Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Bill:

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Bill Rea <bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

> 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.


With the exception of Genesis 2:4, TLDT or a variant thereof when referring
to a document quoted in Genesis is followed by a name. Always by a name or a
reference to specific people. The knowledge of grammar allows us to
recognize the construct state.

Further, when I look at syntax, what follows the name (and titles in Genesis
2:4 and 5:1–2) is syntactically a different thought, most clearly brought
out in the example of Genesis 37:2 where the “Document of Jacob” is followed
immediately by the story of Joseph.


> 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?
>
> Its use apart from generations in the three cases I mentioned above as well
as Genesis 25:19 indicates that this is a formulaic use, which can also be
recognized in the other cases where the exact same formula is used. From a
discussion I had off line I learned that Rashi also recognized this formula,
in Genesis 6:9, so this is not a new discovery.


> 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.
>
> You need to take into account all uses of the formula, not just those that
precede a list of generations.


> 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                             (/'
>

As for when the formula stopped being used, it is not found in books later
than Torah when looking at Biblical evidence. Seeing as Torah was written in
the middle bronze age, that would give us a date when it stopped being used.

Karl W. Randolph.