Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Stephen and Rebecca Shead <srshead AT gmail.com>]

Karl and James,

Personally I find James's analysis much more convincing and consistent with
the text, especially if "these are the TWLDT *(generations)* of X" means, in
normal circumstances, "this is the story of the posterity/children/family of
X," rather than "this is the life story of X." Part of the rationale is the
connection between TWLDT and YLD - hence the suggestion to translate it as
"this is what became of" (or "this is what was borne of") - see the NET
notes, or Marten Woudstra's article   at
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Woudstra_GenToledot_CTJ.htm
.

As I understand it, James's position is the majority view - which doesn't
mean it is right, of course, but means Karl's argument has an uphill battle.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
> To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 10:05:28 -0700
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure
> James:
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:25 AM, James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > Genesis 2:4 seems to be the greatest evidence that your theory just
> doesn't
> > work. We find the same construct relationship in Genesis 2:4 and yet if
> we
> > were to follow the 'formula' then that would make the author of the
> initial
> > creation account the skies and the land.
>
>
> At this point, I’m inclined to say, “Don’t be foolish!” The heavens and
> earth cannot be authors.
>
> The formula had the author and title listed after the document, but did not
> make the listing of both a requirement. Many cases the title is missing,
> here’s a case where the author is missing.
>
>
> > Also, one great item of evidence that prevents Genesis 2:4 from being
> > linked with the preceding creation account is the use of the name YHWH,
> > whish is consistently not used in the creation account from Genesis
> 1:1-2:3
> > but begins to be used consistently from Genesis 2:4 onwards linking
> Genesis
> > 2:4 with the following events rather than the preceding.
> >
> > While a consideration, does not rule out being the closing of the
> previous.
>
>
> > …
> >
> > Genesis 37:2 gets us back on track and starts the history of Jacob.
>
>
> Starts the story of Joseph. But that doesn’t make sense, i.e. the formula
> and what follows don’t work together well.
>
>
> > …
> >
> >
> > James Christian
> >
> > The story of Isaac is told from Isaac’s point of view, not Rebecca’s,
> lending credence to the indication that Esau was the author of that
> section.
> Another thing these indicate is that Isaac and Ishmael remained on friendly
> terms, and Esau and Jacob patched up their relationship. So I see no
> problem
> having them at the end of their respective sections.
>
> I have read these over several times, including times specifically
> focussing
> on them, and my conclusion is that the best reading for them is that of a
> concluding list of title and author.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
>