Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Tolodoth and literary structure
  • Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:39:07 +0100

Thanks for that Yitzhak. I hadn't considered the ones in Numbers 3:1 and Ruth 4:18. I think that does it for me. There doesn't seem to be anything even worth debating anymore.

James Christian



Quoting Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>:

Dear all,

A few days ago, Karl stated his statement of his theory regarding the toladot
formula. According to this theory, the toladot formula function as colophons
denoting the author for originally independent texts. These texts were
redacted together by Moses. As supporting evidence he suggested that
colophons were used in ancient times in other cultures, including the
Israelites.
He also dated this use to no later than 1000 BCE. In Karl's statement of the
theory, the use of the author's name and the title of the document takes
special importance.

Thanks to Dave, I am now aware of what I believe to be the source of Karl's
theory. In this original source, the argument is not so much about absolute
dating as it is about conformity of the Biblical text. The theory may be
described as an alternative source criticism of the Pentateuch in competition
with the standard source criticism. Both theories accept that the Pentateuch
as a literary document is composed of independent sources no longer available
and redacted together by an editor. Both theories suggest that it is possible
to identify the earlier sources using literary criteria rather than tradition.

Colophons were not strange for Jews or others following 1000 BCE. It is
true that the Psalms generally have headings that are often taken as
ascribing authorship of the Psalms themselves. However, colophons at the
end of texts are also well known. As mentioned, the Septuagint book of
Esther comes with a colophon. The Leningrad Codex has a colophon.
The Masoretes in general appended colophons describing the particular
counts of verses in the various Biblical books. Even the book of Psalms
has a colophon at the end of Psalm 72.

In Karl's previous messages, he date the use of these colophons to the
period prior to 1000 BCE. Karl never responded to the counter-charge
that colophons continued to remain in use following 1000 BCE, in direct
contradiction to what he said. Thanks to Dave, it is now clear that this
idea was not part of the original theory, developed by an amateur with
an interest in the Akkadian sources, and his son who became a
respected Assyriologist. As we see in one discussion of the theory,
most (491 out of 563 = 87%) of the Akkadian evidence for colophons
comes from after 1000 BCE:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0FCG2YTWFtcC&pg=PA6

It is possible, in retrospect, that Karl mentioned other cultures' use of
colophons but his dating of the use of colophons in the Biblical text was
due entirely to his interpretation of various phrases in Psalms and
Genesis. If so, Karl's dating is completely circular. He ascribes various
Biblical passages to individuals from some period. Consequently, he
concludes that the Biblical passages date from that period. He dates
the various toladot formula in Genesis to some period. Consequently,
he concludes that they were not used after that period. Not only is this
circular but here, Karl assumes that absence of evidence is evidence of
absence. Because we have no texts with toladot formula which
Karl is ready to ascribe to 1000 BCE or later, Karl assumes that no
such text ever existed.

The colophon argument has various weaknesses. To quote Karl: "You
need to take into account all uses of the formula, not just those that
precede a list of generations."

Indeed, but the formula does not appear just in Genesis. It appears also
in Num 3:1 and Ruth 4:18. Both of these are very interesting. In Num
3:2-3, the word "elleh" is used to refer both to following text (Num 3:2) and
preceding text (Num 3:3). But from the context it is clear that "elleh
toldot" refers to Num 3:4. Nothing about Moses and Aharon comes
before Num 3, at least not anything significantly different from the text
that follows. We can't take Num 3:1 to read "the book of Moses and
Aharon" because there is still more to come. It can't function here as a
colophon, but it can function as a heading for Num 3:1-4.

Ruth 4:18 is more interesting. This is particularly because the source
criticism that reads these phrases as colophons has no real example
of the phrase being used as a colophon. It is purely theoretical. Now,
the competing theory of source criticism also has no J E P or D sources.
However, it holds great explanatory power for the contradictions and
inconsistencies in the Pentateuch. Also, the contradictions and
inconsistencies manifest themselves in several different aspects. If we
choose to differentiate Gen 1-2:3 from Gen 2:4-24 as different creation
stories, based on the name of God used, we find that each has a
different view of God (one speaks by divine fiat, the other is very
anthropomorphic), different views of the order of creation (in one
plants are created before man, and in the other plants are created
after man), different language -- br), (&h vs ycr, bnh and also nt'(, cmx,
lqx. Each is consistent on its own and different from the other. The
alternative Toladot source criticism theory holds no explanatory power.
The only problem it might possibly explain is how someone much later
on was able to know the history of events long before him. But if we
accept that the redactor is Moses who spoke with God, that isn't much
of a problem. Conversely. if we don't accept that the redactor is Moses,
we probably won't feel a problem here either. I guess we still have a
problem if we think the redactor is Moses and he did not speak with
God.

The only thing on which the Toladot source criticism theory stands is
the choice of interpretation of the phrase "elleh toldot." If we choose to
read it as referring to the previous text it stands. If we don't, it does
not. No explanatory power. No differences of view are perceived
between, say, Adam's source and Noah's source. In fact, we might
choose to read "elleh toldot" as referring to the genealogies that
follow, and conclude that the redactor of the Pentateuch (or a source
thereof) made use of a Toladot source of genealogies. Alternatively,
we don't have to accept that it was Moses who redacted the
toladot colophon paragraphs. It could have been someone later than
Moses, maybe much later. Nothing in the toladot formula tells us
that all the preceding text is part of the original source used by the
redactor. For example, if we accept that Gen 2:4 refers to the
preceding text then it might only refer to Gen 2:1-3 and not to Gen
1:1-2:3.

Nothing in the toladot formula tells us anything about a date for its
usage. Yes, Psalms have headings that appear to describe the
author. But Psalms also have a colophon. Now, if we choose to
read )elleh toldot as referring to the following verses we could
still conclude that these were redacted by Moses long before David,
and it was customary long before 1000 BCE to use "elleh toldot"
as headings. If we choose to read it as colophons, we still don't
have to accept that this colophon signifies the author. Perhaps
someone later on wrote about the people involved.

Only if we choose to read the phrase as a colophon, and if we
choose to read the phrase as informing us of the author do we
have any grounds to conclude that this phrase dates so early.
In the case of genealogies that follow "elleh toldot" it makes
more sense to read the phrase as referring to the genealogies
because linguistically toladot is related to the verb yld and
genealogies are intimately connected with giving birth. In fact,
the verb yld figures prominently in the genealogies. So if we do
choose to read "elleh toldot" as referring to the preceding text,
we have to do so on a case by case basis, rather than on
account of the phrase itself. This further emphasizes the
circularity of the argument involved in using the colophons as
markers of date of a passage.

Now, again, this is a theory that hypothesizes the existence
of sources with "elleh toldot" colophons. We don't really
have any examples of these to base our conclusions beyond
our choice for interpretation. Num 3:1 makes it clear that the
phrase may refer to the text following it.

But wait, there's Ruth 4:18. Really, if anywhere "elleh toldot"
functioned to marked a colophon it is here in Ruth. Here the
formula clearly functions after 1000 BCE because Ruth 4:17
mentions the name of David who lived after 1000 BCE. Yet,
if we choose to interpret 4:18 as a colophon describing the
preceding section we find a problem. Nine generations
separate Perets, the subject of this toladot formula from
David, mentioned in the text. Nothing in the preceding verses
tells us anything about Perets. Here again, it is much better
linguistically to read "elleh toldot" as a genealogy heading.
The verb yld figures again prominently in the following verses.
This entire genealogy might be serving as a colophon to the
book, but it conveys no autobiographical connotations. This is
a very serious problem for the toladot colophon theory in
general, because we find ourselves having to deny the status
of a colophon from the one use of the phrase in the Bible that
is most likely to represent a colophon. All the cases in
Genesis are arguably ambiguous. But it is hard to come up
with a definition for Ruth 4:18- that does not view it as some
kind of colophon or appendix.

The theory seems to want to read a colophon where it is
ambiguous, and to reject the reading where it is most likely,
and to do this without gaining any explanatory power
whatsoever. This makes it a very poor theory.

It is as if R.E. Friedman would say that he accepts the
standard source critical assumptions -- that the Pentateuch
is a literary document that is composed of independent
sources no longer available and redacted together by an
editor and that it is possible to identify the earlier sources
using literary criteria rather than tradition -- because the
theory offers great explanatory power. The conservative
who holds by the Toladot formula theory retorts that he
accepts all these assumptions even though the theory
offers no explanatory power and rests on ambiguous
readings.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page