Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Agreed.Almost all modern commentators, evangelical and critical, have rejected Wiseman's theory and understood the toledoth to be headings introducing the next generation rather than colophons. I remember reading Wiseman's book back in the 1980's and finding it stimulating but ultimately unconvincing. For what it's worth.
See for example, Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 1-17, (New American Commentary), 32-34.
Along with these difficulties is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does tôledôt refer clearly to what has preceded; in every place it can and often must refer to what follows. For example, the word begins a genealogy at the end of Ruth. In the expression “these are the generations of Perez” (Ruth 4:18), Perez is the point of departure and not the prominent person. Such a usage would be similar to the “generations of Terah” in Genesis 11:27. Likewise in Numbers 3:1, the tôledôt of Aaron and Moses cannot conclude the census of chapters 1 and 2.
Were we to have a nuclear war and Bibles were all but lost, yet a copy of the Message printed in 1980 was found predating a King James printed in 2020, I know which I would reprint as the more accurate.
You started out getting an idea from Wiseman, which was that the toledoth formulae in Genesis were colophons because they functioned similarly to colophons in ancient Mesopotamian tablets. Now that you have been informed that evangelical OT scholars generally find that argument unconvincing (though worthy of examination, not merely dismissing it), you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes? That is the exact opposite of Wiseman's own view and would immediately refute it. Can you adduce some evidence for it? After all the evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT, not so much due to Mesopotamian evidence (though there are questions there as well).Why should we not be asking why the Mesopotamian tablets deviate from the older colophon formula of Genesis!
You started out getting an idea from Wiseman, which was that the toledoth formulae in Genesis were colophons because they functioned similarly to colophons in ancient Mesopotamian tablets. Now that you have been informed that evangelical OT scholars generally find that argument unconvincing (though worthy of examination, not merely dismissing it), you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes? That is the exact opposite of Wiseman's own view and would immediately refute it. Can you adduce some evidence for it? After all the evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT, not so much due to Mesopotamian evidence (though there are questions there as well).
By the way, this discussion has nothing directly to do with the date or unity of the Pentateuch. Both views could be held by advocates of Mosaic authorship (such as myself) or advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis.
you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes
Sadly, the Documentary hypothesis (in a variety of different forms) remains the standard scholarly construct. It's acknowledged that the history is more complicated than Wellhausen's version, and the redactors are sometimes allowed to be a little more skillful, but in broad outline the hypothesis still holds near universal sway. The few that have argued for authorial unity tend to place that author during the post-exilic setting, so that's hardly an advance.Dr. Duguid, are there still those who hold to the Documentary Hypothesis around? I thought that had been thoroughly debunked decades ago.
evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT,
If the rest of the Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew on scrolls I would not expect to see evidence of translation from an original cuneiform clay tablet.
That may be circular logic but it is internally consistent and attempts to address the problem of no toledot at the start of Genesis - a problem which nobody seems to be bothered by? (that is asked by way of question, not assertion)
No apples or oranges required. If you think the prologue of Genesis is a problem, what do you do with the Joseph narrative, which is left hanging entirely outside the toledoth structure of Genesis on your theory, since it has no colophon? It's much easier to explain an introduction which leads into the literary structure, than a loose end that involves the final thirteen chapters of the book. Second, is it more likely that the account of Ishmael's relatives (Gen 25:13-18) is connected to 25:12: "This is the family history (toledoth) of Abraham's son Ishmael" which precedes it, or with "This is the family history of Abraham's son Isaac" which follows. That's before we even get to comparing Scripture with Scripture and the use of the formula elsewhere in the OT. By all means ask questions, but please listen to the answers you are given.That was in fact one of the reasons I don't trust them.
They compare apples and oranges.
If the rest of the Old Testament was written originally in Hebrew on scrolls I would not expect to see evidence of translation from an original cuneiform clay tablet.
That may be circular logic but it is internally consistent and attempts to address the problem of no toledot at the start of Genesis - a problem which nobody seems to be bothered by? (that is asked by way of question, not assertion)
There is an inherent assumption that Genesis begins on clay cuneiform and ends on Egyptian on papyrus. Sorry thought I mentioned that. Will look at the structure more closely tomorrow.If there is a problem with Genesis not beginning with a toledoth, why is there not a problem with the book not ending with a colophon?
Ah an intelligent question. The assumption is that the cuneiform clay tablets were up to the sojourn in Egypt. Josephs contributions would have been on vellum (or papyrus) and either in Hebrew or Egyptian. So Moses has to deal with different languages some on clay tablets some on Egyptian vellum or papyrus. Hope that explains why there is not a problem.If there is a problem with Genesis not beginning with a toledoth, why is there not a problem with the book not ending with a colophon?
The assumption is that the cuneiform clay tablets were up to the sojourn in Egypt. Josephs contributions would have been on vellum (or papyrus) and either in Hebrew or Egyptian.
That's before we even get to comparing Scripture with Scripture and the use of the formula elsewhere in the OT.
Why should we not be asking why the Mesopotamian tablets deviate from the older colophon formula of Genesis!
"Did the authors of the scriptural books really borrow much of their written material, stories , their poetry, their wisdom, from pagan mythology and the literature of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians for instance, or do the latter owe a debt to the Hebrews?"