“ONE of the
most remarkable facts which has emerged from archaeological research, is that
the art of writing began in the earliest historical times known to man”.
talkgenesis.org
Here is a very
handy summary of the toledôt
(Toledoth) family history structure upon which the Book of Genesis was built
(May 27, 2014): http://www.talkgenesis.org/genesis-toledoth-mystery/
The Origins of Genesis:
Solving the Toledoth Mystery
How did the book of Genesis come to be?
We know Moses wrote it [Mackey: really edited it], but
where did he get it?
All the events in Genesis were history to him.
Did he have access to historical records?
Did written records even exist back then?
Or did Moses write Genesis from oral traditions
and passed down stories?
Or perhaps he got it directly from God.
Did God simply dictate it to him on Mt. Sinai?
These
questions and others may be answered in part by recent archeological finds and
some seemingly peculiar phrases that occur all throughout the book of Genesis.
Part I: Introduction To The Toledoth
There
is little doubt among Bible scholars and commentators that the toledoth
statements in the book of Genesis are an important key to its literary
structure. The hebrew term, toledoth means account,
record, genealogy, family line (KM Hebrew
Dictionary). It’s often translated history, generations, or account.
It occurs several times in Genesis and always seems to mark a major
account division when found in particular phrases—”These are the generations
of…”, “This is the account of…”, “This is the history
of…” In addition, in most cases, a name of a patriarch is attached—for
example, “This is the account of Noah.” The following is a list of every
toledoth phrase found in the book of Genesis (NIV).
This
is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were
created…. (Gen. 2:4a)
This
is the written account of Adam’s line…. (Gen. 5:1a)
This
is the account of Noah. (Gen. 6:9a)
This
is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who
themselves had sons after the flood. (Gen. 10:1)
These
are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent,
within their nations. (Gen. 10:32a)
This
is the account of Shem. (Gen. 11:10a)
This
is the account of Terah. (Gen. 11:27a)
This
is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s
maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham. (Gen. 25:12)
This
is the account of Abraham’s son Isaac. (Gen. 25:19a)
This
is the account of Esau (that is, Edom). (Gen. 36:1)
This
is the account of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill
country of Seir. (Gen. 36:9)
This
is the account of Jacob. (Gen. 37:2a)
It’s
also significant that the word genesis, itself, is derived from the
greek word for toledoth. It would appear then, the jewish
scribes that translated Genesis into greek (The Septuagint (LXX)) believed this
word to be so significant, they chose it as the title for the entire
book.1 Had they been translating to english, it may have been known today
as the book of Accounts, or Histories.
The Toledoth Mystery
That
said, some mystery also surrounds this term. To the modern reader, the most
natural way to look at a toledoth phrase would be as a subject
introduction. One would expect the “account of the heavens and the earth when
they were created” (2:4) to introduce an account of the creation of the heavens
and the earth. One would expect the book of the account of Adam (5:1) to
introduce an account about Adam. One would expect the account of Jacob
(37:2) to introduce an account about Jacob. The problem is, they don’t!
The
first occurrence of a toledoth phrase is found in Genesis 2:4.
“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they
were created….” But rather than introducing a creation account, it
introduces the account of the Garden of Eden. So why isn’t it called the account
of Eden? Another example is the account of Terah (11:27).
One
might expect it to introduce an account about Terah, but what follows is an
account of Abraham’s life, with only insignificant mentions of Terah. One
might wonder why it wasn’t called the account of Abraham. And
perhaps the most obvious example is found in Gen. 37:2. It reads,
“This
is the account of Jacob.
Joseph,
a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers….”
After
the initial introduction of Jacob, a long narrative about Joseph’s life
begins. So why not call this “the account of Joseph.”? Why would a large
account of Joseph’s life be titled, “this is the account of Jacob.”?
Some
commentators explain this by preferring the translation “generations.”
Perhaps the toledoth statements are introductions of the
generations which come from the patriarchs mentioned. Thus the toledoth
of Terah would be about one or more of his descendants, as would the toledoth
of Jacob. But this explanation doesn’t work consistently. The toledoth
of Noah (6:9a), for instance, is followed by an account of Noah, and not of his
sons.
Other
commentators understand the toledoth as introductions to genealogies.
Both Adam’s and Shem’s toledoth phrases are followed by genealogies
(5:1, 11:10), and the toldedoth of Noah’s sons is followed by the Table of
Nations (10:1). But the majority are not followed by genealogies
at all, in fact, most precede narratives.
And,
perhaps the most puzzling question of all, why doesn’t Abraham have a toledoth
introduction? He is without question the most significant patriarch in
Genesis. Yet there is no account of Abraham. The mystery deepens.
Archeology To The Rescue
Thankfully, a much better solution has come to light,
particularly in the last century thanks to archeological discoveries.
British Air Commodore PJ Wiseman deserves a debt of gratitude for looking
closely at these discoveries and putting forth a new theory known commonly as
the Tablet Theory or Wiseman Hypothesis.
While
touring Mesopotamia in the Royal Air Force in the early 1900s, Wiseman
developed a strong interest in ancient civilizations and archeology.
During his time there, he visited several archeological dig sites where
thousands of ancient written documents, in the form of clay tablets, had been
unearthed.
While
not an archeologist himself, he did manage to gain access to some of the
greatest archeologists of his day, and attain invaluable insights from them.
Damien Mackey comments:
He had the
privilege of being in situ at times during Sir Leonard Woolley’s
excavations at Ur and Professor S. Langdon’s at Kish and Jemdet Nasr. Though he
could not actually read the cuneiform tablets being unearthed in their
thousands by these legends of archaeology, P.J. Wiseman took a vital interest
in all that was going on and was able to cross check his own ideas with these
experts. 2
It
was during this time Wiseman became familiar with some of the literary
practices of ancient scribes—in particular, their use of colophons.
Put simply, colophons are concluding remarks found at the end of
written documents which identify the author or owner of the document, along
with other important information. Wiseman noticed that most of the
tablets discovered contained these concluding signatures, and soon made the
connection between them and the Genesis toledoth. What if
these phrases were not titles at all? What if they were concluding
remarks per the literary customs of that era? And what if the names
attached were not in reference to subject-matter, but rather authorship?
Take
a look at the book of the account of Adam found in Genesis 5:1. Literally
from the hebrew, “This [is] the account of the book of Adam.” A modern
reader would tend to view this as an introduction to the genealogy that
followed, but an ancient reader may have done just the opposite. He may
have looked backward connecting it to the preceding account. And he
may have looked at the name attached—Adam—as the original author/owner of that account.
And
this is the basic essence of Wiseman’s hypothesis. He proposed that the
individual patriarchs attached to toledoth phrases were the
original authors of the source documents Moses used. Thus, the “book of
the account of Adam” was actually an account originally written down by Adam.
Genesis Authorship
Now
one might immediately object that if Adam wrote a [portion] of Genesis how can
it also be considered a book of Moses? Doesn’t this cast doubt on Mosaic
authorship? Not at all, in fact, it supports it. For while the
Bible is clear Moses was the author of Genesis, one might wonder where he got
his information? The entire book was history to him. None of it
happened during his lifetime. The only way he could have received it was
from passed down historical records, or by direct revelation.
And
while both options are possible, it should be noted that the ‘direct
revelation’ or ‘direct dictatino’ theory has some difficulties. Had Moses
received Genesis via direct revelation, it would be the only instance in
scripture where a narrative of this type was received by that method.
Henry Morris points out:
“Visions
and revelations of the Lord” normally have to do with prophetic revelations of
the future (as in Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, etc.). The direct dictation
method of inspiration was used mainly for promulgation of specific laws and
ordinances (as in the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus, etc.). The Book
of Genesis, however, is entirely in the form of narrative records of historical
events.
Biblical
parallels to Genesis are found in such books as Kings, Chronicles, Acts, and so
forth. In all of these, the writer either collected previous documents and
edited them (e.g., I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles), or else recorded the
events which he had either seen himself or had ascertained from others who were
witnesses (e.g., Luke, Acts). 3
And
what do we make of this reference to a book in chapter 5? “This is the book
of the generations of Adam.” Sepher, in the hebrew means book
(as a scroll or tablet), scroll, letter, certificate, deed, dispatch (KM
Hebrew Dictionary). If Genesis was really given directly to Moses from
God, why would God reference another written account? But, if Moses used
source material (under God’s supernatural guidance), it makes perfect sense.
Moses was merely citing his source.
Antediluvian Writings?
But
wait a minute! Moses was using a document originally authored by Adam?
Did writing even exist then?
Interestingly,
a little more than a century ago, most critics believed writing didn’t even
exist during Moses’ time. As Wiseman pointed out,
Until the beginning
of last century, the only known contemporary history which had been written
earlier than 1000 B.C. was the earlier part of the Old Testament….
It was because the
earlier books of the Bible stood alone and unique in this claim to have been
written centuries before any other piece of writing then known to the world,
that a century ago critics endeavored to prove that they must have been written
at a date much later than Moses. 4
This
belief, of course, was overturned by the very tablets Wiseman was examining.
Wiseman goes on to say,
ONE of the most
remarkable facts which has emerged from archaeological research, is that the
art of writing began in the earliest historical times known to man. It is now
generally admitted that history first dawned in the land known as Babylonia
[Mackey: probably not], and that the civilization there is older than that of
Egypt, yet, however far the excavator in Babylonia digs down into the past, he
finds written records to illuminate his discoveries. 4
The
idea that Moses or his ancestors didn’t keep historical records now flies in
the face of what we know of that region and time. Record keeping not only
existed, but was extant long before Israel came into existence.
But
Adam was the first human and lived before the flood!
So
what? Adam was created with the ability to speak the very first day of
his creation. He was advanced enough to name all the animals of Eden, and
even uttered the first line of poetry ever recorded!
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen. 2:23)
Hebrew
poetry is based on parallelism, rather than rhyming words, and we first see
this practice—bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh—the day Adam was created.
In addition, Adam lived over 900 years (Gen. 5:5) as did most other
antediluvians. Is it really hard to believe they developed a form of
writing?
Unlocking the mystery
Thus,
according to Wiseman’s hypothesis, Moses composed Genesis from historical
documents passed down to him from the specific ancestors named in the toledoth
phrases.
The
Book of Genesis was originally written on tablets in the ancient script of the
time, by the Patriarchs who were intimately concerned with the events related,
and whose names are clearly stated. Moreover, Moses, the compiler and editor of
the Book, as we now have it, plainly directs attention to the source of his
information. 5
The
primary pillars of his theory can be summed up in these three 3 basic points.
(1)
It is the concluding sentence of each section, and therefore points backward to
a narrative already recorded.
(2)
That the earliest records claim to have been written.
(3)
It normally refers to the writer of the history, or the owner of the tablet
containing it. 6
Wiseman
also points out that in each instance where a patriarch’s name precedes an
account, the events of that account fall within his lifetime, making him a
reliable eyewitnesses, himself, or giving him access to reliable eyewitnesses.
He states:
(1)
In no instance is an event recorded, which the person or persons named could
not have written from his own intimate knowledge, or have obtained absolutely
reliable information.
(2)
It is most significant that the history recorded in the sections outlined
above, ceases in all instances before the death of the person named, yet in
most cases it is continued almost up to the date of death, or the date on which
it is stated that the tablets were written. 6
If
the above assertions hold true, it will be difficult to deny that Wisman has
made monumental progress toward understanding the toledoth structure
of Genesis.
The Tablet Theory vs. JEDP
Is
this the same as JEDP?
Absolutely not, it fact, it’s just the opposite. JEDP, also known
as the Documentary Hypothesis, was first developed by critics of the Bible
about 250 years ago, and then later made popular in the 19th century
by Karl Heinrich Graf and his student Julius Wellhausen. For this
reason, it’s also known as the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis. It
asserts that Genesis was not authored by Moses at all, but was composed
hundreds of years later from 4 separate documents represented in the JEPD
acronym. This of course flies in the face of numerous references to Mosaic
authorship in the Bible, as well as solid jewish tradition which establishes
Moses as the author.
The
Tablet Theory, on the other hand, affirms Mosaic authorship, and defends the
authority and antiquity of Genesis. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge of
Answers in Genesis, comment,
Unlike the JEDP
model, the Tablet model shows a reverence for the text of Genesis and attention
to these explicit divisions provided by the book itself. These divisions
represent either oral tradition or written texts passed down by the Genesis
patriarchs to their descendants, which Moses then used to put Genesis into its
final form under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 7
For
more on contrasts between the Tablet Theory and JEPD, see, Did Moses Write Genesis, and The
Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship.
Chapter and verse markers
Before
we begin examining each toledoth in context, a brief discussion
of chapter and verse markers is necessary. Wiseman suggests (and most
would agree) that chapter/verse markers should not play any role in discerning
where accounts begin and end. As most know, they are not inspired and
were not part of the original manuscripts (For more on the origins of chapters
and verses, see: Where Do Bible Chapter and Verse Numbers Come From?).
They were added to the Bible much later for referencing purposes, but
carry no hermeneutical value in and of themselves. In fact, some
chapter/verse divisions may be contributing to the confusion. For example,
at the close of chapter 4 and beginning of 5, we read,
Gen.
4:26 And to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called
his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.
Gen.
5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.
In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2
He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the
day when they were created. (NASB)
If
the reader is under the impression chapter-verse markers are part of the
original text, it would only be natural for him to read the book of Adam as a
title phrase at the beginning of a chapter paragraph. But what if the paragraph
break is slightly adjusted?
Gen. 4:26 And
to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men
began to call upon the name of the LORD. Gen. 5:1a This
is the book of the generations of Adam.
1b In the day when God created man, He made him in the
likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female,
and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
As
you can see, a simple rearrangement makes a big difference. In the
latter, the book of Adam (1a) appears to be a concluding remark at the end of
an account, while the second half the verse (1b) starts a new account. And both
of these arrangements are perfectly acceptable renderings from the original
Hebrew. Only context can tell us which should be preferred, and this will
be the real test for Wiseman’s hypothesis.
Part II: The Toledoth of Genesis in Context
In
this next section, we’ll scrutinize Wiseman’s hypothesis by the text of
Genesis, itself. We’ll examine each toledoth phrase,
in context, to see if Wiseman’s claims can be validated. As is always the
case, scripture must have the final say.
Toledoth #1
Gen.
2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the
earth when they were created.
When
the LORD God made the earth and the heavens— (NIV)
Gen.
2:4 This is the account
of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD
God made earth and heaven. (NASB)
Gen.
2:4 This is the history
of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD
God made the earth and the heavens, (NKJV)
This
one is perhaps the easiest toledoth statement to decipher. It is
clearly a summary statement. What precedes it is an account of the creation of
the heavens and earth. What follows is not a creation account at all, but
rather the account of the Garden of Eden and Fall. If this was meant to be a
title, it would have been called by another name, perhaps “the account of the
Eden.”
Furthermore,
there is no toledoth statement preceding the creation account. This is
definitely the conclusion of the first source document of Genesis (perhaps
originally written on a clay tablet) which starts in Gen. 1:1 and ends with a
concluding toledoth in Gen. 2:4.
Why?
Probably
because the majority of the account contains events no man could have
witnessed. If Wiseman’s theory is true, each toledoth patriarch
would have been an eyewitnesses or had access to an eyewitness of the events
recorded on his tablet. It would seem proper, then, for this first tablet
to remain nameless. Perhaps God gave this account to a man to write down,
but having not witnessed any of it himself, the man did not feel worthy to
attach his name to it.
All points
considered it would seem this toledoth fits best as a
concluding remark. The account starts in Gen. 1:1 and ends with the toledoth
in Gen. 2:4. It covers the events of the entire creation week.
Toledoth #2
Gen.
5:1 This is the written account of Adam’s line.
When
God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. (NIV)
Gen.
5:1 This is the book of the
generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made
him in the likeness of God. (NASB)
Gen. 5:1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. (NKJV)
Discerning
the correct orientation of this next toledoth requires a bit more examination.
It is followed by a genealogy which at first glance appears to be
appropriate content for ‘the book of Adam.’ Also notice the NKJV prefers
the translation genealogy, rather than account, seeming to
link it to the genealogy that follows. Notice also this toledoth
appears in the first sentence of chapter 5, giving it the appearance of a
title. Could this be an introductory title sentence, rather than a colophon as
Wiseman suggests?
Actually
there are some serious problems linking this toledoth to the following
genealogy. First, why would a genealogy from Adam to Noah, be called a
genealogy of Adam? Genealogies are lists of ancestors not descendants.
They would normally be considered the possession of the last descendant
on the list, not the first ancestor. For instance, take a look at the
Genealogy of Jesus Christ mentioned in Matthew 1.
Matt.
1:1 A record of the
genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
What
follows is not a list of Jesus’ descendants, but rather his ancestors
which link him to Abraham. Abraham is the first name on the list, and
Jesus the last. Abraham is the first ancestor, and Jesus the last
descendant. Thus, this genealogy is rightly called the genealogy of Jesus
Christ.
If
this was the genealogy of Adam, we would expect to see a list of Adam’s ancestors,
which, of course, he didn’t have. It is, rather, the genealogy of Noah
who is the last individual descendant in the list, and, therefore, it is likely
the start of a new account having nothing to do with Adam’s account.
You’ll
notice, also, that the NIV translation places a paragraph break between Gen.
5:1a and 1b. While they may not have had the Wiseman’s hypothesis in mind, this
at least shows that a paragraph break is possible immediately after this toledoth
phrase.
Note
also that “family line” per the NIV translation is not actually in the Hebrew,
but was added by the translators. This passage literally reads, “This
[is] the book of the account of Adam.”
Does
this toledoth work as a colophon?
What
precedes this toledoth is a narrative of the planting of the
Garden of Eden, the Fall, the murder of Abel, a list of Cain’s descendants (6
generations deep), and the birth of Seth.
Just
as Wiseman asserts, all of these events would have occurred during Adam’s 930
year lifespan. All could have been witnessed by Adam himself, or someone
he had access to. And no other man but Adam directly witnessed events
before the fall, and even the events that happened just prior to his creation,
could have been made known to him by God whom Adam, originally, had direct
access to.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that the
book of the account of Adam is best understood as a concluding
signature, and should be linked to the preceding account which spans from Gen.
2:5 to Gen. 5:1a. It was originally authored by Adam and covers the
planting of the Garden of Eden, the Fall, Abel’s murder, Cain’s descendants and
Seth’s birth.
Toledoth #3
Gen.
6:9 This is the account
of Noah.
Noah
was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with
God. (NIV)
Gen.
6:9 These are the
records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous
man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. (NASB)
Gen.
6:9 This is the genealogy
of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.
(NKJV)
At
first glance, this account also would seem to work as an introductory title,
having content about Noah following directly after it. But as we
discovered in the previous section, the account preceding it begins with Noah’s
genealogy (not Adam’s). Also preceding this toledoth is the
account of the sons of God (taking the daughters of Adam), the announcement of
God’s coming judgement on the earth, and God’s extended grace to Noah.
There’s no question Noah could have witnessed all these events
personally. Thus, it would seem to work well as either an introductory or
concluding remark.
That
said, there is one possible problem for the introductory view, specifically in
the way the following account begins.
Noah
was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with
God. (Gen. 6:9b)
If
there is any hint of Noachian authorship in this phrase, this would be a
peculiar way to begin his account. Generally speaking, righteous men
don’t tout their own righteousness. But if Wiseman is correct that this
is the beginning of the next account which was authored by Noah’s sons, the
problem is disappears. For, while it’s unlikely a righteous man would say
this of himself, it’s not unlikely that his sons would. Of course none of
this would apply, if this toledoth is merely a subject introduction.
Note
also, in the NIV translation, that a paragraph break is inserted in the middle
of verse (just as in the last toledoth), showing this toledoth
is not necessarily linked to the narrative after it.
And,
finally, if our previous conclusions are correct, it would make sense that this
account would follow suit, with each section having a concluding toledoth
and no introductory toledoth.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that the
account of Noah is best understood as a concluding signature, and
should be linked to the preceding account which spans from Gen. 5:1b to Gen.
6:9a. It was originally authored by Noah and covers the sons of god
controversy, the promise of God’s judgement on the earth, and God’s extension
of grace to Noah.
Toledoth #4
Gen.
10:1 This is the account
of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.
(NIV)
Gen.
10:1 Now these are the
records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the
sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood. (NASB)
Gen.
10:1 Now this is the genealogy
of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after
the flood. (NKJV)
This
toledoth is unique in that it has 3 names attached instead of just 1. All
3 of Noah’s sons are listed, possibly indicating a joint effort. All 3 would
have witnessed the events preceding this toledoth up close and
personal. They each lived approximately 100 years before the Flood, and
in the new world afterward. They were eyewitnesses to the construction of
the Ark, to events onboard the Ark, and to events in this account that occured
after the Flood. And as mentioned earlier, it would seem appropriate for
Noah’s sons to describe their father as righteous and blameless. In regard to Wiseman’s hypothesis, there
could not be better candidates.
But
could this also have been an introductory statement?
The NKJV
again uses the translation, genealogy, no doubt with the table of
nations in mind which immediately follows. Descendants of all three sons
are mentioned in this table, which, at first glance, would seem to be linked to
this toledoth.
But
the same problem arises here as did with Adam’s toledoth. Why
would a genealogy of Shem, Ham and Japheth list their descendants rather than
their ancestors? As discussed previously, genealogies are lists of ancestors.
Furthermore,
the Table of Nations already has a closing toledoth phrase!
Gen.
10:32 These are the clans
of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within
their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the
flood. (NIV)
“Lines
of descent” here, is translated from the Hebrew word toledoth.
Literally, this reads, “These [are] the clans of the
sons of Noah according to their accounts by their nations.”
And unlike other toledoth phrases, nobody believes this one to be
introductory. It is without a doubt the concluding toledoth for
the table of nations, which strongly suggests the prior toledoth is
not linked at all.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that the account
of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, is best understood as a
concluding signature, and should be linked to the preceding account which spans
from Gen. 6:9b to Gen. 10:1. It was originally authored by Shem, Ham and
Jepheth and covers God’s calling of Noah, the construction of the Ark, the
Flood and some events in Noah’s life after the Flood.
Toledoth #5
Gen.
10:32 These are the clans
of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within
their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the
flood. (NIV)
Gen.
10:32 These are the
families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies,
by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth
after the flood. (NASB)
Gen.
10:32 These were
the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations,
in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after
the flood. (NKJV)
As
discussed above, there can be virtually no debate about the nature of this toledoth
statement. It is clearly a concluding remark as context leaves no other
option.
This toledoth phrase
is actually missed by most toledoth advocates (including
Wiseman) as well as critics, but I strongly believe it should be included.
Considering the NIV translation above, it’s easy to see why it’s missed,
but a literal rendering leaves little doubt in my mind. This is a
collection of early postdiluvian records. Literally, it reads, “These
[are] the clans of the sons of Noah according to their accounts by
their nations.”
It would appear, record keeping was common among the
early postdiluvians, and perhaps someone in antiquity collected these accounts
from the various clans of the earth and compiled them into the master account
we know today as the Table of Nations. He then rightly attributed ownership to
the “clans of the Son’s of Noah” rather than himself.
Thus,
the textual evidence indicates the accounts of the clans of Noah is best
understood as a concluding signature, and should be linked to the preceding
Table of Nations which spans from Gen. 10:2 to Gen. 10:32. They were
authored by early postdiluvian clans of Noah, listing their respective family
lines.
Toledoth #6
Gen.
11:10 This is the account
of Shem.
Two
years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of
Arphaxad. (NIV)
Gen.
11:10 These are the
records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and
became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood; (NASB)
Gen.
11:10 This is
the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot
Arphaxad two years after the flood. (NKJV)
This
toledoth has the name Shem (alone) attached to it. It is
preceded by the Tower of Babel account, and followed by a genealogy which links
Terah to Shem. Again, at first glance it may seem appropriate to link
this to the genealogy that follows, but, as discussed in toledoth 2
and 4, genealogies are generally lists of ancestors, not descendants.
Since the last individual descendant mentioned is Terah, it should
logically be considered his genealogy. And it just so happens the toledoth
of Terah is listed at the conclusion of this genealogy, precluding it from
being Shem’s.
What
precedes this toledoth is the Tower of Babel account where God
confused the languages of the early postdiluvians who were building a city.
But
could this event possibly have been recorded by Shem? Didn’t this happen
hundreds of years after the Flood?
Actually
Shem would have been the perfect eyewitness for this event. Many don’t
realize, Shem lived 500 years after the Flood and outlived several generations
of his descendants. He outlived Arphaxad (who lived 438
years), Shelah (who lived 433 years), Peleg (who lived 239
years), Reu (who lived 239 years), Serug (who lived 230
years), Nahor (who lived 148 years) and Terah (who lived 205 years).
In fact, amazingly, if the genealogical data is accurate (and we believe
it is), he was still alive when Isaac was born.
Shem
was a very unique character in human history, not only living on both sides of
the Flood, but also on both sides of Babel and the creation of multiple
languages. He also witnessed the lifespans of passing generations
decrease dramatically after the flood, by 10 fold. We would be hard pressed to find a better chronicler
of ancient events.
Note
also, in the NIV translation, that a paragraph break is inserted in the middle
of verse 10, showing this toledoth is not necessarily linked
to the narrative after it.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate the account of
Shem is best understood as a concluding signature, and should be linked to
the preceding account of the Tower of Babel, which spans from Gen. 11:1 to Gen.
11:10a. It was originally authored by Shem and covers the events that
happened at Babel.
Toledoth #7
Gen.
11:27 This is the account
of Terah.
Terah
became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of
Lot. (NIV)
Gen.
11:27 Now these are the
records of the generations of Terah. Terah became the
father of Abram, Nahor and Haran; and Haran became the father of
Lot. (NASB)
Gen.
11:27 This is the
genealogy of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran
begot Lot. (NKJV)
As
mentioned above, genealogies are generally lists of ancestors, and belong to
descendants. Terah is the last descendant mentioned in the preceding genealogy,
and so it would be best understood as his.
The
account that follows Terah’s toledoth mentions the 3 sons of
Terah, and then begins the long narrative of Abraham’s life. It would seem an odd title for the account of
Abraham’s life, and this is perhaps the strongest evidence that toledoth
are not subject introductions.
Note
also, the NIV here again, places a paragraph break in the middle of verse 27,
showing this toledoth is not necessarily linked to the
narrative after it.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate the account of Terah
is best understood as a concluding signature, and should be linked to the
preceding genealogy, which spans from Gen. 11:10b to Gen. 11:27a. It was
originally owned by Terah, and lists the ancestors that link him to Shem.
Thus
far, Wiseman’s hypothesis seems to be working seamlessly.
Toledoth #8
Gen.
25:12 This is the account
of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to
Abraham. (NIV)
Gen.
25:12 Now these are the
records of the generations of Ishmael, Abraham’s son,
whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s maid, bore to Abraham; (NASB)
Gen.
25:12 Now this is
the genealogy of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the
Egyptian, Sarah’s maidservant, bore to Abraham. (NKJV)
Up
to this point, Wiseman’s hypothesis has proved invaluable. All toledoth
statements fit better as concluding colophons, and all the patriarchs mentioned
are preceded by narratives which transpired during their lifetimes, making
them eyewitnesses or giving them access to eyewitnesses.
Unfortunately,
some difficulties lie ahead, as we come across a few exceptions to our current
formula. These have been a stumbling block, and caused many to abandon
Wiseman’s hypothesis altogether (an unfortunately mistake as I’ll endeavor to
show).
After
Terah’s genealogy, we come to the very large account of Abraham’s life which
spans more than 13 chapters. Now, at the end of it, we might expect to see
the toledoth of Abraham, or perhaps of Isaac who had good access
to him. We would not, however, expect to see, “This is the account of Abraham’s
son Ishmael…”
Huh?
Ishmael authored the account of Abraham?
And
herein lies the problem. Unlike the other accounts where the patriarch
mentioned would have been a good eyewitness or had access to one, this one just
doesn’t work. Ishmael was banished from Abraham’s household as a child,
and would not have had access to good witnesses, nor would have the proper
motivation to undertake such a task. There is precedence for sons writing
their father’s accounts, such as in the case of Noah’s sons, but these were
never estranged from Noah (at least not all of them).
To
further complicate things, the account that follows [Ishmael’s] toledoth is
composed of 6 short verses about his family who settled near the eastern border
of Egypt, which is followed immediately by Isaac’s toledoth, “This is the
account of Abraham’s son Isaac…”
So
are we now to believe that Ishmael kept a record of Abraham’s life
and Isaac kept a record of Ishmael’s life?
Clearly
something is not right. Context is always key, and the context here seems to
show a swapping of toledoth signatures. Can this somehow be
resolved? The answer is, yes. There are 2 basic ways to explain
this (the second being the right way, in my opinion).
Option
1: We can read the toledoth
of Ishmael and Isaac as subject introductions. Both are followed by
accounts that would pertain to them. The toledoth of Ishmael is
followed by information about his family line, and the toledoth of
Isaac is followed by narratives of his life.
But,
as we’ve seen, it is very unlikely that toledoth phrases are ever
subject introductions, and as we’ll see, this would cause as many problems as
it solves. If both are introductory, this would mean Abraham’s account
has no toledoth at all, which is extremely problematic. Of all
the accounts in Genesis, you’d think there’d be an introduction for this one.
And what are we to make of how well Wiseman’s hypothesis has worked until
now? Do we just throw it all out and start over? Fortunately,
there’s a simpler solution.
Option
2: I believe Curt Sewell has
found the key to solving this mystery. He considers the tablet of Ishmael to be
a sub-tablet, which has been embedded into Isaac’s tablet.
It would appear that instead of Moses working with separate tablets, the
account of Ishmael may have been embedded inside of Isaac’s.
Isaac,
of course, would have been the perfect candidate to record all the events of
his father’s life, and we know he also had contact with his brother, Ishmael,
later on after Abraham’s death. “And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in
the cave of Machpelah… (Gen. 25:9) This would have been the perfect
opportunity for the brothers to catch up and exchange histories, and it would
seem appropriate for Isaac to include Ishmael’s family history in his father’s
account.
But
why the change in structure? Why does Ishmael’s signature appear at the
beginning of his account, rather than the end?
Think
about it. If Isaac was writing this account on a clay tablet which was
the primary devise used in his day, how else could he indicate to his readers
that his writings were ending and his brother’s was starting? There would
have to be some way to indicate this, and perhaps placing the toledoth
marker at the front of the embedded account made the most sense.
Isaac’s
signature would still have been at the very bottom of the tablet, indicating
him to be the master chronicler of the entire account. Ishmael’s
signature definitely could not have been there as that would imply him to be
the master chronicler. And if he placed Ishmael’s signature directly
after Ishmael’s account it would be right in front of Isaac’s signature, and
there would be no way to discern where one account ended and the other started.
But if Isaac simply moved Ishmael’s toledoth signature to the front of his
account, the problem is solved (see diagram to the right). Isaac’s signature is at the very bottom of the tablet,
identifying him as the owner, and Ishmael’s signature enables the reader to
determine when his embedded account begins.
While
dogmatism is not possible, option #2 is definitely superior to option#1.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that the account
of Ishmael is best understood as an introductory signature
for an embedded account which is found in Isaac’s toledoth tablet.
This small account spans from Gen. 25:12 to Gen. 25:18. It was
originally supplied to Isaac by Ishmael, and briefly discusses his family line.
Toledoth #9
Gen.
25:19 This is the account
of Abraham’s son Isaac.
Abraham
became the father of Isaac, (NIV)
Gen.
25:19 Now these are the
records of athe generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son:
Abraham 1became the father of Isaac; (NASB)
Gen.
25:19 This is the
genealogy of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham begot Isaac. (NKJV)
As
discussed in the previous section, this toledoth fits well as a
concluding signature, if it is linked to the account of Abraham’s life that
precedes it and includes Ishmael’s embedded account. Abraham’s account
starts in Genesis 11:27b and ends in 25:11. Ishmael starts in 25:12 and ends in
25:18, and Isaac’s signature ends this account in 25:19a.
Isaac’s
authorship of this entire master account (including Ishmael’s embedded
account), fits perfectly within the principles Wiseman put forth. He had
direct access to his father and would have witnessed a large portion of the
account, himself. And he had contact with Ishmael later in life at his father’s
funeral, where he could have obtained Ishmael’s records. There is also
precedent for sons writing accounts of their fathers (Noah’s sons, and as we’ll
discover shortly, Isaac’s son Jacob).
Could it also be an introductory toledoth?
An account of Isaac’s life follows, but, it soon turns to Jacob’s life,
and eventually records Isaac’s death. That would rule him out as an
author, but if it is merely a subject introduction, one might still wonder why
this isn’t called the account of Isaac and Jacob. Why just Isaac?
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate the account of Isaac
is best understood as a concluding signature, and should be linked to the
preceding account which spans from Gen. 11:27b to Gen. 25:19a. It was
originally authored by Isaac and covers all the events of his father Abraham’s
life, and some of his own life. This account includes a small embedded account
of Ishmael’s history at the end, spanning from Gen. 25:12 to 25:18.
Toledoth #10 and #11
Gen.
36:1 This is the account
of Esau (that is, Edom). (NIV)
Gen.
36:1 Now these are the
records of the generations of Esau (that is, Edom).
(NASB)
Gen.
36:1 Now this is the genealogy
of Esau, who is Edom. (NKJV)
Gen.
36:9 This is the account of
Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. (NIV)
Gen.
36:9 These then are the
records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill
country of Seir. (NASB)
Gen.
36:9 And this is
the genealogy of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir. (NKJV)
If
our previous conclusions are correct, these next toledoth would
also have to be considered embedded accounts. As was the case in
Ishmael’s toledoth, it is highly unlikely Esau would undertake
the task of chronicling his father and brother’s lives. Thus Curt Sewell
also suggests these 2 accounts of Esau have likely been embedded into his
brother Jacob’s account, which covers the life of his father Isaac. And
just as Ishmael’s toledoth signature indicates where his account
starts on Isaac’s tablet, so Esau’s signatures indicate where his accounts
start on Jacob’s tablet.
The
first account of Esau is found in 36:1 and is a narrative of Esau taking wives
and moving his family to hill country of Seir. The second is a list
of his descendants, along with some lists of other descendants of other clans
that lived in his land.
How
did Jacob acquire this information from his brother? We know that later
in life, Jacob and Esau reconciled (Gen. 33), just prior to Isaac’s passing.
Though Esau moved away, correspondence could have
taken place, and written histories exchanged.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that both accounts
of Esau are best understood as introductory signatures
for embedded accounts which appeared at the end of Jacob’s tablet. The
first account of spans from Gen. 36:1 to Gen. 36:8. The second from 36:9
to 37:1. These were originally supplied to Jacob by Esau, and discuss his
move to the hill country of Seir and his family history there.
Toledoth #12
Gen.
37:2 This is the account
of Jacob.
Joseph,
a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of
Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, and he brought their father
a bad report about them. (NIV)
Gen.
37:2 These are the records
of the generations of Jacob.
Joseph,
when seventeen years of age, was pasturing the flock with his brothers while he
was still a youth, along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of
Zilpah, his father’s wives. And Joseph brought back a bad report about them to
their father. (NASB)
Gen.
37:2 This is the history
of Jacob.
Joseph,
being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brothers.
And the lad was with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his
father’s wives; and Joseph brought a bad report of them to his father. (NKJV)
In
this last toledoth of Genesis, we see Jacob’s signature at the
end of another large account, spanning from Gen. 25:19b to 37:2a. As was
the case with Isaac, Jacob would have been the perfect witness to record all
the events in his and his father’s lives. His authorship of the preceding
account fits perfectly with Wiseman’s hypothesis, if the 2 accounts of Esau had
been embedded into his master tablet.
Could this also be an introductory statement?
Notice that in the translations above, all three place a paragraph break
in the middle of verse 2, indicating this toledoth may not be linked
to what follows. And notice what follows is not a narrative about Jacob,
but rather an almost exclusive narrative of his son, Joseph.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate the account of Jacob
is best understood as a concluding signature, and should be linked to the
preceding account which spans from Gen. 25:19b to Gen. 37:2a. It was
originally authored by Jacob and covers all the events of his father Isaac’s
life, and some of his own life. This account includes 2 small embedded
accounts of Esau’s history at the end, spanning from Gen. 36:1 to 36:8, and
36:9 to 37:1.
Joseph’s account
Now
perhaps the biggest difficulty with Wiseman’s Tablet Theory is the fact that
Genesis does not end with a toledoth phrase. The last account
which is almost exclusively about the life of Joseph, does not have a toledoth
signature. It ends with, “So Joseph died at the age of a hundred and ten.
And after they embalmed him, he was placed in a coffin in Egypt.” How
wonderful it would have been for this to end with, “this is the toledoth of
Joseph’s son X” or something of that nature, but it simply doesn’t. And
this too, unfortunately, has caused many to abandon the tablet theory
altogether.
There
are several explanations that have been put forth to explain the absence of a
toledoth phrase. Sewell speculates that a colophon of sorts appears in
Ex. 1:6.
This
must be a conjecture, but I think that Exodus 1:6, “And Joseph died, and all
his brethren, and all that generation.” could form this closure. It
may have been added by Moses, after he inherited all the tablets, and began to
combine them. Those last chapters of Genesis must have been primarily
written by Joseph, but of course he couldn’t have recorded his own death.
These few verses may have been written by one of his surviving brothers.
While
this is possible, I would suggest a much simpler explanation. Perhaps at
the time and place it was written, colophons were no longer a standard literary
practice. Think about how much history the book of Genesis covers.
From
creation to Joseph’s death, more than 2300 years had passed. Dozens of
generations and cultures came and went, and it would seem likely that literary
practices also came and went. The egyptians were known for engraving
stone, but they also wrote on papyrus scrolls, which did not pose the same
challenges as clay tablets. It just may be that this last document Moses
used was written on a different medium, and at a time when colophons were not
customary anymore.
All
points considered, the textual evidence seems to indicate that this last
section in the book of Genesis does not include an introductory or concluding
colophon. The account spans from Gen. 37:2 to Gen. 50:26, starting with Joseph
at 17 and ending with his death and burial at 110. There is a possible
embedded account in chapter 38 that seems to have no connection to the main
account. It is the story of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, spanning
from Gen. 38:1-30. No markers are used to identify the author or owner of
this account either. It would seem different literary devises were employed in
this last account document.
Conclusion
After
reviewing the archeological and textual evidence, Wiseman’s Tablet Theory
seems to provide invaluable insights toward solving the toledoth
mystery. In all but 3 cases, the Genesis toledoth phrases
which include a patriarch’s name are better understood as concluding
signatures, rather than subject introductions. Only Ishmeal’s and Esau’s toledoth deviate,
and are better understood as introductory signatures. But Sewell’s suggestion
of ‘embedded accounts’ seems to adequately explain why this was necessary for
these estranged sons. Furthermore, all the toledoth patriarchs
would have been ideal witnesses to record the events in their accounts,
being eyewitnesses themselves or having access to eyewitnesses. Wiseman’s
theory also fits the absence of a human signature in the very first toledoth
which accounts events no human could have witnessed.
The
implications of these findings are numerous. While mosaic authorship was
never in doubt (due to the Biblical evidence, and solid historical tradition),
the Tablet Theory not only affirms it, but explains the method Moses used under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Genesis came to be the same way all
other biblical narratives did—by the gathering of testimonies from reliable
eyewitnesses, under the Spirit’s guidance.
There
is also tremendous apologetic value in Wiseman’s Hypothesis. While no one
can be forced to accept any form of evidence, it is our duty to give those who
ask well reasoned answers (1 Pet. 3:15). …. And even the most committed
skeptics can see (if they so choose) how the witnesses of Genesis confirm its
antiquity, authenticity and reliability. For while many will argue it’s not the
oldest text in existence, we now have textual evidence based on archeology that
it was composed from much older writings—even going back to the first man.
It doesn’t get much more reliable than that.
All
in all, the Wiseman’s Tablet Theory holds up under scrutiny, and provides us
with the best insights yet in understanding the structure and origins of
Genesis.
Footnotes:
1. The original Hebrew name for the book of Genesis
is b-ray’sheeth, “in the beginning” named after the first word in the
account.
2. Damien Mackey, Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis,
(March
2005) http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Tracing_the_hand_of_moses_in_genesis.html
3. Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record,
(Creation-Life., San Deigo, CA, 1976), 25-30
4. Air Commodor P. J. Wiseman, New
Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, (Zondervan
Publishing House, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI, 1946)
5. Air Commodor P. J. Wiseman, New
Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, (Zondervan
Publishing House, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI, 1946)
6. Air Commodor P. J. Wiseman, New
Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, (Zondervan
Publishing House, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI, 1946), 53-54
7. Bodie Hodge and Dr. Terry Mortenson, Did Moses Write Genesis?,
(June, 2011) https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/
Further reading:
True
Origin
Curt
Sewell © 1998-2001 by Curt Sewell
Did Moses Write Genesis?Answers in Genesis
by
Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge AiG–U.S. June 28, 2011
Creation
Ministries International
by
Charles V Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol.
By
Damien F. Mackey
By
Damien F. Mackeys
Northwest
Creation Network
Excerpted
from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30
A
Third Theory
by
Paul A. Hughes
Original
book by Air Commodor P. J. Wiseman, C.B.E.
No comments:
Post a Comment