Perhaps the redactor didn't bother about there already being a similar sentence at the beginning of the section he was incorporating.

I have shown that you are not dealing with the full significance of the term TWLDT. If one cannot deal with the semantic domain of a word, I don't think that word can be understood... unless you'd like to propose that we have to understand a word only in the context of its author's usage without attempting to find out just what the word means from a wide range of usage?


spin

spin

So, you say that 2:4a was not written by the writer(s) of 1:1-2:3. We both agree there. We both agree that 2:4a wasn't written by the writer(s) of the following account.

I think that this is the only place we seem to disagree now. You see this toledoth as simply glue, while I see that it was at the beginning of the text before the first creation was added. It was already in place along with all the other toledoth formulae and it functioned in the same way as all the other toledoth formulae: it introduced a bringing forth (whether that be an ordered list or not), so that the earlier Genesis material became a collection of bringings forth. This was the state of the game when the first creation account was added still later.

Indubita-dubita-dibly.


spin

Amos

Gen. 1 is not the same as Gen.2. In Gen. 1 it was God who merely "said" to create the essence of existence and in Gen.2 it was Lord God who "formed" that which was created in Gen.1.

If only the essence of existence was created in Gen.1 no rain was needed because no-thing had been formed as of yet.

The division of land and sea was the division between the conscious and subconscious mind and rain only falls (rain is a metaphor for conflict) on the conscious mind while creation issues forth from the subconsciuous mind.

Gen.1 and 2 suggest that essence precedes existence and that without creation no thoughts are possible and thus no rain falls in Gen.1 to bring our creations into existence. Or, conversely, rain (rational thoughts) are needed to materialize our concepts.

spin

Gee, I never thought of that.


spin

Apikorus

OK, I think there's a limit to how much a single half-verse can be analyzed, and spin and I are now running up against that limit. I'm not convinced by his arguments, but I acknowledge and respect his obvious competency, and I've certainly benefited from our exchange. Ultimately we agree on virtually everything save for whether the redactional link in 2:4a serves primarily as a conclusion to 1:1 - 2:3 or as an introduction to 2:4b - 2:25. Given that 2:4a is a link, the redactor may well have intended it to serve a dual purpose, so we could both be right.

At any rate, there is much work to be done in mercilessly demolishing the worldview of biblically credulous fundamentalists, so perhaps we should agree to disagree on the minutiae.

Doctor X

Spin et Apikorus:

I have enjoyed your discussion, what I could follow not having any credible grasp of Hebrew. I have two questions/thoughts.

Genesis 2b:

Friedman identifies this as the hand of the Redactor (R). I note that in later posts you both agree that this is a different writer from J and P so maybe that is not much of a revelation.

"Create" or "Cut:

this would make the openning P creation more akin to earlier myths where the god physically separates the heavens from the earth. This may bother some who take the text literally, of course.

References:

Richard Elliott Friedman. Who Wrote the Bible?. Harper Collins, 1997 edition

Claus Westermann. Genesis: An Introduction. Fortress Press, 1992.

Dean Anderson

Apikorus/Spin

I have found your discussion fascinating, so far.

Is there any chance that one (or both) of you could be really nice and summarise on a new thread (for the benefit of us Hebrew-ignorant lurkers) the Genesis 1-2 accounts and point out how 'standard' translations differ from the meaning that current scholarly opinion ascribes to the Hebrew text.

I realise that this might be a large task - so I understand if you don't have time - but I am sure that I am not the only layman (back me up here, people) out here that would be eternally grateful for a simple summary if such a thing is possible (rather than having to slog through a highly technical research paper or book).

Maybe you could do it as a companion to the Introduction to Biblical Criticism & History thread as an example and it could be made sticky. I think it would be a great example to use, because (of course) the Genesis accounts of creation are some of the more important Biblical chapters for both apologetics and skeptics since they address the creation of the world.

Celsus

CJD, spin & Apikorus may take their discussion of ed to this thread. Rightfully, the discussion of the toledot demarcation could have been split as well, but it's far too much work and has generated an interesting discussion somewhat peripherally related to the OP. Carry on, boys.

Joel