From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 13:24:06 EST
Robert Schneider wrote:
>.... After reading Gordon Wenham's critique of the
>hypothesis that the Flood story contains two major sources, despite his
>argument to the contrary, I still remain convinced that there are indeed two
>accounts woven together. Where I found Wenham convincing is in his analysis
>of the structure of the Flood story, an excellent example of chiastic or
>palistrophic arrangement of episodes and details into a coherent and
>striking narrative. It seems to me that what we have here is an outstanding
>job of redaction. This creative editor-writer, whoever he was, was able to
>bring these sources together in such a way that the account reads smoothly
>and effectively. I think the differences in the sources are still evident,
>but they do not detract from the movement of the narrative, and in fact may
>be missed by a reader not alerted to them. I do not hesitate to believe
>that this redactor was inspired.
>
Allen:
In Wiseman's Tablet theory, Moses is the redactor and the sources are
named. -- Shem, Ham and Japeth. :) GE 10:1 "This is the account of
Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, ..." It is possible that Moses had
two or three documents about the Flood written by (or owned by) Shem,
Ham and Japeth. Perhaps, rather than enter each account seperatly,
Moses edited them into one account placing similar points in sequence or
in parallel (chiastic in form).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 22:04:58 EST