spin

As you see in the Hebrew form of the sentence there is a preposition appended to the noun. This is unlike any of the examples of what are known as toledoths.

But perhaps you are suggesting because of the two apparent examples of a TWLDT sentence for closure, we have two passages written by the same scribe??

But then, there is still no toledoth at the beginning of Gen 1, which is part of my argument: if Gen 1 was part of the text when the toledoths were used to structure the text, you should expect one at the beginning of Gen 1. As there isn't one, it doesn't fit the perceived structure and should be seen as later than the use of the toledoths.

Endurance of a folly doesn't change it from being a folly, does it? ie I don't think the fact that it has been used for almost a century has any weight. Do you?

(And why not read Wellhausen directly?)

What about the repetition of 'RC (eretz) from 1:1 and 1:2. Using your logic this is also "awkward", though perhaps your example is only relevant if 'RC is used with $MYM). Now in that case we have something that was probably written by the same person. Neither of us accept that 2:4a and 2:4b were written by the same person. I can't see how what you're saying has any relevance.

The same complaint I stated last above also is appropriate here.

I've seen this sort of thing in documents clearly written by the same scribe amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. DIfferent spellings, different fonts. You can't really make anything out of a single occurrence. You have no way of contextualising it.


spin

Apikorus

A preposition? This is beginning to sound like special pleading. The fact is that toledot appears both at the beginning and end of the Table of Nations, contrary to your assertion that it is always used to introduce a unit.

Yet you were ready to dismiss attaching 2:4a to the P narrative based on the "anomaly" of a single occurrence of a concluding toledot (which, as I've shown, isn't unique after all). At any rate, as with the Documentary Hypothesis in general, it is not any single bit of evidence that seals the deal, but rather a confluence of observations.

If neither of us accepts that 2:4a and 2:4b were written by the same person, then our positions are almost indistinguishable. To reiterate my position: Gen 1:1 - 2:3 is P. 2:4b - 2:25 is non-P. 2:4a is redactional, linking P and non-P sections. I see the redactor's reiteration of eretz, shamayim, and bara as recapitulating 1:1, hence closing that unit. You see his use of toledot as introducing the next unit. I think there is merit to both points of view.

Finally, of course the fact that identification of P has been rather stable for a century does indeed have weight. That weight is contained in the mountains of scholarly papers published on the subject. As I said, we can go into the details of this some other time and place.

spin

I think we are now getting simply repetitive.

The preposition is indicative of a different sentence structure.

The word "generations" (TWLDT) appears in a number of places that don't make them toledoths, eg 3 times in Gen 17.

To be fuller the structure of a toledoth runs basically like this:

these are the generations of...

(with one exception which reads,

this is the book of the generations of...)

The second occurrence on TWLDT in Gen 10 doesn't make it a toledoth, simply because the word TWLDT is used: it doesn't fit the mold of the other examples. I have been using "toledoth" in a kind of technical way to indicate a listing of the generations.

10:35 starts thus

these are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, according to their nations.

This is quite distinct from every accepted toledoth.

We are talking past each other. We are not dealing simply with occurrences of TWLDT, but a formula which includes TWLDT.

That's why there is a lot of disagreement as to what is what in the apportioning of the alphabet soup letters.

I don't think so. If I'm right about the use of toledoths, then I can say that Gen1:1-2:3 was added to the front of the text after the structuring featuring toledoths.

I see the use of BR', $MYM and 'RC in 1:1 was echoing the words found originally at the start of the book.

I'm used to mountains of erroneous, or potentially erroneous, scholarly papers on things.


spin

Kosh

Correct. Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Apikorus

And in Gen 10:32, we have the same structure:

using mishpachot instead of toledot. Same essential formula, beginning with eileh. Moreover, the term toledot appears as well (l'toledotam). So your "sentence structure" argument fails.

I'm well aware of the structure of toledot sections. Generally they apply to a particular genealogical line - yet another reason why Gen 2:4a is anomalous, since there toledot refers to the heavens and the earth. It is hardly clear what "generations" the toledot in 2:4a would refer to in the following material, since it contains no genealogical lists at all. So this is not your standard toledot by any means. Inasmuch as the toledot units generally contain ordered lists, 2:4a would seem to be more applicable to the preceding P narrative, with its formulaic vayehi erev vayehi boqer thang, rather than to the discursive J story which follows. But I wouldn't want to push this point. Indeed, as I've said, 2:4a is clearly a redactional link.

Getting back to the Table of Nations, clearly 10:32 recapitulates the basic toledot formula of 10:1. I.e. 10:1 is saying "here comes a genealogical list of the descendants of Noach" and 10:32 is saying "and there you have it, folks - the genealogical list of the descendents of Noach." It is as clear as can be.

Incidentally, it is a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you on this.

lpetrich

Or more precisely, argumentum ex antiquitate.

NoFablesPlease

"Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up"

First of all, I am new here, as this is my first post. I am no where near as learned as some of you.

I think it would be best to start with definitions. I have paraphrased the definiton to avoid copyright infringement, although I am sure this definition can be verified with the simplest of Google searches:

1. FABLE - noun - a narrative, which illustrates a useful truth, especially one in which animals act or speak like humans.

2. GENESIS 3:1
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

3.By definition, Genesis IS a fable, and not to be believed, nor given any sort of credibility, whatsoever.

Please feel free to point out any errors in my logic.

Doctor X

NoFablesPlease:

Welcome to the Forums. Mind the hounds. . . .

Well, an inerrantist will just argue that "back then" snakes could talk and "God took it away." As others argue, snakes lack the anatomy for speeches, but then the inerrantist will argue "they HAD it back then but. . . ."

It is all a bit of a mess.

Nevertheless, as you recognize, the story shares the common trait of "talking animals" in fables and myths.

The progenitor of this thread, Mike(ALT) has gone away it seems. I can only hope he will study some of the background he admits he does not have. The discussion between spin and Apikorus underscore why modern scholars recognize multiauthorship in Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole. This is not just something that "we" made up here.

--J.D.

spin

I think you're overlooking the obvious in that TWLDT is present in the sentence, yet it is not used as it is in the toledoths

Yes, we agree on this last idea.

But your quibble on the use of TWLDWT in this instance is puzzling to me: YLD means "bring forth, beget, etc." A toledoth preludes a series of begettings or bringing forths. In the case of 2:4a that which is brought forth are the elements which make up the cosmos.

As to the toledoth necessarily indicating an ordered list look at 37:2ff. for the toledoth heading regarding Jacob.

Let's now return to Gen 1, which features no toledoth at the beginning, though of course all the rest have, oh, except for the one at 2:4a which, although it does give the generations of the cosmos after it, actually refers to the preceding passage, by your (and everyone else's) special pleading. You get there because, amongst other things, you stretch a passage which recapitulates a toledoth, though it doesn't have the form of a toledoth heading, into being an epilogual toledoth tied to the one at the beginning of the passage, yet if it were analoguous to Gen 1, where is the toledoth at the beginning of the passage?

This is still the big problem. The toledoth at 2:4a has an account of the generations of the cosmos following it, as one finds in all the other toledoths (and I don't consider that 10:32 would have been included had there not been one at the beginning of the section). There is no toledoth at the beginning of the preceding section.

I've found the discussion rather useful as it has helped clarify the sorts of objections people will raise to such an interpretation of the data as I have profferred. And this has only been about half a biblical verse.


spin

Apikorus

I'm hardly bothered by the fact that 2:4a differs from other toledot statements, because it is redactional. Were it written by P, I might have expected a toledot to lead off Gen 1:1, but it wasn't, so no worries.

What strikes me as special pleading is your insistence that 2:4a is a typical toledot even though in every other toledot unit it is a human genealogy which is articulated. There's really no comparing J's discursive story with P's articulated lists.

You're hung up on the way toledot appears in 10:32, but this verse clearly functions as a toledot , since it begins eileh mishpachot b'nei noach l'toledotam. Again, a `toledot structure' is saying "here's a genealogical list" and 10:32 is saying just that, in a recap. Incidentally, do you dispute that 25:13 also begins a toledot unit?

Here we also have l'toledotam, and at the beginning of a unit. What follows 25:13 is a list of human descendants, exactly as in every other toledot. Well, every one except 2:4a!

I don't see what genealogy you are associating with the toledot in 2:4a. Presumably we do agree that toledot units are genealogies. So what follows an introductory toledot should be a list of names and father-son identifications. You don't have this at all after 2:4a. So again, this is not a typical toledot. I heartily approve of your linguistic analysis and concur that the author of 2:4a was likely referring to the "bringing forth" of the heavens and earth. I just think that is more applicable to the articulated list in the P section 1:1 - 2:3 than to J's story.

It is the confluence of indicators I have pointed out which tells me that 2:4a is redactional. On this we both seem to agree. I think the other toledot introductions (for Adam, Seth, Terach, Ishmael) are not redactional, but were written by P. 2:4a is clearly anomalous.

As for 37:2, it talks about the generations of Jacob while the following material is all about Joseph. (Note also the use of the name Israel in vv 3 and 13. Wouldn't want to push this too far since Jacob reappears in v 34.) It seems to me very likely that 37:2 is also a redactional colophon, marking the boundary between Jacob material and Joseph material. (I'm not the first to say this either; see Speiser, for example.)