From: PASAlist@aol.com
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 18:37:31 EST
Peter wrote,
<< I agree that some of the toledoth clauses can be (mis)understood as
introductions to what follows. But sometimes what follows the toledoth
says little of nothing about the person mentioned; so, how can it be the
content of that section? In earlier responses (10 & 14 Oct), I showed in
detail why Hamilton's remarks don't refute Wiseman's colophon theory in
any way. >>
If the toledoth phrase, "these are the generations of" is an introduction to
what follows, then it is not a colophon such as cuneiform tablets used. Since
the root of the word toledoth is yalad, "to give birth," the word points one
to the descendants of the person named. This fits the context, so that
context and grammar combine to lead OT scholars to understand the phrase to
be an introduction to the section following, which is about the descendants
of the person named. This includes Gen 37:2 which leads one to Joseph, a
descendant of Jacob. Even 2:4 could be an introduction as some of the
commentaries below explain.
I have now reviewed the major commentaries on Genesis by both evangelical and
non-evangelical OT scholars (Aalders, p 81-2, Cassuto I:97, Driver ii etc,
Hamilton 8-10, Kidner 59, Leupold 109, Mathews 30-34, Sarna 16, Skinner 39,
Speiser 41, Vawter, 63, Waltke 83, Walton 40, Wenham 55, and Westerholm 13,
16), and every one of them understands the toledoth phrases in Genesis as
introductions, albeit Driver and Mathews see them as transitional links from
the past as well. In addition, the colophon theory has problems of its own
sufficient that Hamilton, Kidner and Mathews---who each examined the theory
rejected it. You can read their arguments if you like, but. I will not argue
their case again on this list.
Of course a majority can be wrong, but when a majority goes across the
theological spectrum of conservatives and liberals, Catholics, Protestants
and Jews, one should at least be aware that it will take a very strong case
to overturn that majority. Since the colophon theory depends so much upon
speculation, it is not a strong case.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 21:26:39 EST