Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Apologies all, my email sent itself before I was ready for it to leave
(hence the lack of name at the bottom ... sorry, moderators!)

What I was *going* to add was that I find Wenham's explanation of "headings"
view, in his comment on 2:4a, balanced and well expressed (and no, Karl, I
don't cite him as an authoritative source above the text, but he puts the
case better than I could):

'Elsewhere in Genesis (cf. 6:9, 10:1, etc.) this is translated "This is the
family history of" and it always announces a new section of narrative, which
makes it natural to suppose that it fulfills the same function here rather
than serving as colophon to what precedes. This is confirmed by the
etymology and usage of TWLDWT. It is derived from YLD "to bear," hence the
older translations "generations." But this translation can mislead, for "the
generations of X" are those whom X produces, not the ancestors of X. In the
patriarchal narratives, "This is the family history of X" typically heads a
section, which commences with the death of X's father and closes with X's
own death. Thus "This is the family history of Ishmael" takes up the story
of Ishmael after Abraham's death and ends with a mention of Ishmael's death
(25:12-18; cf. 25:19-35:29). The heading covers the period when X was the
head of the patriarchal extended family, which may be identified with Hebrew
MWLDT "kindred" . . . . But though the named old man X is nominally in
charge of the group, it is his sons who make the running and are the chief
actors in the stories. Thus "this is the family history of Isaac" (25:19)
heads the Jacob and Esau stories, while "this is the family history of
Jacob" (37:2) introduces the Joseph cycle.

'In the section Gen 2-11 the same logic applies in 6:9. "This is the family
history of Noah" spans the period between the death of the last of the
antediluvian patriarchs and the death of Noah, but it is used more loosely
elsewhere in the primeval history. However, it is clear that in all cases
"the family history of X" describes what X and his descendants did, not the
origins of X. Here by analogy the term is applied to the heavens and the
earth, and thereafter "must describe that which is generated by the heavens
and teh earth, not the process by which they themselves are generated"
[citing Skinner]. In other words, 2:4 makes an excellent title for what
follows, but in no way can it be regarded as a postscript to what precedes
it.' (Gordon Wenham, *Genesis 1-15*, Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1987, pp.
55-56).

And my final comments:

- With this understanding of TWLDT,

2009/5/16 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.
>
>