Get your own Free Home PageIf so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
Colophons
It is quite clear from an examination of Genesis that it is made up of a number of ancient records that are put together by a compiler, or by compilers. Obvious examples of these are Genesis 1.1 - 2.4, the creation narrative, which is distinctive in its own right, Genesis 2.4 - 3.24, where there is the distinctive repetition of ‘Jahweh Elohim’, and where it is followed by Cainite covenant records which are loosely attached, Genesis 14, whose approach is clearly distinctive from the surrounding material, probably put together by a scribe connected to the court of King Melchizedech incorporating the treaty made between Abraham and Melchizedek, and Genesis 23, which is in the form of a Hittite covenant, and deals with a transaction for the purchase of land by Abraham from Ephron the Hittite.
Indeed careful examination of the narrative reveals other indications of early records. In order to understand these we need an understanding of ancient record keeping. Outside Egypt the most ancient records were made mainly on either stone or clay, to be supplemented later by leather. Professor Wiseman describes such clay tablets as follows: ‘The clay tablets on which cuneiform script was inscribed vary in size (about ¼ inch square to 18 x 12 inches) according to the amount of space required for the text. The inscription from left to right ran in lines (rarely ruled) down the obverse (flat) side, along the lower edge, then on down the reverse (convex) side, the upper and left edges. Where more than one tablet was needed to complete a work, each text in the series was linked by a catchline and colophon to indicate its correct place’ (Article ‘Writing’ in The New Bible Dictionary).
Where there was a single tablet, a colophon would be often be inscribed at the bottom of the page to identify the nature of, the authorship of or the ownership of the tablet, whereas where there was a series, as described above, there would be a heading which connected with the colophon (practises varied to some extent but the above is a reasonably close description of the general practise).
This serves to explain the phrases in Genesis, which puzzled scholars continually, the phrases commencing ‘these are the generations (toledoth) of --- ’. It is clear from its limited use elsewhere that the word ‘toledoth’ means strictly ‘history’ or ‘genealogical history’. A different word is in general use for ‘generations’ (dor). Examination of the text of Genesis thus suggests that its use reflects colophons saying ‘this is the history of --- ’, (in Genesis 5.1 ‘the record of the history of --’), placed at the beginning or end of records connected with the persons or subjects named. Had these not been very early, or had they been the invention of the compiler, it is inconceivable that there would not have been a ‘history of Abraham’, and yet there is not, whereas it is perfectly understandable why he himself, or his father, would have inscribed a tablet with ‘this is the history of Terah’ (11.27) while Terah was still alive and of prime importance as the head of the family.
The tendency has been to see these phrases as a framework to the book of Genesis and as headings to the following passage, because the following passage often, but not always, contained genealogies commencing with the named person (often quoted as taken from a ‘Toledoth book’ which was used as a framework for Genesis). However, the phrase does occur where there is no genealogy, and it is then felt necessary to translate ‘toledoth’ as ‘history of’ (2.4a; 37.2 compare also 6.9). Thus the connection of the phrase with a genealogy is not a necessary precondition of its use. It is therefore interesting to note that if we take them as the concluding note on a tablet, we have a consistent pattern in every case, and the tablets always end before the death of the person named, and the person named is the surviving head of the family. (An exception may be seen as arising in the case of Adam as we have no way of knowing whether Lamech was alive when Adam died, but just as the creation narrative was given a colophon relating to its content (and incidentally relating to its opening heading), so this one may have been given a similar colophon relating it to ‘Mankind’ which may explain the unique phrase ‘this is the record of the history of Adam (or mankind)’ which would serve to demonstrate that in this case Adam was not the author.
Alternately they may be headings taken from tablets relating to what follows. But in either case they indicate ancient tablets, taking their contents back into the distant past.
The fact is that any theory that makes ‘these are the generations (or history) of ---’ simply as either the framework provided by the compiler, or the result of a later ‘Toledoth book’, fails totally on this one inescapable fact, and that is that there is no mention of ‘these are the generations of Abraham’. It is quite frankly inconceivable that someone as prominent and important as Abraham should be so ignored by later compilers and writers, and the later the compilation, the less likely it is that he would be so omitted. A framework with no mention of Abraham? It is quite frankly impossible. There is thus really only one conceivable explanation for it. And that is, as we have suggested, that part of these records were written when, on the one hand, Terah was still alive and was therefore of greatest importance as head of the family, and partly that they were incidental descriptions to the main narrative and not the important framework to the whole. This is then most likely to be explained by the fact that they were headings or colophons to tablets, incorporated simply because they were there.
Of further interest are the headings connecting with colophons, as described by Wiseman Senior (in New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis), which serve to confirm the situation. He identifies the following:
Wiseman adds convincing evidence to show similar practices from the written records of the ancient East. These early records in Genesis follow the recognised pattern. Any theory of the origins of Genesis must take this fact into account.
Thus the old theory called The Documentary Theory of the Pentateuch, which sought to see strands in Genesis by three or more different writers or ‘schools’ writing at a much later time, (although admittedly accepting that it was on the basis of a certain amount of older material), can no longer be accepted as reliable for it totally ignored, or was unaware, of this evidence which counts heavily against it.
A further fact that backs up the above suggestion is that in Genesis up to the point at which the phrase ‘these are the histories of -- ’ cease, all historical material is built round a covenant saying. It was the practise among the ancients specifically to record covenants in writing, as they were visible proof of the validity of the covenant, and this included the historical background to the covenant. This is further evidence backing up the case that these records were written down from earliest times.
R K Harrison in his Introduction to the Old Testament (IVP) follows the above methods and suggests that the whole of the section from Genesis 1.1 to 37.2 was made up of 11 tablets as follows:
He comments ‘there appears to be no event recorded in which the person or persons named could not have written, either from personal knowledge, or from other reliable sources. Furthermore where individuals are mentioned by name in the colophon, the history recorded in the various sections isolated above and identified with suggested tablets ceases in all instances prior to the death of the person named at the conclusion of the tablet.
He adds ‘there can be no real question as to the immense antiquity of the source material that is to be found in Genesis. Evidence for this includes the large number of Babylonian words that occur in the earlier part of the book, the topographical references, such as those relating to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 10.19), and the number of glosses required to bring ancient names up to date (e.g.Genesis 14.2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 17; 16.14; 23.2; 35.19). Primitive geographical expressions such as ‘the south country’ (Genesis 20.1; 24.62) and the ‘east country’ (Genesis 25.6), which were used in the days of Abraham, never recurred in the Old Testament narratives as a description of the countries adjoining the south and east of Palestine, since these regions subsequently acquired familiar and well-defined designations’.
An alternative might be to see ‘these are the histories of --’ as the heading of the tablets. We can compare for this Numbers 3.1 and Ruth 4.18. In the latter case the phrase certainly introduces a genealogical history. In the former case it may, but the phrase could well equally refer to what has gone before as the following passage does not deal with the genealogy of Moses, and we note the connection between Number 1.1 and 3.1 which may suggest the former is a heading and the latter a colophon, in line with examples in Genesis.
While we are not convinced that the situation is quite as simple as Harrison outlines, we consider that there is unquestionably validity to the main part of the argument, namely the evidence that much of the material is clearly taken from ancient tablets, and that the material content is thus very ancient, and it would seem especially reasonable to see Genesis 1-11 as fully based on such tablets, which fact would invalidate the claims of the documentary theory.
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS
Get your own Free Home Page