In this week’s parsha, Noah is told to build an ark (can I quote Bill Cosby?). And the Torah says he does it, but it says so twice:
ויעש נח; ככל אשר צוה אתו אלקים כן עשה׃
ויעש נח ככל אשר צוהו ה׳׃
And the context of those two assessments leads to an interesting point:
יג ויאמר אלקים לנח קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם; והנני משחיתם את הארץ׃ יד עשה לך תבת עצי גפר קנים תעשה את התבה; וכפרת אתה מבית ומחוץ בכפר׃…יט ומכל החי מכל בשר שנים מכל תביא אל התבה להחית אתך; זכר ונקבה יהיו׃ כ מהעוף למינהו ומן הבהמה למינה מכל רמש האדמה למינהו שנים מכל יבאו אליך להחיות׃ כא ואתה קח לך מכל מאכל אשר יאכל ואספת אליך; והיה לך ולהם לאכלה׃ כב ויעש נח; ככל אשר צוה אתו אלקים כן עשה׃
א ויאמר ה׳ לנח בא אתה וכל ביתך אל התבה; כי אתך ראיתי צדיק לפני בדור הזה׃ ב מכל הבהמה הטהורה תקח לך שבעה שבעה איש ואשתו; ומן הבהמה אשר לא טהרה הוא שנים איש ואשתו׃ ג גם מעוף השמים שבעה שבעה זכר ונקבה לחיות זרע על פני כל הארץ׃ ד כי לימים עוד שבעה אנכי ממטיר על הארץ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה; ומחיתי את כל היקום אשר עשיתי מעל פני האדמה׃ ה ויעש נח ככל אשר צוהו ה׳׃
The two paragraphs use two different names of G-d: what is called שם אלוקים and שם הויה. So Julius Wellhausen and his academic followers developed the Documentary Theory: the different names represent different authors, who wrote their books in different times. Each was the scripture of a different Hebrew tribe. When they were later united, the various books were edited (or “redacted”) together to form what we now call the Pentateuch. So our question has an easy answer: the two paragraphs were from two different documents: J (for “Jehovah”), which used שם הויה and E (for “Elohist”), which used שם אלוקים.
Aside from the heresy of such a theory, the problem is that there is no evidence that this is true. There is no archeological “Book of E” or “Book of J” to tell us what part of the Pentateuch goes where (that isn’t exactly right; there does exist a “Book of J”. More on that later). The multiple documents come from looking at the complex text we have and assuming that primitive people without PhD’s could only have one thought at a time, and pulling the bits and pieces apart.
I bring this up largely to present a brilliant satire by The Byzantine Scotist, an anonymous Christian theologian:
It seems there are actually four sources being used by the author of the Trump narrative. It seems that the oldest two sources are the paleocon (P) and libertarian (L) sources.
A later neocon (N) source was then added to make the narrative more acceptable, and the final MAGA (M) redactor combined these distinct sources into a single narrative.
The P source can be seen in Trump’s more traditionalist views. For example, his discussions of immigration or racial issues.
The L source can be seen in Trump’s deregulation, his general anger towards the establishment, and his isolationist foreign policy. Since these latter two issues are shared by the P source, perhaps these could be authentic sayings of a historical Donald Trump.
It seems the L source is actually the result of the failed messianic movement of the Ron Paul campaign. Many people expected Ron Paul to win the primary, and so when this movement failed, this energy was transferred into the mythical person of Trump.
Indeed, we can also see the messianic roots of Trumpism in the end of the Trump narrative. Many supporters of Trump still believe he will return one day to reclaim the presidency and save America.
This ending is clearly just stolen from Egyptian religion though. Trump simply replaces Osiris and Biden replaces Seth.
Since the P and L sources are the earliest, dating back to 2015 and the primaries, they must have been written first.
However, once Trump becomes the nominee, we can clearly see the influences of the N source. For example, Trump’s calls to bomb ISIS shows the establishment’s additions to the original narrative.
Indeed, the N source is so influential that it can be hard to distinguish it from the L source. However, the author of N clearly did not like the P source as he downplays Trump’s social views.
As these sources were passed down through oral tradition, many accretions were added onto the story. For example, does it seem reasonable to assume that this is a real tweet from a US president?
Other scholars think this meets the criterion of embarrassment and so can be said to be an authentic statement of the historical Donald Trump. However, since Trump’s tweets don’t exist (conveniently explained away by the banning in the M source), there is no way to prove this.
These various sources were then synthesized by the M source. Donald of the P source and Trump of the L and N sources are made to be the same character. Trump’s contradictory statements are explained away by all these policies being about making America great again.
However, some gaps in the narrative still exist. For example, to explain away the abundance of secondary characters, the redactor had to make Trump constantly fire his cabinet members. In addition, his wives in the L and N sources are made ex wives.
Is there any truth to the Trump narrative? It seems that Trump could be loosely based on a person attested to in many contemporary sources, Donald Drumf. However, the differences are so large it is likely only the name is taken. Further research ought to be done here though.
Needless to say, I don’t take the Documentary Hypothesis seriously. And the different names of G-d don’t mark different texts; they are mixed throughout the Torah, including in our parsha:
והבאים זכר ונקבה מכל בשר באו כאשר צוה אתו אלקים; ויסגר ה׳ בעדו׃
But, the Torah does use two different names. While there is no archeological “Book of J”, in 1990, literary critic Harold Bloom published The Book of J, where he put together all the parts of the Torah that used שם הויה. And he reached a controversial conclusion:
J is the title that scholars ascribe to the nameless writer they believe is responsible for the text, written between 950 and 900 BCE, on which Genesis, Exodus and Numbers is based. In The Book of J, Bloom and Rosenberg draw the J text out of the surrounding material and present it as the seminal classic that it is.
In addition to Rosenberg’s original translations, Bloom argues in several essays that “J” was not a religious writer but a fierce ironist and a woman living in the court of King Solomon. He also argues that J is a writer on par with Homer, Shakespeare and Tolstoy.
Bloom concluded that J was written by a woman because G-d in J is merciful, as opposed to the harshness of G-d in E.
So the academics came to the same conclusion as חז״ל, only 2000 years late:
בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ”ה׳“, מִדַּת רַחֲמִים…בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ”אֱלֹקִים“ הוּא מִדַּת הַדִּין.
So we have one pasuk in which Noah does what אלוקים commands, and one in which he does what ה׳ commands. Rashi notes the redundancy but seems unconcerned about the names:
ויעש נח: זה בנין התבה.
ויעש נח: זה ביאתו לתבה.
זה בנין התיבה: דקשה לרש״י ד”ויעש נח“ משמע שבא אל התיבה כמו שאמר הקב״ה, וזה אינו דהא אח״כ נאמר ”ויאמר ה׳ אל נח בא אתה ואשתך וגו׳“ ש״מ דעדיין לא בא אל התיבה אלא זה בנין התיבה.
Ramban is only concerned about the redundancy in the first pasuk itself: ויעש נח ככל אשר צוה אתו אלקים כן עשה. That is a Biblical Hebrew idiom for “exactly”, “no more and no less”:
ודרך הכתוב לאמר ”ויעש“ ”וכן עשה“ לבאר כי לא הפיל דבר מכל אשר צוה.
כן עשו: לא פחות ולא יותר.
But on the שם הויה pasuk, Ramban notes that saving Noah was an act of רחמים:
ויאמר ה׳ לנח: הודיעו השם כי במדת רחמים ימלט אותו ואת ביתו ויחיה מהם זרע לדורות.
Rabbeinu Bachya says that the רחמים was to the rest of the world. ה׳ had decided to destroy the world if they didn’t improve in the next 120 years:
ויאמר ה׳ לא ידון רוחי באדם לעלם בשגם הוא בשר; והיו ימיו מאה ועשרים שנה׃
And now ה׳ gives them another week:
כי לימים עוד שבעה: מלבד שהיה להם זמן ק״כ שנה לשוב בתשובה, עוד אני מאריך להם שבעת ימים.
Sforno says the רחמים was to Noah’s family:
כי אותך ראיתי צדיק: לא ביתך לפיכך אתה וכל ביתך כי בשבילך בלבד אמלטם.
But that’s not what Ramban is saying. Ramban says הודיעו השם כי במדת רחמים ימלט אותו. Noah himself is being saved as an act of רחמים. Even though he is a צדיק, he would not pass the דין implied in שם אלוקים. That is because when the Torah says ויעש נח ככל אשר צוה אתו אלקים כן עשה it is criticizing him. Building the ark was not in order to save the animals but to save humanity:
עשה לך תבת: הרבה רוח והצלה לפניו, למה הטריחו בבנין זה? כדי שיראוהו אנשי דור המבול עוסק בה ק״כ שנה, ושואלין אותו מה זאת לך, והוא אומר להם עתיד הקב״ה להביא מבול לעולם, אולי ישובו.
When Avraham learns of the impending destruction of Sedom, he protests. He spends his life evangelizing the service of הקב״ה and the value of יראת אלוקים. As far as we can tell, Noah does nothing of the sort. I will quote Bill Cosby:
Narrator: So Noah began to build the ark. Of course his neighbors were not too happy about it. Can you imagine leaving for the office at 7 AM and seeing an ark?
Neighbor: (enters whistling, with brief case) Hey! You over there.
Noah: What do you want?
Neighbor: What is this thing?
Noah: It’s an ark.
Neighbor: Uh huh, well you want to get it out of my driveway? I’ve gotta get to work. Hey listen, what’s this thing for anyway?
Noah: I can’t tell you, ha ha ha.
Neighbor: Can’t you even give me a little hint?
Noah: You want a hint?
Neighbor: Yes, please.
Noah: Well, how long can you tread water? Ha ha ha
Noah was a good man in a bad age. But his influence on the life of his contemporaries was apparently zero. That is implicit in God’s statement, “You alone have I found righteous in this whole generation.” It is implicit also in the fact that only Noah and his family, together with the animals, were saved. It is reasonable to assume that these two facts—Noah’s righteousness and his lack of influence on his contemporaries—are intimately related. Noah preserved his virtue by separating himself from his environment. That is how, in a world gone mad, he stayed sane.
…Hassidim had a simple way of making the point. They called Noah a tzaddik im peltz, “a righteous man in a fur coat.” There are two ways of keeping warm on a cold night. You can wear a fur coat or light a fire. Wear a fur coat and you warm only yourself. Light a fire and you warm others. We are supposed to light a fire.
נח איש צדיק; תמים היה בדרתיו. But he had the potential to be much more.