Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

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.