Cos 211 Hebrew Bible I



Download 41,96 Kb.
Date conversion20.07.2017
Size41,96 Kb.

COS 211 Hebrew Bible I

  • Dr. Rodney K. Duke
  • DAY 4
  • Assign:
  • 1) (Journal)
  • 2) #12 Deuteronomistic History *Change W to N (notes)
  • 3) #14 Priesthood *Change W to N (notes)
  • 4) #15 Chronicles *Change W to N (notes)
  • 5) #16 Ruth Just if you want to for fun.
  • Day Obj.: (Laws, Cult)
  • 1) Describe how narratives communicate meaning.
  • 2) Formulate guidelines for reading biblical narrative.
  • 3) Formulate guidelines for reading and applying OT laws.
  • 4) Describe the Deuteronomistic History.
  • JOURNAL THOUGHTS & OBSERVATIONS
  • (in pairs, then group)
  • Note: Ed’s observations!
  • Duke (take with a grain of salt): Conditional vs. Unconditional Covenants (Anderson, p. 85 et al.)
  • Not to be identified with Wesleyanism vs. Calvinism.
  • Logical to separate according to apparent differences, BUT these are NOT biblical categories, so need caution.
  • “Lasting covenant” (berith olam) is a biblical phrase and is sometimes translated “eternal covenant” and often presumed to be unconditional and unending.
    • But: see Isa 24:5 (also, Num 25:13 to Phineas, and Num 18:19) a “lasting covenant” can be broken. Therefore the biblical phrase must not mean unconditional and eternal, contra to much “theology.”
  • Duke (guessing): “lasting covenant” might be legal language separating this type of covenants from those that were short term and had to be renewed. Phrase seems to emphasize God’s side of the covenant.
  • Genre Recognition
  • Failure to employ a reading strategy that recognizes the types/genres of literature in the Bible and their original functions:
  • 1. Obscures the variety of forms employed in the Bible and makes communication MORE difficult. (People employ different genres to AID communication.)
  • 2. Locates the meaning of the text in the hands of the reader (leading to unintended applications) rather than locating the meaning in the author’s intention.
  • 3. Promotes private and self-centered readings of the Bible (“God speaks to ME”), rather than an informed and communally guided interpretation.
  • 4. Often leads to an “atomizing” of the text. (Illustration: favorite cake – the impact of the whole is much different than the separate parts/ingredients)
  • Objective: Figure out how biblical narratives are to be read.
  • 1. Note that we have two stories (Q#a):
  • (Where does the first account end?)
  • Homework #3: GENESIS 1-2
  • Gen 2:4 (chiastic structure suggests verse 4 is not to be subdivided)
  • “These are the generations:
  • A. of the heavens and
  • B. the earth
  • C. when they were created
  • C. in the day Yahweh God created
  • B. the earth and
  • A. the heavens”
  • Parallel literary structure of openings of Gen 1:1-3 and 2:4-7
  • (Shows that we have two separate accounts)
  • 1. Summary introduction / title: 1:1 and 2:4
  • 2. Circumstantial clauses: 1:2 and 2:5-6
  • 3. Main action begins: 1:3 and 2:7
  • Title
  • Setting
  • Action
  • Do we have two conflicting accounts of creation?
  • GENESIS 1-2
  • Note the differences, the diversity in content and style (#1. b,c responses)
  • Problem: How are these accounts to be read?
  • Are they contradictory and meant to be read separately?
  • Should we try to solve the "problems" (harmonize) so that they can be read together?
  • What are their functions? Historical? Fictional/Poetic? Theological? Scientific?
  • Towards a solution: What questions does each account seek to answer? (d)
  • (e) Are the answers to the questions behind these two accounts contradictory or complementary?
  • Duke: The “key” to get back to the rhetorical intention is to play:
  • GENESIS 1-2
  • JEOPARDY!
  • Q & A Behind Gen 1:1-2:3 (Assumes the existence of God)
  • 1) What is the origin of the world? (See Unit 4. pp. 8-9)
  • The world was made orderly and full of life by God.
  • 2) What is the nature of the God?
  • God is the ultimate authority; He speaks and it is done.
  • 3) What is the nature of the world?
  • The world is orderly, receptive of life, good.
  • 4) What is the relationship between God and the world?
  • God rules over the world and is distinct from it.
  • 5) What is the nature and purpose of humanity?
  • Humanity is the pinnacle of creation, in the image of God, sovereign over the realms of the earth.
  • 6) What is the relationship between God and humanity?
  • As creator God is sovereign over humanity.
  • 7) What is the relationship between humanity and the world?
  • Humanity has been given rule over the domains of the earth like God (preserve order and life).
  • 8) Why a Sabbath rest/7-day week?
  • Q & A Behind Gen 2:4-25 (Assumes the Fall) (1 of 2)
  • 1) What is the origin and nature of humanity?
  • Humanity formed by God from dust and divine “breath.”
  • 2) What was the earth/Eden originally like?
  • Eden was fertile, life-giving.
  • 3) What was humanity’s original relationship with God?
  • God and humanity were intimate; talked & walked together.
  • 4) What is God like?
  • God (Yahweh) is personal, caring, authoritative.
  • 5) What was the original purpose of humanity?
  • To relate to God and to care (“serve” & “watch”--priestly terms) the earth.
  • 6) What was life meant to be like?
  • Life was to be idyllic: no impediments between humanity and God, humanity and world, men and women.
  • 7) Why men, women and marriage?
  • Men and women complement (complete) each other in marriage.
  • Q & A Behind Gen 2:4-25 (Assumes the Fall) (2 of 2)
  • [8) What brought about the present pain and struggles that we encounter?]
  • The Fall brought “death”/chaos to all relationships: between humanity and God, humanity and world, men and women..
  • Burial sites from time of Abraham
  • Genesis 1
  • Darkness
  • Watery Deep
  • Formless Earth
  • “Spirit of God”
  • Days of Creation
  • Day 1 -------------------darkness/light separates
  • Day 4
  • fills
  • Day 2 -----------------------waters
  • separates
  • Day 5
  • fills
  • Day 3 ---------------------- “earth” separates
  • Day 6
  • fills
  • Day 7 ----- rests
  • One Egyptian Cosmology
  • Sky-goddess Nut, arched as the heavens, supported by the air-god Shu; at his feet the earth-god Geb.
  • Biblical Cosmology
  • A. Although the accounts have contradictory elements & styles:
  • 1. The accounts need not be seen as contradicting each other.
  • 2. Also, we do not need to harmonize away all the differences.
  • 3. Rather, the answers to the issues they address (based on their rhetorical intentions) are complementary.
  • *Such accounts were meant to be held together by focusing on their rhetorical (communicative) intentions.
  • B. The questions they address are primarily theological, about how things are, or came to be. These are not scientific texts (or historical) in the modern conception of these disciplines, but they do make historical and “scientific”/phenomenological claims about what must have happened from their perspective.
  • *Biblical narrative blends together historical, theological and aesthetic/poetic.
  • C. Differences in style (particularly see use of divine name) might indicate different sources and suggest a complex literary history.
  • Summary: (Duke’s opinion)
  • J 950 BCE
  • E 850 BCE
  • (Redaction with E ~ 700 BCE?
  • D 622 BCE
  • (JE)
  • Redaction with D ~ 550 BCE
  • P ~ 500 BCE?
  • (JED)
  • Redaction with P ~ 400 BCE?
  • JEDP = Pentateuch
  • United Monarchy ~ 1000 BCE
  • Divided Monarchy ~ 900 BCE
  • Fall of Northern Kingdom ~ 722 BCE
  • Fall of Southern Kingdom ~ 586 BCE
  • Return from Exile ~ 539 BCE
  • Key to Sources:
  • J = Yahwist
  • E = Elohist
  • D = Deuteronomist
  • P = Priestly
  • Development of Pentateuch
  • How do the Genesis texts compare and contrast to “creation” texts in the ancient Near East?
  • Reading Ancient “Creation” Texts in Context
  • Some of the texts (e.g. Enuma Elish, Memphite Theology) may not be primarily abstract cosmogonies (origin of the cosmos) or theogonies (origins of the gods), but political treatises.
    • Established state religion, capital city, main temple, ruler
    • Egyptian accounts of Heliopolis, Hermopolis, and Thebes, each identifies the primordial land with their cultic center.
    • Established social structure/roles/archetypes of tradition
  • Some of the texts may have been used in religious ritual re-enactments (mimetic magic) of the state religion’s myths in order to encourage the god to carry out their proper functions in maintaining the natural order of the world
    • Enuma Elish became used in the New Year Festival.
    • Pyramid Texts, king (as image of) ritually stands in for Atum (Kheprer) when he assumed kingship of the world he was creating.
    • Egyptian Re-Atum renews world every day.
  • Those texts which present a cosmogony and/or theogony, even if politically oriented:
  • Explain the nature of things and how they came to be the way they are.
  • Are focused not on material origins, but on the origins of the functions and roles of the gods as reflected in the physical world.
  • Presupposes their ancient phenomenological (commonly observed) understanding of the cosmos. (See following slide on “Issue of Science and the Bible”)
  • One Egyptian Cosmology
  • Sky-goddess Nut, arched as the heavens, supported by the air-god Shu; at his feet the earth-god Geb.
  • Biblical Cosmology
  • Parallels Between Genesis 1-2 and Enuma Elish
  • Parallel
  • Genesis
  • Enuma Elish
  • Chaotic Primeval State
  • “Formless” and “empty” – Gen 1:2a
  • Chaos from the absence of gods and the absence of “name” – EE I. lines 7-8).
  • Primordial Waters
  • “Darkness” over the surface of the watery depths – Gen 1:2b, and separation of two spheres of water (cf. Gen 1:6-7)
  • Tiamat, personification of primeval ocean, split in two spheres of water – EE IV. lines 100-140.
  • Creation of Mankind
  • Man is formed out of “dust” – Gen 2:7
  • Mankind is created from the blood of Kingu, Tiamat’s co-conspirator – EE VI. lines 1-10.
  • Image
  • Mankind is created in the “image of God” – Gen 1:26-27; cf. Gen 5:3, where the divine image given to Adam is carried on to his progeny (i.e., Seth).
  • Anu begets Nudimmud in his image – EE I. line 16.
  • *Note: Both Anu and Nudimmud, however, are both gods, not humans.
  • Temple-Rest
  • Yahweh takes up divine rest in his cosmic-temple after creation out of chaos (cf. Gen 3:8; Rev 22:1-2)
  • Marduk and other gods take rest in temple after victory over creation-conflict – EE V. lines 121-130; cf. VI. lines 51-60.
  • http://atpreston.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/a-comparative-essay-on-the-creation-epic-of-enuma-elish-and-genesis-1-2/
  • http://biologos.org/blog/the-second-creation-story-and-atrahasis
  • General Similarities Between Genesis Texts and ANE
  • Same basic story outlines and emplotment.
  • Same kinds of literary features.
  • Neither focused on material origins, but on nature of life now.
    • ANE texts explain the functional roles of the gods involved in maintaining the order of the world
    • Hebrew explain how God established the proper functioning of the cosmos.
      • Difference: God is NOT a part of the material world; God is NOT a functionary in it as other gods; God is sovereign over all.
  • Both concerned about understanding order and chaos
    • ANE gods want to establish equilibrium and rest: after victory, they establish sacred city/temple
    • Hebrew: God creates cosmos as Temple of order, equilibrium, unending 7th day of rest. Sabbath (7 day dedication)
  • General Differences Between Genesis Texts and ANE
  • Political:
  • Not establishing a capital city, temple, or a king/pharaoh All land is the same [Note: no concept of ‘planet earth’]
  • Not establishing a separate state religion Worship of Israelite God was apparently both state and popular religion
  • Not establishing a divided social order with king as ‘son’ (Egypt) or regent (Mesopotamia) All humans are created in the image of God (image not a statue of a god or king)
  • Not establishing a labor class from other All serve with/for God
    • In Gen. 2, monogenesis, not polygenesis:
      • Adam and Eve as archetypes who ideally walk and talk with Yahweh.
  • General Differences Cont.
  • Theological/Religious
  • No theogony (birth of gods) Monotheistic: God assumes all functions of the cosmos
  • No battle among gods (Mesopotamia) God is sovereign over chaos and all that is contra life
  • No pantheism or animism (material world as manifestation of gods or spirits) God is not part of natural world
  • No mythic enactment and mimetic magic God, not materially part of world, cannot be coerced
  • No “common folk” Humans have lofty calling:
    • all in image of God (Gen 1)
    • all given priestly role of serving (Gen 2)
  • Issues of Interpretation
  • Physical Picture
  • The “origin” texts of the ancient Near East, including the Bible, have to be read and understood on the basis of their ancient understanding of the physical world (“world picture”), NOT on the perspective of some later era, 18th century, 21st century, or future 22nd century.
    • Helpful distinction?
    • “World picture” (a scientific and pragmatic explanation of reality) is culturally dependent and ever changing.
    • “Worldview” (a religious meaning/value-oriented understanding of reality) might be viewed as lasting.
  • Function of ANE “Origin” Texts
  • Such narrative texts presented a basic worldview (divine, human, and natural realms), explaining, in part politically, why things are the way they are.
  • Issue of Science and the Bible
  • “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions . . . and so forth . . . Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. . . . If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well . . . how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven . . .? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren.”
  • Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (2 vols.; trans. J. H. Taylor; New York: Newman, 1982), 1:423-43, as cited in M. A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 202-3.
  • “Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.”
  • John. Calvin, Genesis (2 vols.; trans. and ed. J. King; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 1:86-87
  • Issue of Science and the Bible
  • Issue of Science and the Bible
  • “Science is invoked to prove that the narratives of creation in Genesis 1, the story of man’s origin and fall in chapters 2 and 3, the account of patriarchal longevity in chapters 5 and 11, the story of the deluge, and other matters, must all be rejected because in patent contradiction to the facts of modern knowledge…. What is meant by contradiction here? The Bible was never given us in order to anticipate or forestall the discoveries of modern twentieth century science.
  • The Bible, as every sensible interpreter of Scripture has always held, takes the world as it is, not as it is seen through the eyes of twentieth century specialists, but as it lies spread out before the eyes of original men, and uses the popular every-day language appropriate to this standpoint.”
  • James Orr, “The Early Narratives of Genesis,” The Fundamentals, (Ch 11, 1917 collection). http://fundamentalists.whybaptist.com/chaptereleven.aspx
  • In pairs discuss:
  • 1. The paragraph you wrote regarding our last class on “doing” history.
  • 2. Is there a conflict if one claims that the Israelite historical narratives are both ‘subjective’ and ‘inspired’? (Does ‘subjective’ imply inaccurate?)
  • 3. What is the relationship between accuracy and rhetorical intention? (Must details incidental to a text's rhetorical intention be accurate for the text to communicate accurately?)
  • Reflection on History Telling (Review last class)
  • 4. Agree or disagree: Duke, “Without being subjective and interpretive our histories would not communicate meaning.”
  • BIBLE AS HISTORY
  • Overview of Issues
  • 1. Nature of the Bible: The Bible is not a history book but a collection of many genres: wisdom, prophetic, legal, hymnic, apocalyptic, etc., as well as historical narrative.
  • 2. Literary issues: How do we know a historical narrative when we see it? What distinguishes it from fiction? Are there “blends” (types of literature that blend history and fiction)?
  • What should we expect from ancient Near Eastern historical narrative? How does it differ from modern Western history telling?
  • Functional issue:
  • What are the communicative purposes of telling history in general? What were the Israelite (OT) and Christian (NT) purposes? [Different genre have different functions.]
  • Issue of historicity:
  • How accurate are the biblical historical narratives? [Note: “accuracy” depends on the function/communicative purposes (#3) and standard necessary to carry out that function.]
  • BIBLE AS HISTORY
  • 5. Nature of Inspiration:
  • Does the literature in the Bible carry out God’s communicative purposes?
  • Not: 21st century expectations of being able to determine the authorship, date of writing, unity of writing, etc.
  • Question:
  • Could God work through the community of faith over several generations to preserve, shape, and edit the biblical text AND it still be inspired for God’s communicative purposes?
  • BIBLE AS HISTORY
  • Hebrew ‘historical narrative’ combines:
  • historiography (“Something like this must have happened…”),
  • “science” (Rational explanation of cosmology from a phenomenological perspective. Modern science has this same “mythic” function of explaining origins materially.
  • theology (The character and involvement of God), and
  • aesthetics (Well composed “poetically”).
  • Literary Issues:
  • What should we expect from ancient Near Eastern historical narrative versus modern?
  • Summary of Purposes of Biblical Historical Narratives
  • 1. a. Preserve the story and traditions of Israel/Jesus,
  • b. teaching (usually indirectly) the meaning of events, while
  • c. addressing the questions and needs of the particular
  • audiences of the greater narrative units.
  • 2. Inculcate (instill) a worldview (i.e. how the world works,
  • particularly in relationship to the divine).
  • Functional Issue
  • What are the communicative purposes of telling history in general?
  • (See CoursePack, p. 26)
  • Differences between Oral and Writing Cultures
  • Oral Culture Writing Culture
  • Authority based on spoken (memorized words) of teacher/tradent
  • Based on communal knowledge
  • Words are dynamic, visual and dramatic
  • Performance oriented
  • Fluidity to respond to audience and situation
  • Communal interpretations
  • Text as authority/orthodox
  • Text as unchanging artifact
  • Teaching is static
  • Rule oriented
  • Individual interpretations
  • STRUCTURES OF NARRATIVE
  • Questions: Why do stories attract us so? What purpose do they serve?
  • Thesis: A major component of our lives involves expressing our comprehension of reality in narrative. Therefore, we are naturally attracted to narrative (fictional or historical) for the meaning it conveys.
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (1 of 7)
  • “The king was healthy but he became ill.”
  • 1) Select characters and events.
  • “The king was healthy. The king became ill. The king took medicine. The king died.”
  • 2) story-line/plot (begin, middle, end)
  • “The king was healthy but he became ill, and although he tried every medicine in the kingdom, he still died.”
  • 3) relationships among events
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (2 of 7)
  • A. What are the components of narrative?
  • Implications:
  • 1) Since the OT narrative blocks are composed of a string of stories in order to create a total impact, we need to understand the intention of the a whole before analyzing the parts.
  • 2) Since the basic components of narrative and historical conception are the same, the process of forming narrative corresponds with the process of doing history.
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (3 of 7)
  • B. How narratives convey meaning.
  • They convey a world-view through:
  • 1) Select characters and events: reveal values
  • 2) story-line/plot (begin, middle, end): show purpose/direction
  • 3) relationships: demonstrate laws of reality
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (4 of 7)
  • C. We use narrative to express one of the ways we comprehend our world/lives.
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (5 of 7)
  • Three ways we comprehend reality:
  • 1) Categorization: used in systematic theology, philosophy
  • 2) Hypothetico-deductive, used in science
  • 3) Configurational, used in historical memory, expressed in narrative.
  • -Important component of our lives; seen in our dreams, daydreams, plans, evaluation of our lives, etc.
  • Thesis: A major component of our lives involves expressing our comprehension of reality in narrative. Therefore, we are naturally attracted to narrative (fictional or historical) for the meaning it conveys.
  • D. The above observation (historical and fictional stories share the same narrative form) raises other questions:
  • 1. How do fictional narratives differ from historical?
  • 2. How can the reader distinguish them?
  • 1. The difference is whether or not the REFERENT existed in real time and space.
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (6 of 7)
  • Author
  • Mean Referent
  • Audience
  • 2. Without external corroboration we cannot tell them apart. We must have some clues into the authorial intention (e.g genre clues such as "Once upon a time").
  • *Caution: We cannot make the distinction on whether or not the author's world-view differs from ours.
  • Exploring the Purpose and Attraction of Narrative/Story
  • (7 of 7)
  • [Duke] Propositional Truth Vs. Mimetic Truth
  • (Thinking in terms of historical referentiality)
  • Language
  • creates Referential Quality
  • Textual World
  • How does it
  • relate? Mimetic
  • Quality
  • Real World
  • Asks if textual world is “accurate” to real world historically (events in time & space)
  • Asks if textual world is “accurate” to nature of real world in terms of how life “works” (life’s experiences)*
  • [Note: One might call both qualities “referential,” but pointing to two different considerations: historically unique and/or nature of reality.]
  • *Can there be interpretation (application), if there is no mimetic quality?
  • COMMON ASSUMPTIONS OF BOTH
  • “ATHEISTIC” AND “FUNDAMENTALIST” INTERPRETERS
  • There is one kind of truth/knowledge: historical & scientific FACTS
  • There are two kinds of narrative: HISTORY (“true”) & FICTION (“false”)
  • HOWEVER (Duke):
  • There are different kinds of truths and ways of knowing. E.g. Relational knowledge expressed in narrative. Narratives create “narrative worlds” that can be assessed in terms of their mimetic truth (how accurately they portray reality).
  • There is a whole range, or variety of “blends” between historical narrative and fiction. E.g. court records, fictionalized history, historicized fiction, legends, novels, fairytales, etc.
  • All biblical narratives/stories must be historically accurate to be “true”!!!
  • How are they “true”?
  • How is the historical referentiality of an account meaningful?
  • How can there be interpretation (application), unless there is mimetic “truth”?
  • What determines what is “historical”?
    • For ancient Greek historians, a good historian was expected to record a person’s speech not verbatim, but accurately in terms of the person’s character and the main point of the speech. (Large numbers in Joshua fits ANE battle accounts.)
  • Why must all stories be historical?
    • Even our culture does not make an absolute separation between history and fiction. We have a range of literature with “blends”: fables, parables, legends, tall tales, dramatic enactments, historical fiction, fictional history, and historical narrative. (Which do we use the most for instruction?)
  • POSSIBLE “MODERN” ASSUMPTION?
  • Literary Issues:
  • What should we expect from ancient Near Eastern historical narrative versus modern?
  • Ancient Modern
  • Theistic perspective vs. Atheistic perspective
  • Aesthetically crafted vs. Plain “objective” style
  • Phenomenological view vs. Scientific world view
  • Functional embellishment vs. Nothing but the “facts”
  • Creation of speeches for vs. Word-for-word accuracy character portrayal
  • Orally transmitted texts vs. Focus on incidental details drop incidental details etc.
  • Hebrew ‘historical narrative’ blends/combines:
  • historiography (“Theses events happened in the past…”),
  • “science” (Rational explanation of cosmology from a phenomenological perspective),
  • theology (The character and involvement of God), and
  • aesthetics (Well composed “poetically”).
  • Literary Issues:
  • What should we expect from ancient Near Eastern historical narrative versus modern?
  • a. How does Gen 12ff compare and contrast to Gen 1-11?
  • How does Gen 1-11 serve as a prologue?
  • Creation
  • Total corruption
  • Flood
  • Noah
  • Total corruption
  • Abram
  • Israel
  • Paper #16 & 1 (1 of 2)
  • b. What promises to Abraham? What significance?
  • Signif. (1) Israel’s beginning/ancestry (ethnic ID)
  • (2) unity of Pentateuch: overarching storyline with main themes related to the promises.
  • Themes of the Pentateuch:
  • Gen: 'election'/chosen, covenant/promises (son, become nation, land, blessing/cursing to nations)
  • Exod: deliverance (to keep promises), covenant-Law
  • Lev: holiness (to keep covenant) [*middle "book"]
  • Num: human failure to keep covenant, but God's faithfulness/patience
  • Deut: renewal of covenant
  • Moses and the Pentateuch
  • Which position do you support and why?
  • Moses wrote all
  • Moses wrote none

READING STRATEGY (See CoursePack, pp. 27-28)

  • 18:1 Narrator: summary introduction
  • 18:2,10,22,33; 19:1 Narrator: details to guide audience how revelation of God unfolds
  • 18:2-8 Length & details show significance of scene
  • Character portrayal through action: emphasis on Abe's haste and humility = righteous
  • 18:10-15 Details (scenic) need to visualize to get impact (Abraham between Sarah and Yahweh)
  • 18:10 Narrator detail: change of number, "He said"
  • 18:10 Echo/repetition of main theme/promise (13-14, 17-19)
  • Lit. Features of Genesis 18-19 (1 of 3)
  • (Homework #5)
  • 18:11 Narrator: highlighting tension to fulfill of promise
  • 18:17-19 Narrator's use of speech of Yahweh: talks to self, emphasizes promises and nature
  • 18:22-33 Length shows significance of scene
  • Character portrayal through speech/intervention (emphasizes corruption of people as well)
  • Link/bridge to next episode: Yahweh looking for righteous person.
  • Lit. Features of Genesis 18-19 (2 of 3)
  • 19:1-3 Juxtaposition for comparison, contrast:
  • Echoing: comparison
  • Character portrayal through action
  • 19:4-10 Juxtaposition: antithesis of "echo" of Abe: contrast
  • Lit. Features of Genesis 18-19 (3 of 3)
  • Homework #6
  • Genesis: 12:10-20; 20:1-17; and 26:1-11
  • 1) What is the common plot element?
  • 2) (W) How do you account for the similarity?
  • Judges 2:6-3:30
  • 3) What is the main structuring element in Judges?
  • 4) (W) Support whether or not you think this material was put into written form soon or long after the events mentioned?


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page