Apikorus

Just some final bookkeeping on toledot in Genesis. The orthography indeed varies:[list=1][*]tldt in Gen 25:12[*]tldwt in Gen 36:1, 36:9, 37:2[*]twldt in Gen 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19; also Gen 10:32, 25:13 (ltwldtm)[*]twldwt in 2:4a[/list=1]
As spin says, one can't read too much into all this. Spelling could merely reflect the convention of the last copyist, or indeed any in a series of scribes responsible for transmitting the text. Variations can also be due to scribal error. In and of itself, the uniqueness of the spelling in 2:4a means essentially nothing. But combined with all the other reasons why this passage is anomalous, it improves the case that it is redactional.

In Exodus we also have toledot units. Exod 6:16 and Exod 6:19 both have the same structure as 10:32 and 25:13:
Regarding 25:13, spin correctly pointed out that the formula "And these are the generations (toledot) of Ishmael..." appears in 25:12 as well. This formula, (v')eileh toledot X, where X = personal name, is what appears in 6:9, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, and 37:2, so this is what one might call the "standard toledot header" (though in 37:2 I believe it is a conclusion; spin disagrees). The fact that 25:13 is preceded by the standard header in 25:12, one might argue, diminishes the case that 25:13 functions independently as a toledot statement, which in turn diminishes my case that 10:32, which comes at the end of a unit, is a proper toledot. (I see 10:1 and 10:32 as bookends.) I had adduced 10:32 in support of my case that the redactional 2:4a could reference what precedes it (the P creation account) rather than what follows (the J story). The significance of the above verses from Exod 6 is that they clearly function as toledot headers, have the same structure as Gen 10:32 and Gen 25:13, and do not reiterate a "standard header" (as does 25:13 vis-a-vis 25:12).

If I understand spin correctly, he believes that the introductory toledot statements are all redactional. I don't agree, but I don't think the matter is easily resolved.

Added note to Pervy: I'm glad that my exchange with spin was interesting for you. Again I am delighted to interact with someone of such obvious competence in Hebrew Bible. Apparently this is spin's line of work, whereas I am merely an enthusiast. The demands of my real job are such that I can't promise to write anything of the sort you ask. I would commend you to the following books on Genesis:

• Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (Anchor Bible Commentary, Doubleday)
• Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (Schocken)
• Nahum Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary)
• David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis (Westminster John Knox)
• Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (out of print)

Speiser's commentary was the first in the Anchor Bible series. The introduction contains a nice explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis. There's much that is useful in Speiser, although it is now out of date and Doubleday has commissioned Ron Hendel of UC Berkeley to redo Genesis; expect this in a decade, perhaps. Speiser's problem is that he was overly enamored of the Mesopotamian parallels (he was an Assyriologist) and since the work of Thompson and others it is now generally agreed that those alleged parallels are hardly compelling. (More to the point, the patriarchal tales fit just as well within a first millennium BCE Sitz im Leben as a second millennium one.) Sarna's Understanding Genesis is pretty good (did I just hear spin gag?). Problem with Sarna is that he tilts toward a maximalist approach, even though he is hardly a fundamentalist. As an observant Jew, in his heart of hearts he really wants the Bible to be special, so some of his analysis must be taken with a grain of salt. Throughout the book, Sarna capitalizes pronouns that refer to God - 'nuff said! But as I said he's hardly a fundamentalist, and there's lots of useful stuff there on Enuma Elish, on Gilgamesh, etc. He doesn't seem to like the implications of source criticism, so you won't find much on that in his writings. Carr's book is to me the most mature and nuanced approach to Genesis published. It is by and large readable by non-experts as well, although clearly it is a scholarly work. Westermann's commentary is big and exhaustive, but you'll have a hard time finding it unless you have access to a university library.

Amos

Well that has to be true spin because when we come full circle "in the new heaven and the new earth the sea was no longer" as the source to create the rain" (Rev. 21:1).

Doctor X

Westermann's book is still available. You can get the complete work on Genesis--which includes the patriarchal narratives--through Amazon or Fortress Press. If you check my reference in a previous post addressed to Spin and Apikoros, it will take you there.

--J.D.

Apikorus

Doc, the Westermann book you linked to on Amazon is a single volume abbreviation (in 278 pp.) of a massive three volume work. I've got it and it isn't of much use.

Doctor X

Now I am disappointed. . . .

It is advertised as a compilation of both volumes.

I found it very useful, but I do not recommend it for "first-timers" because it assumes a lot of information.

--J.D.

Apikorus

Hold on... Eisenbrauns has Westermann's Genesis 1-11.