Parsha Insights V'uerah - Bo 2007
The plagues are not the DH most compelling section, but it is one of the most fascinating. Moreover, it has the advantage of being a self contained unit so you can really analyze this chapter without having to be concerned too much with how what we say here relates to the rest of Chumash. On the other hand, it’s a bit uglier, more complex, and less convincing than usual, so forgive me for the verbose and complex post. The bottom line is that when you look at the verses assigned to P and those assigned to JE in the plagues, you notice a distinctively different color to the words. Exactly what this color is very difficult to articulate. I will try my best to do so here. But, I would recommend, when you are done reading, that you open a chumash and look at the verses inside and decide for yourself if there is indeed a different writing style to the P section I would recomend doing this during laining).
טו כִּי עַתָּה שָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת-יָדִי, וָאַךְ אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת-עַמְּךָ בַּדָּבֶר; וַתִּכָּחֵד, מִן-הָאָרֶץ.
טז וְאוּלָם, בַּעֲבוּר זֹאת הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ, בַּעֲבוּר, הַרְאֹתְךָ אֶת-כֹּחִי; וּלְמַעַן סַפֵּר שְׁמִי, בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ
This passuk appears right before the plague of Barad. The question is, why, specifically, is Dever singled out? After all, hadn’t God smite the Egyptians with many many plagues? Why pick on Dever? If you remember from 6th grade, the order of the plagues are
Dever
Shechin
Barad
According to DH, Dever and Barad are JE and Shechin is P. So, in the original JE document Barad followed immediately on the heals of Dever. Hence, it made good sense for Moshe to say, behold, I have just smote you with Dever, for that was the plague imminently preceding Barad.
From the plagues, the following passages are assigned to P (from 7:1 to 12:1)
Chapter 7 1-13, 19-20a 21b-22, chapter 8: 1-3, 12-15, chapter 9:8-12, chapter 11:9-10.
In short, P only has the plagues dam, frogs, kinim and shechin. JE has everything except for kinim and shechin. So, the first 2 are in both sources. I have placed the P section of the plagues at the bottom of the post for all those who are interesting. In addition to the problem I raised above, the division of the plagues according to DH answers another problem as well. Here’s a quote from chapter 7:
כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיֵּהָפְכוּ כָּל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר, לְדָם. כא וְהַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר מֵתָה, וַיִּבְאַשׁ הַיְאֹר, וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ מִצְרַיִם, לִשְׁתּוֹת מַיִם מִן-הַיְאֹר; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
Notice that the phrase וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם is extremely awkward and out of place. What is it doing there?
However, it fits quite nicely after 20a where DH puts it. The original P read as follows:
כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.
On what basis can the DH string together all of these various verses? What do they share in common? The following is only a partial list. It contains both themes that are present in P (and not JE) throughout the Torah and themes that are limited to the P plagues, but are not in the JE plagues.
1. Referring to the Jews as God’s צִבְאֹתַי (7:4)
2. The term שְׁפָטִים (7:5)
3. The phrase וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה (7:5), also frequent in Ezekel which is close to P.
4. Obsession with ages (7:6)
5. The sorcerers (7:11), (7:22) (8:3), (8:13), (9:11)
6. A circular inclusion (7:6)
7. Aaron alongside Moses as close to an equal (in JE he is either not present or an on-looker, never an active participant). (7:1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 8:1, 2, 12, 9:8, 11:10)
8. the phrase וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, 7:13, 7:22, 8:15, 9:12, 11:10
It is true that the phrase וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, also appears in JE, 9:35, 10:20, 20:27, but the point is that P only uses this phrase while JE alternates between this and וְהַכְבֵּד אֶת-לִבּוֹ .
The following is a list of JE words in the JE plagues:
1. Anoki (7:17, 7:27, 8:24, 8:25)
2. The aversion of the word Korban, using zevach or avodah instead (8:21-24, 9:8-11, 25)
3. SKL for stoning (8:22)
4. Terem (9:30, 10:7)
5. Adamah (8:17, 10:6)
6. Finding favor in the eyes of (11:3)
7. Israel with no binei in front of it (11:7)
But, on top of this, there is a distinctive color to the P verses. Let’s analyze the last 8 plagues. If we look at the Kinim and Sheching plagues, they have the following things in common that the other plagues do not:
1. Primacy of Aaron. In JE, Moses does everything, Aaron either stands silently or is not present.
2. No warning from Moses (warning is in every plague in JE, except choshech)
3. The plague is not ended by Moses, but by itself. (in JE, Moses ends them all except for dam, dever, choshech
4. The language is much shorter and to the point. No waxing eloquent on the extent of the plague
5. The fact that the Jews are separated is not mentioned, a frequent theme of JE (mentioned in every JE plague except for dam, and frogs).
6. The sorcerers are mentioned (they are never mentioned in JE).
7. In JE, there is frequently negotiation between Moses and Pharoh. Moses demands that the people go and there is negotiation of who exactly is going (in the plagues frogs, arov arbeh, choshech) . That never appear in P.
In reality, numbers 2, 3, 6, 7 are all related. P sees the plagues as a way of proving God’s primacy. As such, the sorcerers are mentioned to say God is more powerful then they. On the other hand, JE sees the plagues as a way to pressure Pharoh into letting the Jews go. But, single authorship is not able to explain why there should be a correlation in which in the “proving” plagues, we also see the primacy of Aaron, a more concise writing style, and no mention of the Jews’ separateness. These items would seem to be uncorrelated. Moreover, for single authorship, it would be difficult to explain why there is a sudden switch from plague to plague in the purpose of the plague.
When it comes to the first two plagues I can make them correlate with minimal editing. On top of that, that editing, at least in the case of the blood plague, is justified in that the text as we now have it does not read well at all. And, to make matters worse, the JE/P division here is further substantiated by the general language division of P/JE throughout the entire Bible.
A gut shabbos to all.
א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. ב אַתָּה תְדַבֵּר, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָּ; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יְדַבֵּר אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וְשִׁלַּח אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ. ג וַאֲנִי אַקְשֶׁה, אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה; וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-אֹתֹתַי וְאֶת-מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ד וְלֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה, וְנָתַתִּי אֶת-יָדִי בְּמִצְרָיִם; וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת-צִבְאֹתַי אֶת-עַמִּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בִּשְׁפָטִים, גְּדֹלִים. ה וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה, בִּנְטֹתִי אֶת-יָדִי עַל-מִצְרָיִם; וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִתּוֹכָם. ו וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן--כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֹתָם, כֵּן עָשׂוּ. ז וּמֹשֶׁה, בֶּן-שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה, וְאַהֲרֹן, בֶּן-שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה--בְּדַבְּרָם, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה. {פ}
ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. ט כִּי יְדַבֵּר אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר, תְּנוּ לָכֶם מוֹפֵת; וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קַח אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַשְׁלֵךְ לִפְנֵי-פַרְעֹה--יְהִי לְתַנִּין. י וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה; וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וְלִפְנֵי עֲבָדָיו--וַיְהִי לְתַנִּין. יא וַיִּקְרָא, גַּם-פַּרְעֹה, לַחֲכָמִים, וְלַמְכַשְּׁפִים; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם-הֵם חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם--כֵּן. יב וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אִישׁ מַטֵּהוּ, וַיִּהְיוּ לְתַנִּינִם; וַיִּבְלַע מַטֵּה-אַהֲרֹן, אֶת-מַטֹּתָם. יג וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם: כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה. {ס}
יט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן קַח מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה-יָדְךָ עַל-מֵימֵי מִצְרַיִם עַל-נַהֲרֹתָם עַל-יְאֹרֵיהֶם וְעַל-אַגְמֵיהֶם וְעַל כָּל-מִקְוֵה מֵימֵיהֶם--וְיִהְיוּ-דָם; וְהָיָה דָם בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וּבָעֵצִים וּבָאֲבָנִים. כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. כב וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלָטֵיהֶם; וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב-פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה
א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן נְטֵה אֶת-יָדְךָ בְּמַטֶּךָ, עַל-הַנְּהָרֹת עַל-הַיְאֹרִים וְעַל-הָאֲגַמִּים; וְהַעַל אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ב וַיֵּט אַהֲרֹן אֶת-יָדוֹ, עַל מֵימֵי מִצְרָיִם; וַתַּעַל, הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ, וַתְּכַס, אֶת-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ג וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים, בְּלָטֵיהֶם; וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם
יב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, נְטֵה אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַךְ אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ; וְהָיָה לְכִנִּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. יג וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן, וַיֵּט אַהֲרֹן אֶת-יָדוֹ בְמַטֵּהוּ וַיַּךְ אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ, וַתְּהִי הַכִּנָּם, בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה: כָּל-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ הָיָה כִנִּים, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. יד וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים בְּלָטֵיהֶם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-הַכִּנִּים, וְלֹא יָכֹלוּ; וַתְּהִי, הַכִּנָּם, בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה. טו וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא; וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב-פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה. {ס}
ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְחוּ לָכֶם מְלֹא חָפְנֵיכֶם, פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן; וּזְרָקוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַשָּׁמַיְמָה, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה. ט וְהָיָה לְאָבָק, עַל כָּל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם; וְהָיָה עַל-הָאָדָם וְעַל-הַבְּהֵמָה, לִשְׁחִין פֹּרֵחַ אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת--בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. י וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-פִּיחַ הַכִּבְשָׁן, וַיַּעַמְדוּ לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיִּזְרֹק אֹתוֹ מֹשֶׁה, הַשָּׁמָיְמָה; וַיְהִי, שְׁחִין אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת, פֹּרֵחַ, בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה. יא וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּים, לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה--מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁחִין: כִּי-הָיָה הַשְּׁחִין, בַּחַרְטֻמִּם וּבְכָל-מִצְרָיִם. יב וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם: כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה. {ס}
ט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה--לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. י וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, עָשׂוּ אֶת-כָּל-הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה--לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה; וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא-שִׁלַּח אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ.
posted by littlefoxlings at 1:59 AM
22 Comments:
LF, complex and I don't have time to sort it all out, but I'll try to do so before Shabbos.
>and Shechin is P
Interesting. On first thought P (Levites) concerned with skin disease? But am I really mis-interpreting this? Most likely both JE & P had all ten plagues but the redactor edited them out and produced a single combined list, right?
1/17/2007 1:10 PM
Yes, plagues are one of the more complex section of the Torah according to DH. I would recomend doing it during laining, if you can get away with brining a print out to shul.
But am I really mis-interpreting this? Most likely both JE & P had all ten plagues but the redactor edited them out and produced a single combined list, right?
No, I think shechin was really never in JE. That's why Arbeh references back to Dever. I also think P only had the 5. There seems to be a development throught the 5 with the sourcerers. In kinim they admit it is the finger of God. Finally, with the boils they can not stand before Pharoh.
But, yes, it's entirely possible that what you say is correct. That P had more plagues not here mentioned.
I belive there is also a Psalm with a list of some of the plagues that would be relevant to that question, but I forget exactly which plagues it has. I think maybe it's missing kinim shechin and chosech, but not sure.
Since I know you are big fan of REF, I'll just through out there that the huge emphasis on Aaron in P and the complete ignorance of him in JE fits very well with his theories.
1/17/2007 1:24 PM
I don't have time to sort it all out
too busy trying to figure out what those 7 words on XGH mean?
1/17/2007 1:43 PM
>Since I know you are big fan of REF, I'll just through out there that the huge emphasis on Aaron in P and the complete ignorance of him in JE fits very well with his theories.
I'm not sure fan is the right word, because I haven't read any rebuttals yet and so far it all fits quite well. Yes, isn't that Aaron (P) link amazing?
>I don't have time to sort it all out
Nah, your posts demand real seichel, I need to print them out, open a chumash, etc.
1/17/2007 2:24 PM
Yes, isn't that Aaron (P) link amazing?
I find the circular inclusio, anoki, & yisroel part to be more amazing. But, Aaron is cool in that it is repeated so many times again and again in the parhsa and every single time it works out perfectly.
1/17/2007 2:33 PM
LF,
General question for someone still newish to multiple source theory. Why do you refer to JE as one source? I thought that J and E were distinct, with distinguishable linguistic features betraying political/regional/tribal differences?
1/17/2007 11:13 PM
Firstly, thanks to A British Correspondent for the following,
"So the plagues. P has 1,2,3,6; JE has 1,2,4,5,7,8,9. And then in Tehillim we have 78 and 105, which have 1-3, 7-9 and 1,2,4,5,7,8. It's all one biiig mess. You can squeeze the latter into JE, but the former is a totally different mekor entirely."
RL,
Shalom and welcome to Littlefoxling.
DH is a complex theory with many parts to it. The main thrust of it is the P/JE/D division. Once that is done, the sources are, by some scholars divided further. P to P/H, then again to P1, P2. D to D1, D2. JE to J, E. Some even introduce G. But, the main division is P/JE/D, which is what I generally focus on in this blog for 3 reasons.
1. There is a mountain of evidence for the P/JE/D division. There is much more limited evidence for the other divisions. That is not to say that there is no evidence, but just not as much as for P/JE/D. Now, I have noticed that a majority of the readers of this blog, and seemingly a majority of the jblogosphere, even the skeptics, seem to be skeptical of DH. This confuses me given the magnitude of evidence for DH. In a way, in this blog, I am trying to understand their point of view. I present evidence of DH and they explain why they think it is not compelling. However, in the case of J vs. E, I don’t need their help to understand why one might not find it compelling.
2. DH has many tools in its tool box. Contradictions, duplicates, sentences that don’t read properly etc. All of these establish multiple authorship, but fail to establish who wrote what. In the case of P/JE/D, it is possible to establish not only that there are multiple sources, but who wrote what, because each source has a distinctive stylistic, linguistic, syntactic, theological, and legal style. These are so distinctive that virtually every verse in the Bible is saturated with these phenomenon and so it is possible to fix who wrote what based on these criteria up to the last verse. It is not possible to that for J/E because often while it may be clear there is an issue due to a contradiction or something, it’s not clear who wrote what because the styles of the sources are so similar (if they are distinct). Since this blog is largely an analysis of who wrote what and stylistic criteria, the J vs. E divide is not appropriate. As an example, I’ll refer you to this post (http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2006/12/parsha-insights-vayeishev-2006.html), where I believe I have presented compelling evidence that J and E are two sources, yet my assignment of who wrote what there is dubious.
1/18/2007 9:58 AM
oh, and one more thing.
If J and E are differnet sources, the person who put them together did a lot of editing. Cuting up a piece of a passuk from here, merging it with a piece from here etc. Thus, it gets confusing in terms of who wrote what. In contrast, the person who merged P/JE/D did less damdge to the original text. In many cases, he left huge chunks in tact. Divurim has something like 28 chapters of D in a row. Lev has 26 of P. Nu. has 11 of P in a row in one case. In several cases, Ex has 4 or 5 chapters in a row from the same source. Even in cases, like the plagues, where you have some editing, most of the time, the units of each source are at least a few verses long. In our cases, the section before the plagues, and plagues 3-10, we have whole paragraphs in tact. Even in plagues 1-2, the fragments are at least 1-2 verses long.
1/18/2007 10:03 AM
Rebelmo,
Welcome to Littlefoxling.
As someone who seems to know DH.
I don’t know DH. Like most bloggers, I blog about a topic I am ignorant in and have an interest in. I read a few books. That’s all. Ask any fundy who has ever visited this blog and they will tell you how ignorant I am and how all the leading scholars think DH is complete BS and I am just too stupid to see it.
But, my being a complete ignoramus about the topic won’t stop me from answering your question……
I have two problems with REF:
1. He spends a lot of time presenting what the theory says, but comparatively little amount of time offering the evidence for the theory.
2. The division of sources according to DH has a mountain of evidence to support it and is generally in agreement amongst scholars. The relative dating, absolute dating, geographical location, political orientation, agenda, extent of influence, and direction of influence of the sources has comparatively little evidence, there is little agreement amongst scholars, and the consensus seems to be constantly changing. Yet, REF weights his book, in my opinion, to strongly towards the latter, and not enough time towards the former. Instead of fully developing the case for DH, he spends much time on speculative theories about the authors location, date, agenda, and political orientation when there is little evidence to support these theories. Moreover, he only presents one viewpoint and does not share the full range.
On the other hand, there are a few good points:
1. It’s very imaginative, interesting, and attention grabbing.
2. Part of DH is the belief that the various authors have different theological orientation, and different writing style. These two ideas, though heavily supported by evidence and easily intuited by reading through the Torah, are very difficult to articulate. You sense, when you read through the Torah, that P and JE have a different concept of what religion and God is all about. You sense that there style is, somehow, different. But, how do you explain something like that? I think he does an excellent job of that. Especially in terms of the JE vs P theological orientation. The bit at the end, about how Judaism is the unity of these two views, is, in my opinion one of the most beautiful bits of OJ hashkafa I’ve ever read (but, of course it’s irrelevant to a kofer)
In short, it’s a good 1st book to read if you want to get into DH but not a good place to get a solid background in the topic.
On a personal note, the 1st book I read on DH was REF’s Who wrote the Bible. After reading it, I was totally convinced that DH was completely BS. And, being the pompous ass that I am, I was all convinced that the stupid kofrim just accepted it cause they were dumb, but I, the true yeshva buchur, so through their propaganda (this was back in my fundy days). But, after reading a few more books I realized how compelling it is and how much of an idiot I am.
1/18/2007 12:58 PM
LF,
>I have two problems with REF:
interesting that you fault REF for doing what he sets out to do. He's wasn't trying to prove DH or even explain DH, he claimed he was using DH as a tool and then trying to speculate as to who might have written the Bible. I find it simliar to people criticising Hella Winston for not showing a better side of Chassidim, She was not purporting to present a balanced view.
Anyhow, I finally got around to checking your circular inclusio post and you quote Gen 4:3 - 4:4.
I had a difficult time figuring out what you meant till I realized that you can use CI when spanning two pesukim (which you did say at the beginning - collection of verses. I simply thought you had it wrong because of the verb "Brining". I went over it 10 times till I realized you were crossing pesukim and meant "bringing". This reminds me of posts floating around about people spending days on Farenfering a shevreh Rambam and when they get up to Shamayim, the Ramabam tells them they had a bad Girsah. LOL.
So go correct your Girsah.
Anyhow, back to REF, I found him most compelling, perhaps because I was already a sekptic when I got to it.
Good Shabbos.
1/19/2007 11:42 AM
interesting that you fault REF for doing what he sets out to do. He's wasn't trying to prove DH or even explain DH, he claimed he was using DH as a tool and then trying to speculate as to who might have written the Bible. I find it simliar to people criticising Hella Winston for not showing a better side of Chassidim, She was not purporting to present a balanced view.
Good point. I suppose you are right.
I had a difficult time figuring out what you meant till I realized that you can use CI when spanning two pesukim (which you did say at the beginning - collection of verses. I simply thought you had it wrong because of the verb "Brining". I went over it 10 times till I realized you were crossing pesukim and meant "bringing". This reminds me of posts floating around about people spending days on Farenfering a shevreh Rambam and when they get up to Shamayim, the Ramabam tells them they had a bad Girsah.
Oh, sorry to cause so much trouble. You could have just asked. In truth, CI is one of the more complex indicators of P. But, on the other hand, it is one of the more worthwhile to master. Since it is merely connected to sentence structure, one can never argue that it appears for thematic reasons. Moreover, it is extremely common in P.
Anyhow, back to REF, I found him most compelling, perhaps because I was already a sekptic when I got to it.
Yes, I supposed I was biased when I read it.
1/19/2007 12:32 PM
By the way, did you actualy look up all the examples of CI? That's usualy what I do when I come across a new DH phenomenon I am net yet aware of. It's much fun. But, I suppose it's unfair to assume that just cause I have no life no one else has a life either.
I would recommend doing it during laining. That's when I do a lot of my DH research. You can do it with just a chumash, but a konkordansia helps (though, of course, not in the case of CI).
1/19/2007 12:40 PM
Certainly, not all of them. Just the first few to understand what you mean. (I do hope you correct that Brining verb).
Shabbos morning at home, if none of the kids are here for Shabbos, I go over the parsha, with your cheat sheet :) for that week.
I'm not adept enough yet, to spot it on my own.
1/19/2007 1:21 PM
(I do hope you correct that Brining verb).
Done. You'll see it on bloglines soon enough.
I'm not adept enough yet, to spot it on my own.
Soon you will be, young BHB.
1/19/2007 1:28 PM
LF, what's your take on exodus 6:12 & 6:30?
(Where it repeats Gods command to Moses to go to pharoah, and Moses response that he is "Aral S'fasayim".)
ed
1/20/2007 9:05 PM
ed,
Welcome to littlefoxling. I am surprised a guy like you would have an interest in this sort of site.
Firstly, let me note that DH itself, meaning the divison of the Torah into P/JE/D does not help us here since this is all P. Since this is a non P/JE/D issue, I am outside of my element, and so I don't have a good answer for you. But, I'll give a stab at it.
I would offer two suggestions, one is more frum than the other.
1. The apikores answer: By some scholars, when P composed his work, he based himself off of some earlier sources. One of which was the book of "toldeth" that had lineage information. You could argue that Ex 6:14-25 (26?27?28?) is from this "toldoth” book. As such, you could argue that it really doesn’t belong in its present context, interrupting the conextion. Perhaps then, the verses immideatly preceeding it were repeated to remind us where we are holding, or do to some cofusion from the insertion.
2. (the frum answer) This is all one author speaking. There is a common structure of biblical authors to have paragraphs as follows
A
B
C
C
B
A
The best example of this is megilat Esther where the entire book seems to be arranged based on this principle.
If we assign the following letters:
A - וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה
B - וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם
C - וְאֶל-פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם
then you can argue the order of the passage is
A
B
C
lineage of Moshe
C
B
A
The problem is that it really doesn’t work out so perfectly. If you look at the verses you’ll see I did some fudging.
Anyway, I’ve noted in the past that the existence of these sort of issues even within a document like P calls into question the DH because it makes you wonder if the problems from one book to another are really compelling given that even within P you’ve got these sort of problems.
Of course, there’s two possible answers to that. The frum one is that that proves that you can have one author doing this weird sort of thing. The not frum one is that it proves that we have many, many authors, not just the 3 of DH.
But, in any event, the problems within P are less in both number and severity. This problem, for example, does not bother me as much as some of the contradictions between P to JE.
1/20/2007 9:39 PM
Im printing ALL of this out including the fantastic comments and carrying it to shul, to my bench in the back.
secondly, im going to post your post as my weekly parsha post this week. too much great stuff.
oh boy the apikorsus internet better than i thought.
also did you read james blankensopp's 'pentateuch' and yirah amit's books?
1/26/2007 2:27 PM
Im printing ALL of this out including the fantastic comments and carrying it to shul, to my bench in the back.
You can get away with that? Where do you daven? I want to move!
oh boy the apikorsus internet better than i thought.
I am small potatoes. You should read mis-nagid, logician, and mikeskeptic, now those are hard core apikorsim.
also did you read james blankensopp's 'pentateuch' and yirah amit's books?
Nope, unlike the 3 kofrim I just mentioned, I am not particularly well read. But, if you recommend them, I'll add them to my "to read" list.
1/26/2007 2:43 PM
yairah amit ( imispelled her name) at tel aviv university writes about hidden polemics in shoftim, shmuel, melakhim etc.
1/26/2007 4:07 PM
NYAPIKORES,
e-mail me littlefoxling@gmail.com
1/26/2007 4:25 PM
I've been meaning to pick up some of Richard Friedman's work, so your thoughts on Who Wrote The Bible is much appreciated. I was wondering what your thoughts are on his color coded chumash - The Bible With Sources Revealed.
Its hard for me to read the Hebrew text that you incorporate in your posts, due to the format with the nekudot between letters. As a new reader, it probably shows a lot of chutzpa on my part to be complaining. I was wondering if other readers have gotton used to reading text like this over time.
1/29/2007 12:22 AM
I was wondering what your thoughts are on his color coded chumash - The Bible With Sources Revealed.
Haven’t seen it. But, it sounds really cool from what I’ve heard.
Its hard for me to read the Hebrew text that you incorporate in your posts, due to the format with the nekudot between letters. As a new reader, it probably shows a lot of chutzpa on my part to be complaining. I was wondering if other readers have gotton used to reading text like this over time.
lol. Don’t be silly. This is a very new blog. Everyone here is new. And, you’ve got to be really bad to be guilty of chutzpa in the blogosphere, considerting what goes on here.
No doubt. This blog is not an easy read. The best way is to do it with a chumash, but I tried to provide the p’sukim when possible got those can not get a hold of one. But, I am somewhat limited by my desire not to spend too much time on this project.
On the side bar, there’s a link to “Tanach on-line” you can use that if you don’t have a chumash. I generally give chapter/verse so you can look things up.
1/29/2007 11:59 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home