[b-hebrew] Gen 1 & Gen 2

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Wed Oct 31 22:27:16 EDT 2007


Martin:

Let me try to explain it to you again.

On 10/31/07, Martin Shields <enkidu at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Karl,
>
> > That's if you assume that TWLDWT always refers to generations. But
> > what I noticed is that the verb itself is not always connected with
> > giving birth, sometimes it refers to the broader sense of bringing
> > forth, so the derivative TWLDWT is not necessarily connected with
> > generations. Once that's accepted, then the anomalous uses make sense.
> >
>
> > In these uses, I connect the noun with the broader meaning of bringing
> > forth. These are the things that the author wants to impart, to bring
> > forth. As such, the noun has no connections with generations.
>
> I'm afraid it still doesn't make sense to me! If the usage is
> supposedly based on an aNE precedent but is then used anomalously, how
> were the readers meant to identify it?

It's anomalous to you, not to the ancients. You have made the
assumption that TWLDWT always refers to generations, so to say that it
refers to something other than generations is anomalous and doesn't
make sense.

> ... Even if תולדות is "not
> always connected with giving birth," is it ever connected with
> authoring a text (from a quick search I can't even find anywhere ילד
> is used in such a context)?

Does it matter much what the object brought forth is, when the action,
namely bringing forth, is the same? You are looking at the form—in
connection with text—not the action.

> ... There are certainly other ascriptions of
> authorship in the Hebrew Bible, but none to my knowledge that uses
> this sort of terminology.

How many of them are at the end of their messages? Does it make sense
to insist that works that used a different formula concerning title
and authorship use the same words?

> ... The aNE colophons which you claim lend
> support to your position do not lend it any support because they use
> language which is unambiguous and which more closely reflects explicit
> ascriptions to authorship in the HB (i.e. the ones I've seen do not
> use this sort of language either).
>
> All this suggests to me that there's no basis for your claim aside
> from the fact that it makes some sense to you.
>
Then how do you explain the use in Genesis 6:9 and 25:19?

> Regards,
>
> Martin Shields,
> Sydney, Australia.

Incidentally, I did not invent this understanding, I merely learned
about it from lectures.

Karl W. Randolph.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list