by VorJack
The documentary hypothesis isn’t just a way of understanding the odd duplications in the Hebrew Testament. It also helps us to understand the occasional incomprehensible line. Consider Genesis 5:28-29: “When Lamech had lived a hundred and eighty-two years, he became the father of a son, and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground which the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.”
Noah is best known as the protagonist in the flood story. How exactly did his voyage on the ark bring “relief from our work and from the toil of our hands”?
I think the way to understand this is to assume that this section comes from one source – call it the Name Source – and the flood story comes from another – call if the Flood source.
Place your (figurative) hand over the flood story – Genesis 6 down to about Genesis 9:19 or so. Now look at Genesis 9:20 “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. ”
Noah was the first to till and plant a vineyard, growing grapes out of the ground that God had cursed. He was the first to make wine that people could drink, and there’s our explanation for how he provided “relief from our work.” Noah made it possible for people to have a glass of wine after a hard days in the fields.
If God has cursed us to work the soil in order to survive, Noah’s invention of wine allows us to have a drink at the end to get mellow.
From this perspective, the Name Source looks something like a list of heroes, running through Seth, Enosh, Kenan, etc. It tells us how long each lived and sometimes a little of what they did. It stops when it gets to Noah, then picks up again after Noah with his sons.
My guess is that the Flood source was plunked down in the middle of the Name Source. It breaks up the Name Source story of Noah, separating the description of Noah’s name from the explanation of what he did to deserve that name. Only by removing it can we see how Noah gave us relief from our toils.
So the morel of the noah’s ark story is that you should always listen to the voices in your head because they’re right?
I prefer crimini and portobello to morels.
The schizoid nature of the OT stories is explained in this article:
http://www.georgeleonard.com/yahweh.html
The explanation seems reasonable.
I’ve pointed people towards that essay before. I think it’s a good one that explains a lot about the nature of the OT.
Wonder why the essay doesn’t get wider distribution. Was it ever put into any print medium?
Nice post. The bible is actually pretty interesting. Too bad most people read it as the Word of God and not as the weird ancient text really it is.
That’s “it really is.”
I have to admit that this was very fascinating. Dr. Leonard writes extemely well, enjoyable for a non-academic reader, even. thanks!
My comment was in response to the link from lurker.
Can Daniel or any former bible scholar tell me what is going on when the translation has capitals or italics?
Y’know, like “Out of the ground which the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief…” and (making up example) stuff like “and he saw that it was good.”
It’s always kind of funny to me, but I’m guessing that it serves some translation-note purpose.
The capital “LORD” is a tradition dating back to the KJV (I think?).
When you see LORD in large caps, it means that the original manuscript had the word “YHWH,” also known as the tetragrammaton. Tradition has it that this is the true name of God, and not to be spoken.
Supposedly, in the original Hebrew manuscripts, some scribes would write the word “adonai,” which translates to the english word “lord,” under the word “YHWH” as a prompt to the reader: “Remember, do say that word aloud, say this word instead.” In the middle ages, scholars trying to figure out the name of God combined the consonants from YHWH with the vowels from adonai and end up with “Jehovah.”
Thank you. I learn a lot from your articles.
Biblical Hebrew is unpointed and in the original manuscripts there would be nothing but what we would consider consonants. It was the Masoretes who started to add vowels to the text. At the time the text was considered sacred and not a single letter could be changed, so they added a bunch of dashes and dots above and below the consonants to represent the vocalization. It was during this phase that the vowels from adonai (Hebrew = lord) were added to YHWH.
Much later, it was actually German scholars transliterating this word (yehovah) that led to Jehovah, as the ‘y’ in German is pronounced/written as a ‘j’. Voila: YHWH to Jehovah.
FYI, there is more than one “Flood Source”: http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/does-higher-criticism-attempt-to-destroy-the-bible-part-iv/
I am willing to bet that your Bible will tell you exactly why it uses these styles either in front matter or an appendix.
Unless you are just reading it online, I guess, in which case you’re on your own. Not every edition will use italics in the same way. However, LORD (sometimes in small caps) does indeed mean YHWH, but many translations do not consistently use this, and instead may use “God” instead in some instances. I believe (but am not certain) that the KJV uses LORD for YHWH, God for El and Elohim, Lord for Adonai, and does not use any one consistent word to translate other euphemisms. It translates Exodus 3:14 as “I AM THAT I AM,” which is אהיה אשר אהיה (Ehyeh asher ehyeh) in the original Hebrew.
Pingback: Noah « Earthpages.ca – Think Free
Pingback: History…Genesis 1:1-4 | Tiffany Keith