Parsha Insights vayetzei 2006

וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב מִן-הַשָּׂדֶה, בָּעֶרֶב, וַתֵּצֵא לֵאָה לִקְרָאתוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלַי תָּבוֹא, כִּי שָׂכֹר שְׂכַרְתִּיךָ בְּדוּדָאֵי בְּנִי; וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ, בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא. יז וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים, אֶל-לֵאָה; וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד לְיַעֲקֹב, בֵּן חֲמִישִׁי

Ok, so Leiah, is שָׂכֹר Yaakov and then gives birth to יִשָּׂשכָר so, I guess that's why he's called יִשָּׂשכָר right? Wait, no, that's not why, it's because
וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאָה, נָתַן אֱלֹהִים שְׂכָרִי, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי שִׁפְחָתִי, לְאִישִׁי; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, יִשָּׂשכָר

We've got the same problem with Yosef. וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי. כד וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ יוֹסֵף, לֵאמֹר: יֹסֵף יְהוָה לִי, בֵּן אַחֵר

Why the double naming? The change in the divine name from J's to E's suggests that we could be dealing with a DH issue here. Though, it's not so clean when it comes to יִשָּׂשכָר. Dh would want to say that the reason of נָתַן אֱלֹהִים שְׂכָרִי, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי שִׁפְחָתִי, לְאִישִׁי is E because of the divine name, but that can't be because שִׁפְחָתִי is a J term, whilst E uses אַמְהֹ.

Of course, our traditionalists will assert that there's some sort of name play going on here, but I don't know if I buy that.

A gut shabbos to all

Parsha insights Toldos 2006 (Gen 27:46-28:9 P)

מו וַתֹּאמֶר רִבְקָה, אֶל-יִצְחָק, קַצְתִּי בְחַיַּי, מִפְּנֵי בְּנוֹת חֵת; אִם-לֹקֵחַ יַעֲקֹב אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת-חֵת כָּאֵלֶּה, מִבְּנוֹת הָאָרֶץ--לָמָּה לִּי, חַיִּים.
א וַיִּקְרָא יִצְחָק אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתוֹ; וַיְצַוֵּהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן. ב קוּם לֵךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם, בֵּיתָה בְתוּאֵל אֲבִי אִמֶּךָ; וְקַח-לְךָ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה, מִבְּנוֹת לָבָן אֲחִי אִמֶּךָ. ג וְאֵל שַׁדַּי יְבָרֵךְ אֹתְךָ, וְיַפְרְךָ וְיַרְבֶּךָ; וְהָיִיתָ, לִקְהַל עַמִּים. ד וְיִתֶּן-לְךָ אֶת-בִּרְכַּת אַבְרָהָם, לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּךְ--לְרִשְׁתְּךָ אֶת-אֶרֶץ מְגֻרֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַן אֱלֹהִים לְאַבְרָהָם. ה וַיִּשְׁלַח יִצְחָק אֶת-יַעֲקֹב, וַיֵּלֶךְ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם--אֶל-לָבָן בֶּן-בְּתוּאֵל, הָאֲרַמִּי, אֲחִי רִבְקָה, אֵם יַעֲקֹב וְעֵשָׂו. ו וַיַּרְא עֵשָׂו, כִּי-בֵרַךְ יִצְחָק אֶת-יַעֲקֹב, וְשִׁלַּח אֹתוֹ פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם, לָקַחַת-לוֹ מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה: בְּבָרְכוֹ אֹתוֹ--וַיְצַו עָלָיו לֵאמֹר, לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן. ז וַיִּשְׁמַע יַעֲקֹב, אֶל-אָבִיו וְאֶל-אִמּוֹ; וַיֵּלֶךְ, פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם. ח וַיַּרְא עֵשָׂו, כִּי רָעוֹת בְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן, בְּעֵינֵי, יִצְחָק אָבִיו. ט וַיֵּלֶךְ עֵשָׂו, אֶל-יִשְׁמָעֵאל; וַיִּקַּח אֶת-מָחֲלַת בַּת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-אַבְרָהָם אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת, עַל-נָשָׁיו--לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. {ס}

The questions I’m going to discuss this week are on the weak side, but I think they deserve our attention nonetheless. There are several problems with these verses:

1. In the verses immediately preceding and following this passage, Lavan’s city is called charan, here it is called פַּדֶּנָה אֲרָם. Why the switch?

2. In 28:1,3 Yitzchak blesses Yaakov. Why was this necessary if he just blessed him in the last passage? Why the repetition? Moreover, it seemed in the last passage that Yitzchak wanted to bless Esav. Why the switch here? If we argue that this blessing was an insignificant one, then why did Esav react so strongly to this blessing?

3. Esav’s reaction to the blessing (v. 5) is a little odd. Esav sees Jacob got the blessing because he is going to marry a relative, so Esav too marries a relative. But, what about all the indignation from the last chapter? Is it somehow gone?

4. This is a questionable argument, but I’ll include it anyway. When we look at chapter 27-28 as a unit, the story we get is as follows. Rivkah thinks Yaakov should run away from Esav and go to charan. She doesn’t want to tell Yitzchak that Yaakov is running away from Esav because that would distress Yitzchak, so instead she makes up a story about Yaakov finding a wife. She tells this story to Yitzchak and so Yitzhak send Yaakov to Charan, not realizing the true reason for sending him. But, if we read the text closely, the idea that Yitzchak is being tricked isn’t anywhere explicitly in the text, but is rather just an assumption made by anyone reading the text because without it the text makes no sense at all. In chapter 27, nothing is said about tricking Yitzchak. In fact, Riva just says to run away from Esav. In chapter 28, the entire focus is on the wife, with Esav going completely unmentioned. Of course, without the DH, there is absolutely no choice but to say that Yitzchak is being tricked, but the DH introduces a new possibility. In chapter 28, Yaakov is going to find a wife, in chapter 27 he is going to run away from Esav, and the two stories have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

While I’ll admit that all 4 of these questions are weak, one must add to them the piece of evidence that the nomenclature of 28:1-9 is that of P and is an abrupt shift from the preceding and following verses. As in the past, I will only discuss the aspects of P’s language I’ve already developed in previous posts (for utilizing a phrase before I’ve already established it as P’s phrase would be circular). Still, we can point to several P phrases in this passage including Kel Shakai, וְיַפְרְךָ וְיַרְבֶּךָ and וְהָיִיתָ, לִקְהַל עַמִּים. Of course, there are many others as well, but we’ll have to wait for future posts to establish them as P phrases.

Finally, the dh explains the odd language of 27:46 "כָּאֵלֶּה like these." What was Rivka referring to with this word? However, the DH assumes that 47:1-45 is JE. Thus, in the original P document, 27:46 followed immediately on the heels of 26:34-35:
לד וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו, בֶּן-אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת-יְהוּדִית, בַּת-בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי--וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת, בַּת-אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי. לה וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. {ס}

So, Essav marries two wives who Rivka and Yitzchak don't like. Rivkah says to Yitzchak, "I don't like these wives," and sends Yaakov away to Lavan. It reads very smoothly.



A gut shabbos to all

Gen 1:1-2:4a (P)

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is assigned to P on the following grounds:
1. It uses P’s words, including,
a. תוֹלְדוֹת 2:4
b. לְאָכְלָה 1:29,
c. בְּתוֹךְ 1:6
d. sheretz 1:20 (twice) 1:21
e. Min (1:12 (twice) 1:21 (twice) 1:24 (twice) 1:25 (thrice))
f. P'ru Ur'vu (Gen 1:22 1:28 )

2. The use of P’s divine name (1:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 etc)

3. It uses P’s writing style including
a. A circular inclusio (1:27)
b. It repeats a given template, here the story of each day, over and over again with slight variations in each repetition to accommodate the relevant topic. This is distinctly P’s style

4. It contradicts J’s version of the creation in chapter 2. Specifically,
a. in our version, the order is plants, animals, man and women. In Gen 2, the order is man, plants, animals, women.
b. In our chapter, man is created with women together, in chapter two, it is separate.

5. If the same author wrote chapters 1 & 2, why would he repeat the story of creation twice?


7. Theologically, the God presented is an aloof God, one who is removed from the world. Hence, he does not actually do anything, but only speaks. The world responds to his command. In JE, God is more down to earth. Hence, in the J version of creation, we see God fashioning, creating, walking, & even making noise as he walks.

8. The idea that God created the world in 6 days is limited to P. But, this concept is not repeated often and in some instances, there’s a lot of editing needed to be done to take out references to the 6 days of creation from other sources, so it’s not clear that that point helps or hinders the DH.

Divine Names

The source J generally uses the divine name יְקּוָקּ. Though Elokim is also used, יְקּוָקּ is the favored name. E, on the other hand, favors the name אֱלֹקּים. This is especially true prior to Ex. 3:15, an E verse in which God seems to introduce the name יְקּוָקּ. Though, the meaning of that verse is unclear, and even after, it E persists to use אֱלֹקּים. In P, the matter is more complex. Originaly, only אֱלֹקּים is used. However, God adds a level of revelation to the fathers and introduces the name Kel Shakai . For the life of the fathers, Kel Shakai is used alongside אֱלֹקּים. Note that 17:1 seems to be a revelation of sorts, with God introducing his new name. Similarly 35:11, Ani Kel Shakai. 48:3 speaks of revelation. Finaly, God reveals the name of יְקּוָקּ to Moses in Ex 6:3. Note, not only does the name יְקּוָקּ not appear in P prior to Ex 6:3, but Ex 6:3 states explicitly that this name was not revealed prior to the Exodus. There are only two exceptions to this rule. Gen 17:1 and Gen 21:1b, though, to be quite honest, I have no idea why scholars assign Gen 21:1b to P. The examples of this rule are obviously too numerous to list.

תוֹלְדוֹת

The term תוֹלְדוֹת is used by P to break the book of Genesis into sections, but is not used by other authors. It appears in the following verses. Gen 2:4 5:1 6:9 10:1 10:32 11:10 11:27 25:12 25:13 25:19 36:1 36:9 37:2 Ex 6:16 6:19 28:10 Nu. 1 (12 times)

l'ochla

"l'ochlah " (to eat) is limited to P (Gen 1:29 1:30 6:21 9:3 Ex 16:15 Lev 11:39 25:6), though since it is not altogether a common word in chumash, this is fact is less meaningful.

B'toch

The word b'toch while not limited to P is favoured by it. P uses the word 65 times, compared to just 2 in D and 16 EJ. Of special note is the P - D ratio of 65 - 2 especially since D frequents a very similar word, b'kerev.

Sheretz

The word sheretz (counting noun and verb) is limited to P and appears 27 times.

Gen 1:20 (twice) 1:21 7:21 (twice) 8:17 9:7 Ex 1:7 7:28 Lev 5:2 11:10 11:20[=Deut 14:19] 11:21 11:23 11:29 (twice) 11:31 11:41 (twice) 11:42 (twice) 11:43 (twice) 11:44 11:46 22:5

Min (species)

The word min (species) is limited to P Gen 1:11 1:12 (twice) 1:21 (twice) 1:24 (twice) 1:25 (thrice) 6:20 (thrice) 7:14 (quadruple) Lev 11:14 11:15 11:16 11:19 11:22 (quadruple) 11:29[= Deut 14:13 14:14 14:15 14:18]. It is also found in Ezekiel 47:10. Ezekiel's language is close to P's.

On the one hand, this word is very frequent (30 times) so its being limited to P is startling. On the other hand, it tends to appear in groups, so its being limited to P can be explained by the fact that P verses are generally assigned to P because they are near other P verses.

Parsha Insights Chaii Sorah 2006

**Please note: Due to a shortage of free time this week, many non Biblical quotations in this post were written from memory and should not be relied upon for accuracy. **

"The LORD, the God of heaven, who brought me out of my father's household and my native land and who spoke to me and promised me on oath, saying, 'To your offspring I will give this land'-he will send his angel before you so that you can get a wife for my son from there.” (Gen 24:7)

From this verse, we learn that God “took” Avraham from his place of birth. (while debatable in the English above, there can be no question about this from the original Hebrew). Presumably, though debatable, this is referring to God’s command to Avraham in 12:1 to leave his native land and travel to Israel. The implication of both our verse and 12:1 is that while Avraham was still living in his place of birth, God commanded him to move to C’naan. This, however, is contradictory to the story presented in chapter 11 which says that Avraham was not living in his place of birth at the time of the commandment. The story presented in chapter 11 is as follows.

Avraham starts out in Ur Cassdim. Terach and Avraham, of their own volition, travel to Charan. There, in charan, not ur cassdim, (chapt 12), God commands him to leave charan and go to Israel.

A further problem is that Gen 15:7 says, “I am the Lord who took you out of ur cassdim.” But, didn’t Got take him out of Haran based on the story in chapt 12?

And, a final problem from our parsha once again. 24:4 seems to imply that Avraham was born in the place that B’tuel lives in our parsha. If Avraham was born in Ur Casdim, that means that B’tuel lived in Ur Casdim (our parsha just says he lived in Aram Nahraim, unclear where that is). But, in next week’s parsha we learn that Lavan lives in Charan. How did he get from Ur Casdim to Charan? Of course, the simplest answer to this question is that he moved and this may be supported by the fact that he is called Lavan haarami. Generally, the name of a place serving as a surname suggests the individual at hand moved from one place to another and was identified by his place of origin.

The commentators have offered numerous answers to these problems from a traditional standpoint. Below, I’ve outlined the 4 that I consider the most plausible or famous, though there are many more.

1. (My personal favorite) Most of these questions have “balabatish” answer. Perhaps “place of birth” is a general term referring not to a specific local, but to all of Babylon. Though, this does not explain Gen 15:7 that singles out ur cassdim specifically.

2. Ibn Ezrah and Rasag suggests that perhaps the story in 12:1 actually took place before chapter 11 meaning, it was actually in response to God’s command that Avraham left Charan. There are 3 huge problems with this argument though. Firstly, the focus on Terach and not Avraham in 11:31 suggests that that travel was not in response to a Divine decree. Secondly, 12:4 which specifies Avraham’s age when leaving Charan, not Ur Casdim, suggests the command was given in Charan. Thirdly, if God had commanded Avraham in Ur Cassdim to go to Israel, why did Avraham stop over in Charan?

3. Rashi understand 12:1 as meaning, distance yourself even further from your place of birth. This line of reasoning however, does not explain 15:7. It is also a textual stretch.

4. Ramban, in a typical stroke of creative brilliance, suggests that perhaps Avraham was born in Haran, then moved to Ur Cassdim, then back to Haran. Again, this does not explain 15:7. And, you’ve got to admit, it’s sort of corny.

There are may other traditional answers. Perhaps 15:7 refers to a miracle of the burning furnace. Perhaps 24:4 is giving the eved two choices, either charan or ur cassdim. But, these are all very weak answers.

For the DH though, most of the questions don’t even get off the ground since chapt 11 is P and 24:4, 24:7 and 15:7 are all JE. The only question above that is not based on a contradiction between chapt 11 and another verse is that the union of 24:7, 24:4 and 15:7 implies that b’tuel lived in ur cassdim when we know Lavan lived in Charan. But, this is by far the weakest question of the bunch because Lavan could have moved.

That particular question though, is equally strong for the DH as for the traditional view. General positing of multiple authorship, not following the DH strictly might answer this question and indeed many scholars have argued on linguistic grounds that Gen 24 has a very late date, but that question is beyond the purview of our current discussion. If and when we ever finish our analysis of the DH, I would hope to continue this discussion by exploring other viewpoints with in biblical criticism.

A gut shabbos to all.

Circular Inclusio

By circular inclusio I mean a verse or collection of verses that begins with a verb and that ends with a repetition of the same verb at the end of the phrase. Moreover, I only refer to verses where syntactically, the function of the final verb is to complete the thought begun initially and not to refer to a new action. Thus, I include Genesis 1:27 because the second and third “creation” are really the same creation as the first. They refer to the same action. The creation of Adam. The second and third time the verse is repeated it is merely to give more details to the same creation. However, I do not include Gen 4:3- 4:4 because, although the verb “bringing” is repeated, it is to refer to two separate bringing’s. Likewise, I do not include Gen 4:4-4:5 where the verb “shaah” is repeated because the repetition refers to two different actions, the failure to turn to Cain and the turning to Abel. I realize there is some subjectivity in this definition so you may disagree with one or two cases. Indeed, there are quite a few on the P list that I’m not sure if they should be on there. But, I doubt you can argue that these verses are not tremendously weighted towards P.


The complete listing of circular inclusios outside of P is
Gen (41:12, 48) Deut (25:2-3)

An incomplete listing of circular inclusios in P is as follows.
Gen (1:27) (6:14, 15-16, 22) (9:5) (23:9, 11) (27:15-16) (49:28)

Ex (1:1) (7:6) (12:3-5, 8,14,28,50) (14:2) (16: 17-18) (25:2, 11, 18, 29, 31) (26:1, 7, 24, 31) (27:3) (28:9-11, 15, 21, 32) (29:36-37) (30:1,7,10,13-14,19-20) (35:21,29) (36:8, 14) (37:7-8,17) (38:3) (39: 32, 43) (40:16)

Lev. (1:2,3) (2:14) (3:1) (4:12,32) (5:7-8) (6: 9, 19) (7: 12-13, 29-30) (10: 12-14) (11:2-3, 4-8, 9) (12:2) (13:2, 3, 44-46, 52) (14: 9) (15:14, 28) (16: 29-31, 30) (23: 11, 15-16, 41, 42) (24:3-4) (25:9,10,22,29)

Nu. (1:54) (2:2) (3:15, 47, 49-50) (4:29-30) (5:2-3, 4) (6:9) (7:1) (8:16-18,20) (9: 2-3, 10-12, 14, 18) (10:2, 5-6) (13:2) (14:9, 33-34) (15: 1-3, 19-20) (17:26) (18:8, 10, 15-16, 18) (19:5) (31:7-8) (33:54) (34: 12, 14) (35: 8, 19) (36:3, 11)

Deut (14:4-7, 9).

P leads the other sources combined by a score of 119 to 3 and that is only the verses I am aware of. I would wager there are others I missed.

Gen 12:1 -4a is J

This assignment can be made on the basis of linguistic criteria including the use of the phrases Cursed those who curse you and blessed those who bless you (12:3) , v'nivr'chu v'chu (12:3), adamah (12:3).

Also, this section uses the divine name of J (12:1)

The separation of this set of verses from the immediately preceding and following verses is based on factual contradictions.

Cursed those who curse you and blessed those who bless you

This phrase is limited to JE (12:3 27:29)

21:6 - 22:24 is JE

This assignment can be made by linguistic criteria. Note the use of v'nivr'chu v'chu (22:18) and stars and sand (22:17). Also, note Anoki (21:24, 21:26).

v'nivr'chu v'chu

This phrase is limited to JE (Gen 12:3 18:18 22:18 26:4 28:14)

Parsha Insights - vayerah 2006 (Gen 18:1-19:28 is J )

I’ve always found the story at the opening of the Parsha to be difficult to understand.

1. The section about Sarah’s laughing (Gen 18:12 – 18:15) seems to place an unfair amount of emphasis on Sarah’s lack of faith, to the exclusion of Avraham. God says to Avraham, why did Sarah laugh, implying he is not at fault. Avraham and Sarah debate the matter, implying Avraham is the righteous one, Sarah the sinner. This is odd since Avraham had the same exact reaction when he heard about the birth of Yitzchak (Gen 17:17)

2. Why was it necessary for the angels to inform Avraham of the birth, when God had only just done so? (both stories happened exactly one year before Yitzchak’s birth (Gen 17:21 18:10)

3. Taking 2 a step further, why, when the angels made their prediction was it greeted with any degree of astonishment if God had only just made the same prediction?

4. Why was Yitzhak called Yitzchak? It’s not far fetched to suggest it’s cause Sarah laughed (18:12). But, it’s also seems it might be because of the “tz’hok” in (21:6). These two laughing seem superfluous. 17:19 makes it sound like a divine decree, but of course, it’s possible that that is merely a prophecy of the laughter. Nonetheless, 18:12 and 21:6 certainly rival each other.

There are some easy answers to all of these questions. Perhaps the prophecy was so amazing it needed to be repeated. Perhaps every time Sarah heard it she was aghast. But, these are very weak answers. For the DH hypothesis, these questions don’t even exist. Chapt 17 is P. 18:1-19:28 is J and 21:6 s E.

To the contrary. These repetition are a good thing for the DH. The DH argues that multiple authors, basing themselves off of one single tradition composed many texts. Thus, if we see the same story again and again, it might just be two versions of the same original story, the story of the promise of the birth of Isaac. Names and there explanations are a very basic part of traditions, and it's quite possible that the commonality of these traditions is rooted in the need to explain the etymology name Isaac.

The greatest weakness to this argument is the supposition that 21:6 is E and chapter 18 is J. Generally, there is very little grounds for the division of J and E and this case is a prime example of that division being made on little evidence.

This portion can also be assigned to JE on the basis of linguistic evidence, such as the use of the phrae v'nivr'chu vo (18:18), and the use of Anoki
(18:27, 19:19), terem (19:4), adamah (19:25)

This portion can also be assigned to J on the basis of the divine name of J (18:1, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33, 19:13 (twice) 24, 27)

A gut shabbos to all

Stars and Sand

The concept of having descendants as numerous as the stars or the sand is limited to JE. We encounter it in Gen 13:16 15:5 22:17 26:4 28:14 all JE.

A similar verse is Gen 16:10 which is also JE. See also Deut 1:10 (D)

Becoming a (great) nation

The concept of “becoming a (great) nation” or, having nations come out of you, though phrased differently, is common in and unique to P. P (17:6 17:16 17:20 28:3 35:11 46:3 48:4). A close reading of the above verses shows that they do not only agree in theme but there is much common language between them as well (though there is some variation. Note, this is in contrast to JE who speaks consistently about many descendants. The focus in P is on the forging of the nation, in JE about the multitude of the descendents.

One counter example is Gen 12:2 which is JE. Though the language there is slightly different than the P verses.

Gen 35:9-13 is P

Genesis 35:9-13 is assigned to P. This is on the grounds of the use of the P vernacular. Including P’ru Ur’vu (35:11) Kel Shaki (35:11), and "a nation coming from you".

Kel Shakai

The name of God, “Kel Shakai is mostly limited to P. (Gen 17:1 28:3, 35:11 48:3 Ex 6:3).

Weaknesses to this argument are the one Kel Shakai in JE (Gen 43:14). Also, many of the Kel Shakai’s are assigned to P based on proximity to p’ru ur’vu. But, I’ve argued that there could be other explanations for this.

Strengths to this argument are that not only is Kel Shakai generally limited to P, but the verse explicitly says (Ex. 6:3) that this was the name in use before the revelation, to the exclusion of the Holy name. It is thus difficult that the Holy name is in fact used many times in Genesis.

Taking the Kel Shakai verses together, a picture is painted of the revelation according to P. Originally (Genesis chapters 1 – 16), there was no revelation, and God was Elokim. The revelation begins with Avraham when God reveals himself to him as Kel Shakai. Note Gen 17:1 is a revelation of sorts. “Ani Kel Shakai” Similarly 35:11, Ani Kel Shakai. 48:3 speaks of revelation. Also, the verb “vayerah to appear is a common theme between Gen 17:1 and Ex 6:3. Finally, God reveals himself to Moshe by saying I am God. I revealed myself partially to the fathers, but I have not revealed my full Holy name. It is for this reason that the Holy name does not appear much (only twice) in P before Ex 6:3

Finally, the one Kel Shakai in Nach is in Ezekiel 10:5. The language of Ezekiel is close to that of P.

Gen 17 is P

Gen 17:1-27 is assigned to P on grounds of its consistent use of P's nomenclature. Examples are p'ru ur'vu (17:2, 6, 20) Kel Shakai (17:1), and "becoming a nation" (17:6, 17:16, 17:20), and the word הוֹלִיד
(17:20), "fell on his face" (17:3, 17:17).

Also, this section generaly uses the divine names of P (17:1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 22)

Gen 17 can also be assigned to P based on contradictions between it and chapter 18 which is JE

The major weakness in this argument is that Gen 17:1 uses the Holy name of God which is not usual associated with P before Exodus. This is indeed a problem.

P'ru ur'vu

For P, the general theme of the book of Genesis is how God chose the blessed nation. Originally all animals were blessed, then just man, then just Noach, then just Avraham, then Yishmael, then Yaakov. Each time, one single descendent was chosen to carry the torch (so you see P believed in evolution). Specifically, the blessing is "p'ru u'rvu" which appears 10 times in Chumash (Gen 1:22 1:28 , 9:1, 9:7 17:20 28:3 35:11 47:27 48:4 Ex 1:7) Relevant similar verses are Gen 41:52 (P - hifrani) Gen 17:6 (P -just p'ru) 50:22 (not P - Porath).

There are two principal weaknesses to this argument. Firstly, the grounds for assigning Gen 47:27 and Ex 1:7 are weak. Secondly, 50:22 is a very similar verse and is not in P. Moreover, many of the verses that are in P are assigned to P on the grounds of an adjacent "Kel Shakai" the Holy name associated with P. However, Gen 50:22 is also adjacent to another "Shakai" in 50:25. This opens the door to arguing the correlation is not one of authorship but of some similarity between the name Shakai and the word p'ru. Perhaps Shakai signifies the Fertility God. In many primitive cultures, figurines of fertility goddesses were created to have large shaddaim.

On the other hand, most of these passages have other reasons to be assigned to P anyway. And, the weight to which these verses are slanted towards P is great no matter how one approaches the few questionable verses.

Moseirah

For the next few posts, I’m going to take a break from my linguistic analysis of D to consider another problem, namely contradictions between D and the first 4 books. I’ll start off with a real simple one. Deut 10:6 states that the Israelites traveled from B’ereoth b’nei ya’akan to moserah, but Nu. 33:31 states that they traveled from moserah to b’nei ya’akan, reversing the direction. Test

I could see one arguing that the close similarity between the verses actually implies that the must come from the same author. Of course, scholars would argue that the two verses are based on a common tradition, but personally I find that answer to be a little lacking. One thing is for sure, though. No matter how you look at it, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

10 Commandments

I noted before that the boundaries of D are more or less equal to the boundaries of Moshe’s speech to Israel. Hencoop continues to harp on this point and argue that it is for this reason that the language of D differs from that of the rest of Chumash. But, the boundaries of D are not exactly equal to the boundaries of Moshe’s speech. Hencoop already noted the problem of Nach, but even in Chumash exceptions to the rule exist, though they are rare. The rareness of such exceptions makes it hard to accept the cherry picking argument. Their existence makes it hard to accept the Moshe’s style argument.

The first such exception I’d like to consider is the aseres hadibros. In many ways, these resemble D. For those who are keeping score, these verses are consistent with the D we’ve met in the last two posts. Anoki comes up twice and korban not at all. Of course, that’s not enough to assign it to D. But there are other reasons as well. For example, consider the following. The concept of love between God and man comes up 19 times in Chumash (Ex 20:5 Deut 4:37 5:9 6:5 7:8 7:9 7:13 10:12 10:15 10:18 11:1 11:13 11:22 13:4 19:9 23:6 30:6 30:16 30:20) all of them in D and one of them in the commandments in Exodus. I realize that that is not enough to assign a passage to D, but I will give other reasons in coming posts.

Of course, this is a prime example where the pep talk/law book example might help. But, I’m not using this to argue for a distinction between P & D generally, but to note the connection between D and the dibros. Moreover, 19 to 0 is pretty hard to buy, even with the pep talk argument.

In a way, the dibros are a problem for the DH. Firstly, the fact that even D passages find there way into the first 4 books suggests that the cry of “cherry picking” might be right after all. Moreover, as we shall see in coming posts, the commandments in Ex are sort of a half way point, having some similarities to D and others to E.

But, at the same time, this example is also a thorn in the side of those who claim that the D style is Moshe’s style. Why would God ,all of a sudden, adopt Moshe’s style in the middle of the Torah.

On Sacrifice

I could continue to list scores of examples similar to ani/anoki where we see a distinctive stylistic difference between P and D. But, why bother? The cynics have already explained away any stylistic difference as stemming from differences between God and Moshe. But, I don’t think the DH is finished just yet. The cynics have conceded that this answer doesn't explain factual differences, and it certainly doesn't explain linguistic differences between JE & P. We’ll examine those issues in future posts. But, does it even explain linguistic differences between P & D? Let’s look at another example: the word korban. The word Korban (sacrifice) appears in Chumash 77 times. The verb to offer as a sacrifice (makriv) comes up 124 times in Chumash. Add to that 16 usages of the verb makriv referring to offering the Priests to sacrifice (as in ex 29:4) and another 18 for instances that the priests approach (as in Ex 40:32) and the word sacrifice and its derivatives appears 235 times in Chumash. [these are my counts. There are some gray cases, but they are at least in the right ball park]. It is quite remarkable then, that every single such instance is in P. One may retort by noting that the all instances regarding sacrificial worship are assigned to P, so this is no big deal. But, that is simply not factual. Examples abound (Gen 8:20 Ex 20:21 Nu. 22:40 Deut 12:6 12:11 16:2 18:3 27:7 and many more, but I won't bore you to death). hencoop will probably argue that the word "korban" was just, not part of Moshe's vocabulary. But, is that likely? It's one thing to argue that Moshe had an inclination to a given form of a word that has two viable forms, but the word korban is such a basic staple of the sacrificial vocabulary, that it's absence, to me suggests a person coming from a completely different background and orientation visa a vise the world of sacrifice. Is it likely that God used the word korban freely when speaking to Moshe, but Moshe, somehow, didn't pick it up?