 |
 |
 |
|
 Articles Dialogs Q&A Science |
 Books Tapes Conferences |
 Consulting Bible Study Greek Study Seminars |
 Staff Employment Links |
|
 |
 Divine Comedy Quotable Quotes |
|
|
The "Toledoths" of Genesis page 2
'Toledoth', or Family History The Hebrew word Toledoth was used to describe history, usually family history, in its origins. Wiseman had proposed, as an equivalent phrase for Toledoth in English: "These are the historical origins of ..." It is evident, he wrote, that the use of the phrase in Genesis "is to point back to the origins of the family history,"(24) and not forward to a later development through a line of descendants.
|
|
This is precisely the meaning of the Greek word, genesios, translated as "generation." The first use of the Toledoth phrase is in Genesis 2:4: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth." Amazingly, in this one instance only, the majority of scholars have found themselves logically forced to accept the natural placement of the Toledoth formula:
"... for they have seen that it obviously points back to the narrative of the creation contained in the previous chapter, and that it cannot refer to the narrative which follows, for this section contains no reference to the creation of the heavens."(26) The phrase is appropriate only as a concluding sentence. So, most commentators (against the usual practice) make the story of creation end with the Toledoth. "Had they seen that all sections of Genesis are concluded by the use of this 'Toledoth' formula," wrote Wiseman, "they would have recognised the key to the composition of the book". Since, as we [are] now coming to appreciate, the scribal method used in Genesis was the general literary method of early antiquity, then surely the genuineness of the Genesis records is attested by their adherence to the prevailing literary method of these remote times! Commentators generally however, having assumed that the Toledoth formula begins a section, and not realising that it ends it, "have used this key to its compilation upside down."(27) Consequently, the problem of the composition of the book of Genesis has remained unsolved for them. For instance, we read in Skinner's Genesis: "The problem of the TOLEDOTH headings [sic] has been keenly discussed ... and is still unsettled."(28) Again, Eugene Maly, the commentator on "Genesis" in the Jerome Biblical Commentary - with only the bankrupt JEDP theory to guide him - has fallen into the double trap of thinking that:
The "Toledoth [story] usually refers to a genealogical account [sic]", and that it serves as an introduction: "In P [sic] it marks the important stages in salvation history .... It is placed here [i.e. in Genesis 2:4] to preserve the majestic beginning [sic]."(29) This is exactly the sort of hopeless tangle in which the exponents of the JEDP "dissection" inevitably end up. (Though some of them actually opt for the easy way out, by entirely ignoring the crucial Toledoth phrase). [NB: The Jerome Biblical Commentary (JBC) and the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (NJBC) are edited by Fr. Raymond Brown and Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer and Fr. Roland Murphy, three of the leading liberal Catholic scholars in the world. The NJBC is more or less the standard Catholic commentary in all seminaries, universities and even secondary schools. Almost all modern Catholic Bible translations (The New American Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Today's English Version Catholic Edition, and many others, all follow the Documentary Hypothesis and state so in the Introductory notes. For a sample of how the methodology of Historical Criticism has desecrated our Catholic Bible translations, see the work of Ben Douglass on our website at http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissue/nab1.htm ] Written on Tablets Another important fact needs to be emphasised in connection with the use of the Toledoth formula. The second time that it occurs, in Genesis (5:1), we read: "This is the book of the origins of Adam." Here the Hebrew word sepher, translated "book," means "written narrative," or as F. Delitzsch has translated it, "finished writing."(30) The Septuagint actually goes so far as to render the first Toledoth (Genesis 2:4) as: "This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth." Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out:
"We must realise that the 'books' of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth."(31) Moreover, a careful examination of the name of the person stated at the end of the various phrases, "These are the generations of..." makes it clear that the Toledoth refers to the owner or writer of the tablet, rather than to the history of the person named. Thus for instance: "These are the generations of Noah" does not necessarily mean: "This is the history about Noah," but rather the history written or possessed by Noah. To put this into a modern perspective, the Toledoth, or colophon is really like a kind of signature from a contemporary of the events recorded. In the case of Noah's document, the Toledoth would convert to something like: "This is Noah signing off." As previously mentioned, nowhere is there a phrase: "These are the generations of Abraham," yet the great Patriarch's story has been written in full; for we are told that Abraham's own sons, Isaac and Ishmael, either wrote or owned the series of tablets con-taining their father's story.(32) Nature of the Colophon To summarise so far, we find that we have learned three important things about the Toledoth, colophon phrase: (a) it is the concluding sentence, not the beginning, of each section and therefore points back to a narrative already recorded; (b) the earliest records claim to have been written; (c) it normally refers to the writer of the history or the owner of the tablets containing it. Genesis therefore contains the following series of tablets possessed by the persons whose names are stated in the various colophons: (The reader will notice that the first series only does not conclude with a signature). In this way the compiler of the Genesis documents (traditionally believed to have been Moses) clearly indicated the source of the information available to him, and named the persons who originally possessed the tablets from which he gained his knowledge. "These", Wiseman insisted, "are not arbitrarily invented divisions. They are stated by the author to be the framework of the book."(33) Now we are really beginning to understand the nature of the sources used for the compilation of the first book of our Bible. Genesis, it appears, was not compiled from sources that long post-dated the Mosaic era - as Graf/Wellhausen and their colleagues had imagined. These latter had commenced their analysis, "without a single piece of writing of the age of Genesis to assist them."(34) They ended up by dissecting Genesis into a series of unknown writers and editors all of whom they alleged could be detected by their "style" or "editorial comments." They committed the fallacy of subjecting Genesis to a type of contemporary literary analysis, just as if it were a piece of modern writing. They were clearly wrong! Genesis was in fact compiled from multiple sources that pre-dated the time of Moses. And, while the book does indeed disclose many "styles" - as the documentists have correctly observed - it does not, as they have claimed, disclose a plurality of authors in its final form. The Supporting Facts Wiseman had been able to provide two remarkable confirmations of the accuracy of his Toledoth thesis. These were that: 1. "In no instance is an event recorded which the person or persons named could not have written from his (their) own intimate knowledge, or have obtained absolutely reliable information." 2. "It is most significant that the history recorded in the sections outlined above ceases in all instances before the death of the person named, yet in most cases it is continued almost up to the date of death, or to the date on which it is stated that the tablets were written."(35) To give a couple of examples: TABLET 4, written or owned by Noah's sons, contains the account of the Flood and of the death of Noah. How long Ham and Japheth lived after Noah's death we are unaware, but we know from Scripture that Shem long survived Noah. Hence there is nothing in this section that could not have been written by the sons of Noah. TABLET 5, written or owned by Shem, who wrote of the birth and the formation into clans of the fifth generation after him. We know that he survived the last generation recorded in this tablet, namely the sons of Joktan. It could not be a mere coincidence that each of these sections, or series of tablets, should contain only that which the person named at the end of them could have written from personal knowledge. For, as Wiseman had correctly suggested: "Anyone writing even a century after these Patriarchs could and would never have written thus."(36) Hence, we can see that the key-formula: "These are the origins of ..." that is acknowledged by reliable scholars as constituting the very framework upon which the records of Genesis are constructed, is consistently used by the compiler of the book. A rule to which Bible exegetes often adhere is that 'the first use of a word or phrase fixes its future meaning.' We have seen that the obvious and admitted meaning of the first Toledoth (Genesis 2:4) is appropriate for the remaining instances of its use. With this key in hand, we are delivered from having to grope like blind men or women in a dark labyrinth of conflicting guesses; for we find, in the scriptural text itself, clearly indicated sources. (b) The Catch-Lines Apart from the presence of the Toledoth colophons throughout Genesis, there is further compelling evidence that these ancient records were originally written on tablets, and in accordance with ancient methods. In ancient Babylonia, as Wiseman has explained, the size of the tablet used depended upon how great a quantity of writing was to be inscribed upon it. If this were a smallish quantity, for instance, it would be written on one tablet of a size that would contain it satisfactorily. But when the quantity to be inscribed was of such a length that it became necessary to use more than one tablet, it was customary:
(a) "to assign each series of tablets a 'title'"; In addition, as has already been explained, the colophon with which many tablets concluded, frequently included, among other things, the name of the scribe who wrote the tablet, and the date when it was written. Now there are clear indications throughout Genesis of the use of some of these methods. Though naturally, of course, since these literary aids relate to the tablets as they came into the possession of the final compiler, it is unlikely that we should find them all in the document as completed by him, which we call Genesis. But one of the sure proofs that the Book of Genesis was compiled at an early date is indicated by the presence of these literary aids. To quote Wiseman on this subject: It "is remarkable confirmation of the purity with which the text has been transmitted to us, that we find [these literary aids] still embedded in this ancient document."(38) Evidence of these "catch-lines" serving as literary aids may be observed in the following significant repetition of words and phrases connected with the beginning or ending of each of the series of tablets, now incorporated in the Book of Genesis: GENESIS....CATCH-LINE According to Wiseman:
"... the very striking repetition of these phrases exactly where the tablets begin and end, will best be appreciated by those scholars acquainted with the methods of the scribes in Babylonia", for this arrangement was the one then in use to link the tablets together. The repetition of these catch-phrases, precisely in those verses attached to the colophon, "cannot possibly be a mere coincidence. They have remained buried in the text of Genesis, their significance apparently unnoticed."(39)Titles and Dating of Tablets On cuneiform tablets the TITLE was taken from the commencing words of the record. Similarly, the Hebrews called the first five books of the Bible by the title taken from their opening words. Thus they called Genesis, 'Bereshith,' the Hebrew for "in the beginning." Wiseman explained exactly how this practice was carried out in the ancient Near East. When two or more tablets formed a series, they were identified together because the first few words of the first tablet were repeated in the colophon (or title-page) of the subsequent tablets, "somewhat similar to the way in which the name of the chapter is repeated at the head of each page of a modern book."(40) Where pages of the book were not bound to-gether, as they are now, the advantage would be obvious; for "... by the repetition of such words as those listed above, the whole of the Genesis tablets were connected together." In addition to the title, Wiseman pointed out that some of these tablets showed evidence of DATING.(41) After a tablet had been written and the name impressed upon it, it was customary in Babylonia to insert the date on which it was written. In the earliest times this was done in a very simple fashion, for it was not until later that tablets were dated with the year of the reigning king. It was the custom for the ancient scribes to date their tablets in the following way: "Year in which canal Hammurabi was dug." As an early example in which the method of dating the Genesis tablets can be seen, Wiseman pointed to the end of the second tablet series, Genesis 5:1, where we read: "This is the book of the origins of Adam in the day God created man."(42) Later tablets were dated by indicating the dwelling-place of the writer at the time that the colophon was written, and these dates were immediately connected with the ending phrase, "These are the generations of ..." Instances of this are: GENESIS.....DATING 25:11..."And Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi" 36:8...."And Esau dwelt in Mount Seir" 37:1...."And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father sojourned..." Clearly both the purity of the text, and the care with which it has been handed down to us, are manifested by the fact that such ancient literary aids and cuneiform usages as these are still discernible in the Genesis narrative. Their presence also signifies, according to Wiseman, that in the earliest times these records were written on clay tablets, and that these tablets, forming a series from Genesis 1:1 to 37:1, were joined together in the same manner as we have them today.(43) |
|
Justification