From: gordon brown (gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 10:27:33 EST
There is evidence that a New Testament author understood the toledoth
clauses to be introductory. Matthew 1:1 uses the very same Greek phrase
biblos geneseos as occurs in the Septuagint translation of Genesis 5:1.
Clearly this phrase is introductory to the genealogy in Matthew.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 PASAlist@aol.com wrote:
> 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 : Thu Nov 21 2002 - 23:53:40 EST