Calvin
Theological Journal 5 (1970) 184-89.
Copyright © 1980 by Calvin Theological Seminary. Cited
with permission.
THE TOLEDOT OF THE BOOK
OF GENESIS AND
THEIR
REDEMPTIVE-HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA
THE
OCCURRENCE of a system of ten toledot-divisions
throughout the book of Genesis has long had the
attention
of Old Testament scholars. These toledot,
translated "genera-
tions" in the American
Standard Version, occur in Gen. 2:4;
5:1;
6:9; 10:1, 11:10 and 27; 25:12 and 19; 36:1 (and 9);
37:2.
In recent years Professor Donald J. Wiseman,
disagreeing with
both the standard documentary hypothesis and the
oral tradition
approach to the Pentateuch, has developed the
thesis that the
toledot in Genesis are evidence
of the fact that at the time of
Moses'
writing activities written texts were already available in
great abundance. Calling attention to the colophons
or catch
phrases which are used as titles of ancient
texts, Wiseman ex-
presses the opinion that the phrase "these
are the generations
of. . ." is such a colophon, identifying
texts used by Moses, the
inspired author, in setting forth the history of
God's dealing with
the line of promise (cf. Bulletin of Westminster
Theological
Seminary,
Vol. 8, No. 4, 1969) .
The present writer's interest in the possible
significance of these
toledot for the development of
the line of promise was first
aroused by the lectures which the late Professor
B. Holwerda
presented in 1946 at Kampen
Theological Seminary in the
ations" of Isaac (Gen.
25:19). Unfortunately, Professor Hol-
werda's views were available
only to Dutch readers until a few
years ago. But in 1964 Dr. Samuel R. Kulling, professor of Old
Testament
at the Prediger Seminar in Sankt
Chrischona near
(Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) made
these views available in the
German language as well. Moreover, in a
commentary on the
first few chapters of Genesis written by Professor W.
H. Gispen
of the Free University of Amsterdam the views of
Professor Hol-
werda have again found
further endorsement (Schepping en
Paradijs [Kampen : J. H. Kok, 19661). A brief summary of
Professor
Holwerda's views would seem to be called for in a
184
SCHOLIA 185
journal in the English language, primarily
because of the intrinsic
value which these views possess.
What will be presented in the following lines
will be Kulling's
discussion of Professor Holwerda's
views, set within the frame-
work of what other Old Testament scholars have held
with re-
gard to this matter.
Julius Wellhausen,
followed by Budde, believed that the occur-
rence of these toledot-formulas
was added proof for his thesis
that the so-called P document was a late and
schematic con-
struction imposed on the
materials of the Pentateuch. But B. D.
Eerdmans observed that the schematism
of the toledot
was not
as great as had been supposed and that this lack
of complete
uniformity argued against the Wellhausen
thesis. One difficulty
from the critical point of view is the occurrence of
a toledot-
formula in Gen. 2:4. The critics belonging to
the Wellhausen
school hold that this toledot is really out of place.
It should have
been written ahead of the materials presented in
Gen. 1:1-2 :3.
Eichrodt correctly observed that no amount of
exegetical art
could ever explain why a formula that should have
been used as
a superscription ended up as a postscript
instead. But, thus Eich-
rodt, if Gen. 2:4a stands
where it stood originally, this has its
consequences for our opinions on the
question of whether the
toledot are an evidence of P's
supposedly very schematic proce-
dure (cf. Kulling, p. 217). Noth has sought
to explain this strange
phenomenon as a literary exception, but Kulling correctly re-
marks that in the other nine instances the toledot heads the
section to which it belongs. But this the Wellhausen critics have
not been able to admit with respect to Gen. 2:4a.
For they
believe that Gen. 2:4a belongs to P, but Gen.
2:4b ff. belongs
to J.
W. H. Green has called attention to other
instances in which
the theory of the Wellhausen
school about the toledot
as evidence
for a late P construction does not apply. For in
Gen. 37:2 the
toledot introduces a section
composed out of J and E materials.
Also
in 25:19 the toledot
is followed by long sections out of J,
mixed with E materials, with only an occasional
reference to P
materials. Eissfeldt
believes that Gen. 36:10-39, one of the
toledot, belongs to a source
called "L." Kulling therefore raises
186 CALVIN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the question: if these toledot can stand at such places
in other
parts of the book of Genesis, why not then in Gen.
2:4a? But
if, in spite of all this, we must still count this
formula as be-
longing to P, this document then becomes
discontinuous (lucken-
haft), and it does not possess the systematic
character which the
critics say it has.
For all these reasons various solutions have
been proposed
concerning the origin and significance of these
particular for-
mulas. Some have held that
there is no particular connection
between them and that they are of various
origins. There never
was a P narrator document (Kulling,
p. 219).
Another proposed solution has been the suggestion
that these
toledot formulas originated
with a glossator who wanted to
underscore the genealogical structure of Genesis
but who pro-
ceeded without due care or
consistency and who inserted the
formula at times at the wrong place. Eichrodt endorses this
position by asserting that the later redactor who
inserted the
toledot was attempting to
divide the historical narrative by
means of these formulas but that he was not
successful in this
attempt so that at a later point he gave it up.
A still later
redactor added a few more of his own. To the
first editorial
sequence belong 5:1; 10:1; 11:10 and 27; 25:12;
36:1. Here
the phrase occurs in its proper sense. The second
editorial se-
quence comprises the rest,
namely 2:4a; 6:9; 25:19; 37:2. At
these points the phrase has assumed a more figurative
meaning.
Editor
number two also inserted 36:9, using the phrase again
in its proper sense. Thus far Eichrodt's opinion (Kulling, p.
220).
From these and other opinions Kulling concludes that to
assume that the toledot are not original where
they now stand
is to avoid the question of their present order.
Why did these
supposed editors insert the phrases where they
did? Why pre-
suppose that these editors lacked the necessary
insight and con-
sistency?
A third solution concerning the use of the toledot in
Genesis
comes from Eissfeldt. Eissfeldt assigns these formulas to the
original P document. He observes that they occur
at points in
the narrative which describe a certain narrowing
down of the
SCHOLIA 187
scene of action. This gradual narrowing, which can be
readily
seen from the study of the successive toledot passages,
is illus-
trated by Eissfeldt--who,
by the way, also includes Num. 3:1
in his discussion. Eissfeldt
believes that Gen. 2:4a does not hail
from P, neither does Gen. 36:9 (nor 36:1) . Kulling draws
certain conclusions from this which are
significant for the point
of his argument but need not be recorded at this
point. Kulling
agrees with Eissfeldt that
the toledot
materials are the result of
a conscious literary planning. But, so Kulling, this planning
should not be restricted to a supposed P document; it
should
include the entire scope of the book of Genesis.
Having come to this point, Kulling
reviews the opinion of
Professor
Holwerda. Admitting that the three solutions just
recorded each contain some correct elements, Kulling observes
that Holwerda has
correctly understood that the toledot must be
seen as integral to the larger context. In agreement
with Hol-
werda, he views these
formulas as providing us with the key to
the understanding of the entire book.
The word toledot comes from the root yalad, "to bear,"
"to
generate." It refers to the product of
bearing; hence it stands
for that which was produced, for the result. In
Gen. 2:4 the
word designates the historical result. Holwerda wishes to avoid
the translation "history," which, in his
opinion, does not always
fit the true meaning of the word (cf. for this Gispen, p. 109,
who, while agreeing with the thesis of Holwerda and Kulling,
nevertheless knows no better
translation for the word than "his-
tory"). Holwerda therefore understands Gen. 2:4 to say: this
is what came forth from, this is what became of,
heaven and
earth. Holwerda does not
feel that the word "history" is an
appropriate translation here. What follows Gen. 2:4
is not really
the story of heaven and earth but the story of Adam
and Eve,
the fall into sin, and the story of Cain and Abel.
In the word toledot, therefore, we find the
meaning: this is
what came of it. And in the genitive ("these
are the toledot
of..." we have the thought: this is where it
started from. The
word toledot indicates the end of a line; the added genitive
marks a new starting point. To say what Eissfeldt did, namely,
that the toledot serve to restrict the scene of action, does not
188 CALVIN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
really do justice to the meaning of this term. It does
not make
clear why, for example, there is no toledot of
Abraham while
there is one of Terah, the
father of Abraham. Terah's toledot
has Abraham for its center; similarly Isaac's toledot (Gen.
25:19)
has Jacob for its center; and Jacob's toledot places
Joseph in the foreground.
To observe the true meaning of this phrase also
helps us see
the actual purpose of the biblical narratives.
These narratives
are not biographies; they are not novels concerning
saints, al-
though we often make this out of them. The Bible does
not
present histories of people; it contains no
biographies; but it
draws lines from a starting point to an end point. If
it were
otherwise, we should have had a toledot of
Abraham and of
Joseph,
but we look in vain for such. Another consequence of
this understanding of the toledot is that it cuts out all psycholo-
gizing about various
"types of faith."
The author of Genesis, therefore, is concerned
to show where
the ways begin to part: for example, with Terah, and then again
with Ishmael (25:12-18), with Isaac (25:19-35:29),
with Esau
(36:1-37:1),
and with Jacob (37:2-50:26).
Going back to some of the earlier toledot, we
notice that
Gen.
5:1, 2 begins with the creation of man and ends with God's
repentance about ever having made man (6:6-8). The
third
toledot begins with Noah (6:9),
and ends with the curse upon
Ham
(9:29). The fourth one begins with the survivors of the
flood (10:1) and ends with the building of the tower
and the
confusion of tongues. This line is then continued
via Shem
(11:10-26) to Terah.
Thus it becomes clear that the composition of
Genesis con-
sists of ten toledoth-sections,
each appropriately introduced
with the well-known formula: "these are the toledoth
of...."
Holwerda considers this to be a fundamental
argument in
criticism of the documentary hypothesis. In this
he is followed
by Kulling. The author
of Genesis, in other words, has himself
given us a clue as to the composition of his book, a
composition
which suggests a well thought-out plan. The toledot formulas
have not been subsequently added to an already
existing text,
but are the very fabric around which the whole of
Genesis has
SCHOLIA 189
been constructed. Even those materials in Genesis
which do
not belong to the alleged P document are an
integral part of
the original composition of the book. Kulling concludes that
the toledoth have shown us that Genesis is "eine konstruierte
Tendenzschrift" (p. 226). But--and
this is the important thing
--this
construction is an original one, not a later addition; and
it runs through the entire book of Genesis, not
just the supposed
P materials.
The present writer considers the approach of Holwerda-
Kulling-Gispen to be
a fruitful one.
Many important benefits
can be gathered from it, both for the question of
the origin of
the Pentateuch and for a correct understanding of
the message
of this part of Holy Scripture. For this reason
this viewpoint
is offered to the readers for consideration.
In conclusion, attention should be called to
Professor Gispen's
reaction to the views of Professor Wiseman
reported above.
Commenting
on the view that the toledot
must be regarded as
colophons, written at the end of the section, not
at the begin-
ning, and designating the
names of the persons who were in
possession of the clay tablets used by Moses in the
writing of his
book, Gispen remarks :
"This hypothesis is very improbable and
does not suffice as an explanation of the toledot
formulas"
(Gispen, p. 111).
-M. H. WOUDSTRA
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Calvin Theological Seminary
Grand Rapids
www.calvinseminary.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: