Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz>]

Karl wrote:

> What confuses people is that
> 
>    - the form is followed in all but Genesis 2:4, 6:9 and 37:2 by a list of
>    generations that lived after the author listed,
>    - those generations were of the author listed,
>    - the word has a secondary meaning of ?generation? and used for that
>    meaning in Genesis,
>    - the division into chapters and verses did not take the formula into
>    account.
> 
> 
> This is a formula that went out of use during the late early bronze age.

I don't think its fair to call this a confusion if the evidence of this
formula's use outside the Hebrew text is so obscure that no one seems to be
able to locate it. I've heard this claim myself a number of times, including
off list but I've never actually seen any evidence of it. I think you are
claiming far too much to say that the author is listed. That falls into the
category of interpretation. So I'll repeat James' question -- where is the
evidence that this is a known formula which stopped being used in the late
early bronze age? 

I don't get your point about the chapter and verse divisions. If we divided
the text differently and put these formulas at the end of a section they
would often appear out of place because they start a new section. You claim
that the ``author'' put in his name after writing up his bit of history and
then the list of generations after him is the work of someone else is rather
a forced reading. It reads more easily as an opening. Again, we need more
than just your recollection that some one said it was so for it to be
considered evidence.

Bill Rea Ph.D., ICT Services, University of Canterbury   \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz                         </   New
Phone +64-3-364-2331, Fax  +64-3-364-2332               /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                             (/'