i

ii
 iii

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/

OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

551
Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors
Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University
Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors
David J.A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board
Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon,
Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D.H.
Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood
iv
 v

THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS

Identity, Covenant, and the toledot Formula

Matthew A. Thomas
vi

Copyright © 2011 by Matthew A. Thomas

Published by T & T Clark International

A Continuum imprint
80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

www.continuumbooks.com

Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International.

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Thomas, Matthew A.
These are the generations : identity, covenant, and the toledot formula / Matthew A. Thomas.—1st ed.
p. cm. — (The library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 551)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-­13: 978-­0-­567-­15141-­4 (hardcover)
ISBN-­10: 0-­567-­15141-­7 (hardcover)
1. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Criticism, Form. 2. Bible. O.T. Genesis—Biography. 3. Bible. O.T. Hebrew.
Leningrad Codex—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Genealogy in the Bible. 5. Hebrew language—
Syntax. 6. Hebrew language—Semantics. I. Title. II. Series.
BS1235.52.T57 2010
222'.110663—dc22 2010031760

ISBN: 9780567487643

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand

 vii

To Jenny,

‫עזרי כנגדי‬
(cf. Genesis 2:18)
and
to the children of my heart:
Anna, Sarah, Isaiah, and Noah
viii
 ix

CONTENTS

List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments xii
Abbreviations xv

INTRODUCTION 1
Rationale for the Project 1
The Thesis of the Present Study 2
The Object of the Present Study 3
The Text 3
The Leningrad Codex and BHS 3
Genesis and the Pentateuch 5
The Formula: toledot 6
Methodological Foundations 7
Method: Different Approaches, Different Questions 8
Form Criticism and Beyond 11
Surface Structure Study 13
Uncovering Surface Structure 14
The Limits of Surface Structure as a Key to Meaning 15
Method: A Summary and Outline 18
Contributions to the Fields of Hebrew Bible, Religion, and
the Humanities 19

1. DEFINING THE TOLEDOT FORMULA: SYNTAX, SEMANTICS,

AND FUNCTION 21
Syntax of the toledot Formula 21
Semantics of the toledot Formula 22
Functions of the toledot Formula 25
The Function of the toledot Formula in Past Scholarship 25
The Place of the toledot Formula in the Priestly Material 25
The toledot “Book” 26
P as a Redactional Layer 28
Summary 31
Finding the Functions: Linguistic Help 31
x Contents

Theme and Rheme 32

Presupposition and Assertion 34
Identifiability and Activation 35
The toledot Formula as a Heading 37
The Sections Defined by the toledot Formula 41
Patterns of Narrowing of Focus in the toledot Sections 42
From the Heavens and Earth to Adam: Genesis 2:4–5:1 42
From Adam to Noah: Genesis 5:1–6:9 43
From Noah to Noah’s Sons: Genesis 6:9–10:1 43
From Noah’s Sons to Shem: Genesis 10:1–11:10 44
From Shem to Terah: Genesis 11:10–27 44
From Terah to Ishmael: Genesis 11:27–25:12 45
From Ishmael to Isaac: Genesis 25:12–19 45
From Isaac to Esau: Genesis 25:19–36:1 45
From Esau to Jacob: Genesis 36:1–37:2 46
Beyond Jacob: Genesis 37:2–? 46
From Jacob to Aaron and Moses: Genesis 37:2–Numbers 3:1 47
Summary 47

EXCURSUS. WHY IS THERE NO TOLEDOT HEADING FOR

ABRAHAM? 49

2. VARIATIONS IN THE SYNTAX OF THE TOLEDOT FORMULA 53

Toward Variations in the Formula: Two Types 54
Discussions of the Two Types 54
Final Form Studies of the Two Types 58
Syntactical Variations in the toledot Formula 61
Survey of the Syntactical Variations 61
The Use of waw with the Formula 69
Structural Implications of the waw/Non-­waw Variation 71
The Non-­waw Occurrences of the toledot Formula 72
Other Uses of the Term toledot Through the Pentateuch 74
Patterns of Narrowing Focus In Light of the Variations in the toledot
Headings 79
Summary 82

3. GENEALOGIES’ ROLE IN SHAPING THE NARRATIVE 83

Definitions 83
The Functions of Biblical Genealogies 85
General Functions of Biblical Genealogies 85
Form and Function: Linear v. Segmented Genealogies 86
Genealogies and the toledot Sections of Genesis 87
 Contents xi

Functions of the Genealogies in Genesis 94

Beyond Genesis 95
Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1 103
Summary 104

4. COVENANTS CHANGE THE BASIS FOR THE NARROWING OF

FOCUS 105
The Centrality of Covenant to the toledot Structure of Genesis 106
Three Key Moments in the toledot Series 111
Key Point #1: The Promise after the Flood 111
Key Point #2: The Promise to Abraham 113
Key Point #3: Sinai 117
Summary: The Three Key Points 120

5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS 123

Findings of the Investigation 123
The toledot Formula as a Heading 123
Headings and Subheadings 124
Genealogies as Life Preservers 125
Covenants Bring Changes 126
Integrating the Findings by toledot 127
These are the toledot of the Heavens and Earth: Genesis 2:4–4:26 127
This is the Book of the toledot of Adam: Genesis 5:1–6:8 127
These are the toledot of Noah: Genesis 6:9–10:1 127
And These are the toledot of the Sons of Noah: Genesis 10:1–11:9 127
These are the toledot of Shem: Genesis 11:10–26 128
And These are the toledot of Terah: Genesis 11:27–25:11 128
And These are the toledot of Ishmael: Genesis 25:12–18 128
And These are the toledot of Isaac: Genesis 25:19–35:29 128
And These are the toledot of Esau: Genesis 36:1–8; 36:9–37:1 129
These are the toledotof Jacob: Genesis 37:2–Numbers 2:34 129
And These are the toledot of Aaron and Moses: Numbers
3:1–Deuteronomy 34:12 129
Major Contribution 130
Implications and Further Directions 130
Interface with Other Characters 130
Interface with Other Elements in the Text 131
The Importance of Terah in Genesis 131
The Diachronic Study of the Pentateuch in the Hebrew Bible 132
Numbers in the toledot Series 132
The Relationship Between Genesis and the Pentateuch 133
Themes Working Toward the Deuternomistic History 133
xii Contents

New Testament: The toledot of Jesus 133

The Nature of Choice 134
Ishmael and Isaac 135
The Use of Language to Shape (Narrative) Reality 135
Conclusion 135

Bibliography 137
Index of References 147
Index of Subjects 149
Index of Authors 151
Index of Hebrew Words and Phrases 153
 xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Categorizations of the toledot Sections

According to the Two Types 56
TABLE 2 Scharbert’s Two Types 58
TABLE 3 Syntax of the toledot Formula According to
Andersen’s Categories 63
TABLE 4 The toledot Introductions According to Weimar 66
TABLE 5 Parallels between the Genealogy of Terah and Numbers 1–4 100
TABLE 6 Key Points in the Narrowing of Focus Defined by
toledot Headings 121
xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a privilege to give thanks to many of those who have contributed, directly

or indirectly, to the completion of this book. God brings many diverse influences
into our lives, and it is rare to have the opportunity to publically acknowledge
them.
First, thanks must go to my parents, Bill and Melanie Thomas, for intro-
ducing me at a young age to the Bible and the milieu of the church, where
my religious education began. Their love, encouragement, and support of me
through my educational journey have truly allowed for this to happen. My
paternal grandparents, Clifford and Marie Thomas, gave me a legacy of inter-
est in the Bible.
My introduction to the academic study of the Bible came during my under-
graduate studies with H. Dixon Slingerland of Hiram College, Hiram, Ohio. My
advisor and mentor as I struggled with the many questions such study brings,
Dixon was also the first to tell me that I would go on for doctoral studies. It
turns out he was right.
During Masters work at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, I was
fortunate to work with many excellent professors. I must credit the genesis of
my interest in Genesis to Kathleen A. Farmer, whose skillful presentation of
both the content and methodology for studying Genesis fired my imagination
and started me on the path to this study. Thomas B. Dozeman also became a
great influence through his courses and through working with him as a Teaching
Assistant. Their encouragement helped me seriously to consider Hebrew Bible
as a field I would enjoy. Others at United who encouraged me to consider fur-
ther studies and teaching included Thomas E. Boomershine, Andrew Sung Park,
and Eric Friedland.
Doctoral study is a daunting task, and so it is with great gratitude that I
acknowledge the support of the Disciple Seminary Foundation in Claremont,
California. To Donald Reisinger, Mary Anne Parrott, Rod Parrott, Huberto
Pimentel, Mark Parsons, and all the other staff: thank you. From the day I pulled
into the DSF parking lot virtually homeless to the scholarships that enabled me
 Acknowledgments xv

to keep studying to teaching opportunities to conversations with Mary Anne

to Mark’s presence on the day I defended my dissertation, their support has
been a real blessing. Of the entities in the wider Christian Church (Disciples
of Christ), I must thank my home congregation of Central Christian Church in
Springfield, Ohio; Higher Education and Leadership Ministries; and Disciples
Home Missions for scholarship assistance and support.
I found Claremont an ideal place to conduct my studies. This study began
its life as my doctoral dissertation, and my committee consisted of three won-
derful professors who led me through the process of morphing from a student
to a scholar. Marvin A. Sweeney, for whom I wrote the initial paper leading
to this book, has been a challenging and encouraging dialogue partner and has
increased my understanding of the methods of biblical studies enormously.
Kristin De Troyer is so very gifted in raising the most interesting, frustrating,
and challenging questions. Working with her I have been able to develop my
interests in cultic matters, as well as learning much about the writing process.
Tammi J. Schneider, my Doktormutter, has been an amazing advisor. We have
had so many greatly helpful conversations over the years that I am sure that
much of the quality of ideas here can be traced to her influence.
While at Claremont, I also benefited from conversations and insights from
a number of fellow students: Timothy Finlay, Serge Frolov, Dana Newlove,
Janice Bakke, James Findlay, Kevin Mellish, David Jackson, Chuck Smith, and
others. The Genesis Reading Group, under Dr. Schneider’s leadership, was a
particular source for lively discussion around the Hebrew text of this wonder-
ful book. Someday they might even finish reading it!
Moving to Prague, Czech Republic in the middle of dissertation work was an
adventure. With the help of Educational Services International (TeachOverseas.
org) and our many supporters, it was not only possible, but a blessing to us and
to my work. Working with the folks at the International Baptist Theological
Seminary was a joy and delight. Teaching and studying alongside such superb
colleagues as Peter Penner, Katarina Penner, Cheryl Brown, Wes Brown, Parush
Parushev, Toivo Pilli, Einike Pilli, Greg Nichols (whose question at one of my
presentations of part of this material led me to write Chapter 4), Keith Jones, and
many others greatly enriched the experience of living overseas and writing.
Along the way, I received feedback on various parts of this manuscript
from Betty Clements at Claremont School of Theology and several folks at
Continuum/T & T Clark Publishing. Without such feedback, there would
undoubtedly be many more typos and incorrect citations than are here.
Finally, I must give great thanks to the love of my life, my best friend and
xvi Acknowledgments

wife, Jenny, for all her patience, encouragement, subtle and not-­so-­subtle
nudges, prayers, and love. She has truly been a helper suitable-­to-­me/opposite-
­me/opposed-­to-­me (Genesis 2:18). The arrival of my daughter, Anna, was my
final motivation to finish the initial draft of this book. Her patience with me as
I worked through subsequent drafts has taught me much.

Matt Thomas
La Verne, 2010
 xvii

ABBREVIATIONS

Primary and Secondary Sources

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.

New York, 1992
AsTJ Asbury Theological Journal
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and
W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983
BN Biblische Notizen
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZ NF Biblische Zeitschrift Neue Folge
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CMHE Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays
in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass., 1973
EvJ Evangelical Journal
FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature
GKC Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar.
Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed.
Oxford, 1910
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited
under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden,
1994–2000
ICC International Critical Commentary
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly
xviii Abbreviations

JR Journal of Religion
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
LSAWS Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic
LXX Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)
MT Masoretic Text
OTL Old Testament Library
RB Revue Biblique
RevistB Revista Biblica
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
TD Theology Digest
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Linguistic Abbreviations 1
+ obligatory constituent
± optional constituent
<X-­Y> syntagmeme relating X and Y
(X,Y,Z, . . .) Any one, but only one, of the items may be selected
∅ a zero tagma; the absence of overt manifestation of a tagmeme
exponent is a contrastive signal
Cl clause
Co coordinating conjunction, coordinated clause
Ct construct relationship
Ind independent; a clause that is a sentence
M modification
N noun
Nd definite noun (article + noun)
Np proper noun
P predicate
Pr pronoun
Re interclause relator
S subject
w-­ waw conjunction

1. These linguistic abbreviations are taken from Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew
Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (JBL Monograph Series 14; Nashville: Abingdon,
1970), 13–15.
 Abbreviations xix

Other Abbreviations
a.k.a. also known as
B.C.E. before the Christian/common era
C.E. Christian/common era
CH Classic Hebrew
D Deuteronomist source
DtrH Deuteronomistic History
E Elohist source
J Jahwist/Yahwist source
JE Jehovist source: a combination of J and E
P Priestly source
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
xx
 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale for the Project

The ways in which truth is communicated — the words used and the way
they are organized — affect our reception of that truth in a profound way
(cf. Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message,” Ludwig Wittgenstein’s
language games, and much of late twentieth/early twenty-­first century literary
theory).1 For that reason, studying how a work of literature is organized is of
vital importance to understanding what truth(s) it is attempting to communicate.
Given that the biblical book of Genesis is one of the more popular parts2 of the
world’s best-­selling book3 (and is a book that is widely understood to communi-
cate truth), it is a prime candidate for such examination. The current study is an
attempt to uncover aspects of the organization of Genesis in order to understand
better the intended message of this very important piece of world literature.

1. For Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase, see his seminal work Understanding
Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-­Hill, 1964). On Wittgenstein’s lan-
guage games, see Anthony Kenny, Wittgenstein (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University,
1973), 159–77. For literary theory, see any number of surveys, for example, Michael
Groden and Martin Kreisworth, eds., The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory &
Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).
2. And, one might add, most studied books of the Bible. This may be found through
a cursory examination of the literature. For a more deliberate examination, see David
Clines’s survey of the International Meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature
from 1983 to 1998: David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament
Essays, 1967–1998 (2 vols; JSOTSup 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998),
1:158–93.
3. Russell Ash, The Top 10 of Everything, 1997 (London: Doring Kindersley, 1996),
112. Ash cites estimates of the number of Bibles printed ranging from 2.5 to 6 billion
copies in over 2,000 languages and dialects.
2 These are the Generations

The Thesis of the Present Study

In studying Genesis, it has long been recognized that a repeated formula: “these
are the toledot 4 of Name . . .” (the toledot formula) plays a primary role in the
organization of the book. The formula occurs eleven times in Genesis and once
each in Numbers and Ruth. Throughout the twentieth century, various studies
examined the formula, offering significant insights, but focusing mainly on the
role of this repeated formula in the organization of the hypothesized P (priestly)
document or source behind much of the book of Genesis. My question, on the
other hand, calls for an examination of the formula in the complete text (or “final
form”5) of Genesis. This fits more with current trends in literary and linguis-
tics theory and newer form-­critical approaches, which emphasize meaning and
rhetorical impact in the given text as opposed to uncovering theoretical source
documents as a key to meaning. The present project, then, aims to bring the study
of this formula in line with the current state of Hebrew Bible scholarship.
In this study, I am seeking the answers to two primary questions. The first
deals with the nature and purpose of the toledot formula in the final form of
the book of Genesis. Why is it there and how does it function? I will attempt
to stretch the current understanding of the formula's organizational role and
offer new insights into the significance of variations in the syntax of the for-
mula itself. Secondly, I am concerned on a literary level with how the narrative
moves from talking about all of humanity (the toledot of Adam) to focusing
on one specific people group (the toledot of Jacob/Israel) and eventually to the
leadership of this group (the toledot of Aaron and Moses in Numbers 3). More

4. Throughout this work, I will write this Hebrew term, ‫תולדות‬, variously translated
as “generations,” “offspring,” or even “history,” simply as toledot. Referring to the term
in this way raises three potential questions. First, by simply transliterating the Hebrew
term, I am refraining from translating it. This is due to complications surrounding the
meaning of the term in various contexts. These complexities will be discussed in Chapter
2. Second, by not using a full transliteration orthography for the term, I am not providing
a particular Hebrew spelling for it. Since the spelling of the term varies in its orthography
in the Hebrew, unless the spelling is at issue, I will refer to the term in this simple way.
Finally, in rendering the term in italics, I am following convention to italicize a foreign
word in my text.
5. The term, final form, is somewhat problematic, as it may give the impression that
there is one final text that we can study. Since this is not the case, we might rather speak
of final forms. My use of the term is a convenient way to refer to the text behind most
modern translations: the MT as reflected in BHS. More will be said about this choice later
in this chapter.
 Introduction 3

precisely, what are the literary and linguistic mechanisms that drive each nar-
rowing of focus?
The study will explore the toledot formulae and their interplay with the sec-
tions they introduce. Three mechanisms shape the way in which the focus of
the story is narrowed in Genesis and the Pentateuch: variations in the toledot
formula that distinguish main and secondary sections, the use of genealogies
to preserve the family lines of secondary characters, and the impact of divine–
human covenants on the ways in which narrowing can and cannot occur. In
order to undertake such a study, we must define the object of our study, the
questions we are asking, and the methods we will employ.

The Object of the Present Study

Before pursuing this study, we must agree on what it is that we are studying.
In this section, we will define the object of our study: which text we will study
and which portion(s) of that text we will focus on.

The Text
The Leningrad Codex and BHS
Genesis forms the first book of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Old Testament or
Hebrew Scriptures); therefore, any study of this book is a study of the Hebrew
Bible. The text of the Hebrew Bible is preserved for us in many manifestations,
from the Dead Sea Scrolls to present critical editions like BHS. Given that dif-
ferences exist among these many manifestations, we must establish which text
we are examining.
For the purposes of the present project, the text studied will be the Masoretic
Text (MT) reflected in its earliest complete manuscript, the Leningrad Codex,
and published in modern critical edition as BHS. The Leningrad Codex has
long been used as the base text for printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, as this
quote from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California
illustrates:

Most modern translations of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are translations

of the text of one medieval manuscript, the Leningrad Codex. The Leningrad
Codex, held by the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg [formerly
4 These are the Generations

Leningrad], occupies this prestigious position because it is the oldest complete

manuscript of the Bible in Hebrew known to exist.6

The Leningrad Codex was written in Cairo, Egypt and eventually made its way
to Russia. In the library, it is catalogued as “Firkovich B 19 A,” as it is part of
the Abraham Firkovich collection.7 The Leningrad Codex is dated to 1009/10
C.E. and is not only the oldest complete manuscript, but is fully vowel-­pointed
and accented according the Tiberian Masoretic system of the ben-­Asher fam-
ily. Specifically, it reflects the work of Aharon ben-­Mosheh ben-­Asher, “who
was regarded as the custodian of the best form of the biblical tradition by many
in his own day, and this came to be the general opinion in later times.”8 The
Leningrad Codex is the base text for BHS, which will be the specific text used
for the present project. The facsimile edition of the Leningrad Codex will be
consulted as necessary as a check on BHS.9
While the text of the Leningrad Codex is remarkable for its antiquity, com-
pleteness, and attestation, it is by no means the only text of the Hebrew Bible.
Whenever multiple copies of a text are in existence, the possibility and reality
of variations multiplies as well. Textual variations in the book of Genesis are,
however, generally not as severe as in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. The MT
of Genesis has been described as being in “excellent condition, generally free
from expansions and serious problems” and as “well preserved and reliable,
but . . . [with] . . . many individual instances where the other versions preserve
superior readings.”10 Given the general stability of the text, variations among

6. Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, “Projects: The Leningrad Codex,” n.p. [cited
1 June 2010]. Online: www.abmc.org/projects_leningrad.html.
7. For a fuller account of the history and description of the text itself, see Victor V.
Lebedev, “The Oldest Complete Manuscript of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Leningrad
Codex: A Facsimile Edition (ed. David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, Bruce E.
Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and James A. Sanders; Photographed by Bruce E.
Zuckerman, Kenneth A. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and Garth I. Moller; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), xxi–xxviii.
8. E. J. Revell, “The Leningrad Codex as a Representative of the Masoretic Text,”
in Freedman, et al., The Leningrad Codex, xxix–xlvi.
9. Freedman, et al., eds., The Leningrad Codex, 14–251 [for the Pentateuch].
10. P. Kyle McCarter, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible
(Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 88;
Ronald S. Hendel, “Genesis, Book of,” ABD 2:933; see also Gordon Wenham, Genesis
1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 1; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2002), xxiv–xxv.
 Introduction 5

manuscripts and versions of Genesis will only be referenced when they impinge
directly on the present study.

Genesis and the Pentateuch

While the MT of the Hebrew Bible forms the general object of our study, we
will limit ourselves to just a portion of the Hebrew Bible as our focus. The
Pentateuch, or Torah, has been recognized as a unit from ancient times and
was the first part of the Hebrew Bible to reach its present form. Attempts to
outline a Tetrateuch or Hexateuch are valuable enterprises, but given the long
history of understanding the first five books as a unit, the Pentateuch is a logi-
cal choice for our study. While the toledot formula does occur in Ruth 4:18,
this book is outside the tightly connected Pentateuchal books and is assigned
within the Jewish canon to the Writings. We may also note that the formula
occurs 12 times within the Pentateuch and only once outside it. While we may
refer from time to time to the occurrence of the formula in Ruth, it is probably
best read as a later imitation of the formula in a post-­exilic book by someone
interested in the Davidic monarchy.11
Within the Pentateuch, the book of Genesis will play the primary role in our
study, mostly because it contains the vast majority of the occurrences of the
toledot formula in the Hebrew Bible. Starting from Genesis to understand the
Pentateuch as a whole is nothing new. In fact, most compositional methods of
studying the Pentateuch were first tried out in Genesis.12 Below, we will sur-
vey selected attempts to understand the Pentateuch as a whole and will note
that Genesis was often the odd part out in these attempts. Starting with Genesis
helps us to avoid that difficulty. By beginning with Genesis, we will be able to
integrate it naturally into the rest of the Pentateuch. As with many of the more

11. Frederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition]
9; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 30. While the present author accepts a post-­exilic
dating of the final form of Ruth, the issue is far from settled. See the discussion in Susan
Niditch, “Legends of Wise Heroes and Heroines,” in The Hebrew Bible and its Modern
Interpreters (The Bible and its Modern Interpreters 1; ed. Douglas A. Knight and Gene
M. Tucker; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 451. The Davidic interest in the book is
found most explicitly in the genealogy of David’s descendants introduced by the toledot
formula in 4:18. This interest does not exclude the possibility that the core of the book is
based on an earlier tale.
12. “Genesis . . . is central to every theory of pentateuchal criticism.” Wenham,
Genesis 1–15, xxvi. See the following section of Wenham’s commentary for a brief sum-
mary of how various theories were tested out in Genesis.
6 These are the Generations

recent studies of the Pentateuch, the present study seeks to understand the whole
of the final form of the Pentateuch by starting with Genesis.

The Formula: toledot

Finally, why study the toledot formula? Methodology informs this choice, as
we will see. In addition, the toledot formula has long been seen as an important
structural element in the book of Genesis. In seeking to uncover the surface
structure of Genesis, one must contend with this repeated heading. The fact that
it leads the reader on a clear trajectory toward Israel is intriguing, but it does
not stop there. The toledot of Aaron and Moses in Numbers 3, and the occur-
rences of the term toledot in Exodus and elsewhere in Numbers, indicate that
the significance of this formula stretches beyond just Genesis. If we are work-
ing forward from Genesis into the Pentateuch, the toledot formula is a natural
way to proceed.
Other formulas could be used to help us to understand the Pentateuch. Cross
noted the stages of the journey in Numbers, for example.13 Another example is
the ‫ ׁשמות‬formula. This formula has a very similar syntax to the toledot formula:
Np‫אלה ׁשמות בני־‬. In fact, the two formulae often occur in the same contexts:

toledot formula: Gen 25:12 (Ishmael); 36:9 (Esau); Num 3:1 (Aaron and
Moses)
‫ ׁשמות‬formula: Gen 25:13; 36:10, 40; Num 3:2, 3.

Although we will discuss the ‫ ׁשמות‬formula on occasion as it bears on the study

of the toledot formula, it is not the focus of our investigation. This is for sev-
eral reasons. First, the ‫ ׁשמות‬formula does not occur in as clear a pattern as the
toledot heading. Its occurrences are scattered in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, 2
Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and Ezekiel.14 Second, these occurrences are
not concentrated in the Pentateuch, the main object of our study. Third, the
formula is not clearly the initiator of new sections in the same way the toledot
formula is.
The toledot formula is uniquely situated for the study of Genesis moving into
the Pentateuch. It is a repeated formula in Genesis with a clear pattern of intro-
ducing major sections of the book. The term, and indeed the formula, emerges

13. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of
the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 308–17.
14. Specifically, Gen 25:13; 36:10, 40; 46:8; Exod 1:1; 6:16; Num 1:5; 3:2, 3, 18;
13:4, 16; 34:17, 19; 2 Sam 5:14; 23:8; 1 Kgs 4:8; 1 Chr 6:2; 14:4; and Ezek 48:1.
 Introduction 7

at later points in the Pentateuch in ways that seem to build on what the formula
is doing in Genesis. Also, unlike with the term ‫ׁשמות‬, toledot denotes the future,
a sense of movement that drives the story forward. ‫ ׁשמות‬is a more static term
that merely lists people. In this way, it has more of a preservative function, one
that we will explore in Chapter 3.

Methodological Foundations
Having outlined the object of our study, we must examine the method(s) by
which we will analyze the material. Since the questions we ask drive not only
the methods we will use, but the types of answers we will find, we will treat
questions and method together.
The approach taken in this study flows from form-­critical methodology,
developed by Hermann Gunkel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies against the backdrop of the emerging, unified German state. Around
this time, the famous Grimm brothers were drawing on folklore from diverse
German tribes to help consolidate the emerging identity of the new German
people. Gunkel, by focusing on forms of speech and folklore in biblical mater­
ial, was attempting a similar search for the origins and identity of ancient Israel
by focusing on typical formal elements in the biblical narrative.15
Form criticism has undergone massive shifts over the past century, espe-
cially in light of newer methods of rhetorical, aesthetic, and linguistic analysis.16
Recent form critics have turned to the examination of larger bodies of text, a
trajectory that the present work will continue. The field now is interested in
the way texts are shaped by their literary form, surface structure, literary con-
text, and the historical context of their author(s), editor(s), or various readers.
In appropriating these changing interests in form criticism, I will draw on the
insights of such linguistic methods as tagmemic theory17 and discourse analysis/

15. For a concise summary of the origins of form-­critical methodology, see Marvin
A. Sweeney, “Form Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical
Criticisms and Their Application (ed. Stephen L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; rev.
edn; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 60–69.
16. See, for example, articles on various aspects of these new approaches in Marvin A.
Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-
­First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
17. Tagmemic theory, developed by Kenneth L. Pike and applied to the Hebrew
Bible by Francis I. Andersen, addresses how a unit of text is constructed and how the
components of a unit affect its function in the larger text.
8 These are the Generations

text linguistics18 to shed light on the significance of variations in the toledot

formula and to analyze the heading and preservative functions of the toledot
formula and genealogies. However, first we should look a bit more at some
more fundamental methodological questions before focusing in on the precise
method(s) that will be used in the present work.

Method: Different Approaches, Different Questions

Returning to the question of why we are studying the toledot formula to uncover
the organization and meaning in Genesis and the Pentateuch, methodology pro-
vides a part of the answer. Source-­critical and redaction-­critical concerns and
questions have been the primary — though not only — driving forces behind
the study of this formula over the past century, as we have seen. Redaction-­and
source-­critical studies involving the toledot formula have been appropriate for the
questions that the scholars employing these methods have asked. As one might
recognize, the questions we ask drive the kind of examination we undertake and
largely determine the (types of) answers we find. The diachronic study of the
toledot formula has shed light on both the role of the priestly material in orga-
nizing the book of Genesis and on the concerns and techniques of those priestly
authors/redactors. We know, however, that these compositional questions are
not the only possible questions in seeking to understand the biblical text.
Roy F. Melugin distinguishes two types of questions that exegetes may ask.
Questions of compositional history may well help us to gain insights into the
historical development of the religion of ancient Israel: “Attempts to reconstruct
Israelite religion might conceivably have an interest in reconstructing the redac-
tion history of a text.”19 Melugin contrasts this with what he calls “endeavors to
interpret biblical texts for the sake of aiding present-­day communities of faith to
use the text for imaginatively constructing a symbolic world for transformation
of identity and behavior.”20 The first set of questions thus attempts to reconstruct
the religious history of Israel while the second interprets those same texts for
the construction of religious identities for the present and future. He asserts that
these two different types of questions — the reconstruction of religious history

18. Discourse analysis and text linguistics, interchangeable terms in the literature,
refer to the study of how the form and organization of written language (in addition to
content) help us understand the meaning that was intended.
19. Roy F. Melugin, “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response,”
in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century (ed. Marvin A.
Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 64 n. 60.
20. Melugin, “Form Criticism in an Age of Reader Response,” 63.
 Introduction 9

or the formation of a religious present and future — “might well require differ-
ent kinds of exegetical strategies.”21
Discussions of the questions that exegetes ask point to what may be seen as
the fundamental methodological division of our time: diachronic v. synchronic
approaches. A brief survey of the differences and points of contact is in order.
To borrow an image from physics, when a scientist wants to measure an elec-
tron’s activities, s/he has a decision to make: will s/he measure the electron’s
velocity (movement) or its position (at a moment in time)? Quantum mechan-
ics has taught us that the two questions are mutually exclusive in a way, due
to the interaction of the scientist with the electron. This dilemma is known as
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “The principle tells us that we can know
either quantity [velocity or position] as accurately as we like. All it says is that
we cannot know them both at the same time with high accuracy. As in so many
things in life, there is a tradeoff.”22 Faced with the dilemma of examining the
development of a biblical book or examining its final form (or form at any one
given stage in the process), biblical scholars run up against a conundrum not
unlike that faced by particle physicists. The composition history of a text (its
movement through time) and its state at any given moment of time may not
be as mutually exclusive as the constraints on the measurement of an electron,
but they are often presented as such. In fact, insights on one of these questions
may often point toward directions for study in the other, as in using the results
of synchronic study to point the way for examination of redactional seams.23 As
much as we may wish to use these two approaches in tandem at times, the bibli-
cal scholar still has a decision to make at the outset of a study: which approach
will be the primary one, or at least the starting point, for their study.
By asking different questions, we may find a path through this decision-
­making process. With different questions, different methods of obtaining
answers are needed. The organization of the book of Genesis, and the Pentateuch
as a whole, are not addressed completely by source-­and redaction-­critical
approaches. Insights from newer methodologies are needed to address fully (or,
properly, more fully) the purpose of the toledot formula and the organization

21. Melugin, “Form Criticism in an Age of Reader Response,” 64.

22. In measuring both at the same time, we are left with sets of probabilities regard-
ing either velocity or position. James Trefil, The Nature of Science: An A–Z Guide to the
Laws and Principles Governing Our Universe (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003), 200.
23. For example, David M. Carr attempts to begin with analysis of the final form of
Genesis to uncover its compositional history in his Reading the Fractures of Genesis:
Historical and Literary Approaches, (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996).
10 These are the Generations

of Genesis as a whole. For example, Brevard Childs, in his call for a canoni-
cal perspective within biblical studies, points out that a passage that had a
particular meaning within the earlier context of a source or earlier revision of
a biblical book may have quite a different function and meaning in its final
redaction.24 This raises the question as to which function the scholar is trying
to uncover, the function in the text as we have it or in some earlier version of
the present text.
Indeed, it is becoming clear to many scholars that the best way of finding the
redactional seams pointing to a history within the text is to study the structure
and organization of its present form for inconsistencies of various types.25 As
Stephen Lieberman puts it, “one must describe before one explains.” On this
basis, he argues that a “synchronic rather than a diachronic approach seems
appropriate at this stage.” In his case, “this stage” is working toward the “basic
features of the system [of graphemes of the Tiberian Bible], rather than to
describe it fully.”26 While the aims of the present project are quite different, an
understanding of the basic system of organization of the toledot formula in its
present context should prove useful, if not indispensable, to any exploration of
its pre-­history.
Starting from the final form may have other advantages. Such an approach
may lead us away from conjectural readings of sources where there may be a
simpler explanation from the immediate or wider literary context. Before turn-
ing to diachronic solutions to difficulties in a text, it is good to examine the text
in its own right, in its literary and historical/cultural contexts, to see if there is
need for the historical conjecture at all. In a similar vein, before deeming the
Hebrew of the MT as corrupt at some point, it is often advisable to examine
the text more carefully — perhaps with the help of some ancient/medieval exe-
getes — to see if the text did make clearer sense in an earlier generation. Or, if
the versions are in disagreement in a segment of text, perhaps this reflects that
the ancient translators were wrestling with the same difficult Hebrew that we
still wrestle with, rather than a different Hebrew Vorlage.27 This avoidance of

24. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London: SCM,
1979), 149–50.
25. For example, see the approach of Carr in Reading the Fractures of Genesis.
26. Stephen J. Lieberman, “Toward a Graphemics of the Tiberian Bible,” in Linguistics
and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 256.
27. James A. Sanders, “The Task of Text Criticism,” in Problems in Biblical Theology:
Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim (ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 325–26.
 Introduction 11

speculation except for when inevitable hearkens to the principle of Occam’s

Razor, in which the simplest explanation is given weight over more cumber-
some ones.28

Form Criticism and Beyond

The approach of the present study may be defined broadly as form critical:
“broadly,” because this study takes into account recent developments within
and beyond form criticism. Form criticism has come a long way from its ori-
gins with Hermann Gunkel and his disciples. This method’s strength comes
from its ability to adapt as the field has developed. Its interests in the surface
structure of passages, identification of typical elements among similar passages,
taking contexts of various types into account, and identifying the intentions of
the text have kept the method relevant, even as it has had to develop to take
new approaches into account. One example of the interaction and growth of
form criticism in contact with another methodology may be seen in one of the
more recent volumes of the Forms of the Old Testament Literature commentary
series — arguably the state-­of-­the-­art in form-­critical work these days. Ehud
Ben Zvi’s volume on Micah draws heavily on insights from reader response
criticism. In setting the stage for his form-­critical examination, he defines his
object in terms of a “reread” text; that is, a text that was produced for the pur-
pose of being “read and reread and meditated upon.”29 In contrast to attempts
to uncover the author’s intention through the study of typical forms, what we
have here is the examination of the structure of a biblical book with an eye to
its intended effect upon the person reading the text over and over. Ben Zvi’s
interest is in the “primary readership”30 at whom it was originally aimed; he
identifies this readership as a postmonarchic, post-­exilic “temple community
around Jerusalem, particularly in the Persian II period (ca. 450–332 B.C.E.).”31
He bases this identification on a combination of features within the book itself
and on knowledge of the history of this time. Thus, he fuses a reader-­oriented
approach with a historical one.
Significantly for the present study, Ben Zvi grounds his form-­c ritical

28. “What Occam actually said was, ‘Non sunt entia multiplicanda oracter nec-
cessitatem,’ which translates roughly as, ‘Hypotheses should not be multiplied without
reason.’” Trefil, The Nature of Science, 304. It seems that there could be wisdom in heed-
ing Occam in biblical scholarship.
29. Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 5.
30. Ben Zvi, Micah, 6.
31. Ben Zvi, Micah, 10.
12 These are the Generations

e­ xamination of Micah in the final form of the book. He does this on grounds
also related to a reader orientation. The following illustrates his argument:

[N]o textually inscribed markers indicate that the readership of the book was
asked to reread the book or any READING within it in a manner governed by
their own awareness of either any proposed redactional history of the book, or
by the place of the relevant READING in a text other than the present book of
Micah . . . Indeed, it is far more likely that communities of rereaders will con-
tinually reread a certain book that they accept as YHWH’s word in a way that
is governed by the actual text of the book and its textually inscribed demands
than by the text of an alternative — and hypothetical — book that they are not
reading, rereading, copying, and studying.32

These are significant statements for a form critic to make. He is asserting that
on the basis of the structure and content of the text itself, there are no indicators
that this text functioned in some way other than in its final form. It may well be
that earlier forms of the book may have existed and may even have been read
in a similar way — as Scripture — to the final product, but there is no evidence
for this within the text we have before us. This accords with the statement above
about a synchronic reading (particularly with reference to surface structure)
leading to redactional seams. The final form of the text then becomes the arbiter
for such conclusions, as opposed to theories imposed from the outside.
Having laid some groundwork, we may now turn to deciding what we will
look for, in other words, the questions for this study. As we noted earlier, the
ways in which a message are communicated will significantly affect their mean-
ing. Ludwig Wittgenstein sought to understand the process of communication
through the idea of a “language game.”33 In this game, the players use words
— essentially clusters of sounds or marked symbols — in ways that conform
to certain rules of the game. For communication to be possible, both the sender
and receiver need to know the rules of the game, at least to a high enough degree
to allow for communication. If two people are playing a game, if one of them
thinks they are playing checkers and the other chess, serious misunderstandings
will result and game play will become quickly impossible. Similarly, in order

32. Ben Zvi, Micah, 7.

33. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical
Investigations (trans. G. E. M. Anscombe; 3rd edn; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), §7
(for a definition) and §23 (for examples). Wittgenstein’s concept is far too complicated
to be fully discussed here. For an introduction, see Kenny, Wittgenstein, 159–78.
 Introduction 13

to receive a message, the receiver — in our case, reader — must have at least
some concept of the rules under which the message was sent. For example, if
two people are trying to communicate, but are speaking different languages;
communication will be hampered, if not made impossible; unless, of course,
they both speak both languages. Such households and relationships do exist.
As Wittgenstein pointed out: “One has already to know (or be able to do)
something in order to be capable of asking a thing’s name.”34 By this, he asserts
that in order to reach the fundamental stages of communicating, we must have
a shared pool of knowledge and understandings already in place. These may
include conceptual worlds, a prior concept of the thing being communicated,
experience, etc. To promote communication, language systems often use vari-
ous indicators to clue the reader/hearer in on what kind of information is being
communicated. These may come in the form of different genre of literature
(poetry as opposed to prose), structural indicators (see below), stock phrases
(“Once upon a time . . .”), or any number of other indicators of meaning.
Genre criticism helps us to categorize similar types of communication
according to form and content. Form criticism has developed many ways of
understanding the clues of the language game played by various genres. Often,
however, genres are less clear, as is often the case in Genesis. Even if the genres
are more or less clear, they are grouped in ways that can confuse the reader as
to what type of literature they are reading. It is in these instances that structure
becomes of great importance. Klaus Koch recognized this in his examination of
the toledot formula when he stated: “From the structure of a written work, espe-
cially if it exhibits no clear genre, we may discover important text strategies of
the author.”35 Indeed, structure becomes more important where genre categories
begin to break down. In looking at Genesis in particular and the Pentateuch in
general, we see an interplay of genres that may be clarified to a great extent by
attending to the surface structure of the material.

Surface Structure Study

In turning to surface structure, we recognize that sets of rules exist that govern
the ways in which the elements of language, verbal or written, are structured.
In verbal communication in English, word order is an important structuring

34. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, §30.

35. Klaus Koch, “Die Toledot-­Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis”, in
Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament — Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass
zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß; Neukirchen-
­Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 184. (author’s translation)
14 These are the Generations

element. “Mary loves John” is a significantly different statement from “John

loves Mary.”36 Other languages may not stress word order, but rather inflected
forms of words. In any written communication, similar rules come into play.
Examination of surface structure is one way to uncover the rules and
perspective of a text. Repeated motifs and other similar devices help the reader/
hearer to follow the overall structure of the piece. Surface structure is a clue to
the underlying elements of the organization of written communication.37
An analogy will help to demonstrate the role that surface structure may play
in understanding, if not determining, the meaning of a text. The structure of lit-
erature is like the container into which a fluid is poured. Beer from the tap often
tastes quite different from the same beer from a bottle. I may say that the Czech
beer, Budvar, is quite good when tasted from the tap, but that it does nothing
for me from a bottle. In the bottle, I may prefer Gambrinus or Krušovice. Or,
for those who prefer a non-­alcoholic example, in my opinion, Mountain Dew
is much better from a can than from a bottle. This is all, of course, a matter
of personal taste, but the container/structure has affected the meaning/experi-
ence. It is for the beer or soda aficionados to determine whether the shape of
the container, its composition, exposure to light, or some other factor has made
the difference; my point is that the container affects the overall experience of
the contents, as well as making it possible to drink rather than lap our bever-
ages from the table.

Uncovering Surface Structure

The question then comes as to how one should go about uncovering the surface
structure (or shape of the container) of a text. Form criticism was mentioned
above, along with genre criticism. Genre criticism alone is inadequate to the job
at hand in the book of Genesis for reasons alluded to above. Genesis contains
a complicated assortment of genres that are often combined in ways that make
them difficult to sort out. In the case of Genesis, surface structure should guide
us to a fuller understanding of the meaning of the text as a whole.
In uncovering surface structure, we will rely on a number of methodological
tools. As mentioned above, repeated motifs are often an indicator of the struc-
ture of a book. In our case, the toledot formula provides a prime example of such
a repeated formula. Form-­critical tools will be supplemented by insights from

36. Kenny, Wittgenstein, 48.

37. On the benefits of studying the surface structure of the Bible, see David A. Dorsey,
“Can These Bones Live? Investigating Literary Structure in the Bible,” EvJ 9 (1991):
15–20.
 Introduction 15

the field of linguistics, allowing us to draw on the most recent insights into how
language is shaped to provide meaning. As we outline the basic shape and func-
tions of the formula in Chapter 1, insights from linguistics will prove helpful
in clarifying the ways in which various types of language function in context.
Linguistics will help us to see that the toledot formula should be thought of as
a heading for the material that follows. Syntactical examination will help us to
refine what we can say about the toledot formula, especially by looking at varia-
tions in the wording of the different occurrences (more on that in Chapter 2).
More will be said about the specifics of the methods in our toolbox as we come
to the point of using each method.

The Limits of Surface Structure as a Key to Meaning

Having made the case for the importance of examining surface structure to
uncover the meaning of a text, in this case Genesis and the Pentateuch, we now
must acknowledge the inherent limits in any one line of investigation.
First, it must be acknowledged that language is shaped by more than struc-
ture. Returning to the analogy of a beverage in a container, while the container
determines the shape the fluid will take, it does not normally change the fluid
in its essence, merely how it is perceived and how it may be interacted with.
If the fluid is milk, water, or hydrochloric acid, this will have a great impact
on the final drinking experience. In fact, even the specific contents may come
at odds with certain containers: new wine will burst old wineskins (Matt 9:17
// Mark 2:22 // Luke 5:37). Hydrochloric acid will react quite differently to a
metal container than to a glass one. It is the combination of fluid and container
(and wider context: companions, setting, etc.) that determine the final experi-
ence. Structure, semantics, pragmatics, the conceptual world, and many other
factors go into determining the meaning of a text.
Thus, surface structure is of necessity a limited enterprise. It will need the
supplemental insights of semantics, et al. in order to untangle the meaning of a
text. What surface structure provides is a clear handle on the literature we are
examining, in order to move on to other levels of examination.
Along those same lines, our use of language shapes the limits of our world.
Our reality (or perception thereof) is limited by the ways we have of talking
and thinking about it. One may argue counter to this assertion that reality has
its being in a way that is not contingent on us. However, recent advances in
physics show that the observer and the observed interact in the simple act of
observation. We are not impartial, separated observers of life; we are part of the
picture we make in our heads. Similarly, the universe is shaped, however subtly,
16 These are the Generations

by our perception of it.38 Beyond this, as reader response criticism has made us
aware, our use of language does shape our interpretation of the world, and our
interpretation of the world drives how we interact with it. Thus, regardless of
the status of reality “out there,” our language shapes how we interact with real-
ity, necessarily shaping our actions, ethics, and approach to life.
If language shapes the limits of our world, this makes the case for studying
surface structure while simultaneously de(con)structing it. If the use of lan-
guage limits our world and all we look at is surface structure, our world will be
limited to the mere face of the text in front of us. And not even the whole text,
as text is made up of more than the marks on a page.39 We may find that even
a simple survey of surface structure involves more than those simple marks on
the page. Those marks relate to one another in particular ways defined by the
use of language. Meaning is found in the interplay of the structure, semantics,
and pragmatics of a text and its reception. Surface structure is one component
of that interplay, but it cannot be entirely divorced from the other elements of
language. In effect, the study of surface structure becomes our way into the text.
Where we go from there remains to be seen.
One must also consider the knowledge and recognition of the reader, ancient
or modern, of the conventions and techniques of surface structure. The mod-
ern or postmodern scholar may read a text and recognize what appears to be
an intentional surface structure at work, but this does not mean that anyone
else necessarily read or reads it that way. We must keep in mind the contexts
in which these texts are and would have been read. For example, in the syna-
gogue, the Pentateuch, or Torah, is and was read in sections according to the
week.40 The divisions of these sections were often marked in the text, as may
be seen for instance in the Leningrad Codex. That a number of these sections
correspond with toledot headings should not surprise us, but in addition this cor-
respondence should lead us to suspect that seeing this heading as significant to
the structure of the book is not merely a modern invention. On the other hand,
in Christian churches using some form of lectionary, selected biblical readings

38. This certainly raises ethical questions about the ways in which we use language.
39. See the discussion of the definition of text in Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic
Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003), 131–35 and her discus-
sion of what constitutes a Classical Hebrew text on pp. 135–38.
40. According to the one-­year cycle of readings, only Gen 6:9 and 25:19 begin new
parashot. According to the three-­year cycle, Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 25:19 and Num 3:1 begin
new sedarim. More about these divisions, their markings in the Leningrad Codex, and
other sense divisions will be discussed in Chapter 2.
 Introduction 17

are often cut up into shorter passages, which do not even include many of the
passages studied here.41 In this setting, the significance of the toledot headings
may not be as readily obvious.
Did the authors/redactors really intend any of the things we read into these
texts by way of the surface structure? If we are concerned with how the text
was used and interpreted by its readers, this question may be, perhaps regretta-
bly, mostly irrelevant. If we are concerned with uncovering the historical and/
or conceptual world out of which the text arose, this might be more relevant.
In this second case, the surface structure becomes a means of understand-
ing what the authors/redactors may have been trying to communicate in their
work. This is not at all irrelevant to the reader of the first case for two reasons.
First, the reader is reading a text that has an objective reality; that is, it may
“object” to readings of it that go far beyond the parameters of the text itself.42
This is not as unreasonable as it may seem. If a text says “dog,” we are not
free to imagine it to be about an automobile or a cat, unless we are willing to

41. The Revised Common Lectionary is a three-­year cycle (A, B, and C) of readings
put together by a multi-­denominational body of North American churches, including pri-
marily Catholic and Protestant groups. Here is the occurrence of the toledot headings in
this lectionary:
Gen 2:4: at the end of 1:1–2:4a during Easter Vigil and on Trinity Sunday (A)
Gen 5:1: not included
Gen 6:9: at the beginning of 6:9–22; 7:24; 8:14–19 on Proper 4 (A) in a set of “semi-
­continuous Old Testament readings”
Gen 10:1: not included
Gen 11:10: not included
Gen 11:27: not included
Gen 25:12: not included
Gen 25:19: in 25:19–34 on Proper 10 (A) in the set of “semi-­continuous Old Testament
readings”
Gen 36:1: not included
Gen 36:9: not included
Gen 37:2: in 37:1–4, 12–28 on Proper 14 (A) in the set of “semi-­continuous Old
Testament readings”
Num 3:1: not included
Ruth 4:18: not included (3:1–5; 4:13–17 is included in Proper 27 [B]).
We may note that the four toledot headings that are included are all in more narrative
contexts. Also note the decision to end a reading with Gen 2:4a. (The Consultation on
Common Texts, The Revised Common Lectionary 1992: The Report from the Consultation
on Common Texts [Nashville: Abingdon: 1992], 112–13.)
42. Parker J. Palmer, To Know as We are Known: Education as Spiritual Journey (rev.
edn; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993), 100–101.
18 These are the Generations

admit a complete rereading, or even dismissal, of the text. The author/redac-

tor of a text has an impact on how we read the text by virtue of having chosen
what we are reading. Second, if we are interested in what the text has to say,
we should be willing to listen to the text as the artifact of a communication to
us from someone. However much we may be distanced — by time, geography,
language, custom, and the like — from the author/redactor, we are reading a
communiqué from another human being (or other human beings). If we are to
come to an understanding with this other, we must be willing to use whatever
tools we have to uncover elements of the identity of this person. This may be
a greatly limited enterprise, but any clues will help us to understand what the
text is attempting to communicate.

Method: A Summary and Outline

For the purposes and questions embodied in the present study, the most appro-
priate approach is to examine the surface structure of the final form of the
book of Genesis and the Pentateuch as represented in the MT. Such a study
will help us answer questions related to the purpose and trajectory of this
material as a whole. In order to uncover the surface structure of the book,
Chapter 1 (“Defining the toledot Formula: Syntax, Semantics, and Function”)
will examine the role of the toledot formula in shaping the overall structural
outline for the book. To do this, it will lay out the distinctive features of the for-
mula itself: syntactically, semantically, and functionally. The formula functions
as a heading and to drive the narrative through introducing the generations of
humanity in succession, drawing the reader’s focus to each character in turn,
narrowing the focus of the story.
Next, we will look at variations in the wording of these formulae in order
to discern levels within that outline. Chapter 2, “Variations in the Syntax of
the toledot Formula,” draws out the differences among the occurrences of the
toledot formula. Several types of variation will be discussed and weighed in
importance. Of most importance is the variation between occurrences of the for-
mula which begin with waw (and) and those which do not. Although seemingly
minor, this variation distinguishes levels of narrative focus for the different
family lines in the narrative. Thus, the actual wording of the formula not only
propels the narrative forward, but distinguishes which family lines will be
objects of narrative focus and which will not, shifting the reader’s focus from
sibling to sibling. We will find that the book of Genesis works purposefully in a
trajectory toward the story of Israel. The Pentateuch, likewise, narrows its focus
specifically on the formation of Israel through the establishment of its cultic
 Introduction 19

and civil leadership. This shifting function raises several questions. In shifting
the story, for example, away from Ishmael and toward Isaac, the very syntax of
the book appears to marginalize the descendants of Ishmael in favor of those
of Isaac. The text, read in this way, has been used to justify ethnic and political
animosity between Arabs and Jews for centuries. Words do have power.
In order to more fully understand the dynamics at play, we will then turn to
the role of genealogies in allowing for the narrowing of focus that the toledot
structure demands. Chapter 3, “Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative,”
explores the factors involved in the actual mechanism by which the focus of
the story is narrowed. How does the text lead the reader's attention from the
heavens and earth (the universe) to Jacob (one nation, Israel) in Genesis, and
ultimately to Aaron and Moses (representing cultic and civil leadership) in the
book of Numbers? Genealogies will be shown to function as repositories for
those family lines that will not be the narrative focus. By being recorded, they
are honored, yet become secondary to the main narrative thread. Going back
to the earlier example, Ishmael’s descendants are listed and preserved, so that
the narrative focus can return to Isaac without excluding Ishmael’s descendants
from the story completely.
Finally, divine covenants provide the basis upon which the narrowing of focus
is able to occur. Chapter 4, “Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of
Focus,” explores the role of divine–human covenants in altering the mechanism
of this narrowing of focus. Divine promises restrict the ways in which God can
interact with humanity and thus shape the ways in which the narrowing of focus
can happen. For example, in the story of Noah, killing off the rest of humanity
forms the basis on which the story is narrowed to his descendants alone. After
God promises never again to punish humanity in this way, another mechanism,
the choice or call of a subset of humanity, is needed.
Chapter 5 will summarize the results and contributions of the study and
points to areas for further research in the future.

Contributions to the Fields of Hebrew Bible, Religion, and the Humanities

In addition to filling a gap in Hebrew Bible scholarship and advancing our
understanding of the book of Genesis in the Pentateuch, this study hopes to
advance methodological questions concerning the use of linguistic and modified
form-­critical theories in the study of the Bible. In that sense, it should contrib-
ute to the studies of sacred texts in general within the field of Religion. Within
the field of the Humanities, this study raises issues not only of literary study,
20 These are the Generations

but also about how literature — indeed all language communication — con-
tributes to the status of peoples and people groups through the forms of speech
chosen and concepts expressed. My sincere hope is that this study will not be
restricted to the interests of Hebrew Bible scholars, but will contribute to the
academy at large with regards to these questions of how sacred texts — or any
important texts — shape social realities for communities and societies in which
those texts are widely read and referenced.
 21

Chapter 1

DEFINING THE TOLEDOT FORMULA:

SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, AND FUNCTION

In any investigation, one must endeavor to define the subject of the study before
one can say much about it. In the case of the current study, the toledot formula
is the subject of our study, and so as such must be defined, at least provisionally.
In this chapter, we will investigate the nature of the toledot formula according
to syntax and semantics, followed by some initial thoughts on its (pragmatic)
function. Coming chapters will explore the function of the formula more fully.
Here, the aim is to give some initial direction to those investigations.

Syntax of the toledot Formula

Although the major defining factor of the toledot formula is semantic (i.e.,
it contains the term toledot), we will start with the syntactic arrangement of
the formula. The syntax of the formula will become crucial in understand-
ing its usage in the book of Genesis and will be the basis for most of what
follows.
The first thing to note about the toledot formula is that it is a verbless clause.
The Hebrew language allows for such clauses, as do a number of other lan-
guages, although not most Indo-­European languages. Cynthia Miller states
about verbless clauses that “unlike ordinary clauses in which predication is
obtained by means of a finite verb, . . . [they] represent a predication by means
of the collocation of nominal elements apart from a fully inflected verbal form.”1
In other words, while a verbless clause may achieve a verbal or predicative

1. Cynthia L. Miller, “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause,” in The

Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (LSAWS 1. ed. Cynthia L.
Miller; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 3.
22 These are the Generations

sense, it does so without the presence of a verbal form itself. The identification
of the toledot formula as a verbless clause will prove important in outlining its
function, since verbless clauses share some common features in how they are
used in the Hebrew Bible.
Second, the toledot formula begins with a demonstrative pronoun: ‫ הלא‬or ‫הז‬
(in English, these or this). The demonstrative pronoun in each case forms the
subject of the verbless clause. The pronoun is then followed by another noun,
toledot. Within the structure of the verbless clause, this identifies the demon-
strative pronoun with the term toledot. The antecedent of the pronoun, unlike
in many other cases, here appears to be the following material. The this that is
meant at the beginning of the verbless clause is the material that follows the tole-
dot heading (the nature of the formula as a heading will be discussed below).
Finally, the verbless clause contains a proper noun or noun clause (see
Gen 2:4, 10:1, and Num 3:1) in a construct relationship with the word toledot.
Thus, in each case the this is the toledot of someone (or something: Gen 2:4).
Using a proper noun at this point in the clause gives the clause a definite focus,
as proper nouns are by definition definite nouns. They also contribute to the
function of the clause as we will discuss below.
Beyond these observations on syntactic features that toledot formulae share,
they also vary amongst themselves syntactically. These variations will be the
subject of the next chapter. For now, we will focus on those elements that
constitute the commonalities of the occurrences of the toledot formula.

Semantics of the toledot Formula

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, the definition of what constitutes a
toledot formula centers on the term toledot. Without the limitation imposed
by this term, the syntactical features alone could yield any number of simi-
lar formulae, such as the ‫ ׁשמות‬formula (Gen 25:13; 36:10, 40; etc.). Limiting
our focus to the toledot formula serves two basic functions. First, it keeps the
amount of material to cover reasonable for the scope of this study. Second,
and more important, it focuses our attention on a formula that appears at key
moments in the book of Genesis and is unique in its role in shaping the book
as we have it.
The meaning of the term toledot has been one of ongoing debate. As such,
I will leave it usually untranslated in this study, but the nature of the problem
of translation points to some of the issues involved in studying the toledot
formula. The term has its origins in the root ‫ילד‬, meaning “to give birth” or in
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 23

the case of men “to beget [offspring].”2 Toledot is a nominal form from that
root denoting the result of such bearing. The term’s basic sense “really means
begetting, fathering, from which there has been a linguistic development to
mean people who are related.”3 Generations, offspring, and descendants are the
most common English translations, although some scholars have preferred the
less-­specific history or family history.4 Carr convincingly points to diachronic
issues behind the confusion over translation. The term, and its corresponding
formula, is used in a range of contexts that have caused the basic meaning of
“biological offspring” to be stretched extensively. This stretching points to the
application of the term to contexts beyond those originally envisioned for the
term, and hence the formula. Application of the term to the heavens and earth,
for example, in Gen 2:4, strains the biological component of the term, while its
use in 6:9 to introduce the flood narrative strains the offspring element, since
much of the following (flood) narrative concerns Noah more than his sons.5
Confusion over just how to translate (and hence to understand) the term
points to variation in the semantic contexts in which the formula is used.
Often, the formula is used in the context of a genealogical list of some sort
(Gen 5:1; 10:1; etc.; cf. 1 Chr 1:29; 5:7; 7:2, 4; etc.). Here, the semantic context
is clearly that of descent and heredity. Thus, the semantic use of the term appears
to denote exactly that: the introduction of an account of the named progeni-
tor’s offspring. However, the term is also used to introduce narrative sections
concerned, more or less closely, with the named one’s descendants. While the
semantic field here is somewhat wider, the overall effect is to guide the reader
toward the intended subject — the offspring of the named person. The clear-
est case of this usage is in Gen 37:2, where the toledot section of Jacob begins
with the name of Joseph.
Two instances of the toledot formula appear at first to violate this general
rule. Gen 2:4 concerns the toledot of the heavens and the earth. Obviously no
biological meaning may be implied here, but the “offspring” of heaven and

2. HALOT, “‫ילד‬,” 411.

3. HALOT, “‫תֹּוֵלדוֹת‬,” 1700.
4. On the use of various terms to translate toledot, see Otto Eissfeldt, “Biblos
geneseōs,” in Gott und die Götter: Festgabe für Erich Fascher zum 60. Geburtstag. (ed.
Gerhard Delling, et al.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958), 32 and David M. Carr,
“Bi/bloj gene/sewj Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Pattern in Genesis as Part of
the Torah,” ZAW 110 (1998): 166–68. For a somewhat different perspective, see Jeffrey
Cohen, “These are the Generations of Isaac,” JBQ 19 (1990–1): 261–62.
5. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 167.
24 These are the Generations

earth may be thought of as humanity as embodied in Adam and Eve. Rabbinic

scholars understood this possibility as early as the sixth century C.E.6 In Genesis
Rabbah 12.7 and 8, the rabbis point, by analogy, to the rain and dew mentioned
in Job 38.28 as having a father (‫ )אב‬and begetter (‫הוליד‬, hiphil perfect from
‫)ילד‬, respectively.7 Gen 6:9, the toledot of Noah, presents a somewhat differ-
ent challenge. Noah’s toledot section appears more concerned with the story
of Noah and the flood than that of his sons. This does appear to be a widening
of the semantic range of the term. Even though the toledot section seems more
concerned with Noah himself, the immediate context of the formula in 6:9 con-
cerns Noah’s sons. Verse 10 introduces them just after defining the subject of
the toledot clause — Noah as righteous progenitor. Thus, even while this use
of the term is less closely tied to the ideas of heredity and offspring, they are
clearly present in the literary context. Noah’s toledot section is perhaps con-
cerned dually with the events of Noah’s life (i.e. the flood) and, in turn, the
world he leaves to his sons, his biological offspring.
Overall, the semantic situation can be summarized: we have a term that in its
basic meaning is concerned with the offspring of the person named by the term.
Over time, the semantic context of the term appears to have been extended, in
order to use it as a structural element, organizing a wider range of materials.
What unifies the use of the term is the focus on the march of generations of
humanity through time.
Briefly looking at the semantic functions of the term toledot leads us to note
that it adds to the cohesion of the text. Cohesion may be described as semantic
relationships that are not connected to structure.8 In this formula, the semantic
relationship built by the term toledot is that between progenitor (father) and
offspring (son[s]). This linkage is not achieved through the structure of the for-
mula, but is rather through the semantic range of the term toledot itself. Thus,
the use of toledot in the heading links the named subject (progenitor) — and
the preceding material about him/them — with the material that follows about
the offspring of this progenitor. In a similar way, the formula creates coherence
across the varied materials of the toledot sections by providing a semantic link
among the sections they introduce. At this point, we may move on to further
discussion of the ways the formula functions.

6. Harry Freedman, trans., Genesis (vol. 1 of Midrash Rabbah; ed. Harry Freedman
and Maurice Simon; London: Soncino, 1939), xxix.
7. Freedman, Genesis [Rabbah], 93–94.
8. Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Carlisle: Paternoster
Press, 2003), 138.
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 25

Functions of the toledot Formula

In this section we move beyond syntax and semantics into the realm of prag-
matic function. Adding together the syntax and semantics of the formula, how
is it used in the book of Genesis and beyond? Before moving ahead, however, a
brief look back at how the function of the toledot formula has been understood
in past scholarship is in order. We will see that most studies of the formula have
been interested in the role of the formula vis-­à-­vis the priestly material; thus, the
focus has been on compositional issues rather than the function of the formula
in the final form, as is our interest here.

The Function of the toledot Formula in Past Scholarship

In past studies, the toledot formula has generally been studied in the service of
other questions. In other words, the formula has not been studied for its own
sake, but rather to support some or another theory regarding either the structure
or composition of the Pentateuch. In surveying the studies of the past century,
several themes emerge. Our survey will proceed more by these themes than
chronologically, since it will help to clarify the various streams of thought.

The Place of the toledot Formula in the Priestly Material

The primary reason for studying the toledot formula in the past century has been
to uncover further either the structure or compositional history of the priestly
document or source. While this emphasis is quite different from the one in the
present work, a survey of the approaches and conclusions will help us to see
how this formula has been understood.
In the second decade of the twentieth century, Karl Budde set the tone for
most study of the toledot formula for at least the next half-­century in his two
articles: “Ellä toledoth” and “Noch einmal ‘Ellä toledoth.’”9 In these twin art­
icles, Budde discusses the theories of the composition of the Pentateuch. For the
bulk of the articles, he focuses on the work of the priestly author/redactor (P) in
organizing the book of Genesis. In outlining P’s contribution, he discusses the
various occurrences of the toledot headings or the “Tholedoth-­Überschriften.”
In his work, Budde was reacting to broader studies such as that of Wellhausen.10

9. Karl Budde, “Ellä toledoth,” ZAW 34 (1914): 241–53; Karl Budde, “Noch einmal
‘Ellä toledoth,’” ZAW 36 (1916): 1–7.
10. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York:
Meridian Books, 1957); repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland
Black and Allan Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: A. & C. Black,
26 These are the Generations

As such he was the first to focus specifically on the toledot heading itself as a
key to understanding the organization and character of P. He viewed the toledot
headings as coming from a single hand, that of the author of the P material.11
Following the source-­critical approach of his time, he attempted to show the
unity of these headings by harmonizing their variations through explanations
of how the form changed or was changed through the editing process.12
Once the tone had been set by Budde, others also studied the toledot head-
ings to see what they could add to the discussion of the P source. These studies
went in various directions, from thinking of the toledot headings as (1) a pre-
­priestly formula picked up by P to organize the material to (2) the foundation
of the priestly structuring of the history of Israel to (3) a redactional element
brought in to pull together the disparate materials of Genesis. Many studies
found, in fact, a combination of these three. One of the most influential ideas
has been that of the toledot book.

The toledot “Book.” In 1934, Gerhard von Rad explored the toledot formula
in his examination of the priestly writings in the Hexateuch.13 The uniqueness
of the form of the heading in Gen 5:1 (‫ )זה ספר תולדת אדם‬led him to develop
the idea that the formula was based on an original “Tōledōt-­Buch” of which this
verse was the original introduction. This “book” would have then been the basis
for P. The formula at the head of the toledot book was appended at key points
in the priestly writings to provide a uniform structure to the P material.
His suggestion has had a large impact upon the discussion of the toledot for-
mula since. Cross took von Rad’s idea and modified it: he saw the toledot book
as only encompassing the genealogies of Adam and Seth, although he allowed
the possibility that it contained more.14 Along those same lines, Weimar held

1885); trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd edn; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883).
Another scholar Budde was responding to was Rudolf Smend, but he laments that Smend
never committed to paper his thoughts on what actually belonged to the P document as
opposed to the P redactor. Budde, “Ellä toledoth,” 242.
11. Budde, “Ellä toledoth,” 245.
12. For example, he proposes that the formulas may have originally had the basic
form of Gen 25:19. In order to have 11:10 fit the pattern, he notes that it is likely that the
middle part of the formula fell out in the process of composition. Budde, “Ellä toledoth,”
247.
13. Gerhard von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: Literarish Untersucht und
Theologisch Gewertet (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament;
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934), 33–40.
14. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 27

to the toledot book hypothesis, allowing that it could encompass most of the
toledot series.15
Others have disagreed with von Rad and his followers. A couple of decades
after von Rad’s work, Otto Eissfeldt reviewed von Rad’s thesis and found it
wanting.16 He examined the occurrences of the toledot heading and concluded
that the formula was carefully crafted with its present role within P in mind, not
just a series of genealogies, as the toledot book idea posits.17 Another problem
with this view is that the formula here introduces only the material in ch. 5, not
an entire book. Those who have argued this often translate ‫ ספר‬as list or docu-
ment, rather than book, as von Rad would have it.18 For example, Gunkel points
out the wider semantic range of ‫ ספר‬in places such as Isa 50:1 and Jer 32:10
and the use of the term in Neh 7:5 to refer to a genealogical registry.19 Carr
argues that there are enough differences between the genealogies of Adam and
Seth to say that 5:1 only introduces the material in 5:1–32. He points to a lack
of “death notices and indications of total age” in 11:10–32. “Moreover it is not
obvious how these two genealogies . . . would have fit together into a coherent
document.”20 Carr decides that P must have used a portion of ch. 5 as the basis
for constructing Seth’s genealogy. One could also point to the use of ‫( אדם‬a
proper name) rather than ‫( האדם‬a general designation), indicating that the head-
ing should be read simply as the introduction to this section, rather than an entire
document.21 A couple decades earlier, Eichrodt had pointed to the ­variation

the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 301 and 305
n. 39.
15. Peter Weimar, “Die Toledot-­F ormel in der priesterschriftlichen
Geschichtsdarstellung,” BZ 18 (1974): 84–86. See Chapter 2 for a fuller examination of
Weimar’s work on the toledot series.
16. Eissfeldt, “Biblos geneseōs.”
17. Eissfeldt, “Biblos geneseōs,” 33–34.
18. For example, Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (trans. John J.
Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 355.
Westermann (355) asserts that the reason for the unique form of the toledot formula
here is that “in all other passages the title ‫ תולדות‬refers to narratives, but here merely to
a genealogy, i.e. to a list or a document.” However, as several of the other toledot head-
ings introduce sections dominated by genealogies (e.g., 10:1; 25:12; 36:1, 9), one is at a
bit of a loss to know to what Westermann is referring.
19. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis. (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922), 134.
20. David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary
Approaches (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 72 n. 47.
21. See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary
28 These are the Generations

in meaning of the term toledot, which points to a more complex relationship

among the toledot headings than being part of a single document.22

P as a Redactional Layer Cross’s renewing of von Rad’s idea of the toledot

book was only one part of his work on the formula. With the publication of
his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Moore Cross renewed interest in
the formula and took it in a somewhat different direction. In a chapter on “The
Priestly Work,” Cross reexamined the P source of the Pentateuch, arguing that
rather than being an independent document, P consisted of an expansion and
redaction of the JE epic.23 In outlining his view of P as a supplemental layer
upon existing traditions, Cross examined the toledot formula in Genesis to show
how P used this formula to impose a structure on the narratives and other literary
forms of Genesis.24 As just discussed, Cross asserted that P derived the toledot
formula from “an ancient document, the se4per to=le]do4t )a4da4m,” similar to von
Rad’s posited source for the formula.25 P then imposed the formula found in this
document upon the narrative and other literature of Genesis. After a discussion
of the covenants presented in P, Cross examined each occurrence of the toledot
formula as a part of P’s redactional way of organizing the Pentateuch. Having
discussed the toledot formula, he moved on to the organization of Exodus–
Numbers. For this material, he posited that P used the List of Stations found in
Numbers 33 as raw material with which to create redactional headings for the
various stages of the journey.26 Through these examinations, he asserted that P
used a few documents, mainly lists, to create redactional headings with which
to organize the Pentateuch. The toledot formula was one of these headings.27
Sven Tengström’s book, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der
priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch, is the most thorough study
of the toledot formula to date.28 Tengström built upon Cross’s work in his study

[Electronic edition] 1; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 32 and 126 for a discussion of
the two forms.
22. Walther Eichrodt, Der Quellen der Genesis von neuen Untersucht (BZAW 31;
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1916), 22–23.
23. Cross, CMHE, 293–325.
24. Cross, CMHE, 301–7.
25. Cross, CMHE, 301.
26. Cross, CMHE, 308.
27. Cross, CMHE, 321.
28. Sven Tengström, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterli-
chen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 17;
Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1981).
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 29

of the formula for the purpose of upsetting the documentary hypothesis entirely,
although his results are closer to a supplementary hypothesis model.29 Because
of this focus, Tengström spent quite a bit of his book discussing previous work
on P and the implications of his study for understanding P. Central to his book,
however, is an examination of the toledot formula itself. Tengström posited two
main types of toledot formulae.30 First is the erzählerische (“narrating”) type
which is used to introduce the story of the next set of the ancestors of Israel.
This use of the formula is concerned with tracing the continuity of Israel’s
past. Second is the aufzählende (“ennumerative”) use of the formula to intro-
duce Stammtafeln (“tribal trees”) which are concerned with the relationship
between Israel’s ancestors and the other nations of Israel’s world.31 The occur-
rences of the toledot formula as categorized by Tengström may be summarized
as follows:

Erzählerische/narrating genealogies: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; 11:27; 25:19;

37:232
Aufzählende/Stammtafeln/tribal trees: 10:1; 25:12; 36:1; 36:9.33

In this, he based his division of the toledot formulae primarily on the con-
text of the toledot formula and its function with respect to the overall story of
Genesis.
The “tribal tree” use of the formula defined Israel’s neighbors and their rela-
tionship to Israel. This effectively allowed Tengström to set aside these uses
when speaking of the continuation of the line of Israel. The “narrating” uses of
the form dealt with the ancestors of Israel and are therefore the primary focus
of the story of Genesis. In dividing the toledot formulae in this way, Tengström
could form his arguments regarding the structure of P’s framework. Once the
tribal tree uses of the formula are removed from consideration, we are left with

29. Eugene Carpenter, “Recent Pentateuchal Studies,” AsTJ 41 (1986): 23. Carpenter
calls Tengström’s approach an “epic-­complementary approach,” based mainly on his
work in Die Hexateucherzählung (Sven Tengström, Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine lit-
eraturgeschichtliche Studie [Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 7; Uppsala: CWK
Gleerup, 1976]).
30. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 19. More will be said about these two types in the
next chapter.
31. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 25.
32. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 19 and 32.
33. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 21 and 27–28.
30 These are the Generations

seven uses in the narrating style of the formula in Genesis. Tengström then
compared this scheme with the seven days of creation, arguing that P presents
the prehistory of Israel as analogous to the creation of the world. Several objec-
tions could be raised to this conclusion. For example, it may be noted that the
hearers of Genesis could not be expected to understand Tengström’s distinc-
tion between the uses of the toledot formula and then make the connection to
the creation narrative.
In addition to defining two different uses of the toledot formula, Tengström
examined the ways in which the toledot sections are arranged. Examining the
uses of the toledot formula to introduce genealogies, he used form-­critical
observations to isolate the bracketing formulae from the genealogies them-
selves.34 Form-­critical examinations like these allowed Tengström to bolster
his arguments regarding the uses of the formula.
Although he used form-­critical methods to examine the uses and function of
the toledot formulae, Tengström’s differentiation among the uses of the tole-
dot formula is based, not purely — or even mainly — on syntactic factors, but
upon the use and context of the formulae. For instance, in noting that the tole-
dot formula often occurs in the vicinity of some form of the verb ‫ילד‬, he says:
“The immediate context here assists in the interpretation of the formula.”35 He
is speaking here of the immediate context, but the perspective is illustrative of
his approach. His work is thus a more detailed analysis of the toledot formula
along the lines first outlined by Budde almost 70 years earlier.
Bernard Renaud took on Tengström’s reading of P as a redactional layer
through his own analysis of the toledot formula.36 He outlined the toledot for-
mula as the first of two indicators of the structure of the patriarchal story in
Genesis. His second indicator was the genealogical elements found in genea-
logical lists and also scattered in the narratives.
In a similar way to Tengström, Renaud identified two different kinds of
toledot sections, based on their genealogical elements: the “schéma narratif
[narrative scheme]” and the “schéma énumératif [enumerative scheme].”37
The regular alternation of the two types of genealogical expression and the

34. See, for example, on Genesis 10, Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 21–22.
35. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 18 (author’s translation; emphasis Tengström’s).
36. Bernard Renaud, “Les généalogies et la structure de l’histoire sacerdotale dans le
livre de la Genèse,” RB 97 (1990): 5–30.
37. Renaud, “Les généalogies”, 8–9. He also criticized Peter Weimar for not dealing
sufficiently with the genealogical material. (Renaud, “Les généalogies”, 6; see below for
a discussion of Weimar’s work).
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 31

theological intentionality that Renaud saw in the scheme led him to conclude that
the material must have been a part of a P document or source, rather than simply
a redactional layer, no matter how elegantly Tengström had analyzed it.38

Summary Much of the study of the toledot formula in the past century focused
on the function of the formula within the P source for the Pentateuch. The pres-
ent study, on the other hand, is interested in the function of the formula in the
final form of the Pentateuch, so the methods, questions, and conclusions of
this study will necessarily be different from that of most previous studies of
this material. In order to examine the toledot formula in the final form of the
Pentateuch, we will turn for methodological help to newer insights from the
field of linguistics.

Finding the Functions: Linguistic Help

Above, we noted that the semantics of the formula serve to provide a sense of
cohesion within the text. By linking generation to generation, the toledot for-
mula maintains a sense of continuity across the diverse materials of Genesis.
The reader’s attention is focused from time to time on the ongoing nature of the
narrative, not only through such devices as waw-­consecutive chains, but also
through this reminder of the continuity of the generations of those upon whom
the narrative is focusing.
In addition to this function of maintaining cohesion and continuity in the nar-
rative, the formula also alerts the reader — syntactically and semantically — to
the presence of new material. The formula provides background information
about the subject matter that is coming and reintroduces the progenitor whose
offspring the narrative is about to turn to. In this way, the formula bridges the
gap between the known progenitor (cohesion and continuity) and the unknown
offspring (rheme, assertion, change of topic; see below). By referencing a char-
acter by name about whom we have already been reading in the narrative, the
reader is alerted to the possibility that something is happening to which s/he
should pay attention. In fact, this is the case with any background information:
“The insertion of background information into a narrative serves to arrest the
reader’s progress, either to highlight a particularly significant moment in the
narration or to provide a means of distinguishing one subsection of the narrative

38. Renaud, “Les généalogies”, 30.

32 These are the Generations

from what follows.”39 In this case, the background information is the reminder
of the progenitor whose narrative or genealogy we have been following.

Theme and Rheme

Another way of saying this would be to say that the name of the progenitor
is the theme, whereas the term toledot points to the rheme of the upcoming
narrative. The concept of theme and rheme developed in the works of Vilém
Mathesuis of the Prague School of linguistics.40 Theme is that which the reader
already knows, usually because it has been recently discussed in the text, while
the rheme is new information about the stated topic. In the way Mathesius used
the terms, theme precedes rheme in a sentence, unless some special emphasis
or effect is aimed at.41 Two potential problems arise with the use of Mathesius’s
formulation of theme and rheme with respect to Hebrew grammar. In the Czech
language — the language of Mr. Mathesius — word order is relatively fluid due
to it being an inflected language. Mainly by means of various endings attached
to words, such things as case, gender, and person may be indicated virtually
independent of word order.42 This allows for the placement of theme before
rheme in just about any circumstance. In other languages, however, such as
English, word order determines more than emphasis and theme, so the asser-
tion that theme will always precede rheme is a bit more problematic. Hebrew
is inflected, with various prefixes and suffixes to indicate various grammatical
information, but the assertion that the theme of the sentence would precede the
rheme is problematic, since Hebrew has a fairly set word order, modified by a
number of different factors.43
A second problem with theme and rheme involves two senses in which the
terms are used in linguistic literature. One sense of the terms is that mentioned
above, as a distinction between information known to the reader (theme) and
information that is new to the reader (rheme). This way of speaking of theme
and rheme relates to the information structure of a discourse. On the other

39. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 147.

40. For background on the Prague School, see Lubomir Doležel, “Prague School
Structuralism,” in The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism (ed. Michael
Groden and Martin Kreisworth; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994),
592–95.
41. Geoffrey Sampson, Schools of Linguistics (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1980), 104.
42. Sampson, Schools of Linguistics, 105.
43. See GKC, §142f.
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 33

hand, the terms are also used to speak of thematic structure. Thematic structure
differentiates between a statement’s departure point (theme) and its arrival point
(rheme). A statement begins somewhere and ends somewhere else; otherwise it
is pointless, giving no information at all. In most ordinary discourse the depar-
ture point of a statement will correspond with information already known to
the reader, then the statement will move toward new information as its arrival
point. However, this is not always the case. Thus, some linguists distinguish
these two uses of the terms while others do not.44
Theme in the toledot formula partakes of both of these senses of theme and
rheme. In terms of information structure, the theme is represented by the name
of the progenitor who has already been introduced in previous narrative. The
rheme is signaled by the word toledot itself. (Note that theme and rheme are
already out of order, according to Mathesius.) The term points ahead to new
information: namely, information about the offspring of the theme character.
The toledot formula alerts the reader that the narrative will now shift focus from
the named progenitor to the offspring of that progenitor. Thus, the term toledot
in the formula functions as a marker of the new information and an indicator
of its type. After a toledot heading, the verse continues with additional infor-
mation that could also be seen as a continuation of the rheme introduced by
the term toledot.
In terms of thematic structure, the term toledot introduces the departure point
for the statement. The point of departure (theme) for this section of discourse
will be the toledot of the named progenitor. This accords with what we have
already observed — and will observe — in the use of the formula. The arrival
point (rheme), then, is the material in the rest of the verse and what follows.
Here we see that theme and rheme are similar, but definitely not identical, in
their two different uses. For example, the term toledot introduces new infor-
mation, but in a way that provides the point of departure for the subsequent
narrative. Thus, the term toledot is theme according to thematic structure, but
rheme according to information structure.
Identification of the informational rheme, toledot, with the thematic theme
leads to topicalization: “the process whereby a writer brings into prominence
new information and puts it in the given information slot or topic position.”45
By using the term toledot as a point of departure with new information, the

44. Geoffrey Payne, “Functional Sentence Perspective: Theme in Biblical Hebrew,”

SJOT 5 (1991): 63–64.
45. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 150.
34 These are the Generations

reader’s progress is arrested, as the new information is assimilated into what the
reader already knows. The new information comes unexpectedly at the begin-
ning of the statement, thus signaling a new topic for discussion. For example,
in Deut 31:29, Moses is giving rationale for his song about to come in ch. 32
by pointing out that the people will be disobedient after his death. However, in
order to introduce this new information about his impending death, the verse
reorders the information so that his death is mentioned before the clause that
it is modifying: ‫ידעתי אחרי מותי כי־הׁשחת תׁשחתון‬. By placing the phrase about
his death before the ‫ כי‬clause it is modifying, the attention is drawn to the topic
of Moses’ death. This, then, leads into the Song of Moses.46
In the toledot formula, the new topic of the narrative, the offspring, is the
rheme or assertion of the formula. The term toledot signals the topic of the com-
ing material. Verbless clauses often, although by no means always, are used
to mark these types of topical transitions: “. . . verbless clauses, are informa-
tionally marked, they typically signal informational discontinuity or discourse
transition from one unit to another.”47 A word of caution, however; just because
we find linguistic evidence of a change in topic we “cannot know what was in
the mind of the producer of a CH [Classical Hebrew] text and neither can [we]
know what that producer presumed was in the mind of the intended receiver.”48
Though this linguistic observation points toward the toledot formula as a topi-
cal marker, we need to build an argument for a topical change on more than the
basis of linguistic features alone.

Presupposition and Assertion

Another way that linguists speak of the functions of theme and rheme is as pre-
supposition and assertion. This is similar to Knierim’s idea of concept, in which
the author/redactor omits information assumed to be shared knowledge among
the intended audience (presupposition), while spelling out information which is
intended to be new (assertion).49 Groom explains presupposition and assertion
saying, “Sentences typically contain some lexical or grammatical indication of

46. Barry L. Bandstra, “Word Order and Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative:
Syntactic Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective,” in Linguistics and
Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 120.
47. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 149.
48. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 146.
49. Rolf P. Knierim, Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in Exegetical
Method (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 1. Knierim
uses this idea, for example, to argue that Lev 1:1–7 is a prescription for the procedure of
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 35

the information which is assumed to be already activated in the reader’s mind,

as a basis or point of departure for the new information to be added.”50 Thus,
presupposition and assertion correspond to the theme and rheme of informa-
tion structure, respectively. The toledot formula presupposes the existence in
the text and reader’s knowledge of the named progenitor, because no definition
of the person’s characteristics is normally given to the progenitor at that point
(for an exception, see Gen 6:9). In other words, it is assumed that the character
is known to the audience. The assertion of the statement is the offspring as the
new focus for the narrative. In the case of the toledot formula, then, the absence
of definition to the named progenitor is a grammatical marker of the presump-
tion of knowledge by the reader, and the term toledot is a lexical marker of
information not assumed to be known to the reader already.

Identifiability and Activation

Yet another set of terms attempting to explain this phenomenon is identifiabil-
ity and activation. This set of terms turns the focus more solidly toward the
interaction of the reader with the text. The focus is on the author’s and reader’s
minds at the time of interaction, recognizing that for written texts (as opposed
to spoken communication) the two parts of the interaction may be separated
by a span of time. An identifiable element is known to both author and reader,
and so may be merely referred to, either pronominally or in some other indir­
ect way. An unidentifiable element is only present in the mind of the speaker/
author and must be defined to the hearer/reader. If an element is unidentifiable
to the reader, communication will break down.
In addition to being identifiable to the reader, in order for communication
to occur, the referent must also be active in the mind of the reader. This often
means that the referent has been mentioned recently in the discourse. If a ref-
erent is not active in the current context, it must be activated by the author by
being introduced more fully within the text. This introduction may be a full, ini-
tial introduction in the case of an unidentifiable referent, or it may be a shorter
reintroduction of a character, for example, who had already been introduced,
but not mentioned recently in the text.
In the case of the toledot formula, what is needed is simply the reintroduction
of the progenitor, since the progenitor in each case has already been introduced

sacrifice for a priest who already knows the traditions “that he must kill, skin, dissect the
animal, and wash its entrails.” Knierim, Text and Concept, 101.
50. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 141.
36 These are the Generations

fully to the reader. The toledot formula, then, reactivates the character of the
progenitor in the mind of the reader. Since the character is already known —
identifiable — referring to the progenitor by name (as opposed to by means of
a pronoun) is enough of a reintroduction. Recalling that proper names are def­
inite nouns by definition51: “Definite noun phrases often (but not always) serve
to indicate an identifiable referent . . . [and this may be] because it has been
mentioned earlier in the discourse.”52 The definite reference to the progenitor
reactivates them in the mind of the reader in order to identify the following
persons and/or narrative (i.e. as the offspring of the progenitor). That the pro-
genitor is named without definition (the exception again being Gen 6:9) shows
that the character is presumed to be known by the reader. Once the character
is reactivated by the toledot formula, the identifiable element may again be
referred to pronominally.
One implication of these observations is that it tells us something about the
expectations on the reader by the author/redactor of the text: we are expected
to have read and/or heard earlier sections of the narrative and not to have sim-
ply begun reading at the toledot heading. Although determinations of setting
are notoriously difficult,53 this could point to a liturgical or study setting, where
the text would be read on a recurring or ongoing basis. Identifiability and acti-
vation begin to move beyond theme and rheme, as well as presupposition and
assertion, into the realm of the reader’s mind. Here, we are not just seeing the
introduction of new information, but beginning to reflect on how such informa-
tion might have been received by the reader.
Building on this turn toward the reader, another aspect of this introduction of
information is that it gives the reader a sense of context before launching into
new material. “Readers need to know what a text is about in order to under-
stand it.”54 This idea has implications beyond literary works, as we saw above
in Wittgenstein’s saying: “One has already to know (or be able to do) something
in order to be capable of asking a thing’s name.”55 Before we can wonder or ask

51. On definiteness, see Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the
Pentateuch (JBL Monograph Series 14; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 32 and 109
(Table 1).
52. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 142.
53. See, for example, Roy F. Melugin, “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of
Reader Response,” in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century
(ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 57–58.
54. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 133.
55. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 37

the name of the next focus for our narrative, we need a concept that a next gen-
eration exists and is in fact imminent within the narrative.56 Thus, the formula
provides necessary information to the reader to clue them in to the subject for
the upcoming discourse.

The toledot Formula as a Heading

All of this above discussion leads to and supports the function of the toledot
formula as a heading. A good heading provides continuity with the preceding
material while presenting new material that will be the subject of the follow-
ing section. As seen above, the toledot formula fulfills these functions. Another
feature of a heading is that it causes the reader to pause and notice that a new
section is at hand. Verbless clauses, as noted above, perform this function, but
do not always mark major divisions. In the case of the toledot formula, several
features of the formula coalesce to cause this pause on the part of the reader/
hearer. Uses of the proper name are “normally associated with paragraph
borders.”57 Because the subject of the narrative is known, the use of the proper
name arrests the reader’s progress and refocuses, and reactivates, their atten-
tion on the identity of the subject of the narrative. In the case of the toledot
formula, this reminder to the reader serves to allow the introduction of a new
character by relating them to the already-­known progenitor, about whom the
reader already has information.
An element of Francis I. Andersen’s investigation of verbless clauses bolsters
this identification of the toledot formula as a heading. “When both S[ubject] and
P[redicate] are definite, the predicate has total semantic overlap with the sub-
ject . . . This may be called a clause of identification.”58 In the toledot formula,
the subject and predicate are both definite by virtue of consisting of a pronoun

Investigations (trans. G. E. M. Anscombe; 3rd edn; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968)

§30.
56. Another wonderful example of this principle comes from the science fiction tril-
ogy of C. S. Lewis: “‘He gazed about him, and the very intensity of his desire to take
in the new world [Malacandra, a planet] at a glance defeated itself. He saw nothing but
colours — colours that refused to form themselves into things. Moreover, he knew noth-
ing yet well enough to see it: you cannot see things until you know roughly what they
are [emphasis mine]. His first impression was of a bright, pale world — a water-­colour
world out of a child’s paint-­box.’” (C. S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet [12th printing;
New York: Macmillan, 1959], 40; quoted in Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics
& Biblical Interpretation [London: SPCK, 1989], 59).
57. Groom, Linguistic Analysis, 150.
58. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 32 (emphasis his).
38 These are the Generations

and a proper noun.59 Thus, all variations of the toledot formula are clauses of
identification. According to Andersen, identification clauses which contain
“ze, zo4)t, )e4lle” are “clauses which serve as titles, occasionally as colophons
. . . They refer forward to something not yet mentioned.”60 Thus, these indepen-
dent versions of the toledot formula are headings for the material that follows
them. Structurally, this places them as the headings in any outline of the book
of Genesis. They are an organizing principle of the book.
This function as heading is not without its potential problems and detractors.
Gen 2:4 is the usual target of such skepticism. Much has been written on both
sides in this ongoing argument. Many of those who see the formula here as a
subscription, base this on a source-­critical distinction between 2:4a (P) and 2:4b
(J or JE). Those who approach this verse from a diachronic perspective wrestle
with whether the formula here is original to P or modeled on other occurrences
of the formula by a later redactor. John Skinner’s approach to this verse is a
good example of the types of complexities involved:

The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic of P; and

in that document it invariably stands as introduction to the section following
. . . in this formula it is always followed by Gen of the progenitor, never of
the progeny: hence by analogy the phrase must describe that which is gener-
ated by the heavens and the earth, not the process by which they themselves
are generated.61

So far, all he has said points to 2:4 as a superscription, but finally he writes
“neither as superscription nor as subscription can the sentence be accounted for
as an integral part of the Priestly Code . . . [It must be] a mechanical imitation
of the manner of P by a later hand.”62 Many others have seen it as a conclud-
ing formula to the creation story of Gen 1:1–2:3. For example, George Coats
views it this way in his structural outlines,63 while bringing nuance to his posi-
tion in his detailed discussion of the creation story. In discussing the creation

59. On definiteness, again, see Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 32 and 109
(Table 1).
60. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 40.
61. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd edn; ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930), 40–41.
62. Skinner, Critical Commentary on Genesis, 41.
63. George Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL 1;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 16 (Hexateuch), 18 (priestly source), 28 (the ­patriarchal
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 39

story in 1:1–2:4a (his designation), he notes the following regarding the for-
mula in 2:4a:

[Gen 2:4a] does not . . . look back on previously narrated events, but rather
introduces new elements of narration. . . . It thus cannot be understood simply
as a subscription to the stages of creation in 1:1–2:3. But it does not look for-
ward simply to 2:4b–3:24 . . . [the formula] places the generations described
in the stages of creation as the beginning context for everything.64

These two examples give some insight into the complexities raised by this
occurrence of the formula.65

theme), 30 (priestly framework of the patriarchal theme), 35 (the primeval saga), 36

(priestly version of the primeval saga), 41–42 (the creation report).
64. Coats, Genesis, 43.
65. Here is a representative sample of the variety of positions on this issue.
On Gen 2:4 as a superscription: Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis (2 vols; trans. Israel Abrahams; publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical
Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964),
1:96–99; Johannes Brinktrine, “Gen 2.4a, Überschrift oder Unterschrift?” BZ NF 9
(1965), 277; Cross, CMHE, 302; Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 164–66; and others.
On Gen 2:4 as a subscription: Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi), in Pentateuch with
Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary: Genesis (trans. and ed. M.
Rosenbaum and A. M. Silberman; London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1948), 8; Julius
Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments (2nd edn; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889), 3, 5; Otto Eissfeldt, Die Genesis der
Genesis: vom Werdegang des ersten Buches der Bibel (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul
Siebeck], 1958), 13–14; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (rev. edn; trans. John
H. Marks; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 63; Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,”
73–75; Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, (Harvard Semitic Monographs 32;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 23 n. 1; Ellen van Wolde, A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis
2–3 (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 25; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989), 72–73; Cotterell and
Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation, 242; and others.
Ibn Ezra is not entirely clear in where he falls on this issue, since he merely says that
“these are what they gave birth to,” which could be read as seeing the formula as a super-
scription or a subscription (Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the
Pentateuch: Genesis [Bereshit] [trans. H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver; New
York: Menorah, 1988], 51).
For a thorough discussion of the history of interpretation on this point, see Terje
Stordalen, “Genesis 2, 4: Restudying a locus classicus,” ZAW 104 (1992): 161–77.
Stordalen concludes that 2:4a is a superscription for chs 2–3. For a survey of pre-
­twentieth-­century sources, including medieval Jewish commentators, see Benno Jacob,
40 These are the Generations

Looking at the function of the formula in the final form, as we are here, leads
to different conclusions. Carr points out the different perspective brought by a
synchronic analysis of the function of the verse: “a synchronic starting-­point
shows how the toledot heading in Gen 2,4(a) functions in the present form of
Genesis to label what follows it, a function often missed by studies working
within an exclusively diachronic perspective.”66 By analogy with the other
occurrences of the formula, here too the formula functions as a heading. Carr’s
comment reminds us of the complimentary roles that diachronic and synchronic
approaches may take and how they may inform one another.
The heavens and the earth are a known quantity (on the basis of Gen 1:1–2:3),
as is the progenitor in the other occurrences of the formula. The function is to
turn the reader’s attention from the creation of the heavens and earth, described
in liturgical-­style language in ch. 1, to the creation and story of the first humans,
whose existence is only briefly mentioned in ch. 1. This designation as a super-
scription is also not without its nuances. As Cassuto expressed it: “although
[the toledot formula] refers in many instances to the succeeding text, we may
nevertheless not conclude therefrom that it cannot in any circumstances relate
to the preceding verses.”67 He allows for the formula to function primarily as a
heading, while still referring to preceding material. This is the case in most, if
not all, of the toledot headings. In each case, the proper name refers to a charac-
ter already introduced in the story. At the least, 2:4 may serve a type of double
duty as the conclusion of one creation story and the introduction of another. This
type of construction may be seen in other places in the Hebrew Bible. Clines
argues for a similar transitional role for Shem’s genealogy in 11:10–26, as it
traces the line from Shem (grounded in the primeval history) to Terah (begin-
ning of the patriarchal history).68 More recently, Ben Zvi sees this type of double
duty operating in Mic 5:1, where it acts as a transition between 4:8–5:1 and
5:1–5.69 Back to Genesis, Cassuto notes that 2:4 “serves to connect the narra-
tive of the first section [of the creation story] to that of the second [the section

Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934), 71–72. Jacob also concludes
that the formula here is a superscription.
66. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 346.
67. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:99.
68. David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1978), 78.
69. Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 7, cf. 19.
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 41

of the garden of Eden].”70 In the final form of the text, 2:4 primarily serves as
a heading to the toledot section that follows.

The Sections Defined by the toledot Formula

Once the function of the formula as a heading is established, the question
becomes one of just what these headings introduce. The question is not as
simple as it might first appear, because the materials introduced by the toledot
headings are diverse in genre, length, and subject matter. Such diversity might
even lead one to question whether one heading is adequate to introduce such
diverse materials as, for example, the Joseph novella (following Gen 37:2) and
the Table of Nations (following Gen 10:1). The use of the formula to introduce
such diverse genres hints that the authors/redactors who used it saw in it the
possibility to use it as more than just an introduction to genealogical materials.
As Coats states in connection with Gen 6:9:

The formula should not simply be taken as the opening clause for a genealogy,
as a standard genre element . . . Indeed, that the formula appears with differ-
ent kinds of genealogies (cf. 5:1; 10:1) would suggest already that its function
cannot tie the formula to one particular genre . . . It functions rather as a float-
ing rubric available for various positions.71

As the rest of this study will find, although semantically toledot headings point
to genealogy and the march of generations, this formula has been used in the
Pentateuch in a much wider, and more influential, way than simply to intro-
duce lists.
Scholars have long noted the different types of materials that the toledot
headings introduce. As we noted in the Introduction, they have divided the
materials into two broad categories: genealogical material and narrative mater­
ial. There has been general agreement on the definition of narrative versus
genealogical sections. However, Tengström and Renaud identify more of the
sections as narrative, compared to Childs and Koch. This may have to do with
the pattern they are trying to outline in the sections; others have seen differ-
ent patterns.72 This slight diversity among opinions also points to the ongoing

70. Cassuto, Genesis, 1:99.

71. Coats, Genesis, 76.
72. For example, see Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(London: SCM, 1979), 145.
42 These are the Generations

difficulty of the diversity of materials in the various sections defined by the

toledot headings.
At this point, it would be helpful to survey these sections briefly. We should
have a focus to our survey beyond that of merely rehashing the material itself
— something that any Bible reader could do well enough on his/her own. Let
us turn to one other function of the toledot heading before our survey begins.

Patterns of Narrowing of Focus in the toledot Sections

If one of the functions of the toledot headings is to turn the reader’s focus
from one generation to the next, then the heading not only indicates the flow
of the story, but determines its direction. For example, when the toledot head-
ing points us to Ishmael, our attention remains with his offspring until, a few
verses later, it is turned to Isaac by another toledot heading. Through the series
of toledot headings, the narrative does not wander aimlessly, but according
to a certain pattern. On the macro scale, this pattern takes the reader from the
heavens and earth (creation) at the beginning of Genesis to Jacob (Israel) at
the end of Genesis. Thus, within 36 chapters (2 to 37) the reader’s focus has
been drawn from the entire universe to a small tribe wandering around the
Levant and Egypt. A survey of the sections defined by the toledot headings
will reveal an overall trajectory toward narrowing; however some of the toledot
sections do not serve to narrow the focus. Chapters 3 and 4 will explore these
seemingly problematic sections, identifying other powerful forces (namely
genealogies and divine–human covenants) which are at work in shaping
the story.

From the Heavens and Earth to Adam: Genesis 2:4–5:1

The book of Genesis starts on a grand scale — the entire universe. In ch. 1, the
heavens and earth are created by God and thus become the first main character
aside from the Deity. Now, we may note that the heavens and earth are unique
as the only non-­human entity with a toledot heading. Indeed, this is curious and
has led various scholars to expand the definition of the term toledot to include
“history” or “results” (see the discussion of the meaning of toledot above). We
may also note that it is a compound nominal phrase. The uniqueness of this is
slightly qualified by the inclusion of the toledot of Noah’s sons in 10:1 and that
of Aaron and Moses in Num 3:1.
Creation is the focus at the beginning of the story of Genesis. However,
humans are the main concern of the authors and redactors, also presumably
human. In 5:1 we find the “book of the toledot of Adam.” In this heading, we
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 43

find the first narrowing of focus in Genesis, from all of creation to human­ity.73
Two items to note in this narrowing are the scope of the narrowing and its
mechanism. As for scope, after the narrowing of focus to Adam, all of human-
ity is included in the ongoing narrative. As for the mechanism of narrowing,
there is a simple choice of species.

From Adam to Noah: Genesis 5:1–6:9

Next, the story continues by listing the descendants of Adam leading to Noah.
Note that only one son per generation is named; this indicates that the interest
of the genealogy is in tracing a line from Adam to Noah directly (see more on
this in Chapter 3). Only after reaching Noah are we given the names of all the
sons in a generation, the sons of Noah. After just a few verses to establish the
wickedness of humanity,74 our focus is drawn to the toledot of Noah. By the
end of the flood, it is clear that once again the narrowing has left us with all
of humanity: any part of humanity outside Noah’s immediate family has been
killed in the flood. Thus, the scope of the narrowing is again to all of (surviv-
ing) humanity. However, this time the mechanism is the destruction of those
outside Noah’s (the righteous one, specified in the same breath as the toledot
heading in 6:9) line in the flood as a punishment for violence and other types
of wickedness.
An additional factor enters into this toledot section and its narrowing: cov-
enant. When God is describing to Noah what is about to happen, God mentions
establishing a covenant with him (6:18). This covenant becomes a reality in
ch. 9. The covenant places a limitation on the activities of both humans and
God: never again will God destroy the world in this way and bloodshed among
humans will be punished.

From Noah to Noah’s Sons: Genesis 6:9–10:1

After the covenant of the rainbow, Noah begins farming and makes wine. After
the incident of his nakedness and his sons’ various reactions, we have the tole-
dot of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In this transition, there is no
narrowing.75 Noah and the sons of Noah both represent all of living humanity in

73. Recall that the name “Adam” in Hebrew (‫ )אדם‬is the word for humanity.
74. Note that the text gives violence (‫חמס‬, v. 11) as the specific reason for the flood.
75. The reasons for this lack of narrowing will be explored in depth in Chapter 3 on
genealogies, while the inclusion of the toledot heading itself will be explored in Chapter 4
on covenants.
44 These are the Generations

their families. The story of Noah’s nakedness, however, raises a tension among
the brothers that must be resolved.
Before moving on to the next toledot heading, we have the Table of Nations.
The Table is so called because it is a genealogy of all of humanity, and many
of the names in the list correspond with various people groups of the ancient
world. Here all of humanity is recorded for posterity.
What is the purpose of putting such a listing here? One clue is in the final
verse of ch. 10: “and from these the nations of the earth were divided after the
flood.” Given that the next story will be the Tower of Babel, which records the
reason for the spreading of the various nations across the earth, it is understand-
able to record the nations here before they separate. Another reason for the Table
of Nations here has to do with the toledot heading to come.

From Noah’s Sons to Shem: Genesis 10:1–11:10

After the story of the Tower of Babel, we are met immediately with the toledot
of Shem. Here, for the first time, we have the toledot for one family who does
not encompass all of humanity. Shem’s brothers and their families are still alive
and are spreading across the world with him. As we just noted above, they are
all recorded in the Table of Nations before the focus narrows to Shem. The
mechanism for the narrowing appears to be a simple choice — on the part of
the Deity or the narrator or both — that the story will continue to follow the
toledot/offspring of Shem. Is it possible that the covenant with Noah affects
here the mechanism of the narrowing of our narrative focus? Since Ham and
Japheth are within the toledot of their father, Noah, it seems reasonable that the
covenant injunction against God or anyone else killing them would preclude
killing them off, as happened in the flood.76
In this narrowing, therefore, the scope becomes one of a subset (roughly one-
­third) of living humanity for the first time. Additionally, the mechanism is one
of choice, rather than judgment.

From Shem to Terah: Genesis 11:10–27

Shem’s toledot section leads quickly to that of Terah. After Terah has been intro-
duced in the genealogy of Shem, the toledot of Terah begins. The move from
Shem to Terah proceeds on the same basis as that from Noah’s sons to Shem:
choice. As with the genealogy from Adam to Noah, one son per generation is

76. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 335.

 1. Defining the toledot Formula 45

the rule. After reaching Terah, again the focus narrows to a subset of humanity
within living humanity after recording the others in a genealogy.
While the toledot section of Terah begins with a genealogy, it primarily
consists of the stories of his son, Abram.77 Abram is called by Yhwh to move
to a new land, perhaps continuing the spreading over the earth after the Tower
of Babel incident and in fulfillment of God’s command to fill the earth in 1:28
and repeated in 9:1 and 7.

From Terah to Ishmael: Genesis 11:27–25:12

Ishmael’s toledot presents us with the first point in the series where the toledot
heading introduces someone who will not be a subject of ongoing focus. In
Ishmael’s toledot section, the reader’s focus is brought to a subset of humanity
who will be secondary in the ongoing story (see Chapters 3 and 4).
Once again, we may turn to covenant to help us understand why the toledot
of Ishmael exists. In Genesis 17 we encounter the covenant that El Shaddai
makes with Abraham and his descendants. While the Deity makes it clear that
the covenant will be passed on with Sarah through Isaac (19), Ishmael is blessed
and included in the covenant of circumcision (20, 23).78 Later, just before the
toledot of Ishmael, the two half-­brothers come together to bury their father
(25:9–11). Perhaps it is as a descendent of Abraham included in the covenant
of circumcision that Ishmael now receives the honor of having his descen-
dants recorded in a toledot section. His section consists of a simple genealogy
enhanced by a geographical note (25:18). We will return to this “bump in the
road” in Chapters 2–4.

From Ishmael to Isaac: Genesis 25:12–19

Now we come to the son of Abraham we expected to follow next. Again, we
have here a narrowing based on choice consisting of a subset of humanity.
Given that the scope and mechanism are now familiar to us, we may turn to the
second “bump in the road.”

From Isaac to Esau: Genesis 25:19–36:1

Wait! Is Esau not that man who gave up his birthright and blessing, throwing
them away? He could have had it all, but gave it up for a bowl of soup. Again,

77. On why there is no toledot section for Abra(ha)m, see the Excursus immediately
following this chapter.
78. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 335.
46 These are the Generations

as with Ishmael, Esau will not be the focus for the ongoing narrative, yet here
he is with his own toledot heading, in fact two of them (see Chapters 3 and 4).
Here is the toledot of another subset of humanity outside Israel who will not be
the narrative focus for long. And yet, once again, his descendants are recorded
in a genealogy. Perhaps this is the strength of the Abrahamic covenant, preserv-
ing even his grandsons in the story of Israel’s origins. Esau and Jacob do come
together to bury their father (35.29), as had Isaac and Ishmael before them.79
Esau’s family is recorded for posterity, even though the narrative will not lin-
ger long on him.

From Esau to Jacob: Genesis 36:1–37:2

Here we come to the climax of the toledot structure in Genesis, the final toledot
section. The final subset of humanity chosen out is Israel, the new name of its
father. Again, the mechanism is choice and the scope is a subset of humanity.

Beyond Jacob: Genesis 37:2–?

With Jacob/Israel, the narrowing stops. The story of Israel is, after all, about
the people of Israel. As the narrative continues beyond Genesis into Exodus,
it is about the Israelites enslaved in, then freed from, Egypt. Israel as a whole
gathers at Mount Sinai. And on the story goes. The 12 tribes of Israel will be
the focus of the narrative: the 12 tribes that came from Jacob’s 12 sons.
But what happened that allows the narrative to focus on all 12 sons instead
of continuing to choose one in each generation? One intriguing suggestion is
found in the reconciliation of the brothers in the Joseph cycle (Genesis 45; dis-
cussed further in Chapter 4). In the earlier stories of brothers in Genesis, there
was always some problem: Cain killed Abel, Ishmael “played with” Isaac, and
Esau wanted to kill Jacob, for example. Here, in the story of Jacob’s sons, how-
ever, after the initial problems, the brothers are able to reconcile on the basis of
Joseph’s forgiveness of them. This opens up a new type of relationship among
different groups of people. Perhaps, this is the basis on which all 12 tribes are
able to be together the focus of the narrative from here on.80 Perhaps, it is the
next stage of covenant: people covenanting among themselves in imitation of
the covenants with God.

79. I am indebted for this insight about the burying of the fathers to my former stu-
dent, David Nemeshegyi. See also Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth
of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Brown Judaic
Studies 71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 113.
80. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 338–39.
 1. Defining the toledot Formula 47

From Jacob to Aaron and Moses: Genesis 37:2–Numbers 3:1

Another factor beyond Jacob is the toledot heading of Aaron and Moses in
Num 3:1. Their toledot heading raises the possibility that indeed the narrowing
of focus in the story is not complete. Aaron and Moses have both been amply
introduced by the time the reader arrives at Numbers 3. What would it mean
for the narrative to focus on the toledot/offspring of Aaron and Moses? The
descendants of Aaron become the priestly class in Israel. Certainly, much of
the material in the later parts of Numbers are concerned with the priesthood, as
is most of Leviticus and much of the end of Exodus.
The toledot of Moses here may be more problematic, since no descendants
are listed for him at this point. In fact, this lack of descendants, along with the
unusual order of the names in this verse, has led several scholars to delete the
reference to Moses as secondary.81 However, since the definition of toledot has
a wide semantic range, the offspring of Moses may be several: the Torah, the
office of prophet, civil leadership, and the like. If such intangibles are taken
into account, much of the Pentateuch could be read as the offspring of Moses
(see Chapters 3 and 4).

Summary
In this chapter, we started by looking at the syntax, semantics, and function
of the toledot formula. Using insights from linguistic theory, we saw that the
syntax and usage of the formula clearly point to its function as a heading for
the material following it. The syntax of the formula causes the reader to pause,
and its semantics point ahead to future generations. The formula reacquaints
the reader with a character already known and introduces new information: the
existence of descendants and a new focus on that next generation.
Looking at the occurrences of the formula, a pattern of a narrowing of
focus emerges as in each generation the reader’s attention is drawn toward one
descendant. The pattern of narrowing of focus in Genesis and the Pentateuch
is definitely bound up with the toledot headings in Genesis and Numbers.

81. For example, Josef Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel in der Preisterschrift,”
in Wort, Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt
zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernest Jenni;
Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59; Zürich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1970), 49 n. 13 (based on both criteria) and Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 55
(based on the lack of genealogy for Moses); Eissfeldt, “Biblos geneseōs,” 39 (does not
give his criteria).
48 These are the Generations

However, several questions regarding this narrowing remain: Why do some of

the toledot headings introduce a narrowing of focus while others do not? What
is the mechanism by which one line of humanity is “chosen” over others? In
the next chapter, we will turn to variations in the syntax, and thus the function,
of the occurrences of the toledot formula. Noting these variations should begin
to answer some of these questions.
 49

EXCURSUS: WHY IS THERE NO TOLEDOT

HEADING FOR ABRAHAM?1

A number of theories have been advanced as to why Abraham does not have a
toledot heading. At first glance, it does appear to be a glaring error in the orga-
nization of the book that this most important patriarch would not have a major
toledot heading, let alone one at all. Let us look at some possible explanations
for why one was not included:

1 One simple, diachronic possibility comes in relation to the toledot book:

Terah was in the source and Abraham wasn’t.2 Of course, this explana-
tion presumes that one accepts that the toledot book not only existed as a
source, but that it included the toledot materials beyond Gen 5 and 11.
2 Isaac and Jacob both later married women from the east: Rebekah,
Leah, and Rachel. This led to the question of whether it was legitimate
to marry such foreigners. Koch posits that by placing Terah at the head
of Abraham’s story through his toledot heading, the problem was solved
by placing these eastern women in the context of Abraham’s wider fam-
ily. Rebekah is the granddaughter of Nahor and Milcah through Bethuel
(Gen 22:20–3). Leah and Rachel are the great-­granddaughters of Nahor
and Milcah. Their father, Laban, is the son of Bethuel — Rebekah’s
father and the son of Nahor and Milcah. The reader is thus reminded

1. I recognize that prior to Gen 17:5, the name of this character is Abram. For sim-
plicity, I will refer to him as Abraham here, unless the form of his name is significant to
the context.
2. Klaus Koch, “Die Toledot-­Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis,” in
Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament — Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass
zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Sefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauß; Neukirchen-
­Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 188.
50 These are the Generations

that these women were from the same bloodline as Abraham’s family.3
This explanation does have some merit, as it does appear that the fam-
ily lines of Terah are reunited by the end of Genesis. It could also point
toward a way in which to integrate the narratives of these women into
what the toledot series is doing.
3 As mentioned in Chapter 1, toledot headings focus on the following
generation. Thus there is no problem, because the focus of the toledot
section of Terah is Abraham.
4 Woudstra’s solution is that the toledot headings function to indicate
where “the ways begin to part.”4 Thus, they occur at points at which
there is a decision to be made about which line will inherit the covenant.
Abraham receives that assurance from God right at the beginning of ch.
12, so no toledot heading is needed to define who the recipient will be
in his generation.
5 According to Martin, the beginning of Gen 12 is meant to parallel, not
the toledot headings, but rather Gen 1.5 Both chapters begin with the
speech of God: first in creating a universe, second in creating a people.
The toledot formula is omitted to leave open the theological possibility
that the descendants of Abraham are anyone formed by the speech of
God: “those who, like Abraham, respond to the call of God with faith
and obedience.”6
6 While some of these theories have merit (particularly Koch’s, #2 above),
the clearest explanation to me is the concern for literary suspense. The
term, toledot, itself assumes a future generation, as we noted in Chapter
1. Thus, the toledot of Noah presumes the existence of Shem, Ham, and
Japheth; the toledot of Jacob assumes Joseph and his 11 brothers, and
so on. If there had been a toledot heading for Abraham, the tension in
the text regarding the provision of an heir for Abraham and Sarah would

3. Koch, “Die Toledot-­Formeln als Strukturprinzip,” 188. Additionally, the inclusion

of Milcah raises the possibility, on the basis of Gen 11:29, that Haran’s line is brought into
the main line through her. (Tammi J. Schneider, personal communication, 3 November
2005).
4. M. H. Woudstra, “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-
­Historical Significance,” Calvin Theological Journal 5 (1970): 188.
5. Lee R. Martin, “Where Are the Descendants of Abraham?: Finding the Source of a
Missing Link in Genesis,” in The Spirit and the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism
To Honor Dr. Donald N. Bowdie Presented on his 65th Birthday (ed. Terry L. Cross and
Emerson B. Powery; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2000), 32.
6. Martin, “Where Are the Descendants of Abraham?” 34.
 Excursus 51

have been undermined from the beginning. The reader would be tipped
off from the beginning of the story how it would turn out.7

Additionally, as Josef Scharbert has pointed out, Sarah is reported as being bar-
ren.8 Therefore, a toledot heading would create a tension in the text as to whether
that statement is true. By leaving out any toledot heading and stating the bar-
renness of Sarah, the narrator maintains the suspense of the story as the reader
continues reading in order to see whether, indeed, God’s promise to Abraham
and Sarah will be fulfilled.
In the end, the truth is probably a combination of some of the factors men-
tioned above, particularly #2 and #6. Explanations #1 and #3 are not excluded
from also operating in this case, as they do not contradict the suspense ele-
ment and may add additional reasons why the toledot is excluded. Woudstra’s
explanation (#4) could work, but in other places the main line personality
receives assurances before their toledot headings,9 so it does not entirely bear
out. Martin’s theological approach (#5) does not contradict the suspense notion
and may or may not be a factor.
In its present context, Abraham’s story does work better, in terms of sus-
pense, without a toledot heading. The theories that explain why it made more
sense to have Terah as the head of the toledot section allow that suspense to
work in the wider organizational scheme of the book, as the three sons of Terah
eventually reunite by the end of the book (see Chapter 4 for further discussion).
The suspense is maintained by the lack of the toledot heading, and the follow-
ing generations may be seen as part of Terah’s line.

7. Cf. T. David Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis,”

in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 262.
8. Josef Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel in der Preisterschrift,” in Wort,
Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum
80. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernest Jenni;
Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59; Zürich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1970), 47.
9. For example, Noah finds favor with Yhwh (Gen 6.8) before his toledot heading in
6:9 and Jacob is blessed and promised the land promised to Abraham and Isaac (35:9–12)
before his toledot heading in 37:2.
52
 53

Chapter 2

VARIATIONS IN THE SYNTAX OF THE TOLEDOT FORMULA

Now that we have examined the common features of the toledot formula, we
have a good idea of the typical syntax and function of the formula. The formula
has led us to investigate the patterns of how the focus of the story in Genesis
narrows from a universal scope to that of Israel. In this and the following two
chapters, we will turn to three factors that illuminate further elements of how
this narrowing of focus occurs. First, we turn from the typicalities of the tole-
dot formula to what light the individual occurrences of the formula can shed
on how this process unfolds and help us to begin to answer some of the ques-
tions we were left with at the end of the previous chapter. Typicalities on their
own are useful in that they help us to recognize patterns: in this case, patterns
of organization. However, typicalities only take us part of the way. In order to
understand more fully the function and purpose of the toledot formula, includ-
ing why it has been used as it has in organizing Genesis, we must look at the
specifics of each occurrence of the formula.
Turning to the specifics from the generalities is in keeping with the calls of
many in newer methodologies to focus on the unique features of a passage in
addition to the typicalities of a form across passages. This call was first given
a loud voice in John Muilenburg’s 1968 presidential address at the Society of
Biblical Literature.1 In his address, Muilenburg asserted that form criticism
“does not focus sufficient attention upon what is unique and unrepeatable,
upon the particularity of the formulation . . . It is the creative synthesis of the
particular formulation of the pericope with the content that makes it the distinc-
tive composition that it is.”2 This call was taken up by many — in and outside
of form-­critical circles. One recent example is Roy Melugin, who in a volume

1. James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18.

2. Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” 5.
54 These are the Generations

dedicated to outlining the current state of the form-­critical method, said: “I con-
sider it still to be of great importance that interrelationships between typicalities
of language and unique artistic creativity be given greater emphasis, especially
from the side of form criticism.”3 In this chapter, we examine what makes each
occurrence of the toledot formula unique. In doing so, we will be able to refine
further the structure provided by the formula to the book of Genesis and the
Pentateuch as a whole.

Toward Variations in the Formula: Two Types

In the last chapter, we reviewed previous work on the function of the toledot
formula, primarily in how it operated with respect to the priestly material. In
the course of this review, we saw that Tengström and Renaud had argued for
two different types of toledot formulae. This division into two types of toledot
formulae is not unique to Tengström and Renaud, but has been observed by
others as well, although with some variation as to how the types are classified.
In our investigation of the syntax of the formula, we will distinguish two major
variations of the formula as well. Therefore, it is desirable at this point to review
how others have divided the occurrences of this formula into categories before
moving onto our own division.

Discussions of the Two Types

In pointing out the two different types of toledot headings, Tengström and
Renaud were both building on something that Josef Scharbert and Brevard
Childs had pointed to in different ways years earlier.4 Scharbert was the first to
separate the toledot headings into two different categories based on their con-
text and function. Unlike the later studies of Childs, Tengström, and Renaud,
Scharbert’s categories were more theological, based on the toledot sections’
function in Genesis. The latter three focused on the genre of literature that the

3. Roy F. Melugin, “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response,”

in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century (ed. Marvin A.
Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 48.
4. Josef Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel in der Preisterschrift,” in Wort,
Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt zum
80. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernest Jenni;
Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59; Zürich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1970), 45–56; Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(London: SCM, 1979), 145–50.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 55

toledot heading introduced. While their categories were similar, Tengström

and Renaud, as already discussed, were working with more compositional
aims. Childs, on the other hand, outlined this scheme as a part of his canoni-
cal approach. Moving beyond the compositional questions regarding the
relationship between the toledot headings and P, he examined the two types
to understand the function of the formula in the final form of the book of
Genesis.
Generally, for Childs — and later for Tengström and Renaud — the two types
of toledot sections fall into those in which the heading introduces various sorts
of genealogical lists and others in which it introduces narrative material. For the
most part, these sections fall out neatly into one of the categories or the other.
However, some of the sections are less clear, as evidenced by differences in the
definition of the types and decisions about which occurrences belong to which
category. From Table 1, it is clear that for the most part there is agreement on
the identification of the two types. The main difference of opinion comes with
regard to the toledot headings of Adam and Shem.
Childs and Tengström both differentiated between two types of list. Childs
distinguished “vertical” genealogies which trace the descendants in a straight
line down through generations from “segmented or horizontal” genealogies
which show the interrelationships among the members of each generation.5
Tengström, on the other hand, distinguished the lists in Genesis 5 and 11:10ff.
(the same two singled out by Childs as vertical) as different from the other
genealogies. It may be noted from Table 1 that he considered these within the
larger category of erzählerische (narrative) occurrences of the toledot formula.
These two toledot sections he distinguished as “erzählerische Genealogian [nar-
rative genealogies].”6 While these two types of genealogy will be discussed
much more fully in Chapter 3, we may note here that the function of the verti-
cal or erzählerische genealogies is to move the story along, as opposed to the
segmented genealogies, which have a preservative function.

5. Childs, Introduction, 145–46. See a more detailed discussion of the two types of
genealogical list in Chapter 3. In that chapter, Robert Wilson’s terminology of “linear” v.
“segmented” genealogies will be followed. Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in
the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 9.
6. Sven Tengström, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterli-
chen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 17;
Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1981), 20.
56 These are the Generations

Table 1: Categorizations of the toledot Sections According to the Two Types7

Childs (1979) Tengström (1981) Renaud (1990) Koch (1999)
heavens
& earth narrative erzählerische narratif Epochen8
Adam genealogical erzählerische narratif Generationen
Noah narrative erzählerische narratif Epochen
Noah’s sons genealogical aufzählende énumératif Generationen9
Shem genealogical erzählerische narratif Generationen
Terah narrative erzählerische narratif Epochen
Ishmael genealogical aufzählende énumératif Generationen
Isaac narrative erzählerische narratif Epochen
Esau genealogical aufzählende énumératif Generationen
Esau (2) genealogical aufzählende énumératif Generationen
Jacob narrative erzählerische narratif Epochen
Aaron erzählerische
& Moses
Note: Since the terms are given in their original languages and terminology, for ease of use,
words in italics denote the narrative designation and bold denotes the lists.

Although Josef Scharbert distinguished two types of toledot heading earlier than
the three just discussed, his categories went in quite a different direction from
those of Childs, Tengström, and Renaud so that it is appropriate to discuss his
study separately from that of the other three.
One of Scharbert’s main goals in his study of the toledot formula was to
arrive at a consistent usage for the term toledot in the Pentateuch. He was
looking for consistency in the way P used the term, particularly in the toledot
headings. In this, he was attempting to counter Eichrodt’s objection that the tole-
dot book did not work because of inconsistencies in the meaning of toledot.
In the course of his study, Scharbert distinguished two different types of

7. Childs, Introduction, 145; Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 19, 21, 27–28, 32;
Bernard Renaud, “Les généalogies et la structure de l’histoire sacerdotale dans le livre
de la Genèse,” RB 97 (1990): 8–9; Klaus Koch, “Die Toledot-­Formeln als Strukturprinzip
des Buches Genesis,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament — Gestalt und Wirkung:
Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Sefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and
Hans Strauß; Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 186.
8. Probable: “probably also heavens and earth (2:4)” Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 186.
(author’s translation).
9. In modified form: “in the modified form of a Table of Nations with Noah’s sons
(10:1).” Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 186. (author’s translation).
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 57

toledot sections based on their function in the overall story of Genesis. On

the one hand, some toledot sections functioned as Ausscheidungstoledot or
“exclusion-­toledot.” These were found in connection with lines that would not
be followed in the ongoing story, such as Ishmael and Esau. The other sections
were Verheißungstoledot or “promise-­toledot.” These are the toledot sections
concerning the bearers of the promise, such as Isaac and Jacob.10 Scharbert
went further to posit a regular alternation between the two types. First, an
Ausscheidungstoledot would function to exclude a segment of humanity from
the line of promise. Then, a Verheißungstoledot would continue with the focus
on the line of promise. Quickly, however, Scharbert ran into the problem that
the toledot sections did not alternate as smoothly as his proposed scheme would
like. In the latter parts of Genesis, the scheme worked fine: Ishmael, Isaac,
Esau, Jacob. However, in the early parts there is not such a clear alternation,
as shown in Table 2.
As to the functions of the toledot headings and sections, Scharbert noted that
the Ausscheidungstoledot functioned, not simply to exclude a line from the line
of promise, but rather “the excluded descendants, who were no longer spoken
of (“Ausscheidungstoledot”), are enumerated.”11 By enumerating the lines that
were about to be excluded, Scharbert saw these toledot sections as maintaining
that the excluded lines, while being excluded from the further narrowing and
intensifying of the promise and blessing, were nevertheless still included within
the scope of earlier blessings.12 For example, all of humanity remaining after
the flood would continue to be part of the promise and blessing in Genesis 9.13
Scharbert envisioned the toledot scheme as creating a series of concentric cir-
cles with Israel at the center, but with each outer circle retaining “his blessing
or his own promise.”14 Scharbert concluded that the toledot formula marks deci-
sive turning points where the concentration of blessing and promise results in
a closer divine–human relationship. As for the translation of the term toledot,
Scharbert settled on Stammesgeschichte, “tribal story.”

10. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 46.

11. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 46. (author’s translation)
12. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 56.
13. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 47.
14. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 52. (author’s translation)
58 These are the Generations

Table 2: Scharbert’s Two Types

Genesis toledot toledot type Problems Solutions
2:4 heavens Ausscheidungs-­
& earth
5:1 Adam Verheißungs-­
6:9 Noah Verheißungs-­ no intervening the rest will
Ausscheidungstoledot drown in the flood
= no future for them15
10:1 Noah’s sons Ausscheidungs-­16
11:1 Shem Verheißungs-­
11:26 Terah Verheißungs-­ no intervening The one in 10:1ff
Ausscheidungstoledot serves double-­duty17
25:12 Ishmael Ausscheidungs-­
25:19 Isaac Verheißungs-­
36:1 Esau Ausscheidungs-­
36:9 Esau (2) Ausscheidungs-­ two headings another hand added
the second one
separately from
the toledot book18
36:9 Jacob Verheißungs-­

To this point, our discussion of the two types of toledot formulae have mainly
been pursued by those with primarily thematic categories and often (excepting
Childs) diachronic interests. Next, we will turn to a couple of studies that out-
lined a similar distinction of two types of toledot formulae, but on a more final
form basis. Finally, we will explore how syntactical variations in the formula
itself might lead us to two different types.

Final Form Studies of the Two Types

A couple of recent studies have taken as their starting point the final form of the
text as we have it, studying the toledot formula from a more synchronic perspec-
tive. The first comes from J. Severino Croatto in his article, “De la creación al

15. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 46.

16. Kaminski notes that, in fact, only a portion of Noah’s sons are truly excluded in
the ongoing story, because Shem’s line continues. Carol M. Kaminski, From Noah to
Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing After the Flood (JSOTSup 413; London:
T&T Clark, 2004), 70.
17. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 47.
18. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 49.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 59

Sinaí: Periodización de la historia en el Pentateuco” already partially discussed

above.19 Here, we will focus on what he had to say regarding the toledot head-
ings. Croatto’s focus was on the function of the toledot formula within the final
form of the book of Genesis, rather than just in P. He noted, for example, that
while the toledot formula is an introductory formula within P, in the wider con-
text of the final form of Genesis, the formula has more the function of focusing
the reader’s attention on a specific character who has normally already been
introduced.20 Croatto pointed to a tenfold structure which the toledot formula
gives to the book of Genesis (the two occurrences of the formula for Esau are
treated as one for this purpose).21 Like Tengström, Croatto noted the differing
narrative and genealogical contexts for the toledot formulae. However, for the
identification of these contexts he followed Brevard Childs’ identifications:22

Narrative: 2:4, 6:9; 11:27; 25:19; 37:2

Genealogical: 5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:1(9).

This led Croatto to some conclusions regarding the function of this variation
within the use of the toledot formula. The alternation leads to a sense of continu-
ity through the book of Genesis,23 while the switch in the pattern between 10:1
and 11:10 points to a transition between universal and patriarchal histories.24
Croatto concluded the article by pointing out some theological implications
of his study. One important conclusion involves the relationship of the toledot
formula in Genesis to its use in Num 3:1. Croatto proposed that this use estab-
lished Moses as the goal of the Pentateuch for the final redactor.25 He noted the
parallel of the tenfold formula to the ten antediluvian kings in the Sumerian
King List; the flood is then followed with the descent of the kingship to Kish.
From this, Croatto deduces that, from a postexilic perspective, this connection

19. J. Severino Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí: Periodización de la historia en el

Pentateuco,” RevistB 47 (1985): 43–51. I am indebted to Jennifer E. Thomas for her help
with the Spanish of this article.
20. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 47.
21. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 47–48.
22. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 46; Childs, Introduction, 145.
23. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 48.
24. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 46. Note that both histories then begin with
genealogies (5:1ff and 11:10ff).
25. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 51. Cf. Rolf P. Knierim, The Task of Old
Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995),
351–79.
60 These are the Generations

establishes Moses as an authoritative figure just in time to receive the “descent”

of the law at Sinai.26
Croatto’s article raises many interesting questions about the function of the
toledot formula in the final form of the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch as
a whole. While his examination of variations in the formula itself is limited, his
work is notable for its contribution to the study of the toledot formula within
the final form of Genesis.
Klaus Koch took on the traditional three-­part division of Genesis into the
Primordial history (chs 1–11), Patriarchal history (12–36), and Joseph novella
(37–50).27 Through examining the toledot headings and the sections they
introduce, he posited rather a five-­part division of the book: Pre-­Flood Epoch
(2:4–6:8), Noah’s Age (6:9–11:26), Terah’s Age (11:27–25:18), Isaac Epoch
(25:19–37:1), and Jacob Epoch (37:2–50:26).28 By applying form-­critical
methods to this material, Koch distinguished two types of toledot sections. The
“Epochen-­Toledot” consists of toledot sections that include a variety of genres
that together make up an epic that is self-­contained, but that has an effect beyond
its conclusion. The five sections mentioned above each begin with one of these
Epochen-­Toledot headings. The second type, “Generationen-­Toledot,” consists
of an enumeration of the descendants of the principal figure, usually carried out
to a symbolically round number of generations or sons. Koch asserts that while
the Epochen-­Toledot headings initiate the epics, the Generationen-­Toledot sec-
tions usually bring the epics to a close.29
In contrast to much of the work earlier in the century, Koch’s essay tackled
the question of the place of the toledot formula in the final form of the book of
Genesis. In this, he took a similar approach to Croatto, while focusing more
specifically on the toledot sections and taking into account diachronic issues.
He admitted that quite likely, the organization we see in the completed book is
the product of redactors working with priestly language (and perhaps sources)
to arrange the book the way they did.30 He also allows for the possibility, like
Croatto, that the toledot headings have significance beyond the book of Genesis.
However, where Croatto locates the extension of the formula beyond Genesis
in Numbers 3 and Moses, Koch finds it in Exodus 6 with the Levites. He sees
Exod 6:16–25 as potentially the missing closing Generationen-­Toledot at the

26. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 45–46.

27. Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 183–91.
28. Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 186.
29. Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 187.
30. Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 190.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 61

end of the Joseph novella.31 While Koch mentions Num 3:1 in passing, he does
not deal with what significance it might have in his scheme.32
Having looked at different ways to categorize the occurrences of the toledot
formula based on thematic and contextual grounds, it is time to examine how
the syntax of the formula itself might lead us to a way to categorize the occur-
rences of this formula.

Syntactical Variations in the toledot Formula

Two previous studies bear on the syntactical variations in the wording of the tole-
dot formula that we are interested in here. Francis I. Andersen, in his monograph,
The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch,33 outlined a general approach to
the verbless clause as a whole, of which the toledot formula is but one example.
Secondly, Peter Weimar in his article, “Die Toledot-­Formel in der priester-
schriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung,”34 applied syntactic analysis specifically
to the toledot introductions. In order to understand the variations in the toledot
formula, we must examine these two approaches and build upon them.

Survey of the Syntactical Variations

Andersen’s work, being more general, sets a good background for examining
these syntactical differences. Before addressing specific syntactical variations
in the toledot formula, a few words on his theoretical approach are in order.
An understanding of his approach will help to frame the discussion of these
variations and their effects upon the place of the formulae in the structure of
Genesis.
The approach Andersen uses derives from tagmemics (mentioned briefly
above in Chapter 1). To frame Andersen’s work, some further words on tag-
memics are in order. “Tagmemic analysis posits a correlation of function and
form called the tagmeme as its basic unit.”35 A tagmeme is the combination of

31. Koch, “Strukturprinzip,” 189.

32. One wonders if Num 3:1 could be posited as a new Epochen-­Toledot style head-
ing with its Generationen-­Toledot ending in Ruth 4:18–22, along the lines Koch outlined.
That would truly expand the scope of the formula.
33. Francis I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch (Journal of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series 14; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970).
34. Peter Weimar, “Die Toledot-­F ormel in der priesterschriftlichen
Geschichtsdarstellung,” BZ 18 (1974): 65–93.
35. Walter A. Cook, Case Grammar Theory (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
62 These are the Generations

a grammatical form with a particular grammatical function (e.g., a noun phrase

operating as subject). This analysis is applied to various levels of texts: sen-
tences, clauses, phrases, words, and morphemes. For example, “at the clause
level clauses are broken down into phrases that express functions such as
subject, predicate, object, and various adverbial adjuncts.”36 Examination of tag-
memes allows us to discuss the relations among various elements of the larger
structures of which they are a part as well. Andersen speaks of syntagmemes
that consist of two (or more) tagmemes “whose functions are mutually self-
­defining within the integral construction that expounds the syntagmeme.”37 The
very definition of tagmeme is dependent on the relationships among tagmemes
to understand how they operate in relation to one another. The syntagmeme is
a way in which to view these relationships.
Turning from theory to Andersen’s specific investigation, we remember
that the toledot formula begins with a verbless clause: Np ‫אלה תולדות‬.”38 The
verbless clause is a common feature of the Hebrew language. The core toledot
formula consists of a pronoun followed by a noun–proper noun construct chain.
In Andersen’s notation, this is the syntagmeme <Pr – (N <Ct> Np)>. Applying
the terminology, this syntagmeme consists of the two tagmemes: Pr, a pronoun
functioning as subject; and (N <Ct> Np), a noun construct phrase functioning
as predicate. The formula (in all its variations) falls within the general category
of “declarative verbless clauses.”39 This designation indicates a verbless clause
(the syntagmeme) consisting of a subject, predicate, and possibly other elements
(the tagmemes). Declarative refers to the making of a statement, contrasted with
expressing a wish (precative) or asking a question (interrogative).40
Within this more general designation come many varieties in syntax; in fact,
Andersen catalogues 473 different variations within the “declarative verbless
clause” designation.41 Applying his criteria to the toledot formulae, we find that
they fall into six different syntactical categories: Andersen’s ##4, 7, 15, 175,
244, and 255. These variations involve whether the clause is functioning inde-

University Press, 1989), 152.

36. Cook, Case Grammar Theory, 152.
37. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 27.
38. Np = Proper noun. Most of the notational scheme in this section is derived from
Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 13–15. See also Abbreviations.
39. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 52–99.
40. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 130.
41. ##1–473. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 52–99.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 63

pendently or coordinately (i.e. beginning with a waw conjunction), whether any

margins are involved (optional modifiers, see below), and a host of smaller dif-
ferences among the specific formations of the noun phrases. The distribution of
the toledot formulae is given in Table 3.

Table 3: Syntax of the toledot Formula According to Andersen’s Categories42

Declarative verbless clauses
Core <S-­P>
Number in Scripture Andersen’s notation
Andersen’s references
Corpus
Independent no #4 Gen 6:9; <Pr – (N<Ct>Np)>
margins 11:10; 37:2
#7 Gen 5:1 <Pr – (N<Ct>N<Ct>Np)>
#15 Gen 2:4 <Pr – [(N<Ct>Nd) <M>
PpPh]>
Coordinate no #175 Gen 11:27; w-­+ <Pr – (N<Ct>Np)>
margins 25:12;
25:19;
36:1;
Ruth 4:18
plus #244 Gen 36:9; w-­+ <Pr – (N<Ct>Np)>
margins Num 3:1 + PpPh
Core <S . . .-­P . . . S>
Coordinate no #255 Gen 10:1 w-­+ <Pr . . . – (N<Ct>Np)
margins . . . List>

We note from Table 3 that the most common form of the toledot formula or
clause is given as #175. This is the coordinate form of #4, which is the most
common independent example of the formula. These two forms share the basic
structure <Pr – (N<Ct>Np)>. They consist of a pronoun (‫ )אלה‬followed by a
noun phrase that contains a common noun (‫ )תולדות‬in construct with a proper
noun (the progenitor whose offspring we are being asked to attend to in the fol-
lowing section). The only difference between these two most common forms is
the addition of the waw conjunction at the beginning of #175. Taking ##4 and
175 as the base forms of the formula, we can examine the other four forms in

42. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 52–77 passim. See Abbreviations for a full
list of the abbreviations used here.
64 These are the Generations

comparison to these. We will then return to the variation between the indepen-
dent and coordinate forms of the formula.
Margins are optional modifiers that may be added to the basic phrase of a verb-
less clause, but do not normally cause “any perturbation in the normal structure
of a clause.”43 Margins only affect the syntax of #244 (Gen 36:9 and Num 3:1).
All the other variations contain no margins. In Gen 36:9, the margin is a preposi-
tional phrase placing the descendants of Esau in the hill country of Seir. In Num
3:1, the margin is also a prepositional (temporal) phrase that places the toledot
section in a specific time period, when God spoke to Moses on Sinai.
Syntactically, these clauses are identical to #175 (the most common type of
toledot clause) except for the addition of a prepositional phrase. Since margins
only rarely affect the structure of a clause, the addition of the prepositional
phrase does not significantly affect the syntactical structure of the clause, so
we may treat it as essentially the same as #175.
Andersen’s #255 (Gen 10:1) is the other coordinate form of the formula after
we have dealt with ##175 and 244. This is a unique case among the toledot for-
mulae, as it is the only occurrence of the formula with a discontinuous subject,
as Andersen describes it. The clause runs: ‫ואלה תולדת בני־נח ׁשם חם ויפת‬, “and
these are the toledot of the sons of Noah — Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” The
discontinuous element in Gen 10:1, however, could probably be described as
either a resumption of the subject (‫)אלה‬, as Andersen has it,44 or an appositive
expansion of the predicate (‫)תולדת בני־נח‬. In either case, the list of Noah’s sons
is a syntactical addition to this occurrence of the formula. Andersen observes
that this type of discontinuity “is characteristic of the lists of names and other
statistics common in the priestly material.”45 One should note also that Andersen
lists Gen 25:13 and Exod 6:16 as similar (meaning having insignificant differ-
ences) to this form. These two verses are quite similar to the toledot formula
and, in fact, both contain the word toledot. We will return to these verses below.
Num 3:2, immediately following the toledot formula in 3:1, is also an example
of the same syntax.
Gen 5:1 (#7) differs from #4 (the base independent form) in the addition of
another noun in the construct chain. The addition of ‫ ספר‬to the toledot formula
— along with the use of ‫ זה‬rather than ‫ — אלה‬raises questions about the place
of this form among the others. Syntactically, it is quite similar; it only has a

43. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 34.

44. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 77.
45. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 36.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 65

longer construct chain. However, its unique form does affect how it should be
read in context. The uniqueness of this form led Gerhard von Rad to identify
a toledot book of which this verse was the general heading; this book would
have then been the basis for P.46
Whatever the reason for this wording in 5:1, syntactically it sets this verse
off from what precedes it in a powerful way. This is something new in the text,
not a continuation of what has come before. It is significant that this formula
immediately follows a genealogical list of Adam’s descendants, even if with
more narrative and a looser structure from what will follow in Genesis 5. This
formula sets Genesis 5 apart as a summary of what has come to this point and
as an introduction for what is to follow.
The final variation to be discussed comes in Gen 2:4 (#15). Again, here
we have a somewhat different version of the formula. Gen 2:4 has essentially
the same syntax as our base independent form #4, but with the addition of a
prepositional phrase to define the predicate further. Here, Andersen differenti-
ates this prepositional phrase from those that are truly marginal. By saying that
this phrase further defines the predicate, it is integrated into the structure of the
noun phrase itself.47 Note the similar structure in Num 3:1, where there is also
a temporal clause following the toledot heading.
Having discussed in detail the approach of Andersen and many of the insights
growing from such exploration, we now turn to the article by Peter Weimar.
Weimar built on the idea of different types of toledot sections to distinguish
syntactical differences in the material immediately following the toledot for-
mulae themselves. His study contributed toward the later separation of the
toledot headings into the two main categories of narrative and genealogical
(see above). His focus on the material immediately following the toledot for-
mula anticipated the later interest in the character of the sections that the toledot
headings introduce. Weimar’s purpose, however, was to advance the study of
the priestly material. Weimar’s approach, however, was less source-­critical
and more syntactic than many of the earlier approaches. In this way, it could
be said that whether he intended it or not, he approached the final form of the

46. Gerhard von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: Literarish Untersucht und
Theologisch Gewertet (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament;
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934), 33–40. See Chapter 1 for a fuller discussion of the
toledot book hypothesis.
47. We should also note that the predicate here is the only one that is not the proper
name of a human being.
66 These are the Generations

heading in order to uncover its place within the compositional development of

the overall work of Genesis.
Weimar was concerned that the toledot headings had been accepted as a part
of the priestly work (P) rather uncritically by his predecessors. He wanted to
examine the headings to see whether they were indeed part of the work of P or
of a later redactor. On this point, his conclusion was that the toledot headings
in Gen 5:1 and 11:10 pre-­dated the P material and were used as the basis for the
other toledot headings.48 Num 3:1, in contrast, was a later addition.49
In examining the role of the toledot headings within the wider work of the P
writer, Weimar looked at the syntax of the headings to determine patterns there.
The toledot formula itself (‫ )אלה תולדות‬was not the only focus for Weimar’s
investigation. He observed that the toledot formula was usually followed by a
short narrative piece. The combination of these two elements — toledot for-
mula and the following narrative — he termed a “Toledot Einleitung” or toledot
introduction.50 In looking at the syntax of these introductions, Weimar focused
mainly on the narrative element directly following the toledot formula, rather
than the formula itself. He distinguished four distinct forms for these introduc-
tions (see Table 4).

Table 4: The toledot Introductions According to Weimar 51

Type Function toledot Following Occurrences
formula material in Genesis
1aIntroducing Repeating ‫ואלה תולדות‬ resultative stative 11:27; 25:19;
a new past (subject + qatal 36:1–2a;52
narrative information + object) 25:12
unit to introduce OR
a section relative clause
(Kapitel) (‫ אׁשר‬+ qatal)
of the priestly
writing

48. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 84.

49. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 93.
50. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 80–81.
51. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 81–84
52. Skipping over the apposition in verse 1b.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 67

Type Function toledot Following Occurrences

formula material in Genesis
1b Introducing Introducing ‫אלה תולדות‬ nominal clause 6:9; 37:2
a new new (subject +
narrative information appositive
unit about the past + ‫)היה‬
to introduce + continuation
a whole life of narrative
history
2Introduction of a section of unspecified temporal clause 10:1; 36:9;
a chapter or life history [Num 3:1];
also 2:4
3 Introduction of genealogies unspecified mixed 5:1; 11:10

The two patterns that introduce new narrative units (1a and 1b) both share the
feature that they give information about the past to the reader. What distin-
guishes the two patterns are their syntax and whether the past information they
present is new to the reader or not.
In the first type (1a), the toledot introduction introduces information already
known to the reader from earlier parts of the book. For example, in 25:19
Isaac is introduced as the son of Abraham. This is information about the
past, and it has been known to the reader for over four chapters, since 21:3.
Syntactically, this pattern is expressed through the connection of the tole-
dot formula with a clause containing a subject, verb in qatal form, and an
object. In 25:19 these consist of ‫( אברהם‬subject), ‫( הוליד‬verb), and ‫את־יצחק‬
(object). However, it could also occur with a relative clause, as in 25:12:
‫אׁשר ילדה הגר המחרית ׁשפחת ׂשרה לאברהם‬. For Weimar, the occurrences of the
toledot introduction following these two patterns introduce a chapter or section
within the priestly history.
The second type (1b), for Weimar, is a continuation of the first. Whereas type
1a introduces past information that the reader already knows, type 1b introduces
past information that is new to the reader. For example, when the reader reads
in 37:2 that Joseph is 17 years old, it is something that is already true within
the world of the narrative, but the reader is only learning it at that point. This
pattern is reflected in the toledot formula being followed by a nominal clause
consisting of a subject (‫)יוסף‬, an appositive (‫)בן־ׁשבע־עׂשרה ׁשנה‬, and the verb
68 These are the Generations

‫היה‬. These toledot introductions introduce an entire life story within the narra-
tive and are therefore more major headings.53
The third type (2) of toledot introduction includes those in which the tole-
dot formula is followed by a temporal clause. For example, in 10:1 we read
that sons were born to Noah after the flood (‫)ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול‬. Here,
though, we may begin to see some strain in Weimar’s neat categories. He notes
10:1 and 36:9 as the primary examples of this form, although no clear tempo-
ral clause is present in 36:9 and the one in 10:1 does not follow directly on the
toledot introduction and temporalizes, not the introduction, but the genealogy
that follows.
Weimar’s final type (3) of toledot introduction is found in Gen 5:1 and 11:10.
These toledot introductions do not initiate stories, as the others do, but rather
genealogies. Weimar, however, seems at a bit of a loss as to how to fit these
two introductions into his scheme. Gen 5:1 does not immediately introduce a
genealogy like 11:10; instead 5:1b–2 contains background information to the
genealogical list. This material functions to remind the reader of information
already known, as in type 1a, but the form includes a temporal clause like type
2. Based on these difficulties and that they specifically introduce genealogies,
Weimar assigned these occurrences of the introduction to a pre-­priestly source.54
This may be an example of a final form-­type syntactical study leading to dia-
chronic conclusions, but coupled with other mixed results as with 2:4, some
doubt is thrown on his entire scheme.
One element not yet discussed is that Weimar noted a distinction between
toledot formulas beginning with and without the conjunction waw.55 As we
noted with Andersen’s work, the presence of a waw was one of the factors
that distinguished the different syntactical forms. Weimar’s first two catego-
ries (types 1a and 1b), those introductions that present past information, are
distinguished not only by whether the information is new to the reader or not,
but also by the presence or absence of a waw in the toledot formula. He notes
that his types 1a and 2 begin with a waw and his types 1b and 3 do not, but not
without a caveat.56 Thus, the types of introductions that re-­present past infor-
mation to the reader (1a) and those that contain temporal clauses (2) begin with

53. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 82.

54. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 86.
55. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 83–84.
56. In his third type, he includes Gen 2:4, which does not have a waw. He works around
this difficulty by asserting that 2:4 is a subscription. (Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 83
n. 62; see Chapter 1 for a discussion of Gen 2:4 as heading or subscription.)
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 69

a waw. Andersen would, then, identify these two types with coordinate clauses.
Weimar’s types that present the reader with new information (1b) or that intro-
duce genealogies (3) do not begin with a waw and therefore correspond with
what Andersen would call independent clauses. Weimar himself agrees with
this assessment when he points out that his types 1a and 2 begin with the waw
conjunction, but his type 1b does not, because it “constitutes a greater distance
from previous material, because new information is communicated.”57 His
type 1a that has the waw is connected with re-­presenting information that is not
new to the reader and type 1b, without the waw, introduces new information
to the reader and thereby initiates more major sections in the story of Genesis.
Weimar sees this waw/non-­waw distinction as a confirmation of his differen-
tiation of the four types.58

The Use of waw with the Formula

Given the six different variations of the basic syntax of the toledot formula in
Andersen’s work and the four variations in Weimar’s work, it may be striking
that most of the variations have little impact on the basic function of the for-
mula as a heading. The variations might have some connection with the type of
material presented, as Weimar has shown, but the basic function as a heading
is generally the same. However, one of the variations, namely the inclusion or
exclusion of the conjunction waw at the beginning of the formula, may be sig-
nificant for the formula’s function as heading. The formula does not use a waw
in five cases (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; 37:2), and it begins with a waw in the other
eight cases (10:1; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1,9; Num 3:1; Ruth 4:18). The ques-
tion is whether this difference is truly significant and, if so, what difference it
makes in the structure and meaning of the passages and the book as a whole.
As we have noted above, the major division among the syntactical forms
of the toledot formulae in Andersen’s work is between clauses acting indepen-
dently and those acting coordinately. Weimar’s work agrees with this distinction
and its significance. For Andersen, the importance lies in the clause’s con-
nection with surrounding material, whereas Weimar emphasizes the role of
the presented information in connecting or distancing the heading from its
context. In either case, the identification of a clause as independent/presenting-
­new-­information or coordinate/re-­presenting-­old-­information has to do with
its relationship to its external context. That this identification corresponds to

57. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 83–84. (author’s translation)

58. Weimar, “Die Toledot-­Formel,” 83 n. 62.
70 These are the Generations

the usage of waw should then come as no surprise. The waw determines, to a
large extent, the relationship of the clause with the preceding material, as both
Andersen and Weimar point out. According to Wittgenstein, symbols only
mean what they mean in context. The word toledot and the toledot formula only
mean something in relationship to their context. The presence or absence of a
waw changes the relationship of the formula with the preceding material. The
formula, in turn, changes the material following by setting it in a new context:
that of the next generation.
As a result of this change in relationship with the external environment,
those syntactic forms not beginning with waw (##4, 7, and 15 in Andersen’s
scheme or types 1b and 3 in Weimar’s) are identified as independent, while
those beginning with waw (##175, 244, and 255 or types 1a and 2) are identi-
fied as coordinate. Andersen understands the relationship between the clause
and its external textual environment as operating through interclause relators
(Re). He describes their function in this way:

In relationship to its context, each clause may then be represented as

± Re + Cl
where Re (=Relator) signals the function of the clause, and Cl (=Clause) is
an exocentric construction, functioning as a single item in the larger sentence
structure that environs it, while having its own inner structure within which all
constituent tagmemes mutually exercise all their grammatical relationships.59

An independent clause is one which the Re signals no grammatical relation-

ship with its linguistic environment. This is the case with a simple sentence, an
independent clause that is part of a compound sentence, or the main clause of a
sentence with dependent clauses. The Re of an independent clause is ∅ or the
absence of any signal. In other words, an independent clause has no indicators
of relationship to its textual context.
A coordinate clause is one in which the Re signals that the clause is “linked in
sequence with another clause.”60 A coordinate clause may be signaled by several
Re’s, including ∅ and waw.61 Andersen clarifies that for ∅ to signal a coordinate
clause, some other problem in the sentence structure is the marker. Since none

59. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 28.

60. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 28.
61. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 28. In fact, Andersen notes that “the most
common coordinating conjunction is” waw.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 71

of the toledot clauses have an abnormal sentence structure that would neces-
sitate such a reading, our understanding of those toledot clauses with no Re as
independent is not called into question.
Weimar adds to this distinction the observation that at least in some of the
cases, the presence or absence of a waw corresponds with the type of material
being introduced by the toledot introduction. In the independent occurrences of
the formula, the material introduced is generally new to the reader and therefore
set off by an independent clause. In the coordinating versions of the formula,
the material being introduced is more integrated into the ongoing story, since
it is re-­presenting information already known to the reader.
Since this difference between independent and coordinate forms of the for-
mula affects the headings’ relationships with their external contexts, it also
affects the relationship of the toledot sections to one another. Cassuto pointed
in this direction when he noted in connection with the toledot heading for the
sons of Noah at Gen 10:1: “The Wāw . . . serves as a link with the end of the
preceding narrative of this section . . .. In the preceding section and in the next
section, the superscription comes to indicate a new theme, and it contains [the
toledot heading] without Wāw.”62 It is to the structural effects of this variation
that we turn next.

Structural Implications of the waw/Non-­waw Variation

As we have seen from the above analysis, the most significant syntactic varia-
tion in the toledot formula is whether the form is independent or coordinate.
This is signaled by the absence or presence of the waw, respectively. Now we
turn to the structural implications of the variations, especially the variation
between the independent and coordinate forms of the formula.
The difference between independent and coordinate clauses becomes quite
important as we turn to the implications for understanding the structure of
Genesis. The toledot clauses which have a coordinate function are connected
to their contexts in a sequential fashion, while those which are independent are
not bound in the same way to their textual environment. This leads to a differ-
ence in how we understand these two types of toledot clauses.
The independent form of the formula is marked by the absence of the waw.

62. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (2 vols; trans. Israel
Abrahams; Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964), 2:188. (emphasis Cassuto’s)
72 These are the Generations

Five instances of the formula are of this independent variety: Gen 2:4 (heavens
and earth); 5:1 (Adam); 6:9 (Noah); 11:10 (Shem); and 37:2 (Jacob/Israel). The
independent toledot clauses are clear in their function: they function as inde-
pendent (major) headings. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the toledot headings
generally form an organizing schema for the book. These independent occur-
rences of the formula are the major headings of that structural scheme.
Further defining the structure, the occurrences of the toledot formula begin-
ning with a waw — in Genesis and in the rest of the Pentateuch — serve a
coordinate function. This links these occurrences into the larger textual blocks
to which the independent forms are the major headings. Thus, the coordinating
occurrences of the formula are subordinated to the independent in outlining the
book of Genesis. Organizing the occurrences of the toledot formula — in its
variations — provides the following structure:

0 Prologue Gen 1:1

1 toledot of the heavens and earth . . . ‫אלה תולדות‬ 2:4
2 Book of the toledot of Adam . . . ‫זה ספר תולדת‬ 5:1
3 toledot of Noah . . . ‫אלה תולדת‬ 6:9
a toledot of Shem, Ham,
   and Japheth. . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 10:1
4 toledot of Shem . . . ‫אלה תולדת‬ 11:10
a toledot of Terah . . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 11:27
b toledot of Ishmael . . . ‫ואלה תלדת‬ 25:12
c toledot of Isaac . . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 25:19
d toledot of Esau . . . ‫ואלה תלדות‬ 36:1
e toledot of Esau (#2) . . . ‫ואלה תלדות‬ 36:9
5 toledot of Jacob . . . ‫אלה תלדות‬ 37:2

It is clear that the syntax of the book of Genesis lays greater emphasis on the
five independent occurrences of the toledot formula as headings for the major
units of the book. These independent occurrences of the formula then drive the
structure for the book as a whole.

The Non-­waw Occurrences of the toledot Formula

Once we see that these examples of the toledot formula operate as the major
headings within the structure of the book of Genesis, we may turn to possible
reasons for this emphasis and the effects of this emphasis on the macrostructure
of Genesis. To do this, we will explore patterns among the five independent
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 73

examples of the toledot formula and the textual blocks they introduce plus the
progression created in the text by these headings.
As mentioned above, the five headings that define the macrostructure of
Genesis are the toledot headings introducing the offspring of the heavens and
earth (2:4); Adam (5:1); Noah (6:9); Shem (11:10); and Jacob/Israel (37:2). The
first three of these share the characteristic of setting the stage for the growth
of humanity. The heavens and earth are the place in which the humans will
live. On another level, they could be seen as the progenitors of humanity, since
humans are created from the earth by God.63 Adam represents the origin of
humanity. Noah, similarly, represents the restart of humanity after the devasta-
tion of the flood. Each of these could also be seen as a subset of the previous.
Adam is a part of the heavens and earth. Noah is a descendant of Adam, and
his descendants are a subset of the original human family.64 The narrowing of
focus through these first three headings is accomplished through a change in
the story line. From the toledot of the heavens and earth to Adam, we shift from
all of creation (potentially) to humanity specifically. The shift from the toledot
of Adam to that of Noah is accomplished through the execution of humanity
outside of Noah’s family. In the two remaining toledot headings, the pattern
changes to one of creating a subset within living humanity. In the toledot of
Noah’s sons (Gen 10:1), the whole of living humanity is still represented. The
next narrowing of focus, to Shem, is accomplished, not through the execution
of other humanity, but through a shift in genealogical focus. After several other
toledot sections, Jacob is the new focus. Jacob is the final subset in Genesis. The
overall effect is that the independent toledot formulae lead the reader through
the growth of early humanity while also through a process of narrowing down
to Israel. Thus, the book of Genesis ends with its focus on the future Israel that
will come from Jacob’s family.

63. On humanity as the offspring of the heavens and earth: Genesis Rabbah 12.7–8
(Harry Freedman., trans., Genesis [ Midrash Rabbah 1; trans. and ed. by Harry Freedman
and Maurice Simon; London: Soncino, 1939], 93–94); David M. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj
Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Pattern in Genesis as Part of the Torah,” ZAW 110
(1998): 164–65; and Terje Stordalen, “Genesis 2,4: Restudying a locus classicus,” ZAW
104 (1992): 176–77.
64. contra Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj Revisited,” 327–28, who sees the toledot of Noah
as a broadening of focus to “encompass the people of the earth descended from Noah’s
sons, before narrowing once again to focus on the ancestors of Israel.” The problem here
is that Noah’s family, while all of humanity after the flood, is still a subset of original
humanity.
74 These are the Generations

Other Uses of the Term toledot Through the Pentateuch

In order to explore this (macro)structure more fully, a few notes on the non-
­toledot-­formula uses of the word toledot are in order. In the book of Genesis,
the word toledot only occurs twice outside the toledot formulae: in 10:32 (of
the families of the sons of Noah) and in 25:13 (of the names of the sons of
Ishmael). Both uses are a second introduction to the toledot section in which
they are found. Also, note the syntactical form of each: they follow roughly the
same syntax as the toledot formulae themselves. They begin with ‫ אלה‬followed
by a construct chain and a couple prepositional phrases.
Outside of Genesis, the word toledot occurs 16 times in the rest of the
Pentateuch. In Exod 6:16, we find the term used in listing the names of the sons
of Levi by their toledot. This is followed by a short genealogical list and then
by another use of toledot. Concluding the genealogical list in 6:19b comes the
phrase “these are the families of the Levites according to their toledot.” Thus,
we have another of these double uses of at least the term, if not the formula.
Exod 28:10 describes the engraving of the names of the 12 tribes by their tole-
dot on the ‫ ׁשהם‬stones of the ephod (see the further discussion below). Most
of the occurrences outside Genesis are in Numbers 1, which is a census taken
by Moses at the request of Yhwh in the wilderness of Sinai. Twelve of the
16 occurrences are here, one for each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Note that the
sons of Levi were not included in this census (1:47–54). Finally, in Num 3:1
comes the toledot formula for Aaron and Moses.
Turning back to the macrostructure outlined above, one observation from
the addition of the other occurrences of toledot in the Pentateuch regards the
trajectory of the toledot formula. Within Genesis, the toledot formula clearly
moves us toward the definition of Israel as the center of our focus. Within the
Pentateuch, however, the inclusion of a toledot heading for Aaron and Moses
and the use of the term for the Levites give us a different focus. These occur-
rences, added to a cultic focus within Genesis itself,65 provide a trajectory
that leads to the establishment of the Levitical and then Aaronide priesthoods.
Additionally, the inclusion of Moses draws the reader’s attention to the estab-
lishment of civil leadership, including the designation of the elders. This, then,
is a continuation of the narrowing of focus begun in the book of Genesis.

65. The cultic focus of the toledot sections of the heavens and earth, Noah, and Jacob
will be discussed in Chapter 4. For the moment it is enough to state that at the center of
the rhetorical structure of the toledot sections of Genesis lies the toledot of Noah which
ends with the establishment of the first serious cultic regulations, those regarding the
shedding and eating of blood.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 75

Genesis focuses the reader upon the people of Israel. The Pentateuch as a whole
focuses upon the role of the cultic and civil leadership within the community
of Israel, as reflected in its priesthood and eldership.
Another striking observation that can be made concerns the structure of the
toledot of the lines not followed in the subsequent narratives. These are the
toledot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Ishmael; and Esau. Each of these toledot
formulae begins with a waw after which the subsequent material contains a
second usage of the term toledot. Only Esau’s second occurrence in 36:9 cor-
responds to an actual occurrence of the toledot formula itself,66 but the presence
of these double usages remains intriguing. Each of the double uses of the term
toledot in Genesis shares at least two features. First, each of the double occur-
rences is connected with a coordinating toledot formula that does not introduce
a major section of the book of Genesis. Second, each of the double occurrences
refers to a line that will not be followed in the subsequent text.
Here we should pause briefly to consider the two toledot headings for Esau.
The reason for these two headings for him and no one else is puzzling. One
explanation is that there may be a conflation of more than one source for the lists
in Genesis 36. The complex nature of the material in this chapter could certainly
explain the presence here of the two headings. Another factor that may help
explain the double use of the heading is the geographical information given in
the chapter. The short narrative piece in 36:6–8 explains that Esau moved from
Canaan to Seir because of a lack of land for both him and his brother, Jacob,
to live on. T. David Andersen notes that the short narrative here may function
in a similar way to narratives at the end of other genealogical sections, thus
setting the stage for the second section.67 As Rashi noted, “Esau’s descendants
born in Canaan are given in verses 1–5.”68 Then, the second toledot heading for
Esau specifies that “these are the generations that his sons begat after he went

66. One reason for the clarity of the double use of the toledot formula for Esau may
be to stress the importance of the line that will be followed, that of Jacob/Israel.
67. T. David Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis,”
in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen; Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 262.
68. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silberman, trans. and ed., Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary: Genesis (London: Shapiro, Vallentine &
Co., 1948), 175 n. 1.
76 These are the Generations

to Seir.”69 “Hence the first short section is oriented towards Esau’s sojourn in
Canaan, and the second longer section to his longer sojourn in Edom.”70
Having made these observations about the trajectory of the toledot formula
and the double introductions of the lines that will not be followed, we now
turn to the implications of these observations for the occurrences of toledot in
the rest of the Pentateuch. Genesis ends with the focus on the future develop-
ment of Israel, as noted above. In the rest of the Pentateuch, the occurrences of
toledot are more scattered and varied in form. The one clear exception is the
toledot formula in Num 3:1.
Exodus 6 introduces the sons of Levi by toledot. The purpose of the passage
is to legitimate Aaron as a priest descended from Levi, and it includes a double
use of toledot. In Genesis, this would suggest that the line of Levi will now be
set aside for the remainder of the story. This, however, is not quite the case. In
the toledot of Aaron and Moses, the Levites are again introduced; this time they
are listed separately from the rest of Israel. They are set aside by Moses to serve
the sons of Aaron in the service of the tabernacle. It appears that the Levites are
rejected in Exodus 6 from being an inheritor of land along with Israel, as indeed
is stated more directly elsewhere (Num 18:23–4; Deut 18:1). In Numbers 3,
their place among the Israelites is affirmed on the authority of Moses as one of
service in the cult. Thus, they are no longer considered part of the hereditary
line of Israel, but a group founded in the authority of Moses.71

69. Rosenbaum and Silberman, Rashi’s Commentary, 174–75.

70. Andersen, “Genealogical Prominence,” 263.
71. The grounding of the Levites in the authority of Moses is beyond the present con-
text of our argument at the moment, but a bit of explanation may be in order: A survey
of job descriptions for the Levites reveals that in the Tetrateuch, the Levites are meant
to serve the sons of Aaron. This is carried out primarily through the physical care and
transportation of the items connected with the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy, the Levites’
duties expand into a breadth of priestly functions which ranged from care of the physi-
cal aspects of the cult to teaching to offering sacrifices. In Joshua – 2 Kings the primary
job of the Levites is the carrying and handling of the ark. All of these functions were
founded on the authority of Moses. It is only in clearly post-­exilic materials (Chronicles
and Ezra-­Nehemiah) that the founding authority for the Levites’ duties shifts to David.
Chapters 4 and 5 will deal more directly with the relationship between a focus on the
leadership of Moses and the rest of Israel. For more, see Matthew A. Thomas, “Levitical
Job Descriptions and Authority,” in Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European
Reasoning: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Theological Symposium of the International
Postgraduate Theological Fellowship (ed. Parush R. Parushev, Ovidiu Creangă, and
Brian Brock; IBTS Occasional Publications 7; Prague: International Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2007), 153–68.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 77

Numbers 3 also may contain a double introduction. Verse 1 is the toledot

of Aaron and Moses. Verse 2 lists the names of the sons of Aaron. While not
containing the word toledot, the phrase is syntactically similar to the toledot
formula and has resonances with the use of the term in Gen 25:13 (the second
occurrence of toledot with the sons of Ishmael) and Gen 36:10 (the verse after
the second toledot heading of Esau). Both of these verses are examples of the
‫ ׁשמת‬formula. The ‫ ׁשמת‬formula is quite similar to the toledot formula. The
‫ ׁשמת‬formula has the general form: Np . . . ‫)ו(אלה ׁשמת‬. The main difference
is simply that the term ‫ ׁשמת‬stands in place of toledot. Num 3:2 and 3 are both
examples of this ‫ ׁשמת‬formula.72 The only significant difference between the
‫ שׁמת‬formula in Gen 25:13 and Num 3:2, 3 is that the Numbers occurrences
do not contain the term toledot. They correspond even more closely with Gen
36:10, since it does not contain toledot either.
For further connection between Num 3:2 and other toledot headings with
double uses of the term toledot, Andersen lists Num 3:2 as an occurrence of his
#255, the same syntactical category as Gen 10:1 (toledot of the sons of Noah).73
Putting this together, we may see Num 3:2 as a reflection of the double intro-
duction formula as it occurs in Genesis. This could suggest a rejection of the
Aaronide priesthood,74 but likely is meant as merely a limitation of its author-
ity. The Levites are established by Moses to serve them, perhaps to provide a
balance to them.
As mentioned above, the inclusion of Moses in the toledot of Aaron and
Moses leads the reader’s attention to aspects of the civil leadership of the com-
munity of Israel. Moses represents the origin of civil leadership and prophetic
leadership in the tales of the origins of Israel. Many scholars view the inclu-
sion of Moses in Num 3:1 as a later, secondary addition to the present form
of the book of Numbers.75 While it is certainly possible that his inclusion here
is secondary, such later inclusion in no way undermines the basic point that it

72. Occurrences of the ‫ ׁשמת‬formula:

Np . . . ‫אלה ׁשמת‬: Gen 36:10; Num 3:3; 13:16; 34:17; 2 Sam 23:8.
Np . . . ‫ואלה ׁשמת‬: Gen 25:13; 36:40; 46:8; Exod 1:1; 6:16; Num 1:5; 3:2, 18; 13:4;
34:19; 2 Sam 5:14; 1 Kgs 4:8; 1 Chr 6:2; 14:4; Ezek 48:1.
73. Andersen, Hebrew Verbless Clause, 77.
74. Recall that two of the sons of Aaron listed here — Nadab and Abihu — had already
been rejected, as noted in v. 4 and recounted in Leviticus 10.
75. On the inclusion of Moses at this point as secondary: Otto Eissfeldt, “Biblos
geneseōs,” in Gott und die Götter: Festgabe für Erich Fascher zum 60. Geburtstag (ed.
Gerhard Delling, et al.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958), 39–40; Scharbert,
“Der Sinn Der Toledot-­Formel,” 49 n. 13; Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 55; and Frank
78 These are the Generations

is both types of leadership which are the interest of the final form of the text.
Throughout the book of Numbers, regulations and incidents in the wilderness
reinforce a focus on the establishment of legitimate and effective civil and cultic
leadership for the people of Israel as they progress toward the Promised Land.
Given this interest of the book in such civil matters, Moses’ inclusion here is
quite reasonable. These discussions about civil and cultic leadership are fitting
at this point in the Pentateuch, given that the Mosaic/Sinai covenant may be
seen as foundational to the identity of Israel as a people. It is fitting that such
discussions would take place after that covenant is established.
Moving on, two of the strangest occurrences of toledot occur in relation to
the people of Israel as a whole. Exod 28:9–10 has the names of the sons of Israel
engraved on the ‫ ׁשהם‬stones of the ephod, as mentioned above. Thus, Aaron
will bear them before Yhwh (28:12) in the sanctuary service. This clearly places
the identity of Israel in the context of the cult of Yhwh. Num 1:20–43 is the
other of these occurrences. In this passage, Moses is commanded by Yhwh to
take a census of Israel by their families.76 Each tribe is then listed according to
their toledot. After the listing, we are told that the Levites were not numbered
among Israel in this census because they had a special duty regarding the taber-
nacle and would not encamp among the tribes, but function as a buffer around
the tabernacle. These two introductions of the people of Israel using the term
toledot both come in cultic contexts. This gives us a clue how to interpret these
passages. They may function to set aside the bulk of Israel so that the narrative
can focus on establishing the cult of Yhwh. This leads us back to a discussion
of the Levites and sons of Aaron.
The question remains as to why the Levites and the sons of Aaron are at least
potentially rejected in the syntax of the passages regarding them containing
toledot. The solution appears to come from Numbers 3 itself. In Numbers 3,
Moses — at the command of Yhwh — brings together the Levites and the sons
of Aaron and defines their relationship to one another in the service of the cult
of Israel. The relationship relies on both groups. The sons of Aaron are set aside
as the priests of Israel, but the rest of Israel is represented in the Levites. The
sons of Levi stand in for the firstborn of Israel. The passage also establishes
the authority of Moses over the cult of Israel. Moses’ authority over the job
descriptions of the Levites establishes the Levites as the legitimate agents of

Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 302 n. 33; among others.
76. The census will be discussed further in Chapter 3 as a counterpart to the genealo-
gies of Genesis.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 79

cultic reform in Israel.77 This view of Moses corresponds with Croatto, who sees
Moses as the goal of the Pentateuch for the final redactor and with Knierim, who
sees the entire Pentateuch as potentially the biography of Moses.78 Croatto points
out that Moses is the primary figure in the majority of the Pentateuch (Exodus
2 to Deuteronomy 34) and that the toledot formula in Num 3:1 is connected to
the communication of Yhwh with him on Mount Sinai. Num 3:1b (“in the day
Yhwh spoke with Moses in Mount Sinai”). This parallels the temporal clauses
in Gen 2:4b and 5:1b. Croatto sees this connection as placing the revelation to
Moses at Sinai in the context of creation itself. Thus, Moses, in receiving the
revelation of Sinai, creates the people of Israel envisioned at the end of Genesis
and becomes the authority upon which future cultic reforms are based.79

Patterns of Narrowing Focus In Light of the Variations

in the toledot Headings
As we saw in the previous chapter, the toledot headings lead the readers
through a process of narrowing of focus down to, by the end of Genesis, the
family of Jacob/Israel. It could also be argued that in Num 3:1 the focus is fur-
ther narrowed to the Aaronide priesthood and the civil leadership represented
by Moses.80 In the previous chapter, we noted some difficulties in the pattern
of narrowing, for example, that some of the toledot headings did not indicate
a narrowing of focus. The narrowing of focus is accomplished through the
designation of a “chosen” offspring in each generation to be the focus for the
continuing narrative. As we saw, however, toledot headings are assigned not
only to the “chosen” line in a generation, but often also to siblings’ lines (e.g.,
Ham, Japheth, Ishmael, Esau). After having examined the variations in the
formula itself, we are in a position to explain some of these difficulties. The
designation of “chosenness” takes place, at least in part, syntactically through
the introduction of the “chosen” offspring by an independent (non-­waw) toledot

77. Thomas, “Levitical Job Descriptions,” 159–60.

78. Croatto, “De la creación al Sinaí,” 51; Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology,
372–79.
79. It should be noted that in the post-­exilic period, Moses’ authority is overtaken by
David’s and then Nehemiah’s (Thomas, “Levitical Job Descriptions,” 160–61).
80. Olson asserts that the inclusion of Moses here keeps the focus from becoming too
narrowly focused on the priesthood. Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth
of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Brown Judaic
Studies 71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 107.
80 These are the Generations

heading. Most of the coordinating (waw) toledot headings introduce sections

whose offspring are not part of the ongoing narrative.
These “set aside” or “secondary” lines of descendants have generally been
seen as rejected to some degree by God from receiving the blessing of “chosen-
ness.” More will be said about this status designation in later chapters, but let us
examine the mechanisms through which this narrowing of focus takes place.
The first toledot heading is that of the heavens and the earth. The offspring
of the heavens and the earth could be seen as encompassing just about all of
creation. By Genesis 2, it becomes clear that humanity will occupy a special
place in the narrative to follow. This is confirmed by the toledot of Adam in
Genesis 5. The narrowing here is simply the choice of species. Humanity is the
author of the narrative, so it is only reasonable that this species would be ­chosen
for the following narrative. This is the first narrowing.
Moving from the toledot of Adam to that of Noah requires a bit more work.
Noah is designated as righteous “in his generation.”81 The focus shift to one
family within humanity, Noah’s, is accomplished through a much more dramatic
event — the flood. After the flood, Noah’s family is all that is left of humanity.
This is the second narrowing.
Next comes the toledot of Noah’s sons in Gen 10:1. This toledot heading is not
a major one, as it begins with waw. Not surprisingly, then, this heading accom-
plishes no narrowing of focus. Instead, we find here the Table of Nations. The
Table of Nations preserves the memory of all the subgroups of humanity at the
time. Only after this recording do we turn to the toledot of Shem in 11:10. Note
that Shem’s toledot heading is another of the independent, non-­waw headings
and that it accomplishes another narrowing of focus. The mechanism for this nar-
rowing is less clear, but it has to be. The previous narrowing happened through
the flood, which — after the divine promise in ch. 9 — is a non-­repeatable event.
The addition of the promise changes the way in which narrowing now happens.82
The rest of humanity is left to live while the focus of the narrative shifts to one
part of this still-­living humanity. The Tower of Babel account divides humanity
and spreads them across the earth. In the context of this spreading out, Shem’s
line is singled out for further interest. This is the third narrowing.
Shortly after Shem’s toledot heading, we find that of Terah in 11:27. Terah,

81. Wenham takes this phrase as referring to Noah’s contemporaries: Gordon

J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 1; Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2002), 149.
82. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj Revisited,” 333–34. The changes introduced through
divine–human covenants are the subject of Chapter 4.
 2. Variations in the Syntax of the toledot Formula 81

also, is part of the dividing of the world after the flood, as the migrations of
his family in 11:31 and of Abram and his family in 12:4 attest. Terah’s toledot
heading begins with a waw, and indeed appears to flow from the same narrow-
ing forces that led to Shem’s toledot section. This is the fourth narrowing, but
it is a minor event in the narrative.
The narrative now continues for quite a while before the toledot of Ishmael
in Gen 25:12. Again, as with the Table of Nations, we have a coordinating
(waw) toledot heading that introduces a genealogy. Ishmael’s section is short
and quickly followed by that of his brother, Isaac, in 25:19. Isaac’s toledot
heading, however, also begins with a waw and thus is not a major heading or
narrowing. Thus, the fifth narrowing is also a minor event in the narrative, at
least in some sense.
From Isaac, the narrative continues about his sons until the toledot headings
for Esau in Gen 36:1 and 9. Esau’s headings also begin with waws and are not to
be considered major headings. Like the headings for Noah’s sons and Ishmael,
Esau’s section is dominated by genealogical lists to record his descendants
before moving on to his brother, Jacob in 37:2. Jacob’s toledot heading is a
major heading, having no waw. His heading accomplishes the final narrowing of
focus for the book of Genesis. Thus, the sixth narrowing brings us to Israel.
After the narrowing to Jacob/Israel, there is no further narrowing of focus to
one or another of the sons of Jacob. The focus of the narrative remains on the
sons as a group and their interactions, through the Joseph novella, enslavement
in Egypt, the Exodus, and the coming to Sinai. The significance of this change
in the narrowing of focus pattern will be explored more in Chapter 4, when we
turn to the role of divine–human covenants in this overall pattern.
Finally comes the last toledot heading of the Pentateuch in Num 3:1. The
toledot of Aaron and Moses begins with a waw and is thus also not a major
heading. Note that it is preceded in Numbers 1 by a census of Israel and in
Numbers 2 by a recounting of the layout of the camp by tribe. These are not
genealogical lists, but do recall the lists that preceded the toledot sections of
Shem, Isaac, and Jacob. The entirety of Israel is listed out before the toledot
heading narrows focus to Aaron and Moses. Since the descendants of Aaron
comprised the priesthood, it is interesting to note the inclusion of the Levites at
the end of the encampment list in Numbers 2 and the conscription and mobiliza-
tion of the Levites in 3:5–4:49.83 This, then, is the seventh and final narrowing
of focus in the Pentateuch.

83. We will examine these lists more in Chapter 3.

82 These are the Generations

One could argue, as above, that the rest of Numbers could be seen as a com-
bination of the leadership (offspring?) of Moses and cultic instruction for the
offspring of Aaron, the priests. The rest of Numbers contains many regulations
and instructions for Aaron’s offspring as well as stories involving leadership.
Deuteronomy, then, becomes the defining of the “offspring” of Moses as those
who follow his teachings in the new land.

Summary
In this chapter, we have examined differences in the syntax of the occurrences
of the toledot heading. We found that one variation in particular, the presence
or absence of a waw at the beginning of the formula, has a great impact on the
function of the heading. Those that do not begin with a waw are independent
headings that mark the five major headings of the book: the heavens and earth,
Adam, Noah, Shem, and Jacob. These five headings thus provide the major
headings for an outline of the contents of Genesis.
We then turned to the effect this finding has for understanding the narrowing
of focus that we see through the course of the book. We found inconsistencies
in the ways in which the narrowings of focus lined up with the toledot head-
ings. Some of the headings introduced narrowings, while others did not. The
five major headings appeared to be more closely related to these points of
narrowing.
A number of questions still remain. Inconsistencies in the allocation of the
toledot headings to some siblings and not to others raises questions as to why
Ishmael and Esau, for instance, have headings, while Nahor and Haran do not.
Questions also remain regarding just how the narrowing of focus is accom-
plished through the toledot headings. Each of these narrowings of focus shares
some features. One common feature is that before each of the major narrow-
ings — defined as narrowings that happened in connection with one of the five
major (non-­waw) toledot headings — there is a list of some sort (usually genea-
logical) that lists those who are soon to be outside the continuing story. It is to
these lists that we will now turn our attention.
 83

Chapter 3

GENEALOGIES’ ROLE IN SHAPING THE NARRATIVE

Up to this point, our focus has been primarily on the toledot formula and its
function in shaping the book of Genesis. Now that we have studied how the
common features of the formula define its function and how the variations in
the formula point to a narrowing of focus through Genesis (and perhaps the
Pentateuch), we turn to another factor in how this narrowing of focus takes
place: the genealogies. In this chapter, we will see that whereas linear genealo-
gies are part of the forward movement of the story of Genesis (through a focus
on the main lines of descent), the segmented genealogies function as reposito-
ries for those family lines that will not be the narrative focus (secondary lines).1
By being recorded, they are preserved and honored, yet remain outside of the
main narrative thread.

Definitions
Our first task is to define what we mean by genealogy. Robert R. Wilson, in
his foundational study, defines genealogy as “a written or oral expression of

1. In using the terms “main line” and “secondary line,” I am following Carol M.
Kaminski, From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing After the Flood
(JSOTSup 413; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 62 n. 13. Kaminski uses these
terms to avoid importing ideas such as rejection and choice into the material before
it is warranted by examination. See Josef Scharbert who notes that even the second-
ary lines, which he terms “Ausscheidungstoledot” retain the blessings up to that point
in the story. Josef Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel in der Preisterschrift,” in
Wort, Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt
zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Ernest Jenni;
Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59; Zürich: Zwingli
Verlag, 1970), 52.
84 These are the Generations

the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestors.”2 While this

appears to be an adequate definition, it could be seen to include such a simple
connecting of names as “Isaac, the son of Abraham” (Gen 25:19). To avoid this
difficulty, Richard S. Hess has added the stipulation that in a genealogy “the
focus will be on notices of kinship relations which occur more than once in a
predictable pattern.”3 This fuller definition allows us to focus on the longer lists
that we usually think of as genealogies.
Turning to the forms in which genealogies are manifested, Wilson introduced
the highly useful distinction between “linear” and “segmented” genealogies.4
Linear genealogies occur when a genealogy “expresses only one line of descent
from a given ancestor.” In other words, the list is concerned primarily with one
ancestor per generation. In a segmented genealogy, the “genealogy expresses
more than one line of descent from a given ancestor.”5 A segmented geneal-
ogy will have a set of branches or segments reflecting the different siblings of
each given generation. This distinction is of vital importance, as Wilson argues
that the form of a genealogy greatly influences its function: scholars studying
biblical genealogies “must consider the influence of function on form and the
limitations which form sometimes imposes on function.”6 Building on the work
of Wilson and others, this chapter will explore interrelationships between the
genealogies and the toledot headings that affect the way in which the narrow-
ing of the focus in the story is accomplished.

2. Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1977), 9.
3. Richard S. Hess, “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature,”
Biblica 70 (1989): 242; repr. in “I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood”: Ancient
Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (Sources for Biblical
and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
4. Wilson, Genealogy and History, 9. Earlier, Abraham Malamat had made a dis-
tinction between “horizontal” and “vertical” genealogies roughly corresponding to
Wilson’s distinction, but Malamat’s scheme was not as systematically applied. Abraham
Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88
(1968): 163–73; repr. in “I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood”: Ancient Near
Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (Sources for Biblical and
Theological Study 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
5. Wilson, Genealogy and History, 9; Robert R. Wilson, “The Old Testament
Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94 (1975): 179; repr. in “I Studied Inscriptions
From Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches
to Genesis 1–11 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1994).
6. Wilson, “Old Testament Genealogies,” 189.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 85

The Functions of Biblical Genealogies

General Functions of Biblical Genealogies
The functions of biblical genealogies have been the subject of several studies
with the results falling into a few general categories.
Typically, the genealogies might be seen as pointing to an “expression of pro-
found order” in the onward march of generations.7 This order may be seen as a
biological expression of the order of creation itself, as expressed in Genesis 1.8
Genealogy and creation are brought together in the first two verses of Genesis 5.
There, we are reminded that humanity was created in the likeness (‫ )בדמות‬of
God (Gen 5:1; cf. 1:26). At the head of the toledot of Adam starting in 5:3,
we are told that Adam had a son “in his likeness and according to his image”
(‫)בדמותו כצלמו‬, the same two terms used to describe the creation of humanity
in Gen 1:26 (‫ דמות‬and ‫)צלם‬.
David Clines sees a theological significance in this connection of the genea­
logies with creation. Since the multiplication of humanity is under a divine
blessing (Gen 1:28), the genealogies record the fulfillment of that blessing:
“The whole growth of the human family witnessed by these genealogies is to be
viewed under the sign of the divine blessing.”9 The genealogies, then, preserve
the memory of the original blessing placed upon all humanity by God.
Continuing this interest in all creation, the genealogies, particularly in
Genesis, link the people of Israel into their wider world. This is achieved by
tracing the various tribes, nations, or groups back to a common ancestor.10 The
best example of this is the Table of Nations in Gen 10:1–32. This genealogical
list traces the sons of Noah and contains many names corresponding to people
groups in Israel’s world.

7. Robert B. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis,” CBQ

48 (1986): 597.
8. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies,” 601.
9. David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1978), 66. See also Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary
(trans. John J. Scullion; London: SPCK, 1984), 17; and Kaminski, From Noah to Israel,
73–79.
10. Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special
Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 8; London: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 77; see also
Sven Tengström, Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen
Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (Coniectanea Biblica; Old Testament Series 17;
Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1981), 25.
86 These are the Generations

Genealogies sometimes act to legitimate leadership. In order to verify the

veracity of one’s claim to either the divinely-­appointed kingship or to the
priesthood, genealogies provide a means by which such claims may be made
and tested.11 Verification through genealogy may be seen, for instance, in
1 Chronicles 6 where the priestly line is traced in order to confirm the proper
lineage for the priests and Levites.

Form and Function: Linear v. Segmented Genealogies

Having defined two main types of genealogical lists, linear and segmented,
do the different types function in different ways? Indeed they do, since they
organize different sorts and amounts of material. The speed of the text varies
greatly between the two types of genealogical lists. Here speed refers to “the
relationship between a duration (that of a story, measured in seconds, minutes,
hours, days, months, and years) and a length (that of the text, measured in lines
and pages).”12 Comparing the amount of text per unit time between texts gives
us information about the relative functions of these texts.
As an example of speed and pacing, when the Deuteronomistic History
(DtrH) spends only six verses on the 12-­year reign of Omri, king of Israel
(1 Kgs 16:23–28); we suspect that his reign was not very important to the bib-
lical authors. Omri’s son, Ahab, on the other hand, receives about six chapters
of coverage for his 22-­year reign (1 Kgs 16:29 – 22:40). The change in pacing
is striking. Outside of Israel, the situation was reversed: the Assyrians, for about
150 years after Omri, referred to Israel as bit omri (the house of Omri). For
example, the Black Obelisk depicts Jehu in presenting tribute to the Assyrian
king Shalmaneser III as the king of bit omri, although there were three other
kings and about 30 years between the rules of Omri and Jehu.13 The DtrH seems
more concerned with the relatively minor king, Ahab, than with his father
who moved the capital to Samaria (1 Kgs 16:24) and was well known to the
Assyrians. The point is that narrative pacing or speed (the amount of text per
time period) is a key tool in assigning importance and in shaping the reader’s
impression of what is important.
Returning to the genealogies, we see that the linear genealogies function
quite well in their intended purpose of moving the story along from the current

11. Wilson, Genealogy and History, 45.

12. Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (trans. Jane E. Lewin;
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1980), 87–88.
13. Tammi J. Schneider, “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah,”
Expedition 44, no. 3 (Winter 2002): 9–10.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 87

generation to the one at the end of the list. This is accomplished by speeding
up the pacing. One line or so per generation is certainly a swift pace. Thus, the
author/redactor is able to move the story along quickly to the next important
point, when the narrative again slows. Devora Steinmetz notes the different
functions of the two types of genealogies, attributing the difference to a notion
of chosenness, as “the parallel ‘generations’ (toledot) of the unchosen . . .
[branch] out immediately into nationhood, but dropping out of significance in
the narrative, [while] the chosen [beget] a single child who is able to continue
the chosen line.”14 In her reading of the difference of form, then, the linear gene-
alogies represent chosenness, while the segmented lists signify the unchosen.
However, the pacing of the segmented genealogies causes the reader to lin-
ger on a single generation or on just a couple generations. This slowing of the
narrative pace — or at least not speeding it up as much as in a linear geneal-
ogy — shows evidence of the author’s/redactor’s interest in having the reader
attend to these people, but the purpose of this pause is as yet unknown. We will
see that the difference in genealogical pacing will impact the function of the
lists in the context of the toledot headings.

Genealogies and the toledot Sections of Genesis

In the previous chapters, we have examined the toledot formula and its func-
tion as a heading to sections of the book of Genesis. Many of the genealogies
of Genesis occur in conjunction with one of these toledot headings. This is only
natural, since the toledot headings themselves are concerned on a semantic level
with the development of family histories. In addition to the more general func-
tions of genealogies listed above, the genealogies connected with the toledot
headings in Genesis have other functions specific to their context. As we turn
to the nature of the interaction between the genealogies and the toledot head-
ings (and the sections they introduce) we will see a distinct pattern emerging in
the placement and types of genealogies located near toledot formulae. Before
placing these genealogies in the structure defined by the toledot headings, let
us examine several of them according to their form.
Genesis 5 begins with a toledot heading: “this is the book of the toledot of
Adam.” The chapter then continues, after a short note, with a linear genealogy

14. Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in
Genesis (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John
Knox, 1991), 143.
88 These are the Generations

from Adam to Noah. Wilson points out that the genealogy begins by pointing
back to creation, as mentioned above.15 By taking the reader back to creation,
the line is drawn from creation to Adam and then through the genealogy to
Noah. Johnson sees this list and the similarly linear genealogy in Genesis 11
as merely a way to bridge the gap between the stories of creation and that of
the patriarchs.16 While they do perform this function, along with the narratives
in 1–11, they do more than this. Rather than merely linking the stories, the lin-
ear genealogies — by focusing on only one offspring per generation — move
the reader’s attention along to the following material. Rhetorically, the linear
genealogy in Genesis 5 functions to move the narrative along from the story of
Adam and his family to that of Noah and his family. Pacing is one of the ways
in which the story is controlled. By covering large amounts of time with a brief
list, as in the linear genealogy, the author/redactor is able to move the narrative
to those points more salient to the message of the author. The material that the
linear genealogies connect, then, is presented in a slower fashion — more text
per unit time — showing the importance of the material that the genealogical
list is connecting together.17 The genealogy of Shem in Genesis 11 follows this
same linear pattern, essentially moving the story directly from that of Noah’s
sons to that of Terah, the father of Abram.
The genealogies of Genesis 4 follow a similar linear form as those in
Genesis 5 and 11.18 The Cainite genealogy of 4:17–24 follows closely the form
of these other linear genealogies, even to the extent that it branches only in
the final generation like the others. The second genealogy in 4:25–26 briefly
records the new son of Adam, Seth, and his son, Enosh. We will return to the
place of these genealogies in the overall scheme of Genesis after a discussion
of the other genealogies.
The other genealogies connected with toledot headings in Genesis are seg-
mented. If one notes their positions, an interesting pattern emerges. Adding
these genealogies to our earlier structural outline based on the toledot ­headings,
we see:

15. Wilson, Genealogy and History, 159.

16. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 78.
17. On pacing, see above; Genette, Narrative Discourse, 87–96; and Gérard Genette,
Narrative Discourse Revisited (trans. Jane E. Lewin: Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1988), 33–37.
18. Wilson, Genealogy and History, 138–39.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 89

0 Prologue Gen 1:1

1 toledot of the heavens and earth . . . ‫אלה תולדות‬ 2:4
Linear genealogy: 4:17–24 (Cain’s descendants)
Linear genealogy: 4:25–26 (Adam to Enosh)
2 Book of the toledot of Adam . . . ‫זה ספר תולדת‬ 5:1
Linear genealogy: 5:3–32 (Adam to Noah)
3 toledot of Noah . . . ‫אלה תולדת‬ 6:9
a toledot of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 10:1
Segmented genealogy: 10:2–32 (Table of Nations)
4 toledot of Shem . . . ‫אלה תולדת‬ 11:10
Linear genealogy: 11:10–26 (Shem to Terah)
a toledot of Terah . . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 11:27
b toledot of Ishmael . . . ‫ואלה תלדת‬ 25:12
Segmented genealogy: 25:13–17 (Ishmael’s sons:
12 princes / ‫)נׂשיאם‬
c toledot of Isaac . . . ‫ואלה תולדת‬ 25:19
d toledot of Esau . . . ‫ואלה תלדות‬ 36:1
Segmented genealogy: 36:2–5 (Esau’s sons in Canaan)
e toledot of Esau (#2) . . . ‫ואלה תלדות‬ 36:9
Segmented genealogy: 36:10–14 (Esau’s sons) and 15–19
(Esau’s chiefs / ‫)אלופי‬
5 toledot of Jacob . . . ‫אלה תלדות‬ 37:2
Linear list: Num 1:4–16 (Leaders of the 12 tribes) 19

Segmented list: Num 1:17–46 (Census of Israel by tribes)

a toledot of Moses and Aaron . . . ‫ ואלה תולדת‬Num 3:1

Now we can see differences between the linear and segmented genealogies
other than simply their form and pacing. Whereas the linear genealogies func-
tion to move the narrative from one key figure in the toledot scheme to another,
their segmented counterparts are mainly concerned with figures that are not key
to the narrative at all.
Genesis 10 contains the Table of Nations. Quite a bit has been written about
this genealogy, although much of it has centered around either the identity of
various names and/or locations in the list or presumed sources behind its com-
position — legitimate concerns, but beyond the scope of this study.20 Turning

19. These lists in Numbers will be discussed later in this chapter.

20. For an example and overview of this approach, see Westermann, Genesis 1–11,
498–528.
90 These are the Generations

to literary context, however, we can see that the Table functions to renew
(after the flood) the desire of God that humanity should multiply and fill the
earth. God’s intention in creation is still maintained.21 As the focus of the story
is about to narrow to the line of Shem, it is also plausible that the genealogy
functions here to preserve a memory of the other lines of surviving humanity
after the flood. Otherwise, why should this list be included at all? The line of
Shem alone would be sufficient to show the multiplication of humanity after the
flood. However, the divine promise in 9:1–7 included Noah and his sons, and its
expansion in 9:8–17 included Noah, his sons, and all life on earth. Therefore,
Noah’s three sons — not just Shem — are included in the reaffirmation of the
blessing of 1:28 and in the promise never again to destroy all life on earth.
Therefore, the descendants of Ham and Japheth are recorded here along with
those of Shem. These other lines are preserved, so their memory should not
fade from the earth. More will be said about the role of the divine promise in
the next chapter. As the end of the Table of Nations, we have the first genealogy
of Shem.
Carol Kaminski’s study of the primeval blessing takes her into the genealo-
gies of Shem in depth.22 She focuses on the order of the sons in the Table of
Nations. She points out that the initial order from Gen 5:32, 6:10, 7:13, 9:18,
and 10:1 is reversed within the Table, so that Shem’s line is given last. Even
within Shem’s genealogical section (10:21–31), the order of his descendants
is listed in the reverse from how they are given initially. In Gen 10:22 his sons
are listed as “Elam and Asshur, and Arpachshad and Lud and Aram.” In the
following listing of their sons, however, Aram’s are listed first, then the sons
of Arpachshad. Even though only two sons’ descendants are listed, they are
reversed from the earlier listing in v. 22. Kaminski uses this reversal of order
to argue that the secondary lines are usually listed first in Genesis, followed by
the main line.23 In this case, Shem is the main line, but the pattern holds true for
the toledot sections of Ishmael and Isaac and Esau and Jacob as well.
Following the Tower of Babel story, we find another genealogy, this time that
of Shem alone. Now the focus changes from the three sons of Noah to the sin-

21. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies,” 602; cf. Umberto Cassuto,
A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (2 vols; Publications of the Perry Foundation for
Biblical Research in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961,
1964), 2:175–80. Cassuto sees the numerical connections of the passage (70 nations, etc.)
as evidence of the “preconceived Divine plan” of the dispersal in Gen 11.1–9 (p. 175).
22. Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 60–79.
23. Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 64–66.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 91

gular son, Shem, whose line will contain the people who will eventually be the
focus for the story. The form of the genealogy shifts, also, from the segmented
one in ch. 10 to a linear one here. Shem’s genealogy moves in a direct line of
succession to Terah, the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Note that Shem’s
linear genealogy ends with the three named sons of Terah just as Adam’s ended
with the three named sons of Noah. In both cases, Noah and Terah, the father of
the three sons was the name given to the following toledot section. In Shem’s
genealogy, we find a similar function to that of Adam’s: it moves the story for-
ward directly to that of Terah and his descendants.
Note that in both the genealogies of Adam and Shem, the pacing slows, just
as the family of the next toledot section is introduced. This slowing of the pace
is accomplished through this listing of the three sons together. Whereas most
of the linear genealogy has simply listed one descendent per generation (quick
pacing), the final generation listed in each contains three sons (slower pacing).
Thus, by changing the speed of the text, the author causes the reader to linger
on just the generation that will be the new focus of attention. Cassuto noted this
connection between the two genealogies as well:

This time [in 11:26] reference is not made to the firstborn only but to all the
three sons of Terah, just as earlier (v. 32) the three sons of Noah are listed.
The purpose is to tell us that this generation is not just an ordinary link in the
genealogical chain, like the preceding generations, but one of intrinsic and
outstanding significance.24

The three sons listed at the end of each genealogy point to the importance of
the generation arrived at, and the toledot heading following each introduces that
generation as the narrative focus.
These observations based on the genealogies in this early part of Genesis as
either linear or segmented line up with Tengström’s two types of genealogies as
well. Tengström posited two kinds of genealogical formulas: the erzählerische
or narrating type and the aufzählende or ennumerative type. The narrating type
— of which Adam’s is one — is used merely to introduce the story of the next
set of the ancestors of Israel. This corresponds to the linear type of geneal-
ogy that moves the story along to the next important generation. On the other
hand, the ennumerative type — of which Shem, Ham, and Japheth’s is one —
is used to introduce Stammtafeln or tribal trees which are concerned with the

24. Cassuto, Genesis, 2:266–67.

92 These are the Generations

relationship between Israel’s ancestors and the other nations of Israel’s world.25
Thus, in addition to slowing the reader and creating focus on the segmented
genealogies, they also refer the reader to the wider world of which Israel is a
part. Scharbert’s reading of these genealogies lines up with Tengström’s, but
adds an important element: they also function to itemize the outgoing family
lines by tribal father before they cease to be the focus for the story.26 While the
function of the narrating (and linear) type of genealogical formula is to provide
continuity between past and future, the ennumerative (and segmented) type is
used to define other people groups as distinct from Israel and preserve them
before moving on. Thus, Adam’s list expresses the growth of humanity, and the
Table of Nations begins the narrowing of focus to Israel. Note that Israel does
not appear in the Table of Nations.27 The Table of Nations is followed by the
emphasized toledot of Shem, beginning the (post-­flood) narrowing process. The
emphasized toledot after Shem’s is that of Jacob/Israel. The Table of Nations
thus allows us to set aside concern for other nations, so we may focus on the
next part of the story — Israel.
Having discussed the linear genealogies of Adam and Shem, we are in better
shape to return to that of Cain in Genesis 4. Genesis 4 has a linear genealogy in
17–18 from Cain to Lamech, where it then segments in a way similar to those
of Adam and Shem in 19–22. In these verses, we have a segmented genealogy
of Lamech’s sons and daughter. In vv. 23–24, we have a short narrative about
Lamech. This is not unlike the narrative focusing on Noah that comes after his
sons are introduced in 6:10. This short narrative is then followed by another
short genealogy in 25–26 (from Adam to Enosh). This short linear geneal-
ogy moves the reader’s focus back to the line of Adam, which is the concern
of Genesis 5. The purpose of the genealogy in Genesis 4 appears — on ana­
logy with the other linear ones in Genesis 5 and 11 — to move the story from
that of Cain to that of his descendent, Lamech. However, after Lamech’s short
narrative, the return to Adam shifts the story to set up the genealogy of Adam
through Shem in ch. 5.28

25. Tengström, Die Toledotformel, 25.

26. Scharbert, “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel,” 46.
27. Of course, in the story, Israel (person or group) does not yet exist, so its absence
here is not unexpected.
28. Although the form of these genealogies is more linear, one could see here a pres-
ervation of some of the lines that will soon be removed by the flood. This inconsistency
with what we find elsewhere with regard to the relationship between form and function
in the genealogies could point to elements of the diachronic development of the text.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 93

Moving back past the Table of Nations, Robinson sees the Tower of Babel
story as having fundamentally altered the course of the genealogical scheme.
Pointing to the segmented genealogy of the Table of Nations before the Tower
of Babel and the linear genealogy of Shem afterwards, he asserts that the focus
turns “as if by the powerful lens of the catastrophe at Babel to trace a single
line.” Reading the story of Genesis, the overall focus from here on is on a single
family line, whether strictly through genealogies or, as is more often the case, by
narrative progression.29 The focus does shift after Babel to one part of humanity,
but it is an oversimplification to say that the focus is only on that one line. The
segmented genealogies of Ishmael and Esau continue to point outward.
The genealogy of Ishmael in Genesis 25 comes just after his toledot head-
ing. Ishmael’s genealogy is another segmented one, reminding us that the story
of Israel is not alone in the world, but part of a much bigger drama in which
God is involved. We may be tempted to see the genealogy of Ishmael as dis-
missive of him and his offspring. The segmented genealogy, however, invites
the reader to pause and consider this figure before the narrative marches on
toward Israel. This is the Ishmael of whom God said (Gen 17:20; cf. 16:10ff,
21:13, and 21:18): “And regarding Ishmael, I have heard you [Abraham]:
Behold, I will bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his
numbers. He will be the father of twelve princes [‫]נׂשיאם‬, and I will make him
into a great nation.” This son of Abraham is promised almost the same things
as Isaac, except the land.30 Again, as with the Table of Nations, one function of
the genealogy is to preserve the memory of people who are outside the ongoing
focus of the story. This honors the descendants of Ishmael as a people included
in the divine covenant with Abraham, and more distantly with Noah. When the
story marches on in a few verses to the toledot of Isaac, the narrowing of focus
leaves Ishmael behind, but not before preserving his offspring.
Similarly, when we reach Genesis 36, we find the segmented genealogy
of Esau. This chapter is notoriously difficult to pinpoint in its focus, since it
contains several lists interspersed with notes on migration, and even the gene-
alogy and chiefs of the Horites.31 While Wilson saw this genealogy as merely

These genealogies in Genesis 4 are generally seen as the product of J, while most of the
genealogies of Genesis are from P.
29. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies,” 603–4.
30. It is worth noting that the land is not promised to Abram in Gen 12.1–3, but only
in v. 7 once he has entered the land. Thus, Ishmael is promised the same things as the
promises of 12.1–3, without mention of being a blessing to the nations.
31. For a thorough discussion of the issues involved in this chapter, see Wilson,
94 These are the Generations

“linking the narrative complexes that precede and follow it,” at least one addi-
tional function should be noted. Regardless of the compositional history of
the text — and it is undoubtedly complicated — the focus is on preserving the
memory of the people descended from Esau, the son of Isaac. In this respect,
we face a similar situation to that of the genealogy of Ishmael. Before the focus
moves on to the descendants of Jacob, the reader is invited again to pause and
consider the people who came from the line of Esau. These are even specified
as the Edomites, political neighbors of later Israel. The brothers end up living
side by side in history.

Functions of the Genealogies in Genesis

In this discussion we have limited ourselves to those genealogies that are
connected with toledot headings, finding that they appear to have distinctive
functions in the overall story of Genesis. Not surprisingly, the form of the genea­
logy affects the function it has in its literary context.
Linear genealogies move the story of Genesis along toward its focus on
Israel. These genealogies are not concerned with personages outside a narrow
range of key figures in the story, but rather with the main lines of descent. As
Fishbane noted, the genealogies in Genesis 1–11 “provide a coherent, consecu-
tive chain from Adam to Abram. They link narratives and determine the basic
movement of the entire cycle . . . The movement is intentional and deliberate:
from Adam to Abram, from the father of mankind to the father of one historical
people.”32 This statement applies most fully to the linear genealogies of Adam
and Shem, but in a wider sense to the overall thrust of Genesis.33
As we have seen, the linear genealogies in Genesis 4 complicate this picture
a bit. The second one, in 4:25–26, fits the pattern of a linear genealogy which
is repeated a few verses later in ch. 5. Gen 4:17–24, however, appears not to fit
the linear pattern, since the final generation of the genealogy, Lamech’s sons,
is not in the main line of descent in the ongoing story. Three factors may help
explain this anomaly: First, the segmentation of the final generation here is more

Genealogy and History, 167–83.

32. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts
(Oxford: Oneworld, 1998), 28.
33. Cf. Robinson, “Literary Functions of the Genealogies,” 604ff. Robinson speaks of
the story of Genesis after the Tower of Babel moving “in a single genealogical line” (604)
for the rest of the book. While this is the overall thrust of the book, it is not an exclusive
focus, as the present chapter demonstrates.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 95

extensive than that in Genesis 5 or 11, so it may be that we should identify this
genealogy as either segmented or at least a hybrid form. In this case, it would
fall in line with the segmented genealogies, whose members are secondary in
the following narrative. Second, the linear genealogy of 17–18 leads into the
short narrative concerning Lamech in 23–24. This parallels the pattern found
elsewhere, where a linear genealogy ends in a single segmented generation and
the story of either the father or son(s) of that final generation. Once the narra-
tive of Lamech is told, the story is free to move on. Finally, the descendants
of Adam are under the command/blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” from
1:28, as mentioned above.34 Part of the function of the genealogy could be to
show that even though Cain’s line may be stained by his actions, they still fall
under that general blessing of all humanity, which will be reaffirmed after the
flood in 9:7.
Turning to the segmented genealogies, we have seen that they serve quite a
different function. Rather than propelling the story along, they actually cause
the reader to pause and consider the family line being outlined. While the read-
er’s temptation may be to disregard these portions of the story, they are included
for a reason. These genealogies truly act as preservatives, allowing the story to
continue forward with its ever-­narrowing focus, while preserving and honor-
ing the memory and identity of these secondary characters of Israel’s world,
covered by the blessing of God.

Beyond Genesis
As we have noted all along, the toledot headings do not stop at the end of
Genesis. Num 3:1 confronts us with the toledot of Aaron and Moses, so the ques-
tion must be asked: is there a similar dynamic between their toledot heading and
one or more genealogies? At first glance, the answer must be no, as there are no
genealogies in the vicinity, unless one counts the minimal listing of Aaron’s sons
in 3:2. That list, however, does not fit the definition established at the beginning
of this chapter, since it only lists the sons of one father and stops. If there is no
genealogy, is there nothing more to discuss? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Coming to the toledot of Aaron and Moses, we must first set it in its context
within the book of Numbers. As a whole, the book of Numbers recounts the

34. Kaminski points to the possibility of a divine blessing being expressed as an

imperative, pointing to Gen 1.28, as we have here, but also to 27:29 and Deut 33:23b.
Kaminski, From Noah to Israel, 27; see also William Yarchin, “Imperative and Promise
in Genesis 12:1–3,” Studia biblica et theologica 10 (1980): 164–78.
96 These are the Generations

preparation for (1:1–10:10) and execution of (10:11–36:13) a campaign mov-

ing toward the Promised Land.35 We are concerned here, then, with the section
of the book recounting the preparation for this campaign. Within this prepara-
tion, we are mainly concerned with the first four chapters of the book. These
four chapters outline the establishment of leadership and mobilization of, first,
the congregation of Israel (1:1–2:34), then, the cultic leadership (3:1–4:49).
In order to set our passage (3:1–4 primarily) in its context, let us look at these
four chapters.
Chapter 1 of Numbers falls into two main sections: the establishment of lead-
ers for the community (1:1–16) and the census of the 12 tribes (1:17–46). In the
establishment of the leaders in 1:1–16, they are listed singly, by tribe, begin-
ning in v. 5. Each tribe is listed in the same format: the preposition -­‫ ל‬prefixed
to the name of the tribe, the name of the leader is given, and then comes the
formula X‫ בן־‬with X being the name of the leader’s father. The only significant
variation in the list is the addition, in v. 10, of the note ‫( לבני יוסף‬of the sons of
Joseph). Following this note are the leaders for Ephraim and Manasseh, in the
same form as listed above. What we have here is a straightforward listing of
the leaders with enough information to identify them and connect them with
their tribes.
Once the leaders are listed, we have a census list of the males 20 years old
and older, again organized by tribes, that outlines the strength of the Israelite
camp (1:20–43, with a summary in 44–46). The census is outlined in a very
regular form, as with the listing of leaders above. With minor variations, the
census list occurs in the following pattern:

‫ תולדתם למׁשפחתם לבית אבתם פקדיו במספר ׁשמות לגלגלתם כל־זכר מבן‬1 ‫לבני‬
2 1 ‫עׂשרים ׁשנה ומעלה כל יצא צבא‬
[Where 1 = the name of the tribe and 2 = the number].

The census list in Numbers 1 is linked with the genealogies and the toledot for-
mula in a simple way: the term toledot. The term occurs 11 times in this chapter:
once for each of the tribes of Israel, minus Levi. In fact, aside from the toledot
heading in 3:1, these are the only occurrences of the term in the book. As we
will see, this census list, along with the list of the leaders preceding it, takes up

35. For the major division of the book between 10:10 and 10:11, see Rolf P. Knierim
and George W. Coats, Numbers (FOTL 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 9, 16–17.
For an overview of a number of approaches to the structure of the book and the issues
involved see pp. 9–17.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 97

the role in connection with the toledot of Aaron and Moses that the genealogies
did in Genesis, although with some changes. The inclusion of the term toledot
helps the reader to make the connection.
The Levites are excluded from this census. After the census, the reasons for
not including the Levites are explained as their special cultic functions are out-
lined (1:47–54). This brings us to the end of Numbers 1. We see that the chapter
mostly consists of a couple of straightforward lists, first a list of leaders and
then a census list, both organized by tribes.
Listing the people of Israel by tribe in the census functions immediately in
its context to take stock of the military might of Israel as they begin their long
journey.36 It also gives an additional sense of identity to the people as they pre-
pare for the move away from Sinai. Further, it sets up the next chapter in which
the tribes are arranged in marching order for the journey.
What follows in ch. 2 is a description of the organization of the tribes for
moving through the wilderness. The tribes form around the central tabernacle,
which is attended by the Aaronide priests and the Levites. The organization of
the camp continues the straightforward, formulaic listing of the organization
of the tribes for encampment and movement. It is at this point that we come to
the toledot of Aaron and Moses.
Chapters 3–4 fall into two main sections: the genealogy of Aaron (3:1–4),
and the conscription and mobilization of the Levites (3:5–4:49). Knierim and
Coats argue that these two sections parallel those in Numbers 1, so that the gene-
alogy of Aaron (3:1–4) parallels the establishment of the leaders of the tribes
(1:5–16) and the organization of the Levites (3:5–4:49) parallels the census of
the 12 tribes (1:17–46).37 These parallels set up a dynamic in which the Aaronide
priesthood takes the place of leadership over the Levites among the cultic per-
sonnel, much as the 12 tribal leaders took up leadership of the 12 tribes. It may
be noted that the following several chapters until the departure of the people as
a whole from Sinai contain mainly various responsibilities and regulations for
the cultic functionaries of Israel.
While there are no genealogical lists in this section, the lists of leaders for
the tribes and of the census of all Israel, but the Levites in Numbers 1 before
the toledot heading of Aaron and Moses, is worth further consideration. As has
been noted before (and will be more fully explored in the next chapter), God’s
promises have an effect on this toledot structure and how the narrowing of story

36. Clines, Theme, 53.

37. Knierim and Coats, Numbers, 28–29.
98 These are the Generations

focus occurs. Given that this section is at the end of the Sinai revelation, is it
possible that we are again seeing something different after this (re-­)definition
of God’s relationship with Israel?
In the giving of the Sinai/Mosaic set of divine promises and command-
ments, the people of Israel have been formed as “a kingdom of priests and a
holy nation” (Exod 19:6). This new sense of identity comes to the fore at the
beginning of the book of Numbers. Recall that once the narrowing of the story
of Israel reaches Jacob/Israel, the narrowing of focus ends in Genesis. From
then on, the story concentrates on the whole of Israel developing together into
the people of God. Numbers 1, then, catalogues the whole of Israel apart from
the Levites. It might be compared with the Table of Nations, which lists out all
the sons of Noah. The Table of Nations lists out all the sons before the toledot
of Shem. Then come the toledot of Shem and a narrowing of focus. Here, in
these first chapters of Numbers, the census of Israel comes before the toledot
of Aaron and Moses, which is followed by a census of the Levites. The impli-
cation may be that, while the entirety of Israel is involved in the migratory
campaign, there is something about Aaron and Moses that will shape the focus
of the story from this point on.
Thinking ahead to the rest of the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy,
this focus on the toledot of Aaron and Moses is a reasonable one. Much of
Numbers 11–36 is concerned with the leadership of the community in the wil-
derness. Leadership flowing from Aaron concerns liturgical/cultic matters such
as sacrifice, festivals, and contributions to the priests and Levites. The leader-
ship of Moses is a civil one: judging disputes, directing the progress through
the wilderness, and overseeing the reconnaissance of the land. Deuteronomy,
as a whole, is presented as Moses’ final instructions to all Israel before his own
death and the community’s entry into the land. Thus, on some level, the rest of
the Pentateuch following Num 3:1 may indeed be seen as the toledot (offspring
or outcome) of Aaron and Moses.
In order to understand more about this method for focusing the reader on the
leadership flowing from Aaron and Moses, let us examine another parallel to
these texts in Numbers 1–4. The parallel between the material in Numbers 3–4
with that in Numbers 1–2 or the parallels to the Table of Nations are not the
only parallels that may be drawn to the material in these four chapters. More
significantly, there is a parallel between some of the material in these chapters
with the genealogies of Shem and Terah in Genesis 11.
Gen 11:10–26 contains the genealogical list of descendants from Shem to
Terah. That this genealogy is a linear one has already been discussed above.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 99

Its linear nature consists of the listing of one person per generation in order to
move the reader along quickly to the following material. In a similar manner,
the list of tribal leaders in Num 1:5–16 contains only one person per tribe in a
similarly schematic form. This alone is not enough to draw a parallel between
the two lists, as their content (and presumed function) differ widely, but this is
not the only point of connection. Also, in the list of leaders there are 12 tribes,
while in the Genesis genealogy there are only nine generations listed.
However, when we turn to the material regarding Terah and his descendants
in 11:26–32, several more points of comparison come to light. First, at the
end of the linear genealogy of Shem, we have the listing of Terah’s three sons
(Gen 11:26). Likewise, in Num 3:2, Aaron’s four offspring are listed. In both
cases, the linear list is followed by the branching into several sons of one per-
son. In Numbers, the sons of Aaron are not listed immediately following the list
of leaders, nor is Aaron one of those leaders. However, if we keep in mind that
the list of leaders in 1:5–16 and the genealogy of Aaron in 3:1–4 both function
to set up leadership in their respective realms — civil and cultic — they are not
so far apart as we might think. In fact, Aaron is one of the leaders of the con-
gregation of Israel, but rather than being the leader of a tribe, he is the leader
of the cultic personnel at the center of the encampment outlined in Numbers 2.
Additionally, he may be seen as the leader of the tribe of Levi, whose members
were excluded from the census list in Numbers 1, but who are numbered in the
remainder of chs 3 and 4. Thus, the list of all the leaders of the congregation of
Israel is in reality a linear list of 12 tribal leaders followed (with a short diver-
gence) by the final leader, Aaron, and his four sons. In the same way, Genesis 11
contains the linear genealogy of Shem to nine generations, followed by the three
sons of the final person in the list, Terah.
Parallels between the genealogical note regarding Aaron and his sons and the
genealogy of Terah continue as we turn to linguistic and conceptual elements.
First, on the sons of Aaron and Terah: the number of sons differs between the
two accounts. Notice, however, that in both accounts, one or more of the sons
is reported as dying: Terah’s son Haran (Gen 11:28a) and Aaron’s sons Nadab
and Abihu (Num 3:4a). Not only is there a parallel in the deaths of the sons, but
afterwards the number of living sons in both families is two: Terah’s sons Abram
and Nahor (Gen 11:29a) and Aaron’s sons Eleazar and Ithamar (Num 3:4c).
What came of the generation after these dead sons? In both cases, we are
told the status of their descendants. Terah’s son, Haran, had a son named Lot
(Gen 11:27c). Aaron’s sons, on the other hand, had no children (Num 3:4b).
If we look further, we see more notes regarding that next generation. In both
100 These are the Generations

passages, the status of that next generation is called into question. In Aaron’s
case, two of his sons have no descendants and just a few verses later we are
reminded that because God has a claim on the “firstborn, that first breaches
the womb,” God claims the Levites in their stead (Num 3:12). In Terah’s case,
we are told explicitly that Sarai was barren and that there was no child to her
(Gen 11:30).
None of this compares with the close linguistic connection provided by the
phrases: ‫ על־פני תרח אביו‬in Gen 11:28a and ‫ על־פני אהרן אביהם‬in Num 3:4c. In
both passages, something one or two of the sons do is “before the face of Np
father of him/them.” In Terah’s case, his son Haran dies before his face, prob-
ably meaning during his lifetime.38 In Aaron’s case, his sons Eleazar and Ithamar
serve as priests before his face, meaning either in his lifetime or in his pres-
ence.39 These two verses are the only two occurrences in the Hebrew Bible with
this phrase in the form it is here with the addition of the term ‫אב‬. The phrase
Np ‫ על־פני‬only occurs 26 times in the Hebrew Bible — 13 of these are in the
Pentateuch — and in every other occurrence it is in connection with a place
name, not a person.40 Thus, these two verses are tightly connected through this
singular use of ‫ על־פני‬to indicate the presence or lifetime of a person. A sum-
mary of the parallels between these two passages is offered as Table 5.

Table 5: Parallels between the Genealogy of Terah and Numbers 1–4

Genesis 11:10–32 Numbers 1–4
11:10–25 Linear list of nine generations 1:5–15 Linear list of the 12 leaders of the
from Shem to Terah tribes of Israel
11:26–27 Terah listed with multiple 3:2 Aaron listed with multiple (four) sons
(three) sons

38. Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition]
1; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 272. Wenham notes the parallel in Num 3:4 and
adds Deut 21:16, which he mentions could place this phrase in a legal context.
39. Philip J. Budd, Numbers (Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 5.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 34.
40. In the Pentateuch: Gen 11:28 (Terah); 18:16 (Sodom); 19:28 (Sodom); 23:19
(Mamre); 25:9 (Mamre), 18 (Egypt); 49:30 (Mamre); 50:13 (Mamre); Num 3:4 (Aaron);
21:11 (Moab); 33:7 (Baal-­zephon); Deut 32:49 (Jericho); and 34:1 (Jericho).
Elsewhere: Josh 13:3 (Egypt), 25 (Rabbah); 15:8 (the valley of Hinnom); 17:7
(Shechem, the city); 18:14 (Beth Horon), 16 (the valley of Ben Hinnom); 19:11 (Jokneam);
Judg 16:3 (Hebron); 1 Sam 15:7 (Egypt); 2 Sam 2:24 (Giah); 1 Kgs 11:7 (Jerusalem); 2
Kgs 23:13 (Jerusalem); and Zech 14:4 (Jerusalem).
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 101

Genesis 11:10–32 Numbers 1–4

11:27b Haran becomes father of Lot 3:4c Nadab and Abihu had no children
11:28a Death of Terah’s son, Haran, 3:4a Death of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and
reported Abihu, reported
11:28b Haran reported as dying 3:4d Eleazar and Ithamar reported as
‫על־פני תרח אביו‬ having served ‫על־פני אהרן אביהם‬
11:29a Terah’s two living sons, Abram and 3:4d Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron’s two
Nahor, mentioned living sons, mentioned
11:30 Sarai mentioned as being barren 3:4c Nadab and Abihu had no children
11:31 Terah takes his family and moves This section of Numbers is about the
from Ur to Haran preparation for a migratory campaign
11:32 Terah dies in Haran [20:28] Aaron dies on Mt. Hor

At the end of the Table 5 are listed a couple more thematic parallels between the
two passages that are worth mentioning. In Gen 11:31, we are told that Terah
moves his family from Ur to Haran. This move appears to anticipate that of
Abram in ch. 12.41 By connecting the beginning of this move to Terah’s initia-
tive, the parallels with Numbers become slightly stronger. The genealogies of
Shem and Terah prepare the family for the move to Haran. Once the history
of the family is recounted up to the present time and the principal actors are
mentioned, including several wives; then the move can commence. We should
recall that these genealogical lists follow the Tower of Babel story at the end
of which humanity is scattered from the area of Babylonia by God’s confusion
of languages. Here at the end of the chapter, Terah prepares his family for a
move in accordance with the scattering in Gen 11:1–9.42 Likewise, the material
in Numbers 1–4 is all part of the preparations for the migratory campaign, also
initiated by God, that Israel is about to embark upon. In fact, the rest of the book
of Numbers is concerned with this migration and the process of entering the
Promised Land. The process of Terah and his descendants working their way

41. Turner sees a connection between the father’s and son’s journeys as well: “There is
no evidence that Terah set out in response to a divine call, as Abraham did. Yet Abraham’s
journey seems to be more of a resumption of his father’s endeavour than a completely
new enterprise.” Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup 96;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 95–96.
42. If Terah’s move is in fact a response to the scattering at Babel, it is possible to
see the move as at least partially motivated at God’s initiative. This may give a bit more
clarity to Turner’s comments in the previous note.
102 These are the Generations

around toward the Promised Land throughout the rest of the book of Genesis
may thus be seen as not much different from the wanderings in Numbers.
Tying together our observations of these parallels, we see that the list of
leaders in Num 1:5–16, continued in the listing of Aaron and his sons in 3:1–4,
parallels in form the genealogies of Shem and Terah. The genealogy of Shem is
a linear one, as we have already noted. As argued above, the linear genealogies
in Genesis function to move the story along in order to focus the reader’s atten-
tion on the next figure who will be the focus of the ongoing story. Applying this
function in Numbers, we see that the list of leaders fits well into this scheme.
It lists the leaders quickly, so that the reader’s attention may be turned to the
leadership that will be the focus for the rest of the Pentateuch: the cultic and
civil leadership of Aaron and Moses.43
We are left, then, with the census list of Israel as a whole in Num 1:20–47.
Since this census is in parallel with that of the Levites in 3:17–4:49, we may
wonder if the focus in these lists is more on those listed being part of one fam-
ily: the tribes as part of Israel and the various families belonging to the Levites.
In that case, these lists begin to look a bit more like segmented genealogies.
Although the material regarding the Levites in Num 3:17–4:49 is complex, the
basic form is that of a genealogical list with appended duties and job descrip-
tions. The genealogical material lists the sons of Levi and their families in a
manner not dissimilar to that of a segmented genealogy.
Turning to the census of Israel in Num 1:20–47, it appears at first to be listed
in a linear fashion like the list of leaders it follows. However, whereas the list
of leaders was a minimal list with its focus clearly on leadership, the census
list differs. The census list is much more focused on family as reflected in the
description that the people were registered ‫למׁשפחתם לבית אבתם‬, the inclusion
of the term toledot throughout the list as mentioned above, and the designation
of Reuben as ‫( בכ)ו(ר יׂשראל‬contra 1:5). These clues indicate that this list is
meant much more to reflect the tribes as parts, or offspring, of Israel. By list-
ing out all the tribes of Israel as the sons of Israel, one generation is given in its
entirety, which is in keeping with the function of the census itself: numbering
this generation of Israel in its entirety. Thus, seeing this list as analogous to a
segmented genealogy is not at all out of the question.
By listing the leaders of Israel in a linear way and the whole of Israel in a

43. If this is truly the case, the absence of a genealogy of Moses at this point may sup-
port the compositional argument that the presence of Moses in 3:1 is indeed secondary,
although his inclusion is quite understandable if it indeed highlights the focus on civil
leadership.
 3. Genealogies’ Role in Shaping the Narrative 103

segmented list, the author/redactor of Numbers is using these lists in a similar

way to the genealogical lists in Genesis. It appears clear that the list of leaders
in Numbers 1 and the short genealogical note in 3:1–4 combine to function in a
similar way to the genealogies of Shem and Terah in Genesis 11. The function
of the lists of leaders is to move the story along to the point where the focus
is free to shift to the civil and cultic leadership of Israel, as shown in Moses,
Aaron, and their successors. The census list preserves the presence of Israel in
the story, a presence that would be hard to forget anyway, given the interactions
between people and leaders throughout the book of Numbers.

Back to the Beginning: Genesis 1

With these observations on the lists in Numbers in mind, we may now return
to one of the toledot transitions in Genesis for further clarification. In Gen 5:1
the toledot of Adam focuses the story on the species of humanity, narrowing the
focus from all of creation. We have noted that this is a simple choice of species,
but have not been able to say much more. Now we can wonder if, in analogy
with Numbers, there is any other list that preserves the presence of creation in
the same way that the genealogical lists in the rest of Genesis or the census list
in Numbers preserve various groups of humanity.
A prime candidate for this preservation list regarding creation is in
Gen 1:1–2:3. In this passage, all of creation is listed, as it is created. Here we
are in somewhat more speculative territory based on two features of this pas-
sage. First, the creation story of Gen 1:1–2:3 is not simply a list. Instead, we
have here a much more elaborate hymn of creation.44 The passage is, however,
highly regular in its formulation, lending itself to the preservative function.
Second, the placement of the passage outside of the toledot series is problem-
atic. In other examples of the lists as preservative, they come just prior to the
focus narrowing. Here, the focus narrows at 5:1, after the toledot section of the
heavens and earth. The possibilities are intriguing, but further work would need
to be done to test this hypothesis.

44. Based on an analysis of the text and its connections to material about the taber-
nacle in Exodus, Weinfeld concludes that the “Sitz im Leben of Gen 1:1–2:3 is indeed
cultic-­liturgic.” Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord
— The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in Mélanges bibliques et ori-
entaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. Andre Caquot and Mathias Delcor; Alter
Orient und Altes Testament 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 510.
104 These are the Generations

Summary
In this chapter, we have focused on the role of lists, primarily genealogies, in
recording family lines that are secondary within the narrowing process through
the Pentateuch. We began by outlining a definition and the general functions of
genealogies. We then noted that linear genealogies function in Genesis to move
the story along quickly to the next main character. On the other hand, segmented
genealogies function to record and preserve those (secondary) family lines that
will not be of major interest in the ongoing story. To explore further these differ-
ent functions of the two types of genealogy, we then examined various examples
that occur in conjunction with one of the toledot headings. The examination of
the passages confirmed these two functions of the genealogies of Genesis.
Turning from these insights gained from Genesis, we examined the list of
leaders and the census of the tribes in Numbers 1–2. We argued that these lists
were functioning in a similar way vis-­à-­vis the toledot heading in 3:1 to the
genealogical lists in Genesis. This allowed us to assert that the people of Israel
generally were, in some sense, being set aside as the main focus for the ongo-
ing story. Instead, the focus turns — by means of the linear list of leaders in
Numbers 1 and the toledot heading in 3:1 — to the civil and cultic leadership
of Israel. The general themes found in the remainder of the Pentateuch confirm
this interest in leadership.
As far as we have come, some questions still remain. Mainly, what accounts
for the differences in the ways in which the narrowing of focus occurs through
the Pentateuch? How are we to reconcile a worldwide flood (as with Noah) with
the simple choosing of one sibling over another (as with Shem, Isaac, and Jacob)
or the change in focus without removing the others from the scene (as with the
shift to the leadership of Israel)? Finally, how do we account for the presence
of toledot headings for secondary siblings like Ishmael, but not for Nahor or
Haran? Three key points in the Pentateuch prove to be turning points, where the
presence of a divine–human covenant fundamentally alters the landscape for
the continuing story. The promises and blessings found in these covenants will
provide the final pieces of the puzzle that we are working with in this study.
 105

Chapter 4

COVENANTS CHANGE THE BASIS FOR

THE NARROWING OF F OCUS

In previous chapters, it has been noted that the narrowing of focus in the
Pentateuch occurs in different ways in different parts of the story. For example,
in the story of Noah, killing off the rest of humanity forms the basis on which
the story is narrowed to his descendants alone. On the other hand, the narrow-
ing from Noah’s three sons to Shem appears to occur simply on the basis of a
choice — either on the part of God or the narrator. In the last chapter, we found
that the people of Israel were moved to the sidelines of the story early in the
book of Numbers in order to focus on their leaders. This narrowing of focus
was accomplished without any outright rejection of the people generally; in
fact, they retain a strong presence throughout the material. Another problem we
noted in the toledot structure was the inclusion of individual toledot headings
for Ishmael and Esau, but not for earlier secondary siblings like Nahor, Haran,
Ham, or Japheth. Between the toledot of Terah and that of Ishmael something
happened to change the way in which this narrowing of focus was expressed
in the writing. What distinguishes these three points in the narrowing of focus
created by the toledot heading is the presence of a divine–human covenant.1
At these three key points in the Pentateuch, a covenant enters the picture that
fundamentally changes the relationship between God and (at least a portion
of) humanity and, subsequently, the way in which the narrowing of focus in
the story is able to take place. Before fully exploring these three key points, let
us look at the centrality of covenant and the first of the three key points in the
toledot structure of Genesis.

1. Although I will use the term “covenant” in this chapter, a full exploration of the
term ‫ ברית‬or the concept of covenant would be beyond the scope of this study. I hope to
expand on this chapter in future works.
106 These are the Generations

The Centrality of Covenant to the toledot Structure of Genesis

In order to demonstrate the centrality of divine promises or covenants to the
toledot structure in Genesis, we will look again at the structure formed by the
toledot headings. To this point, we have examined primarily the syntactic struc-
ture created by the toledot headings. We have seen that the headings form the
backbone on which the other materials — narrative, genealogy, etc. — hang.
We have seen through syntactic variations that some of the headings indicate
stronger breaks than others, designating some as major and some as minor
headings.
However, syntactic structure is not the only type of structure that may be
discerned in a text. Hyun Chul Paul Kim has explored how rhetorical criti-
cism opened up the possibilities for discerning additional structure in texts.
Rhetorical criticism has “discovered more ways to see the structure of a text.”
In fact, “we can study at least two structures of a single text.”2 The syntactic
structure we have uncovered so far may be said to be a linear structure, since it
consists of elements that progress in a linear fashion, although with variation.
Using a more rhetorical approach, however, we may uncover a different style
of structure, in this case, one that is more chiastic in its formulation.
In Chapter 1, we found that the primary function of the toledot formula is
as a heading. We found this to be the case primarily on syntactic and linguistic
grounds. Turning temporarily to a more rhetorical approach, we may recall that
the formula functions to remind and refocus the reader on a character who has
already been introduced. Thus, in a rhetorical structure of the toledot series,
we may see the formula functioning more as a lens acting to refocus the reader
than as the heading of a discrete segment of text. This is to say that in the rest
of this section, only, we will consider the toledot headings a bit more broadly
as focal points around which traditions coalesced to create the rhetorical impact
that the author/redactor was looking for. Therefore, we will consider parallel
images in the text with more regard to their rhetorical placement, for example,
in the traditions surrounding Noah rather than strictly in Gen 6:9–10:1. Rather
than a weakness in this argument, it is taking into account the reality that rhet­
orical impact may be more fluid than a strictly syntactically defined unit of text
would allow.

2. Hyun Chul Paul Kim, “Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms:
Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts,” in The Changing Face
of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century (ed. Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben
Zvi; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 88.
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 107

We noted in Chapter 2 that the five non-­waw, independent forms of the tole-
dot formula designate the major headings for the book of Genesis. Turning
our focus primarily to these five headings, we see some shared features of the
sections that these headings introduce. We have already noted the similarities
between the toledot sections of Adam and Shem. Both introduce linear genea­
logies that end with a final generation of three sons. The other three of these
sections share features related to the cult of Israel. Outlining these similarities
leads to the following chiastic structure:

A toledot of heavens and earth

• sanctuary (house of God) symbolism
B toledot of Adam
• preceded by calling on the name of Yhwh (Gen 4:26b)
• section begins with a reminder of humanity’s creation
• followed by a linear genealogy starting from the father of all humanity
(Adam’s descendants)
C toledot of Noah
• the problem of violence
• divine promise not to destroy the world in the same way again
• regulation on shedding blood
B’ toledot of Shem
• preceded by Tower of Babel: people build a name for themselves
• preceded by genealogical list denoting all of humanity (Table of
Nations)
• followed by linear genealogy starting from the father of a subset of
humanity (Shem’s descendants)
A’ toledot of Jacob (Israel)
• established pillars and altars, esp. at Bethel “house of God”

Here we see our first three of these toledot sections (A, B, and C) that outline
the growth and origin of all humanity. Following these come the other toledot
sections (B’ and A’) that outline the narrowing of the focus of the book to Israel.
Note the cultic focus of the elements framing these accounts in A, C, and A’.
The outside elements of the chiasm (A and A’) both contain sanctuary and
house of God symbolism to tie them together. The sanctuary symbolism of
Genesis 1–2 has been long acknowledged. Genesis Rabbah 16.5 interprets
the phrase “to till it and keep it” in Gen 2:15 as a reference to the offerings in
the Temple. Genesis Rabbah 21.8 connects the driving out from the garden
108 These are the Generations

with the destruction of the Temple: “The verb for ‘drove out’ may be read as
‘he showed him,’ that is to say, he showed him the destruction of the house of
the sanctuary.”3 This shows recognition of the connection between the garden
narrative and the Temple from early in the Common Era. Martin Buber noted
connections between the creation of the world and the building of the tabernacle
in his essay, “Der Mensch von heute und die jüdische Bibel.”4 Buber noted con-
nections such as: the use of seven days (Genesis 1, Exod 24:16), the report of
completion (Gen 2:1–2, Exod 39:32), seeing the completed work, (Gen 1:31,
Exod 39:43), and the blessing of the work (Gen 1:28, 2:3; Exod 39:43).5 More
recent examinations have fleshed this connection out more fully.6 Especially
helpful are studies by Gordon Wenham and Bruce T. Dahlberg.
Wenham’s essay7 focuses specifically on the sanctuary symbolism in the
garden narrative, and he finds several connections of particular interest to this
study. He notes that the job of Adam in the garden is “to till and to keep it”:
‫( לעבדה ולׁשמרה‬Gen 2:15). These two verbs are only used together elsewhere
in the Pentateuch in Num 3:7–8;8 8:26; and 18:5–6. In these other passages the
verbs are used to refer to the duties of the Levites. Wenham concludes that “if
Eden is seen then as an ideal sanctuary, then perhaps Adam should be described
as an archetypal Levite.”9 Given the trajectory of the toledot formula through

3. Jacob Neusner, Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis:
A New American Translation (Brown Judaic Studies 104; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985),
1:236.
4. Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung (Berlin:
Schocken, 1936), 37–45.
5. Buber and Rosenzweig, Die Schrift, 40–41.
6. For example, Peter J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of
Ex 25–40,” ZAW 89 (1977): 375–78; Moshe Weinfeld, “Sabbath, Temple and the
Enthronement of the Lord — The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3,” in
Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. Andre Caquot
and Mathias Delcor; Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker,
1981), 501–12; Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64 (1984): 275–98;
Frank H. Gorman, Jr., “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status,” in History
and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. Patrick Graham, William
P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993), 47–64.
7. Gordon J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in
Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of
the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 19–25.
8. Note the proximity to the toledot of Moses and Aaron.
9. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 21.
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 109

the Pentateuch toward cultic and civil leadership, this observation is particu-
larly striking. Further, he notes that the ‫ ׁשהם‬stone mentioned in Gen 2:12 is
the same type of stone used in the making of the priestly ephod (Exod 28:9–10,
see the discussion of this passage above in Chapter 2).10 Throughout the gar-
den narrative, Wenham finds many references to the sanctuary and priestly
implements.
The complement to this sanctuary symbolism is found in the life of Jacob (A’).
Jacob is twice reported as setting up pillars at Bethel (28:18 and 35:14). He
builds an altar at Bethel (35:7) and at Shechem (33:20). When Jacob sets out
to see his son Joseph after many years, he stops in Beersheba to offer sacrifices
(46:1). Here, also, God appears to him and reaffirms the promise of descendants
and land (46:2–4). Notably, just after this reaffirmation that Jacob’s descendants
will become a nation, we find a list of those who traveled to Egypt (46:8–26),
ending with the note that Jacob’s family all together came to 70 people (46:27).
The number 70 here (and in Exod 1:5 and Deut 10:22) is usually understood
to denote the complete nation of Israel, in microcosm, similar to the 70 nations
listed as Noah’s descendants in Genesis 10.
While the earlier activities connected with Bethel are, strictly speaking,
before the toledot section of Jacob, they are part of the tradition surrounding
Jacob (thus consistent with the way we are using rhetorical structure), and
are not inconsistent with what we find later in the section itself. In fact, when
Joseph brings Manasseh and Ephraim to Jacob for a blessing before he dies,
Jacob recounts how “El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan”
(48:3). From Jacob’s earlier encounter with God at Bethel (28:19), we know that
Luz is the older name for Bethel. The connection with Bethel at these various
points suggests the sanctuary symbolism of the creation accounts, since Bethel,
normally ‫בית־אל‬, means “house of God.”11
Dahlberg,12 for his part, focuses on connections between the primeval mater­
ial in Genesis 1–11 and the Joseph novella, the main content of the toledot
of Jacob. Specifically connecting together the toledot section of the heavens
and earth with that of Jacob, he finds several parallels between the serpent’s
speech in Genesis 3 and Joseph’s words to his brothers in Genesis 50. The ser-
pent promises that they will “be like gods knowing good and bad” (3:5), while
Joseph says, “Am I in the place of God? You meant evil for me, but God meant

10. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism,” 22.

11. HALOT, “‫ ַּבִית‬,” 125–26.
12. Bruce T. Dahlberg, “On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis,” TD 24 (1977):
360–67.
110 These are the Generations

good” (50:19–20). Eve is told that she “surely will not die” (3:4), while Joseph
sees that the purpose of God in his story is “to preserve many people [alive]”
(50:20).13
Also, he finds a more specific linguistic connection to the term used for
Joseph’s coat, ‫כתנת פסים‬. The only other place in Genesis that uses this word
for garment, ‫כתנת‬, is the description of the ‫ כתנות עור‬or “garments of skins”
that Yhwh Elohim made for Adam and Eve in 3:21. Dahlberg notes a number of
other reflections in the Joseph novella of the garden narrative, such as the task
given to Adam to “till and keep” the garden, which is actually accomplished
by Joseph in Egypt in maintaining the grain supply during famine. The con-
nections listed here provide a strong connection between the outer parts of the
chiasm, A and A’.
The center of the chiasm, and of this cultic focus, is the toledot of Noah with
the account of the flood. The flood account begins with the major problem in
the early part of the book, violence (6:11–13). This problem had been explored
earlier in the stories of Cain and Lamech (4:8–15, 23–4). This problem of
violence returns at the end of the flood account in the context of a significant
cultic event. God establishes regulations regarding the shedding and eating of
blood (9:4–6). This foreshadows future regulations regarding the uses of blood
in the cult of Israel (cf. Lev 17:10–14). God then establishes a covenant with
all creation (Gen 9:9–17), recalling the toledot of the heavens and earth. Thus,
the cultic events at the center of the chiasm (C) point ahead to A’ (and beyond
to future regulations for Israel) then back to A (creation). The toledot of Noah
is also the turning point in the book from a general focus on all humanity to a
more specific focus on a particular group of humans. The flood narrative sets
this up by restarting all of humanity with a subset of original humanity. The
toledot following Noah’s — that of his three sons — is the last to involve all of
future humanity and mainly serves as a heading for the Table of Nations. The
Table serves to define the various groups of the world and allows for the nar-
rowing of focus to one group in particular.
The inner parts of the chiasm (B and B’) differ from the rest of the structure
in that they are less interested in cultic matters. Instead, the toledot of Adam
and of Shem both draw our focus to the flow of the history. As already noted
in Chapter 3, the linear genealogies of Adam and Shem function primarily to
move the story of Genesis forward. The cultic focus of the other toledot for-
mulae in the chiasm draws attention to what cultic elements may be present

13. Dahlberg, “Unity of Genesis,” 363–64.

 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 111

in the toledot sections of Adam and Shem. Gen 5:1b–2 recalls the creation of
humanity in Genesis 1. Though not an overtly cultic passage, the reminder of
humanity created in the image of God may take on an added dimension when
thought of in the context of the cult. Both sections also follow close on the heels
of a divine–human interaction involving the concept of the name: calling on the
name of Yhwh (4:26) or humanity’s thwarted desire to create a name for itself
(11:4, cf. 11:9). The most interesting observation from this structure, however,
is the distinction between the scope of the story before and after the flood. In
Adam’s section, we have a genealogy starting from the father of all humanity.
In Shem’s section, we have a genealogy starting from the father of only a sub-
set of humanity. In between comes the Table of Nations, listing all of humanity
after the flood, but when we turn to the next major heading, Shem, the rest of
humanity fades away into the background of the ongoing story.
Putting this together, we see that, in one way of structuring the book, the
rhetorical, the promise and blessing of God after the flood becomes a central,
defining moment not only in the book, but in the relationship between God and
humanity. This promise of God affects the first of the three key moments of
difficulty that we noted in the narrowing of focus brought about by the toledot
headings.

Three Key Moments in the toledot Series

We began this chapter by noting three key points in the toledot series where the
basis of the narrowing of focus or its presentation in the text changes. These key
points correspond with three key sets of divine promises, and indeed divine–
human covenants. Let us look more closely at each of these key moments.

Key Point #1: The Promise after the Flood

In the structure that we just outlined, the center of the chiasm and of Genesis is
the toledot of Noah. Given the cultic focus of the outer elements of the chiasm
that we just noted, our attention is drawn to the cultic elements of the story of
Noah. He performs a sacrifice upon exiting the ark, and then receives a prom-
ise and covenant from God. This promise is not only to Noah or humanity, but
with all of creation. This divine promise fundamentally changes the relationship
between God and creation from that point forward.
Our major question in coming to this section of the toledot structure of
Genesis regards the basis upon which the narrowing of focus occurs. The nar-
rowing that takes place between Adam’s toledot section and Noah’s is primarily
112 These are the Generations

made possible by the elimination of all humans outside Noah’s family. We

could point to the beginnings of a criterion of choice, perhaps, in Gen 6:9b.
Here we are told that Noah ‫איׁש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו‬. While there is some
discussion about what ‫ בדרתיו‬means,14 the whole phrase could be taken to indi-
cate that Noah was chosen because of his (at least relative) righteousness. It
is clear in the context, however, that his righteousness was primarily the basis
for his family surviving the flood (7:1), not necessarily the basis for following
his descendants in the following story. This makes any choice on the basis of
righteousness intrinsically connected with the fact that his family are the only
humans left alive by the end of Noah’s toledot section.
The next narrowing of focus, however, is not accomplished in this same way.
After the flood, first the descendants of Noah’s sons are listed in their toledot
section, then — following the Tower of Babel story — the toledot section of
Shem narrows the focus again to one of the three brothers. The three brothers
together have a toledot heading; this appears to be on the basis of the sign of
the covenant given in Gen 9:12–17, the rainbow. In the toledot section of the
three brothers, we may also note that here is the first example of a segmented
genealogy, which, as we argued in Chapter 3, functions to preserve the fam-
ily lines of the three brothers. Just as the rainbow may be experienced by all
three brothers (and all of humanity), all three brothers together are listed in the
segmented genealogy of the Table of Nations. Next comes the Tower of Babel
story. One wonders, based on the divine promise and covenant after the flood,
if this is a story of a non-­lethal way for God to deal with undesirable behavior.
Following the Tower of Babel story, the focus narrows to one brother, Shem.
Clearly, the basis for this narrowing must be different from the previous one.
The descendants of Ham and Japheth remain alive, while the focus of the story
turns to Shem’s descendants.15
Between these two narrowings, a significant event occurs. After the flood,

14. Genesis Rabbah 30.9 records a rabbinic debate over this term. The debate centered
on whether Noah was only relatively righteous given the wickedness of his generation
(Rabbi Judah) or if he was righteous in this wicked generation and would have been more
righteous in another time (Rabbi Nehemiah). Harry Freedman, trans., Genesis (vol. 1 of
Midrash Rabbah; ed. Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon; London: Soncino, 1939),
237–38. For a fuller study of Noah’s righteousness in early Jewish literature, see James C.
VanderKam, “The Righteousness of Noah,” in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles
and Paradigms (ed. John J. Collins and George W. E. Nickelsburg; SBL Septuagint and
Cognate Studies 12; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980), 13–32.
15. One could point to the curse of Ham — in the person of his son, Canaan (9:25) —
as relegating him to secondary status in the coming toledot section. Japheth’s secondary
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 113

God promises never again to destroy the world in a flood (9:9–11). The strength
of this divine promise never again to destroy all flesh in a flood is highlighted
by the prohibition against killing a human that precedes it (9:5–6) as well as by
the establishment of a sign, ‫אות‬, to remind humanity and God of this covenant
(9:12–17). This covenant effectively limits God’s activity in the world. Carr
notes, “Unlike the pre-­flood storyline, the post-­flood world now stands under the
protection of the covenant. So instead of a decision to destroy all of humanity,
we see a different sort of narrative narrowing.”16 Since the covenant specifi-
cally prohibits God from destroying humanity, or all creation, with a flood;
when it comes time to narrow the focus again to Shem’s line, the destruction
of the other families is not even considered. At most, the scattering of humanity
in the Tower of Babel incident points to a geographical separation of peoples.
This may provide the background for the focus to turn to one family. We see
a similar geographical dynamic at work in the story of Ishmael and Isaac, for
example. By sending Hagar and Ishmael away, the stage is set for the focus of
the story to shift to Isaac, as he is the son who is living with his parents in the
Promised Land. Later, also, Abraham sends away his other, later sons “into the
obscurity of the ‘east country’” (25:1–6).17
In the end, we must acknowledge the role of the covenant after the flood in
shaping the narrowing of focus from that point on. Never again is the rest of
humanity (or even a secondary line) killed off to make way for the story to nar-
row in on one segment of the previous focus. The divine promise in Genesis
9 changes the basis for the narrowing of focus from that point on. Future nar-
rowings may only take place on the basis of some sort of a choice within living
humanity. “God leaves the rest of humanity alive, but initiates a special rela-
tionship with a certain genealogical line.”18 Our next key point takes us into
another difficulty concerning the recording of the choice.

Key Point #2: The Promise to Abraham

In moving from Shem to Terah, the linear genealogy in 11:10–26 simply pres-
ents one son in each generation as the next bearer of narrative focus. Given what

status is less clearly indicated in 9:26–27, where God is ‫“( אלהי ׁשם‬the God of Shem”)
and Japheth is given a home in Shem’s tents.
16. David Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Pattern in
Genesis as Part of the Torah,” ZAW 110 (1998): 333–34.
17. Allan K. Jenkins, “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch,”
JSOT 10 (1978): 47.
18. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 334.
114 These are the Generations

we know from other genealogies, it is safe to say that most, if not all, of these
men likely had more than one son. Therefore, in listing only one descendant
per generation, a decision is being made by the author/redactor to present each
generation from Shem to Terah as if only one of the sons has been chosen to be
the focus. The basis for this narrowing, then, is similar to the basis on which
Shem was chosen from among his brothers: seemingly arbitrary choice.
After Terah’s toledot section, the next narrowing of focus makes a choice
between Ishmael and Isaac, both of whom are active characters in the story.
The choice is made more explicitly by God (Gen 17:16–21), but is basically
along the lines of what we saw earlier: choice of one son over another or o­ thers.
However, in the way the story is written, something happens that calls for expla-
nation. Instead of moving directly to the chosen son, Isaac, the story includes a
toledot section for Ishmael (25:12–18). This may appear to parallel the toledot
section of Noah’s sons that preceded the toledot section of Shem, but there is
one key difference. Whereas the toledot section of Noah’s sons was that of all
three sons — including Shem — the toledot section of Ishmael focuses squarely
and exclusively on the son whose line is secondary to the ongoing story. We
are left with the question as to why Ishmael deserves his own toledot section,
short as it is.
Again, we are drawn to an intervening covenant and set of divine prom-
ises. Throughout the toledot section to Terah, Abraham is given a series of
divine promises concerning himself and his descendants.19 The content of these
promises has been variously understood, but generally as containing promises
concerning descendants, a relationship with God, and land.20 For the purposes
of our current study, we are more concerned with the impact of these promises
on the toledot structure than on the specific content, although the promise of
descendants does appear key to the argument here.
God promises Abraham that he will have descendants to carry on this par-
ticular relationship that God is entering into with him. The sign, ‫אות‬, of this
covenant is circumcision. Up to 17:14, the reader may logically view Ishmael
as the rightful heir of this promise. “Nothing in what Yahweh has said so far in
ch. 17 has stated explicitly that Ishmael is to be replaced as ‘firstborn son’.”21

19. Regarding primarily Abra(ha)m: Gen 12:1–3, 7; 13:14–17; 15:5, 7, 13–21; 17:2,
3–16; and 22.16–18. Regarding Isaac: 17:19, 21. Regarding Ishmael: 17:20; 21.13.
20. Following David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 10;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978) 27, 29.
21. Laurence A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis (JSOTSup 96; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 77.
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 115

In fact, “everything the Deity says in Gen 17 thus far could be in keeping with
understanding Ishmael as the intended heir . . . All signs promote the idea that,
in the eyes of both the Deity and Abraham, Ishmael is the intended heir.”22 When
Abraham wishes that Ishmael would suffice as his descendant (17:18), God
responds that the bearer of this promise would be his child by Sarah.23 However,
because of Abraham’s prayer for Ishmael, God promises that Ishmael will also
be blessed with many descendants (17:20; cf. 16:10; 21:13, 18). Sarah’s role in
Ishmael’s conception may play a role here as well. Hagar is given a status not
unlike Zilpah and Bilhah, the maids (‫ )ׁשפחת‬of Leah and Rachel, as a woman/
wife (‫ )לאׁשה‬of Abraham (16:3; cf. 30:4, 9). Zilpah and Bilhah’s “children,
because of the maids’ unique relationships with their mistresses, inherit with
the mistresses’ sons.”24 Perhaps something similar is at work with Hagar and
Ishmael. Later in Genesis 17, Abraham makes a point of circumcising Ishmael
(17:23, 25), explicitly bringing him into the scope of the covenant through
observing its sign (‫)אות‬. Abraham here may be attempting to include Ishmael
in this promise, much as the three sons of Noah were included in that promise
by experiencing the sign (‫ )אות‬of that covenant, the rainbow (see above).25 It
should be said, though, that what Abraham does is in accordance with God’s
command in 17:9.26
Given the promise to Ishmael as Abraham’s descendant and his inclusion
in the covenant through circumcision, the presence of a toledot section for
Ishmael becomes much more understandable. His descendants are connected to
the divine promise to Abraham and thus are a part of the ongoing story on that
basis. In order to refocus the story on Isaac, Ishmael’s line must be dealt with.
This is accomplished through a segmented genealogy, which — as we saw in
the previous chapter — functions to preserve the lines that will no longer be
the focus of the story.27 Note that Ishmael’s sons are explicitly identified in the

22. Tammi J. Schneider, Sarah: Mother of Nations (New York: Continuum, 2004),
57.
23. Thus, Sarah is the deciding factor in which child will bear the promise. See Turner,
Announcements of Plot, 77 and Schneider, Sarah, 57–58.
24. Schneider, Sarah, 49.
25. Note that the terms for sign, ‫אות‬, and covenant, ‫ברית‬, only occur so closely
together in reference to these two promises (Gen 9:12, 13, 17; 17:11).
26. Turner, Announcements of Plot, 77.
27. Carr notes that “with the establishment of the covenant with Abraham, P began to
introduce genealogies of those excluded from the covenant: Ishmael and Esau.” However,
as I have argued, these genealogies are included precisely because they are within the
scope of the covenant of Abraham and his descendants. David M. Carr, Reading the
116 These are the Generations

genealogy (25:16) as 12 princes, ‫ׁשנים־עׂשר נׂשיאם‬, just as promised in 17:20.

Once Ishmael’s descendants have been preserved and honored as part of the
promise, the story is free to turn to Isaac, as it does in 25:19.
This covenant also helps to explain why there is no toledot heading for either
Nahor or Haran. These two sons of Terah are a part of the promise to all of cre-
ation in Genesis 9, but the focus has already been narrowed from there, to Shem,
and then to their own father. Since the following promise is for Abraham and
his descendants, Nahor and Haran are not a part of that promise.28 Ishmael, then,
receives a toledot heading for the same reason that Nahor and Haran do not: he
is directly and individually part of the promise to Abraham while they are not.
On why there is no toledot heading for Abraham, see the Excursus.
Effects of this divine promise to Abraham and his descendants may also be
seen in the next narrowing of focus to Jacob. Since all of the descendants of
Isaac are included in the divine promise to Abraham, Esau’s descendants must
be preserved in a similar way to those of Ishmael. Esau, like Ishmael, receives
a secondary blessing (Gen 27:39–40), although his is from his father instead of
from God and is of dubious value. Whatever the value of his father’s blessing,
the inclusion of his family in their own toledot section(s) shows evidence for
the efficacy of the divine blessing to Abraham.
As we move into the following generation, the process of narrowing stops
with the sons of Jacob. All 12 are taken as the focus of the story from that point
on, so no narrowing process is necessary. We discussed this pause in the narrow-
ing process in Chapter 2. Given that in each of the previous narrowings there is
a decision made among siblings as to who will be the next focus, the focus on all
12 brothers from here on is significant. The toledot section of Jacob begins with
his 12 sons. As the story of Joseph unfolds, the reconciliation at the end of the
novella brings the brothers together and makes possible their identification as a
nation, Israel. Thus, Jacob’s name change prefigures the coming together of the
brothers at the end of the novella. Whereas Esau had attempted a reconciliation

Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster

John Knox, 1996), 101.
28. However, one could argue this point on the basis of Rebekah’s inclusion as the
mother of Jacob (and Esau). Rebekah is the daughter of Nahor and Milcah. Milcah is
listed in Gen 11:29 as the ‫בת־הרן‬. While the interpretation of this phrase is debated, if
she is in fact the daughter of Abraham’s brother, Haran, her marriage to Isaac reintegrates
the three sons of Terah into one family. Isaac and Rebekah’s children, then, represent the
whole family of Terah. For more on these relationships — and particularly on Milcah —
see Schneider, Sarah, 12, 15–17, 112–13.
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 117

with Jacob, the “Joseph story ends in a more complete reconciliation.”29 Gen
50:17–21 recounts the reconciliation of the brothers after the death of Jacob.30
Even though the brothers — probably falsely — claim that Jacob asked them
to reconcile, Joseph’s forgiveness and the brothers’ repentance pave the way
for the brothers to live together. “Joseph, Jacob, and all the brothers, through
the lesson of Judah, become the first family to remain together in the book of
Genesis.”31 Having maintained the family unity, the stage is set for the family to
dwell in the land together. “Those among Abraham’s descendants who did not
inherit the promise had to leave the land, while Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
buried there. With the reconciliation of Jacob’s sons with each other, however,
a new pattern is set. Their descendants are now set not only to inherit the land,
but to live together there as well.”32 This unified family is recorded in Exod
1:1–5 — albeit on its way to Egypt. Eventually, at Sinai, Israel will be united
as one people, God’s people.

Key Point #3: Sinai

In the last chapter, we looked extensively at the material surrounding the tole-
dot heading in Num 3:1. I argued that the leader and census lists in Numbers 1
functioned there in a similar way to the linear and segmented genealogies in
Genesis, respectively. The question remains as to why the author/redactor used
these types of lists instead of following the pattern from Genesis more closely
and using one or two genealogies to lead up to the toledot heading. A second,
related question concerns the inclusion of all Israel (the 12 tribes representing
Jacob’s 12 sons, more or less) in the ongoing story. I addressed this question
to some extent in the paragraph above on the reconciliation of the 12 broth-
ers, but we will explore a fuller answer here. The covenant and divine–human
relationship established at Sinai between God and the people of Israel funda-
mentally changed the way in which any narrowing of focus occurs in the text
from that point on.

29. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 339.

30. Note the coming together of the brothers in the context of the death of their father,
as with Esau and Jacob (35.29) and Isaac and Ishmael (25.9). The main difference here
is that the burial is followed by an actual reconciliation of the relationship.
31. Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in
Genesis (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John
Knox, 1991), 49.
32. Carr, “Bi/bloj gene/sewj,” 339–40. Recall the previous discussion of geographic
dispersal in connection with the Tower of Babel.
118 These are the Generations

Prior to Sinai, the narrowing of focus appears to come to an end with the
12 sons of Jacob/Israel. The final narrowing up to that point was the narrowing
from Isaac to Jacob. That narrowing took place in a manner outlined above: The
secondary son’s line, Esau’s, was preserved in a segmented genealogy on the
basis of the divine promise to Abraham. The focus then moved on to the main
line, Jacob’s, for the ongoing story. The reconciliation of the 12 brothers laid
the groundwork for the end of the narrowing process, as they together moved
forward as the focus of the story of the people of Israel.
In Numbers 3, however, we meet another toledot heading that introduces a
narrowing of focus to the civil and cultic leadership of Israel, embodied in Aaron
and Moses. With this narrowing of focus, however, Israel is not left aside from
the ongoing story. In fact, the focus appears to be split between the people as a
whole and their leadership. Indeed, as we look through the rest of the Pentateuch,
the focus is on the leadership, but clearly in the context of the whole people of
Israel. This is a marked contrast from earlier narrowings, where the secondary
line — for the most part — disappears from the story. If a secondary character
does re-­enter the story, it is usually a brief appearance in the furtherance of the
story of the main line character(s). Now, in contrast, Israel remains a constant
presence throughout the story. This presence of Israel in the story is signaled
by a series of lists that include the whole nation at key points in Numbers: the
census (1:5–15), the arrangement of the camp (2:3–31), at the dedication of the
altar (7:12–83), at the beginning of the campaign (10:14–28), in spying out the
land (13:4–15), and at the division of the future land (34:16–29).33 Olson sums
up the relationship between the leadership and the people as follows: “The more
concentrated focus on the representatives of the priestly and Mosaic offices in
Aaron and Moses is counterbalanced by attention to the inclusion of all Israel
in the important events in the life of the community.”34
Again, we see that a covenant has intervened between these two types of
narrowing events. Sinai was a decisive event in the history of Israel. Indeed, the
very identity of Israel as a people or nation may be traced to this event. Here,
God takes Israel to be God’s “possession among all the peoples . . . a kingdom

33. Earlier in Exodus (28:9–10), the ‫ ׁשהם‬stones served to represent the whole of
Israel in the context of the cult, or cultic leadership of the sons of Aaron. (See Chapter 3
for more on these stones.) Cf. Dennis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the
New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (Brown Judaic Studies
71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 110 n. 49.
34. Olson, Death of the Old and Birth of the New, 110–111. (emphasis Olson’s)
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 119

of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6). Olson summarizes this new phase
of Israel’s identity as follows:

For the first time after the formative events of the Exodus deliverance and
the revelation on Mount Sinai, the people of Israel are organized into a holy
people on the march under the leadership of Aaron and Moses with the priests
and Levites at the center of the camp. A whole new chapter has opened in the
life of the people of Israel, and this new beginning is marked by the toledot
formula.35

Post-­Sinai, the situation for Israel is different from that before. Now, rather
than being preserved and set aside in the ongoing narrative, the whole of Israel
is listed and preserved to share the focus with the leadership introduced by the
toledot heading of Aaron and Moses. The promises and covenant of Sinai have
made a difference.
As the secondary siblings were included in the signs of the Noahic and
Abrahamic covenants, we may see a similar dynamic at work here. The sign
of the Sinai covenant is the Sabbath (Exod 31:13–17). The Sabbath is clearly
meant for the whole of Israel; in fact, it included not only Israelites, but animals
and foreigners (‫ )גר‬in the land. However, in Exodus 31, when the Sabbath is
revealed as the sign (‫ )אות‬of the covenant, it specifies that “the sons of Israel
shall observe the Sabbath,” (v. 16) tying the covenant specifically to the whole
of the people of Israel.
One other event connected with Sinai might help to explain the dynamic we
see here in the toledot series. Exodus 32 records the first test of the new divine–
human relationship that is being established at Sinai. When the people lose faith
in Moses’ return, they quickly break the commands they have been given by
making the golden calf. On the mountain, God knows what Israel is doing and
decides to kill them all and start over again with Moses, as with Noah (32:10,
cf. Gen 6:17–18; 7:1). Unlike with Noah, Moses protests God’s plan, remind-
ing God of the covenant with Abraham (Exod 32:13). Significantly, Moses
appeals to the earlier covenant with Abraham and not to the covenant that Israel
was at that moment breaking. By doing this, Moses is able to sidestep the cur-
rent rebellion and reframe his argument in terms of the wider covenant with
Abraham of which Israel is a part. This reaffirmation of relationship in spite

35. Olson, Death of the Old and Birth of the New, 108. The lack of italics on “toledot”
is in the original.
120 These are the Generations

of the actions of the Israelites bound together the people as God’s people and
Moses as the mediator between God and Israel.36 It should not surprise us, then,
that the toledot series continues by maintaining a focus on the whole people
of Israel, while focusing more specifically on the leadership of Israel in Moses
and Aaron.

Summary: The Three Key Points

Throughout this chapter, I have spoken more about divine promises than
covenants. Part of the reason for this is a practical consideration: I am writ-
ing about the toledot series, and a foray into the meaning and usage of the
term ‫ ברית‬and the concept of covenant would distract from the goal of seeing
how these promises impact the toledot series as a whole. One point, how-
ever, may be noted here. Starting from inconsistencies in the toledot series,
we identified three key points as problem areas. On that basis, we turned to
divine promises to see if they could help us to understand what is going on.
The divine promises to/covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel (through
Moses) have helped us to see what is going on in the changes in the toledot
series. Now we may note that the term ‫“ ברית‬is mainly used with regard to
the three points in God’s history with humanity and with Israel in particu-
lar that are recorded in the Pentateuch: with Noah, with Abraham, and with
Israel represented by Moses.”37 By starting from an examination of the tole-
dot series itself, we have reaffirmed the importance of these key moments in
the divine–human relationship presented in the Pentateuch. As a further sum-
mary of these three key points, Table 6 summarizes the findings in a more
visual fashion.
We began this chapter by looking at the questions that still remained after
having understood the effects on the toledot series of variations in the syntax
of the formula (Chapter 2) and the genealogies connected with those headings
(Chapter 3). We found that three main points in the series contained inconsisten-
cies that were not explained by these other elements. The narrowing from Noah
to Shem, the inclusion of the toledot heading for Ishmael, and the inclusion of
all Israel in the section on Aaron and Moses remained problematic.

36. Rolf Rendtorff, “Noah, Abraham and Moses: God’s Covenant Partners,” in In
Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E.
Clements (ed. Edward Ball; JSOTSup 300; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
134–35.
37. Rendtorff, “Noah, Abraham, and Moses,” 133.
 4. Covenants Change the Basis for the Narrowing of Focus 121

Each of these three key points in the narrowing process correlates with divine
promises and/or covenants. By examining the divine promises, we were able
to uncover the effects that these promises had on the unfolding of the toledot
series. Indeed, these three key divine promises: the covenants with Noah (and
creation), Abraham (and his descendants), and Moses (and all Israel) helped
to explain the changes we saw in how the narrowings of focus occur and are
recorded. Having uncovered the reasons behind the changes that remained in
the toledot series, we are now in the position to draw the results of this study
together and see what conclusions we may draw.

Table 6: Key Points in the Narrowing of Focus Defined by toledot Headings

Key Points Preceding Features of the narrowing process
and
Method of narrowing Recording of narrowing
following
narrowings
of narrative
focus
Adam to killing (in the flood)
Noah
Promise not killing is outlawed promise is for Noah’s
to destroy descendants and all
creation creation; sign of the
(Genesis 9) promise is the rainbow
(Gen 9:12–17)
Noah’s sons separation/scattering three sons in one toledot
to Shem and choice heading
Shem to choice only the main line has an
Terah individual toledot heading
Promise to promise is for Abraham
Abraham and and his descendants;
descendants sign of the promise is
(Genesis 12ff.) circumcision (Gen 17:11,
23)
Terah to choice both (circumcised) sons
Isaac have toledot headings
Isaac to choice one son is chosen
Jacob
(continued)
122 These are the Generations

Key Points Preceding Features of the narrowing process

and
Method of narrowing Recording of narrowing
following
narrowings
of narrative
focus
Sinai Israel (12 tribes) formed
(Exodus as God’s people (Exod
19ff.) 19:5–6); sign of the
covenant is the Sabbath
(Exod 31:13–17)
Jacob to choice Israel remains in the
Aaron story, although not as the
and Moses primary focus
 123

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

“These are the generations . . .” From these words, or rather their Hebrew
origins “. . . ‫אלה תולדות‬,” we have come a long way. Syntactical variations,
genealogical functions, and covenants have been among the factors that have
led us to where we are now. In order to understand where this study has brought
us, let us first review the findings of the investigation. Only then may we see
the whole together and discuss its implications.

Findings of the Investigation

In this section, I will attempt to summarize the primary findings that have come
from this study. Other results may be drawn from the insights of the study, but
I will focus on those most central to our discussions.

The toledot Formula as a Heading

We began our study by examining the toledot formula itself from a variety of
perspectives: semantic, syntactic, and linguistic. We found that the toledot for-
mula functions primarily as a heading to the material following it. Semantically,
the formula points forward by drawing the reader’s attention to the existence
of a new generation. The term toledot itself implies the existence of a new
generation. Syntactically, we found that verbless clauses — of which the tole-
dot formula is one — are often used to introduce sections of text. By breaking
the narrative flow of normal Hebrew syntax, verbless clauses mark something
unusual in the text. The toledot formula highlights the material that follows as,
in some way, flowing from the character named in the formula (i.e. the proper
noun that follows the word toledot). The proper noun gives the heading a defi-
nite focus, so that the reader is informed as to precisely whose toledot will
follow. In turning to insights from the field of linguistics, we found a number
124 These are the Generations

of conceptual pairs helpful such as theme/rheme, identifiability/activation, and

presupposition/assertion. In each case, the linguistic concepts reinforced the
sense that the toledot formula functions primarily as a heading for the new
material following.
As a heading, we found that the toledot formula contributes a number of
other dynamics to the text. It helps to mark shifts in the topic of the story,
while maintaining a sense of continuity and cohesion within the overall story.
This is a particularly important function given the diverse genres contained
within Genesis. The toledot formula is used to introduce sections of genealogi-
cal mater­ial and of narrative, thus drawing the two into a single scheme that
runs through the book and beyond. The formula also refocuses the reader on
the main characters in the story in order to drive the story forward to that next
generation. These are some of the main functions we noted.
Having established the function of the toledot formulae as headings for sec-
tions of the biblical text, we turned to the sections themselves to observe what
they could tell us about how the toledot formulae were functioning. A narrow-
ing of focus for the ongoing story became evident at many of the points where
the toledot headings introduced the next focus of attention. These narrowings
of focus are important because they are the mechanism by which the author/
redactor of Genesis focuses the reader’s attention on the people of Israel by the
end of the book, and on Aaron and Moses by the end of the Pentateuch. Thus,
the role of this narrowing of focus and the mechanisms by which it occurs are
of extreme importance in understanding the role of the toledot formula. At the
same time, inconsistencies in the places and mechanisms by which the narrow-
ing occurs and is recorded led to more questions.

Headings and Subheadings

We next turned to a closer examination of the syntax of the toledot formula.
The syntax of the formula varies from place to place in a number of ways. After
surveying these differences, we found that whether the formula began with a
waw or not was the most significant syntactical variation in terms of its effect on
meaning and function. Occurrences of the formula without the waw introduce
independent clauses that stand apart from their contexts, while those with the
waw introduce coordinating clauses that are linked to the preceding material.
Looking more closely at the distribution of this waw/non-­waw variation, we
saw that the five non-­waw occurrences of the formula occurred at key points
in the story of Genesis, which then define the major headings of an outline of
the structure of the book. The other occurrences of the formula that begin with
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 125

waw, then, are subheadings under those five main headings — including the
occurrences of the formula outside Genesis. From this we derived a rough-
macrostructure for Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole, once we added in
Num 3:1.
This macrostructure helped us to understand some of the inconsistencies
in the correlation between toledot headings and narrowings of focus. A nar-
rowing of focus is more likely correlated with one of the five major headings
than the other coordinating headings. Syntax, however, did not fully address
questions regarding the distribution of the narrowings nor the mechanisms by
which they occur.

Genealogies as Life Preservers

Having identified the major parts of an outline of Genesis and the Pentateuch
based on the toledot headings, we were still left with some questions. In order
to further understand the role of the toledot headings in shaping the final form
of the Pentateuch, we turned to the genealogies for insight. We examined the
role of genealogies and other lists in shaping the ways in which the toledot
headings presented the narrowings of focus in the text.
We found that the difference between linear and segmented genealogies cor-
related with different functions. The linear genealogies function to move the
story along from one major figure to another. Segmented genealogies, however,
preserve the family history of secondary figures in the story. Although there
were inconsistencies in where segmented genealogies would appear to do this,
the presence of the genealogies did answer some of the questions regarding
the distribution of the narrowings of focus. Where a narrowing of focus was
to occur, a segmented genealogy — usually accompanied by a toledot heading
— would preserve the secondary line, so that the focus could be turned — by
means of another toledot heading — to the main line continuing the story.
One of the more exciting realizations from this part of the study was in regard
to the toledot heading at Num 3:1. In looking at the context of that toledot head-
ing, it was noted that the material preceding the heading consisted mainly of
lists: leader, census, and encampment lists. By comparing these lists with the
genealogies of Genesis, it was determined that — most likely — these lists
in Numbers 1–2 were functioning in a similar way to the genealogical lists in
Genesis. The lists leave the impression, based on analogy with Genesis, that
the people of Israel become the secondary focus (secondary line is not the
right term, since the lists are not strictly genealogical) for the remainder of
the Pentateuch. Instead, the focus for the rest of the Pentateuch becomes the
126 These are the Generations

establishment and growth of civil and cultic leadership embodied immediately

in Moses and Aaron, respectively. This realization allowed for the full integra-
tion of the toledot heading in Num 3:1 into the scheme initiated in Genesis.
Questions remained, however, regarding the mechanism by which the nar-
rowings of focus occur, why the lists in Numbers are not genealogical, and why
those lists do not entirely mark Israel as secondary. Some other element is at
work in the process.

Covenants Bring Changes

The mechanism for the narrowing of focus was problematic mainly because
of three key points at which it appeared to change. After the flood, the mech-
anism no longer involved mass extermination. After the toledot of Terah,
certain secondary lines were listed individually in their own toledot sections.
Finally, in Numbers, the segmented lists preceding the toledot heading were not
genealogical, and Israel continues as a central character in the ongoing story.
Something must have changed at these points in order to account for these
changes. One thing that all three points had in common was divine promises
and/or covenants.
In looking at the covenants at each of these key points, it became clear that
the change in the mechanism was a result of the promise involved. After the
promises following the flood, the killing of humans was no longer acceptable,
at least in most contexts.1 Thus, the mechanism of narrowing changed to one
that involved more of a choice among living people groups. After the promises
to Abraham and his descendants, it was natural to include the toledot sections
of Ishmael and Esau as ones who had been included in the Abrahamic covenant
through the sign of circumcision. Finally, in the events of Sinai, the people of
Israel became a nation. As such, this nation is a major focus for the rest of the
Pentateuch. The desire to focus on the development of leadership among and for
the people must be balanced with the ongoing presence of the people of Israel in
the story of Israel. Thus, the census list — by toledot — preserves the presence
of Israel while allowing the main focus to be on the leaders who led them.

1. Although not acceptable in the sense of mass exterminations, divine capital pun-
ishment does, of course, occur in the text at various points. The nuances of how exactly to
understand the limitations imposed by God’s promises in Genesis 9 could be the subject
of further work.
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 127

Integrating the Findings by toledot

At various points throughout the study, we have walked through the toledot
series to spell out the contributions that our study up to that point had made.
Here, at the end, it is appropriate to do this one last time, attempting to integrate
all of what we have found in this study in one summary.

These are the toledot of the Heavens and Earth: Genesis 2:4–4:26
Starting the toledot series with the heavens and earth indicates that the scope
of the story at this point is universal, and this is natural in the context of the
creation narratives: as of yet, there is no narrowing of focus. This heading does
not begin with a waw, designating it as independent and as the first major head-
ing of the series.

This is the Book of the toledot of Adam: Genesis 5:1–6:8

Turning to humanity as the focus for the story is the logical next step, given
that the rest of the book is primarily about humans. The mechanism for this
first narrowing of focus is a mere choice of species, perhaps allowed by the
preservation of the rest of creation in the clearly structured creation story of
Gen 1:1–2:3. The formula lacks a waw, marking it as the second major heading
and an independent clause.

These are the toledot of Noah: Genesis 6:9–10:1

Next, the focus narrows for a second time, to Noah. The mechanism of nar-
rowing in this case is the destruction of the rest of humanity outside his family
that occurs in this section. As this formula also lacks a waw, it forms the third
major heading as an independent clause.

And These are the toledot of the Sons of Noah: Genesis 10:1–11:9
With this toledot heading, we have several “firsts.” This is the first toledot
heading that does not indicate a narrowing of focus: the focus remains on the
entire family of Noah represented in his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
All three sons were given the promise after the flood that the world would not
be destroyed in a similar way again and experienced the sign of the Noahic
covenant, the rainbow; so this is the first in the series to be effected by a cov-
enant. This is also the first toledot heading beginning with a waw, connecting it
more tightly with what precedes. Thus, this toledot section is the first secondary
heading in the toledot series.
128 These are the Generations

These are the toledot of Shem: Genesis 11:10–26

Shem’s toledot heading brings us to an interesting point in the toledot series.
For a third time, the focus narrows: this time to one of Noah’s three sons, Shem.
However, the mechanism has changed from the extermination of the rest of
humanity to a choice of one brother. A genealogy, the Table of Nations, inter-
venes in order to preserve the family lines of all three brothers before the focus
narrows. The divine promise never again to destroy the world in such a way
changes the possible ways in which the narrowing of focus could happen in the
future. Thus, destruction is no longer an option for the remainder of the toledot
series, and another method must be chosen. Choice of a subgroup becomes the
method at this point. The fourth occurrence of the formula to lack a waw, it
forms the fourth major heading as an independent clause.

And These are the toledot of Terah: Genesis 11:27–25:11

After a short, linear genealogy to bring us quickly to the story of Terah’s descen-
dants, we find the toledot section of Terah. Presumably there has been a fourth
narrowing here, but the linear genealogy obscures the details. A waw begins
this heading, so the clause is connected into the ongoing story, and is thus a
secondary heading in the toledot series.

And These are the toledot of Ishmael: Genesis 25:12–18

After the toledot section of Terah, we find the short section for Ishmael. There
is a narrowing of focus here, but only for a short time. The presence of this
toledot section at all is as yet unprecedented, since it is focused solely on a per-
son whose line is secondary in the ongoing story. Ishmael has been included,
explicitly by Abraham and implicitly by God (and perhaps Sarah), in the prom-
ises to Abraham and his descendants. He shares in the sign of the covenant,
circumcision. This helps to explain the presence here of his toledot section. He
is recorded and preserved before the focus turns to his brother, Isaac. His sec-
tion begins with a waw, making it a part of the story preceding and a secondary
heading in the toledot series.

And These are the toledot of Isaac: Genesis 25:19–35:29

When the focus turns to Isaac, the story focus narrows for a fifth time. The
mechanism of the narrowing appears to be choice again, but with the addition
of the toledot section of Ishmael and the genealogy to preserve his family line.
The Abrahamic covenant ensures that both brothers are included in the story,
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 129

but here the focus shifts to Isaac. The heading, however, begins with a waw,
making this also a secondary heading connected to the ongoing story.

And These are the toledot of Esau: Genesis 36:1–8; 36:9–37:1

Again, we come to a toledot heading for a secondary character, Esau. The focus
narrows briefly, as with Ishmael, on another one who is included in the prom-
ises to the descendants of Abraham. Both toledot formulae begin with waws,
tying them into the ongoing story and making them secondary headings in that
story.

These are the toledotof Jacob: Genesis 37:2–Numbers 2:34

Finally, we come to the last toledot heading in Genesis. Here the focus is nar-
rowed — for a sixth time — to Jacob, who is Israel. Again, the narrowing occurs
on the basis of the choice of one brother over another, as with Ishmael and Isaac.
The genealogies of Esau preserved the family lines of Jacob’s brother before the
focus turned to him. Jacob’s toledot heading does not begin with a waw, making
it an independent clause and the fifth major heading of the toledot series.

And These are the toledot of Aaron and Moses: Numbers 3:1–Deuteronomy
34:12
The toledot series does not end with Genesis. In Numbers, we find another nar-
rowing of focus to the leadership (toledot) of Aaron and Moses (the seventh
narrowing in the series). Aaron and his sons represent the cultic, priestly leader-
ship, while Moses and his offspring (non-­biological) represent civil leadership.
The narrowing of focus is accomplished by a type of choice, but this time one
that does not exclude the rest of Israel from that focus. While Israel as a people
are preserved in the census and encampment lists, they continue to be a major
presence in the rest of the Pentateuch, even as the material deals heavily with
issues of leadership. The Sinai experience and covenant has shaped Israel into
a unified people and nation. Therefore, all are included in the ongoing story to
an even greater degree than Ishmael and Isaac were both included in the story
on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. Perhaps as a sign of this relationship
between the people and the leadership, this toledot heading begins with a waw,
marking it as connected with the preceding material about the nation and as a
secondary heading in the toledot series. Here the toledot series ends, with the
nation of Israel under the cultic and civil leadership established by Aaron and
Moses.
130 These are the Generations

Major Contribution
Starting from a synchronic study of the toledot formula, I have shown that the
formula functions as a type of overlay on the Pentateuch, structuring it and
driving its trajectory from all of creation to the leadership of Israel in its midst.
The end focus of this structure, on cultic and civil leadership, supports earlier
diachronic observations of the formula as a part of the priestly material, either
as source or redaction. Further, seeing the formula as an overlay on the whole
Pentateuch places it diachronically as part of a late redactional layer designed
to provide structure and trajectory to the Pentateuch. This, of course, does not
exclude other structural elements of the Pentateuch (e.g., the wilderness itin-
erary list in Numbers 33), but rather it points to a structure imposed in one of
the latter stages of the composition of the Pentateuch: the structure at a point
in time (synchronic) in the development of the material (diachronic). Thus, the
study brings together diachronic and synchronic observations, working primar-
ily from the synchronic.

Implications and Further Directions

At the end of a study such as this, inevitably more has arisen in the course of
the discussion than could possibly be examined in depth. Now that the main
results of this study have been outlined, it is appropriate to turn to other ways
in which this study may impact upon or raise questions in other areas related to
the study of the Pentateuch, the Hebrew Bible, sacred scriptures more gener-
ally, and perhaps even the humanities. Several of these areas for further study
have been examined to more or less depth by others already. What I offer here
is some reflection on how the results of this study could inform future work in
these areas.

Interface with Other Characters

One characteristic that I did not touch much upon in this study is the fact that the
toledot series centers on a specific set of characters, all male. Interrelationships
of these progenitors with other characters could prove quite useful in further
understanding the dynamics of how this formula functions in the wider con-
text of the final form of the Pentateuch. For example, the role of Sarah in the
choice of Isaac as the focus of the story has been discussed briefly, but needs
to be fleshed out. The reunification of the lines of the sons of Terah is another
example. Through the agency of Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, the lines of Terah’s
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 131

three sons meet in the 12 sons of Jacob. It may be no coincidence that it is at this
point in the story that the narrowing of focus, in a sense, ceases. Jacob’s fam-
ily, representing the family of Terah, moves ahead as a unit. The role of these
key women most likely has as much to do with this unity as the reconciliation
of the brothers themselves, and perhaps even sets the stage for the reconcili-
ation on some biological level. Hagar obviously has a role in relation to the
toledot heading of Ishmael, her son. These are merely some examples of ways
in which individual character studies and the toledot series may shed mutual
light on one another.

Interface with Other Elements in the Text

Speaking of interfaces among characters brings us to the existence of other ele-
ments in the text that might interface in meaningful ways with the toledot series.
Syntactic elements, such as the ‫ ׁשמות‬formula, may help us to understand more
fully what is going on at some key points in the toledot series. The ‫ ׁשמות‬for-
mula occurs in close proximity to the toledot headings of Ishmael, Esau, and
Aaron and Moses. Further examination of this related formula should help us
to understand more fully what is going on in these places, perhaps particularly
in the two toledot headings for Esau.
As mentioned briefly above, the burial of fathers functions on occasion to
show a sort of attempted reconciliation between brothers. More could be done
to uncover this theme in the text. Also, the placement of these reports of burial
just before toledot headings could well function, at least in some cases, to bring
a close to the prior toledot section.

The Importance of Terah in Genesis

The inclusion of a toledot heading for Terah but not for Abraham raises ques-
tions as to why this would be the case. In the Excursus, we looked at some
possible explanations for this situation. However, as we worked through the
material around the genealogy of Terah, we found that Terah might well play
more of a role in Genesis than typically assumed. Through the course of this
study, we have found hints that Terah may be a rather foundational character
in Genesis. By the end of the book, all three of his sons’ lines are likely reinte-
grated in the people of Israel’s family. Given that this takes place through the
women in the story and that we find a strong role for Sarah in forming the status
of Isaac (and probably also Ishmael), more should be done to examine these
women in the line of Terah to see what is going on here. It appears likely that
the line of Terah is the most important line in the book of Genesis and that it is
132 These are the Generations

through the women that the lines of his three sons are preserved in the people
of Israel.

The Diachronic Study of the Pentateuch in the Hebrew Bible

While the focus of this study has been primarily synchronic, what we have
found in the toledot series has implications and raises questions for the study
of the composition of the Pentateuch. By reading the toledot series as a unity,
our study generally confirms the view that the toledot headings constitute a
unity in their conceptual world. This fits with a reading of the toledot headings
as either coming from a single source or document or as having been expanded
through redaction in a consistent manner — probably by writers with priestly
interests, as mentioned above.
By combining the elements of syntax, genealogies, and covenants, we were
able to explain some of the inconsistencies in the use of the toledot formula.
On the one hand, this could call into question some of the diachronic decisions
to assign the toledot headings to various layers of the priestly material based
on their different usages. On the other hand, they might also point to a more
integrated job done by the later (priestly) redactors. They were able to knit the
material together into a whole that has a logical flow to it.
Combining the elements of syntax, genealogy, and covenant does resolve
many, but not all, of the questions surrounding the toledot headings. Remaining
questions may well point to redactional and compositional seams in the text.
Some of these questions are: How do we explain the semantic range of the term
toledot itself? The term seems to have undergone a process of development,
pointing to a growth through the composition of the text. How do we account for
the double toledot heading in the Esau material in Genesis 36? Chapter 2 dealt
with this question briefly, but more could undoubtedly be said. Starting from a
synchronic perspective has yielded answers helpful to a diachronic approach
while raising questions that such an approach might resolve.

Numbers in the toledot Series

The inclusion of the toledot heading in Num 3:1 has been discussed at length
in Chapters 3 and 4. We noted many things about how the heading ties back to
the toledot series in Genesis. Questions remain, however, about the integration
of the rest of the Pentateuch into the toledot structure. Is it enough to only have
one other toledot heading in all the rest of the Pentateuch? What are the other
structural elements at work in the rest of the Pentateuch and how do those relate
to the toledot series? Is it possible that Cross’s suggestion that the wilderness
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 133

stages shape much of the rest of the Pentateuch is correct and, if so, how does
it interact with the toledot structure?

The Relationship Between Genesis and the Pentateuch

The toledot heading in Numbers does integrate the rest of the Pentateuch into
the toledot series, but that raises further questions regarding the relationship
between Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. In many ways, the central books
of the Pentateuch — Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers — hold together more
tightly than the books at either end — Genesis and Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy
is different by virtue of its portrayal as a single speech by Moses, its retelling
of many of the laws from the central books, and its different perspective and
unique vocabulary. Genesis is the only one of the books of the Pentateuch not
centered to a large degree on the figure of Moses or, until near the end, on the
people of Israel.

Themes Working Toward the Deuternomistic History2

As the toledot series moved into Numbers, we saw a shift in focus from an indi-
vidual family to the leadership of Israel in the context of the whole people. We
noted that the rest of Numbers and Deuteronomy was substantially interested
with this development of civil and cultic leadership. Moving into the DtrH, we
may note that these themes of leadership in the context of the people remain at
the fore. In the book of Judges, the judges are charismatic leaders of a type not
unlike Moses, while the priesthood may be seen from time to time. After the
establishment of the monarchy, the civil role Moses carried is embodied in the
king, while the mediator role may be seen as shifting toward the prophets. This
is all well beyond the scope of this study, but it would be interesting to explore
to what extent and how the toledot series sets the stage for these themes as we
find them in the DtrH.

New Testament: The toledot of Jesus

The first book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, begins with a
genealogy for Jesus (1:1–17). The heading for the genealogy, and perhaps for
the gospel as a whole, is the phrase Bi/bloj gene/Sewj )Ihsou~ Xristou~, a clear
reference to the toledot headings of Genesis, Numbers, and Ruth. While we

2. I employ the term Deuternomistic History (hereafter DtrH) here mainly to refer
to the books of Judges–Kings. While these books share common features, perspective,
and language, I am aware of the divisions of opinion regarding the existence of an actual
DtrH. I use the term as a convenience.
134 These are the Generations

did not delve into the Greek translations of the toledot headings in this study,
this wording in Matthew echoes most closely the heading of Gen 5:1, where
the LXX also has the phrase Bi/bloj gene/sewj, a fairly direct translation of
the Hebrew. Gen 2:4 is also translated this way in the LXX, a departure from
the MT, but probably reflecting an imitation of the text at 5:1 rather than a dif-
ferent Hebrew Vorlage.
This imitation of the toledot formula at the beginning of the New Testament
raises questions regarding the function of the formula in this context and the
reasons for its inclusion here.3 While we have seen that the toledot headings
introduce the generation following, or outcome from the life of, the named pro-
genitor, the immediate context of the Bi/bloj gene/sewj of Jesus appears more
focused on his ancestry than on what flowed from his life. Given the linear
nature of the genealogy of Jesus, it may function to draw the line from Abraham
through David to Jesus. This would emphasize his connection not only to the
Abrahamic covenant, but to the Davidic covenant, which led to the expectations
of the Messiah.4 However, we might also consider that the Bi/bloj gene/sewj
of Jesus should rather be understood to refer to that which came from him, the
things recorded in the rest of the gospel and not just the genealogical list. It is
unclear without further study if what we have found here has any bearing on
the reading of the Bi/bloj gene/sewj of Jesus, but the possibilities cannot be
ignored.

The Nature of Choice

The mechanism for the narrowing of focus through the toledot series is clearer
now than it was before. However, at several points the mechanism appears to be
simple choice, on the part of either the narrator or God. Sometimes we can point
to incidents in the intervening material to explain the choice, such as Noah’s
cursing of Canaan with its statements about the relationships among the three
brothers. Other times, the basis for the choice is less clear. Perhaps this points
back to the first set of siblings, Cain and Abel. Both made offerings, and despite
centuries of speculation, we still do not know why God was more pleased with
Abel’s. Sometimes the choice seems completely or mostly arbitrary. Perhaps
it is. Being the one chosen by God may not be such a blessing after all. In the
case of Ishmael and Isaac, we saw that blessing and choice are connected in a

3. We might note the similar imitation of Gen 1:1 in John 1:1.

4. We should note that the genealogy early in Luke’s gospel (3:23–38) is also linear,
but traces Jesus’ ancestry rather to Adam and God.
 5. Findings, Conclusions, and Implications 135

complicated way: both are blessed, yet Isaac is chosen to carry on the covenant.
More could be studied on the nature and mechanism of choice in light of what
we have found here.

Ishmael and Isaac

The relationships among brothers at various points in the story of Genesis
prove to be complex. None has such impact, though, on today’s world as that
between Isaac and Ishmael. The recognition of Ishmael’s blessedness, and
yet secondary status, in the Bible is not fully ameliorated by the presence of a
genealogy. A comparative study of the characters of Ishmael and Isaac in the
Hebrew Bible and Qur’an (and perhaps the New Testament as well), could be
enhanced by noting the dynamics within the text noted in this study. Many
people — Muslim, Jewish, and Christian — could benefit from honest dialogue
around these texts.

The Use of Language to Shape (Narrative) Reality

Moving toward a broader perspective, this study raises many questions about
how the use of language not only creates and defines reality, but is used to shape
it. By means of a rather simple formula, the reader’s attention is shifted from
character to character, without much input from the reader. Some characters
are made secondary by the mere inclusion of a conjunction, waw. While the
genealogies come along to record these secondary characters and their families,
the focus of the story nevertheless remains on those chosen, in a sense, by the
way the text is worded.
Ethical considerations are raised by this recognition that language may be
used to marginalize certain persons or groups to the benefit of others. On a cer-
tain level, this study has shown that this may be necessary at times in order for
some focus to remain in a given work. However, even with a mechanism such as
the genealogies to record the marginalized groups, the decision is made. Other
texts may provide a counterpoint, but the text before us has its point, and that
is all we can see in any given moment.

Conclusion
Starting from a survey of the surface structure of Genesis and the Pentateuch,
we have come a long way. Surface structure pointed toward the roles played
by genealogies and covenants in shaping how the story of the Pentateuch plays
out. Here we have seen the value of starting from a study of surface structure
136 These are the Generations

and the myriad benefits it can provide when pursued on a larger unit of text.
May the reader find many thoughts here to ponder and much here to build upon.
May the toledot of this study benefit the world in some small way.
 137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. “Projects: The Leningrad Codex.” No page

numbers. Accessed 1 June 2010. Online: www.abmc.org/projects_leningrad.html.
Andersen, Francis I. The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch. Journal of Biblical
Literature Monograph Series 14. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970.
— The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. 2nd printing. The Hague: Mouton, 1980.
Andersen, T. David. “Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis.” Pages
242–66 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen.
Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994.
Anderson, George W., Henri Cazelles, David N. Freedman, Shemarjahu Talmon,
and Gerhard Wallis, eds. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 10 vols.
Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer, 1995.
Ash, Russell. The Top 10 of Everything, 1997. London: Doring Kindersley, 1996.
Bandstra, Barry L. “Word Order and Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Syntactic
Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective.” Pages 109–23 in
Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Bar-­Efrat, S. “Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.”
Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 154–73.
Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective.
London: SCM, 1999.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature 21B. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000.
Bodine, Walter R., ed. Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the
Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 205.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
Brinktrine, Johannes. “Gen 2.4a, Überschrift oder Unterschrift?” Biblische Zeitschrift
Neue Folge 9 (1965): 277.
Buber, Martin and Franz Rosenzweig. Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung. Berlin:
Schocken, 1936.
Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 5. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2002. Print edition: Word Biblical Commentary 5. Dallas: Word,
1984.
138 Bibliography

Budde, Karl. “Ellä toledoth.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 34

(1914): 241–53.
— “Noch einmal ‘Ellä toledoth.’” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 36
(1916): 1–7.
Bush, Frederic W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 9.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Print edition: Word Biblical Commentary 9.
Dallas: Word, 1996.
Carpenter, Eugene. “Recent Pentateuchal Studies.” Asbury Theological Journal 41
(1986): 19–35.
Carr, David M. “Bi/bloj gene/sewj Revisited: A Synchronic Analysis of Pattern in
Genesis as Part of the Torah.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 110
(1998): 159–72, 327–47.
— Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville,
Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by Israel
Abrahams. Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. London: SCM,
1979.
Clines, David J. A. On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 1967–1998.
2 vols. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 292. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
— The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978.
Coats, George W. Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Forms of the
Old Testament Literature 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Cohen, Jeffrey. “These are the Generations of Isaac.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 19
(1990–1): 260–64.
Consultation on Common Texts, The. The Revised Common Lectionary 1992: The
Report from the Consultation on Common Texts. Nashville: Abingdon: 1992.
Cook, Walter A. Case Grammar Theory. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press, 1989.
Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. London: SPCK,
1989.
Croatto, J. Severino. “De la creación al Sinaí: Periodización de la historia en el
Pentateuco.” Revista Bíblica 47 (1985): 43–51.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Dahlberg, Bruce T. “On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis.” Theology Digest 24
(1977): 360–67.
Dawson, David Allan. Text-­Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 177. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,1994.
Doležel, Lubomir. “Prague School Structuralism.” Pages 592–95 in The Johns Hopkins
 Bibliography 139

Guide to Literary Theory & Criticism. Edited by Michael Groden and Martin
Kreisworth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Dorsey, David A. “Can These Bones Live? Investigating Literary Structure in the
Bible.” Evangelical Journal 9 (1991): 11–25.
Eichrodt, Walther. Der Quellen der Genesis von neuen untersucht. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 31. Geissen: Töpelmann, 1916.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “Biblos geneseōs.” Pages 31–40 in Gott und die Götter: Festgabe
für Erich Fascher zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Gerhard Delling, et al. Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1958.
— Die Genesis der Genesis: vom Werdegang des ersten Buches der Bibel. Tübingen: J.
C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1958.
— “Toledot.” Pages 1–8 in Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik: Erich
Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag dargebracht. Edited by the Commission for the
History of Religion in Late Antiquity. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
Altchristlichen Literatur 77. Berlin: Akademie-­Verlag, 1961.
Finlay, Timothy D. The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Forshungen zum
Alten Testament 2. Reihe 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts.
Oxford: Oneworld, 1998.
Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
Freedman, David Noel, Astrid B. Beck, Bruce E. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and
James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition. Photographed
by Bruce E. Zuckerman, Kenneth A. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and Garth I.
Moller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Freedman, Harry, trans. Genesis. Vol. 1 of Midrash Rabbah. Translated and edited by
Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino, 1939.
Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E.
Lewin, with foreword by Jonathan Culler. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1980.
— Narrative Discourse Revisited. Translated by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1988.
Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch.
Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd edition. Oxford, 1910.
Gorman, Frank H., Jr. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space, and Status.” Pages
47–64 in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by
M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament Supplement Series 173. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1993.
Groden, Michael and Martin Kreisworth, eds. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary
Theory & Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Groom, Susan Anne. Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Carlisle: Paternoster
Press, 2003.
140 Bibliography

Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922.
— Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997.
Translation of Genesis. 3rd edition. Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Hess, Richard S. “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature.”
Biblica 70 (1989): 241–54. Repr. pages 58–72 in “I Studied Inscriptions From
Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to
Genesis 1–11. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meir. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis
(Bereshit). Translated and annotated by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver.
New York: Menorah, 1988.
Jacob, Benno. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis. Berlin: Schocken, 1934.
Jenkins, Allan K. “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch.”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (1978): 41–57.
Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference
to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series 8. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Kaminski, Carol M. From Noah to Israel: Realization of the Primaeval Blessing
After the Flood. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 413.
London: T&T Clark, 2004.
Kearney, Peter J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40.” Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1977): 375–86.
Kenny, Anthony. Wittgenstein. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1973.
Kim, Hyun Chul Paul. “Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building
the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts.” Pages 85–104 in The
Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century. Edited by
Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Knierim, Rolf P. “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered.” Interpretation 27
(1973): 435–68. Repr. pages 435–68 in Occasional Papers of Institute for Antiquity
and Christianity 6. Claremont, Calif.: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1980.
— The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
— Text and Concept in Leviticus 1:1–9: A Case in Exegetical Method. Forschungen
zum Alten Testament 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992.
Knierim, Rolf P. and George W. Coats. Numbers. Forms of the Old Testament
Literature 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Koch, Klaus. “Die Toledot-­Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis.” Pages
183–91 in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament — Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift
für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and
Hans Strauß. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
 Bibliography 141

Old Testament. Bibleworks Version 8.0. Programmed by Michael S. Bushell and

Michael D. Tan. Norfolk, Virginia: Bibleworks, LLC, 1992–2008. Print edition:
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Revised By Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt
Hartmann, Ze'ev Ben-­Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher, and Philippe Reymond.
Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000.
Lebedev, Victor V. “The Oldest Complete Manuscript of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages
xxi–xxviii in David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, Bruce E. Zuckerman, Marilyn
J. Lundberg, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition.
Photographed by Bruce E. Zuckerman, Kenneth A. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg,
and Garth I. Moller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Lee, Won W. Punishment and Forgiveness in Israel’s Migratory Campaign. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Levenson, Jon D. “The Temple and the World.” The Journal of Religion 64 (1984):
275–98.
Lewis, C. S. Out of the Silent Planet. 12th printing. New York: Macmillan, 1959.
Lieberman, Stephen J. “Toward a Graphemics of the Tiberian Bible.” Pages 255–78
in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Longacre, Robert E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and
Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39–48. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
1989.
Malamat, Abraham. “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical
Genealogies.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968), 163–73. Repr.
pages 183–99 in “I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood”: Ancient Near
Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Sources for Biblical
and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Martin, Lee R. “Where Are the Descendants of Abraham?: Finding the Source of
a Missing Link in Genesis.” Pages 23–34 in The Spirit and the Mind: Essays
in Informed Pentecostalism To Honor Dr. Donald N. Bowdie Presented on his
65th Birthday. Edited by Terry L. Cross and Emerson B. Powery. Lanham, Md.:
University Press of America, 2000.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible.
Guides of Biblical Scholarship. Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York:
McGraw-­Hill, 1964.
Melugin, Roy F. “Recent Form Criticism Revisited in an Age of Reader Response.”
Pages 46–64 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century.
Edited by Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Miller, Cynthia L. “Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause.” Pages 3–17
in The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches. Linguistic
142 Bibliography

Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1. Edited by Cynthia L. Miller. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1999.
Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88
(1969): 1–18.
Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A
New American Translation. Volume I: Parashiyyot One Through Thirty-­Three on
Genesis 1:1 to 8:14. Brown Judaic Studies 104. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Niditch, Susan. “Legends of Wise Heros and Heroines.” Pages 445–63 in the Hebrew
Bible and its Modern Interpreters. The Bible and its Modern Interpreters 1. Edited by
Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985.
Olson, Dennis T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of
the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71. Chico, Calif.:
Scholars Press, 1985.
Palmer, Parker J. To Know as We are Known: Education as Spiritual Journey. Revised
edition. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
Payne, Geoffrey. “Functional Sentence Perspective: Theme in Biblical Hebrew.”
Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 5 (1991): 62–82.
Rad, Gerhard von. Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: literarish untersucht und
theologisch gewertet. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934.
— Genesis: A Commentary. Revised edition. Translated by John H. Marks. The
Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Translation of Das erste
Buch Mose, Genesis. 9th edition. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 2–4. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972.
Renaud, Bernard. “Les généalogies et la structure de l’histoire sacerdotale dans le livre
de la Genèse.” Revue Biblique 97 (1990): 5–30.
Rendtorff, Rolf. “Noah, Abraham and Moses: God’s Covenant Partners.” Pages 125–36
in In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour
of Ronald E. Clements. Edited by Edward Ball. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 300. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
— “Some Reflections on the Canonical Moses: Moses and Abraham.” Pages 11–19
in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content Essays in Honor of
George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Revell, E. J. “The Leningrad Codex as a Representative of the Masoretic Text.” Pages
xxix–xlvi in David Noel Freedman, Astrid B. Beck, Bruce E. Zuckerman, Marilyn J.
Lundberg, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition.
Photographed by Bruce E. Zuckerman, Kenneth A. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg,
and Garth I. Moller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Robinson, Robert B. “Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986): 595–608.
Rosenbaum, M. and A. M. Silberman, trans. and ed. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
 Bibliography 143

Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary: Genesis. London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co.,
1948.
Sampson, Geoffrey. Schools of Linguistics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,
1980.
Sanders, James A. “The Task of Text Criticism.” Pages 315–27 in Problems in Biblical
Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L.
Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Scharbert, Josef. “Der Sinn der Toledot-­Formel in der Preisterschrift.” Pages 45–56 in
Wort, Gebot, Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Walther Eichrodt
zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Joachim Stoebe, Johann Jakob Stamm, and
Ernest Jenni. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 59.
Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970.
Schneider, Tammi J. Sarah: Mother of Nations. New York: Continuum, 2004.
— “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah.” Expedition 44, no. 3
(Winter 2002): 9–15.
Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. 2nd edition. The
International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1930.
Steinberg, Naomi. “The Genealogical Framework of the Family Stories in Genesis.”
Semeia 46 (1989): 41–50.
— Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Steinmetz, Devora. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis.
Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox,
1991.
Stordalen, Terje. “Genesis 2,4: Restudying a locus classicus.” Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104 (1992): 161–77.
Sweeney, Marvin A. “Form Criticism.” Pages 58–89 in To Each Its Own Meaning:
An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Edited by Stephen L.
McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Revised and expanded edition. Louisville, Ky.:
Westminster John Knox, 1999.
Sweeney, Marvin A. and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. The Changing Face of Form Criticism for
the Twenty-­First Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Syrén, Roger. The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal
Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 133.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Tengström, Sven. Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche
Studie. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 7. Uppsala: CWK Gleerup,
1976.
— Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen
Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch. Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 17.
Uppsala: CWK Gleerup, 1981.
Thomas, Matthew A. “Levitical Job Descriptions and Authority.” Pages 153–168 in
144 Bibliography

Ethical Thinking at the Crossroads of European Reasoning: Proceedings of the

3rd Annual Theological Symposium of the International Postgraduate Theological
Fellowship. Edited by Parush R. Parushev, Ovidiu Creangă, and Brian Brock. IBTS
Occasional Publications 7. Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007.
— “Variations in the Toledot Formula in Genesis.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Pacific Coast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature. Moraga,
Calif., March 24, 2002.
Trefil, James. The Nature of Science: An A–Z Guide to the Laws and Principles
Governing Our Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Turner, Laurence A. Announcements of Plot in Genesis. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 96. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
VanderKam, James C. “The Righteousness of Noah.” Pages 13–32 in Ideal Figures in
Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Edited by John J. Collins and George W.
E. Nickelsburg. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12.
Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. Harvard Semitic Monographs 32. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985.
— “The Toledot of Adam.” Pages 17–33 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A.
Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 41. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weimar, Peter. “Die Toledot-­Formel in der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung.”
Biblische Zeitschrift 18 (1974): 65–93.
— “Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung.”
Biblische Notizen 23 (1984): 81–134; 24 (1985): 138–62.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord — The Problem
of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3.” Pages 501–12 in Mélanges bibliques et
orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Edited by Andre Caquot and Mathias
Delcor. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 212. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments. 2nd edition. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1889.
— Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. New York: Meridian Books, 1957.
Reprint of Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black
and Allan Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black,
1885. Translation of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 2nd edition. Berlin: G.
Reimer, 1883.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition]
1. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Print edition: Word Biblical Commentary 1.
Dallas: Word, 1987.
— Genesis 16–50. Word Biblical Commentary [Electronic edition] 2. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2002. Print edition: Word Biblical Commentary 2. Dallas: Word,
1994.
— “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story.” Pages 19–25 in Proceedings
 Bibliography 145

of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the Bible.
Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion.
London: SPCK, 1984.
— Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, Minn.:
Augsburg, 1985.
— Genesis 37–50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis, Minn.:
Augsburg, 1986.
Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1977.
— “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 94 (1975): 169–89. Repr. pages 200–23 in “I Studied Inscriptions From
Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to
Genesis 1–11. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations.
3rd edition. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968.
Wolde, Ellen van. A Semiotic Analysis of Genesis 2–3. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 25.
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1989.
Woudstra, M. H. “The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-­Historical
Significance.” Calvin Theological Journal 5 (1970): 184–89.
Yarchin, William. “Imperative and Promise in Genesis 12:1–3.” Studia biblica et
theologica 10 (1980): 164–78.
146
 147

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Hebrew Bible / Old 5:1–6:9 43 10:32 43, 74 17:21 114 n 19

Testament 5:1b–2 68, 110 11 49, 88, 92, 98–9 17:23 45, 115
Genesis 5:3 85 11:1–9 101 17:25 115
1 50, 103, 108 5:3–32 89 11:4 111 18:16 100 n 5
1–2 107 5:32 90 11:9 111 19:28 100 n 5
1–11 60, 109 6:8 51 n 9 11:10 17 n 41, 26 n 21:3 67
1:1 134 n 3 6:9 16 n 40, 17 n 41, 12, 29, 55, 59, 66, 21:13 93, 114 n 19,
1:1–2:3 38–40, 103, 23, 24, 29, 35, 36, 68, 69, 72, 73, 80 115
127 41, 43, 69, 72, 73, 11:10–26 40, 89, 98, 21:18 93, 115
1:1–2:4a 17 n 41, 39 112 113, 128 22:16–18 114 n 19
1:26 85 6:9–22 17 n 41 11:10–27 44 22:20–23 49
1:28 45, 85, 90, 95, 6:9–10:1 43, 106, 127 11:10–32 27, 101 23:13 77 n 72
95 n 34, 108 6:9–11:26 60 11:26 91, 99 23:19 100 n 5
1:31 108 6:10 24, 90 11:26–32 99 25:1–6 113
2:1–2 108 6:11–13 110 11:27 17 n 41, 29, 25:9 100 n 5
2:3 108 6:17–18 119 69, 81 25:9–11 45
2:4 16 n 40, 17 n 41, 6:18 43 11:27–25:11 128 25:12 6, 17 n 41, 29,
22, 23, 29, 38, 39, 39 7:1 112, 119 11:27–25:12 45 67, 69, 81
n 65, 40, 41, 65, 68, 7:13 90 11:27–25:18 60 25:12–18 114, 128
69, 72, 73, 79, 134 7:24 17 n 41 11:28 99–100, 100 n 5 25:12–19 45
2:4–4:26 127 8:14–19 17 n 41 11:29 50 n 3, 99, 116 25:13 6, 22, 64, 77
2:4–5:1 42 9 80, 116 n7 25:13–17 89
2:4–6:8 60 9:1 45 11:30 100 25:16 115
2:4b–3:24 39 9:1–7 90 11:31 81, 101 25:18 45, 100 n 5
2:12 109 9:4–6 110 11:32 91 25:19 16 n 40, 17 n
2:15 107–8 9:5–6 113 12 50, 101 41, 26 n 12, 29, 67,
2:18 v, xiv 9:7 45, 95 12–36 60 69, 81, 84, 116
3:4 109 9:8–17 90 12:1–3 114 n 19 25:19–34 17 n 41
3:5 109 9:9–11 113 12:4 81 25:19–35:29 128
3:21 110 9:9–17 110 12:7 114 n 19 25:19–36:1 45
4 88, 92, 94 9:12 115 n 4 13:14–17 114 n 19 25:19–37.1 60
4:8–15 110 9:12–17 112–13 15:5 114 n 19 27:29 95 n 34
4:17–18 92 9:13 115 n 4 15:7 114 n 19 27:39–40 116
4:17–24 88–9, 94 9:17 115 n 4 15:13–21 114 n 19 28:18 109
4:19–22 92 9:18 90 16:3 115 28:19 109
4:23–24 110 9:25 112 n 15 16:10 93, 115 30:4 115
4:25–26 88–9, 92, 9:26–27 112 n 15 17 45, 114–15 30:9 115
94 10 109 17:2 114 n 19 33:20 109
4:26 107, 111 10:1 17 n 41, 22, 23, 17:3–16 114 n 19 35:7 109
5 27, 49, 55, 87–8, 29, 41, 42, 59, 64, 17:9 115 35:9–12 51
92, 94 68, 69, 71, 73, 80, 90 17:11 115 n 4 35:14 109
5:1 16 n 40, 17 n 41, 10:1–32 85 17:14 114 36 93
23, 26, 27, 29, 42, 10:1–11:9 127 17:16–21 114 36:1 17 n 41, 29,
64–6, 68, 69, 72, 73, 10:1–11:10 44 17:18 115 69, 81
79, 85, 103, 134 10:2–32 89 17:19 45, 114 n 19 36:1–8 129
5:1–32 27 10:21–31 90 17:20 45, 93, 114 n 36:1–37:2 46
5:1–6:8 127 10:22 90 19, 115 36:2–5 89
148 Index of References

36:6–8 75 Leviticus 13:4–15 118 2 Kings

36:9 6, 17 n 41, 29, 10 77 n 74 13:16 77 n 72 23:13 100 n 5
64, 68, 69, 75, 81 17:10–14 110 18:5–6 108
36:9–37:1 129 18:23–24 76 1 Chronicles
36:10 6, 22, 77, 77 Numbers 20:28 101 1:29 23
n 72 1 74, 81, 96, 99 21:11 100 n 5 5:7 23
36:10–14 89 1–2 98, 104, 125 33:7 100 n 5 6:2 77 n 72
36:15–19 89 1–4 98, 101 34:16–29 118 7:2 23
36:40 6, 22, 77 n 72 1:1–16 96 34:17 77 n 72 7:4 23
37–50 60 1:1–2:34 96 34:19 77 n 72 14:14 77 n 72
37:1–4 17 n 41 1:1–10:10 96
37:2 17 n 41, 23, 29, 1:4–16 89 Deuteronomy Nehemiah
41, 46, 67, 69, 72, 1:5 77 n 72, 102 10:22 109 7:5 27
73, 81 1:5–15 118 18:1 76
37:2–50:26 60 1:5–16 97, 99, 102 21:16 100 n 3 Isaiah
37:2–Numbers 1:10 96 31:29 34 50:1 27
2:34 129 1:17–46 89, 96–7 32 34
37:2–Numbers 3:1 47 1:20–43 78, 96 32:49 100 n 5 Jeremiah
37:12–28 17 n 41 1:20–47 102 33:23b 95 n 34 32:10 27
45 46 1:44–46 96 34:1 100 n 5
46:1 109 1:47–54 74, 97 Ezekiel
46:2–4 109 2 81, 97, 99 Joshua 48:1 77 n 72
46:8 77 n 72 2:3–31 118 13:3 100 n 5
46:8–26 109 3 60, 76, 77, 99, 118 13:25 100 n 5 Micah
46:27 109 3–4 97–8 15:8 100 n 5 4:8–5:1 40
48:3 109 3:1 6, 16 n 40, 17 n 17:7 100 n 5 5:1 40
49:30 100 n 5 41, 22, 42, 47, 59, 18:14 100 n 5 5:1–5 40
50:13 100 n 5 61, 61 n 32, 64–6, 18:16 100 n 5
50:17–21 117 69, 74, 76, 77, 79, 19:11 100 n 5
50:19–20 109 81, 95, 96, 102 n 8, Zechariah
50:20 110 104, 117, 125–6, 14:4 100 n 5
Judges
132 16:3 100 n 5
Exodus 3:1–4 96–7, 99, New Testament
1:1 77 n 72 102–3 Matthew
1:1–5 117 3:1–4:49 96 Ruth 1:1–17 133
1:5 109 3:1–Deuteronomy 3:1–5 17 n 41 9:17 15
6 60, 76 34:12 129 4:13–17 17 n 41
6:16 64, 74, 77 n 72 3:2 6, 64, 77, 77 n 72, 4:18 5, 17 n 41, 69 Mark
6:16–25 60 95, 99 4:18–22 61 n 32 2:22 15
6:19b 74 3:3 6, 77, 77 n 72
19:5–6 118–19 3:4 77 n 72, 99–100, 1 Samuel Luke
19:6 98 100 n 3, 100 n 5 15:7 100 n 5 3:23–38 134 n 4
24:16 108 3:5–4:49 82, 97 5:37 15
28:9–10 78, 109, 118 3:7–8 108 2 Samuel
n 12 3:12 100 2:24 100 n 5 John
28:10 74 3:17–4:49 102 5:14 77 n 72 1:1 134 n 3
28:12 78 3:18 77 n 72 23:8 77 n 72
31:13–17 119 4 99 Rabbinic
31:16 119 7:12–83 118 1 Kings References
32 119 8:26 108 4:8 77 n 72 Genesis Rabbah
32:10 119 10:11–36:13 96 11:7 100 n 5 12.7–8 24, 73
32:13 119 10:14–28 118 16:23–28 86 n 63
39:32 108 11–36 98 16:24 86 16.5 107
39:43 108 13:4 77 n 72 16:29–22:40 86 21.8 107
 149

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Aaron 6, 19, 42, 47, 74, 76–9, 81, 82, 95, leadership 19, 47, 74–9, 82, 86, 98, 102–3,
97–103, 118–20, 124, 126, 129, 131 118–20
Abram/Abraham 45, 49–51, 93, 101 n 6, Leningrad Codex 3–4
113–17, 120, 121, 131, 134 Levite 74, 76, 76 n 71, 77–9, 97, 98
Arab-Israeli conflict 19, 135 linguistics 31–7, 70

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 2 n 5, 3–4 Moses 6, 19, 34, 42, 47, 59–60, 74, 76–9,
blessing 57, 58, 83 n 1, 85, 91, 95, 108, 109, 81, 82, 95, 97–103, 118–20, 124, 126, 129,
116, 134–5 131

chiasm 106–11 narrative pacing 86–9, 91

covenant 3, 19, 45, 93, 105–22, 126 Noah 23, 24, 51 n 9, 73, 91, 92, 106, 112
Abrahamic 45, 46, 113–17, 119, 126, 128,
129, 134 Pentateuch 5–7, 25–31, 47, 74–9, 120
Davidic 134 presupposition and assertion 34–5
Noahic 43, 44, 111–13, 119, 127
Sinaitic 78, 117–20, 129 reconciliation 46, 116–18, 131
Revised Common Lectionary 17
David 76 n 71, 79 n 79, 134 rhetorical criticism and structure 106–11
Deuteronomistic History 86, 133
discourse analysis 8 n 18, 31–7, 86, 88 Sarai/Sarah 45, 50–1, 115, 130, 131
Shem 40, 44, 73, 90–3, 99, 102, 110–11
Esau 90, 93–4, 105, 116–18, 126, 131, 132 Shem, Ham, and Japheth 64, 112, 127
surface structure 11, 14–18, 135
form criticism 7–9, 11–14, 30, 53, 54, 60 syntax 21–2, 61–71, 123–5

geneaology 5 n 11, 27, 40, 41, 46, 81, 83–104, tagmemic theory 8 n 17, 61–2
107, 111, 133–4, 135 Terah 44–5, 49–51, 99–103
form: linear v. segmented 55, 84, 86–9, theme and rheme 32–4
94–5, 102–3, 112, 125–6 toledot
God 19, 42, 44, 46, 80, 85, 90, 93, 105, 110, translation of 22–5
111, 112, 113, 117, 119 Toledot Book 26–8, 59, 56, 58, 65
toledot formula
identifiability and activation 35–7 function as heading 37–41
Isaac 45, 46, 49, 67, 81, 114–17, 135 past study of 25–31
Ishmael 19, 42, 45, 46, 75, 81, 93, 114–16, 126, semantics of 22–5
128, 135 syntax of 21–2
Israel 6, 19, 29–30, 46, 76, 78, 85, 91–2, 102,
117, 125, 126 verbless clause 21–2, 34, 37, 62–4, 123

Jacob 23, 46, 73, 109 waw conjunction 63, 68, 69–73
Jesus 133–4
150
 151

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Andersen, Francis I. xi, xvi n 1, 8 n 17, 36 n 51, Lewis, C. S. 37 n 56

37–8, 61–5, 68–70
Andersen, T. David 51 n 7, 75–7 Malamat, Abraham 84 n 4
McLuhan, Marshall 1
Ben Zvi, Ehud 7 n 16, 11–12, 40 Melugin, Roy F. 8–9, 36 n 53, 53–4
Buber, Martin 108 Miller, Cynthia L. 21
Budd, Philip 100 Muilenburg, James 53
Budde, Karl 25–6
Olson, Dennis T. 46 n 79, 79 n 80, 118–19
Carr, David M. 9 n 23, 10 n 25, 23, 27, 40, 73 n
63, 73 n 64, 113, 115 n 6, 117 Palmer, Parker J. 18
Cassuto, Umberto 40–1, 71, 90 n 21, 91
Childs, Brevard 10, 41, 54–6, 59 Rad, Gerhard von 26–8, 65
Clines, David 1 n 2, 40, 85, 114 Renaud, Bernard 30–1, 41, 54–6
Coats, George 38–9, 41, 96 n 35, 97 Rendtorff, Rolf 120
Croatto, J. Severino 58–60, 79 Robinson, Robert B. 85, 90, 93, 94 n 33
Cross, Frank Moore 6, 26, 28, 132–3 Rosenzweig, Franz 108

Dahlberg, Bruce T. 109–10 Sampson, Geoffrey 32

Sanders, James A. 11
Eichrodt, Walther 27–8, 56 Scharbert, Josef 51, 54, 56–8, 83 n 1, 92
Eissfeldt, Otto 23 n 4, 27 Schneider, Tammi J. xiii, 50 n 3, 86, 115–16
Steinmetz, Devora 87, 117
Genette, Gérard 86, 88 Sweeney, Marvin A. xiii, 7 n 15, 7 n 16
Groom, Susan Anne 16 n 39, 24, 31–7
Gunkel, Hermann 7, 11, 27 Tengström, Sven 28–31, 41, 54–6, 91–2
Thomas, Matthew A. 76 n71, 79
Hess, Richard S. 84 Turner, Laurence A. 101 n6, 101 n7, 114–15

Johnson, Marshall D. 85, 88 Weimar, Peter 26–7, 30 n37, 61, 65–71

Weinfeld, Moshe 103 n9
Kaminski, Carol M. 58 n 16, 83 n 1, 90, 95 n 34 Wellhausen, Julius 25
Kenny, Anthony 1 n 1, 12 n 33, 14 Wenham, Gordon 6 n12, 27, 80 n81, 100, 108–9
Kim, Hyun Chul Paul 106 Westermann, Claus 27 n18
Knierim, Rolf P. 34, 79, 96 n 35, 97 Wilson, Robert R. 55 n5, 83–4, 86, 88, 93–4
Koch, Klaus 13, 41, 49–50, 56, 60–1 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1, 12–14, 36, 70
152
 ‫‪153‬‬

‫‪INDEX OF HEBREW WORDS AND PHRASES‬‬

‫אלה‬ ‫‪22, 38, 62–4, 74‬‬ ‫כתנות‬ ‫‪110‬‬

‫ברית‬ ‫‪105 n 1, 115 n 4, 120‬‬ ‫על־פני‬ ‫‪100–1‬‬
‫בית־אל‬ ‫‪109‬‬ ‫צלם‬ ‫‪85‬‬
‫דמות‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫ׁשהם‬ ‫‪74, 78, 109, 118 n 33‬‬
‫זה‬ ‫‪22, 26, 38, 64‬‬ ‫ׁשמות‬ ‫‪6–7, 22, 131‬‬
‫זות‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫תולדות‬ ‫‪2 n 4, 27 n 18, 62–3, 123‬‬
154
155
156
157
158