# Toledot and Colophon



## Eoghan (Apr 13, 2021)

Hope this proves useful it gives an overview of the internal evidence in Genesis for clay tablets handed down by the patriarchs. I am sure there will be detractors but for me it is a precious insight.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 13, 2021)

Almost all modern commentators, evangelical and critical, have rejected Wiseman's theory and understood the toledoth to be headings introducing the next generation rather than colophons. I remember reading Wiseman's book back in the 1980's and finding it stimulating but ultimately unconvincing. For what it's worth.
See for example, Kenneth Mathews, _Genesis 1-17_, (New American Commentary), 32-34.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 13, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Almost all modern commentators, evangelical and critical, have rejected Wiseman's theory and understood the toledoth to be headings introducing the next generation rather than colophons. I remember reading Wiseman's book back in the 1980's and finding it stimulating but ultimately unconvincing. For what it's worth.
> See for example, Kenneth Mathews, _Genesis 1-17_, (New American Commentary), 32-34.


Agreed. 

By no means am I a scholar, but I have read a significant amount of technical material on Genesis. I also disagree with Wisemen's theory.

From Victor Hamilton:

_Few books of Scripture reveal the lines of demarcation between their individual units as clearly as does Genesis. This is due to the presence of the formula ʾēlleh ṯôleḏôṯ, used ten times throughout Genesis. At some points it appears preferable to translate the formula “this is the story (or history) of X.” At other points “these are the descendants (or generations) of X” seems better. The choice between these two at any given occurrence depends mostly on the nature of the material following the formula. If the formula is followed by a genealogy then the preference is for the latter. If it is followed by narrative then the preference is for the former. The ten are (and we translate “generations” only for continuity):

1. 2:4a: “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth”
2. 5:1a: “these are the generations of Adam”
3. 6:9a: “these are the generations of Noah”
4. 10:1a: “these are the generations of the sons of Noah”
5. 11:10a: “these are the generations of Shem”
6. 11:27a: “these are the generations of Terah”
7. 25:12a: “these are the generations of Ishmael”
8. 25:19a: “these are the generations of Isaac”
9. 36:1a, 9a: “these are the generations of Esau”
10. 37:2a: “these are the generations of Jacob”_



Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990. Print. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 13, 2021)

From Nahum Sarna: 

_The ʾelleh toledot formula is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Book of Genesis.6 In each of its other ten occurrences, it introduces what follows, invariably in close connection with the name of a person already mentioned in the narrative. Its use indicates that a new and significant development is at hand. Deriving from the verb y-l-d, “to give birth,” the noun form would mean “begettings” or “generations,” and in most instances it precedes genealogies that are sometimes interspersed with narrative material. In 25:19 and 37:2, where no family tree follows but only stories of subsequent events, the formula is used figuratively for “a record of events.” This is the meaning it bears in the present passage. In this sense, the entire verse may be understood as a unity referring to what follows. Further support for this interpretation lies in its parallel structure, not to mention its poetic chiasm, “heaven and earth,” “earth and heaven.”_

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Print. The JPS Torah Commentary.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Apr 13, 2021)

From Allen Ross:

_The structure of the book is marked by an initial section and then ten further sections with headings. The major structural word of the book is tôledôt, expressed in the clause “these are the generations of.…” The word is a feminine noun from yālad, “to give birth” (properly derived from the hiphil stem of the verb, meaning “to beget”). It is often translated as “generations,” “histories,” or simply “descendants.”2
This word has been traditionally viewed as a heading of a section. Reconstructing the outline according to this view would yield the arrangement below. (See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949 reprint], pp. 70–71; Bush, Notes, p. 57; Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, vol. 1, pp. 109–11.)

1. Creation (1:1–2:3)
2. Tôledôt of the heavens and the earth (2:4–4:26)
3. Tôledôt of Adam (5:1–6:8)
4. Tôledôt of Noah (6:9–9:29)
5. Tôledôt of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1–11:9)
6. Tôledôt of Shem (11:10–26)
7. Tôledôt of Terah (11:27–25:11)
8. Tôledôt of Ishmael (25:12–18)
9. Tôledôt of Isaac (25:19–35:29)
10. Tôledôt of Esau, the father of Edom (twice) (36:1–8; 36:9–37:1)
11. Tôledôt of Jacob (37:2–50:26)_

And:

_In order to understand the significance of the word tôledôt, we must interpret its meaning in the present arrangement of the book. Since tôledôt is related to the word yālad, it refers to the product or the result of its subject, which is marked out by the subjective genitive. This subject marks the starting point in the narrative; the section combines narrative and genealogy to move from this point to the end of the tôledôt. The heading thus summarizes the ensuing discussion, which traces the development of the subject from a starting point to an end.

Besides the traditional approach that sees tôledôt as a consistent heading throughout and the critical approach that takes it as belonging to P as a later insertion, *there is the view that was presented by P. J. Wiseman and accepted by R. K. Harrison* that these are similar to the colophons of clay tablets and therefore refer to the preceding material in the narrative (Wiseman, New Discoveries, p. 8; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969], p. 548). They argue that the traditions were recorded on clay tablets and then collected into the present form of Genesis.

The colophon view cannot be accepted, however, because the evidence from cuneiform is unconvincing and the outworking of the arrangement in Scripture is impossible. When one studies the colophons on the tablets, it becomes clear that they are not like the tôledôt of Genesis.4 In the cuneiform tablets, the titles are repetitions of the tablet’s first line and not a description of the contents, the owner seems to be the present owner and not the original owner, and the Akkadian equivalent of tôledôt is not used in the formulas. When one attempts to trace the proposed arrangement within Genesis it becomes clear that the system is unworkable. If these are references to what has immediately preceded, then the word in 5:1 should have come at the end of the story of Adam (4:16) and not later. Another passage that would be improbable as a concluding form is 10:1, the tôledôt of the sons of Noah. It is unlikely that it looks back to the flood and the curse, especially in view of 10:32. Besides the problems of harmonization, there is also the difficulty of having the story of Abraham preserved by Ishmael (the tôledôt of Ishmael would be the colophon concluding that preceding history), having Isaac keep Ishmael’s archives, Esau those of Jacob, and Jacob those of Esau.

Along with these difficulties is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does tôledôt refer clearly to what has preceded; in every place it can and often must refer to what follows. For example, the word begins a genealogy at the end of Ruth. In the expression “these are the generations of Perez” (Ruth 4:18), Perez is the point of departure and not the prominent person. Such a usage would be similar to the “generations of Terah” in Genesis 11:27. Likewise in Numbers 3:1, the tôledôt of Aaron and Moses cannot conclude the census of chapters 1 and 2. However, if the tôledôt in Genesis are taken in reference to the sections that follow, they fit perfectly. From 2:4 onward, every occurrence is followed by an account of what issued from the starting point just named.
Even in Genesis 2:4, the formula fits as a heading. Wiseman himself recognizes that 2:1–3 forms a natural conclusion for the creation account. Genesis 2:4a would then be the heading of the next section; 2:4b would be the beginning dependent clause (much like the Enuma Elish text “when above …”). The structure here is similar to Genesis 5:1:

2:4 These are the tôledôt of the heavens and the earth when they were created;
When Yahweh God made earth and heaven.…
5:1 This is the book of the tôledôt of Adam;
When God created man.…_


Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998. Print.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 13, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Along with these difficulties is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does tôledôt refer clearly to what has preceded; in every place it can and often must refer to what follows. For example, the word begins a genealogy at the end of Ruth. In the expression “these are the generations of Perez” (Ruth 4:18), Perez is the point of departure and not the prominent person. Such a usage would be similar to the “generations of Terah” in Genesis 11:27. Likewise in Numbers 3:1, the tôledôt of Aaron and Moses cannot conclude the census of chapters 1 and 2.



My time at seminary may have been brief but isn't tôledôt a Hebrew term? 

It is suggested by Harrison and Harrison that this is merely a translation of the original cuneiform clay tablet into Hebrew on a scroll by Moses. When writing in Hebrew (Leviticus and Ruth) there would be no translation from the cuneiform of Mesopotamia and I would expect the Hebrew to follow conventional Hebrew (or Aramaic?) conventions.

When my German friend Dietrich writes to me he uses clumsy German idioms such as being in two hearts, where the more natural english expression is "two minds". I realise he is thinking in German and translating into English. It is an artefact of the original language and customs.

If Moses translated the cuneiform I would expect some clumsiness along the lines of conventional Mesopotamian lines. A colophone at the end of a clay tablet is an artefact of the original language and customs.

I also came across the objections of Derek Kidner which seem to hang on incredulity "that writing is nearly if not quite as old as man". As a Creationist that cuts no ice with me and I am quite happy to see Tubal-cain skipping the stone age and inaugurating the bronze and iron age simultaneously (Gen 4:22)

Of more concern is the assertion that the colophon is neither common, widespread or well attested in the cuneiform of Mesopotamia. I will need to look into that one._

_


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

Reading Colophons from Mesopotamian Clay-Tablets Dealing with Mathematics - NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin


Kolophone sind kurze Vermerke, die manchmal am Rand von Keilschrifttexten zu finden sind. In ihnen sind Angaben zum Text und dessen Verarbeitung, insbesond




link.springer.com





_...Old Babylonian colophons are much less systematic, codified, and informative than they are in the first millennium....

...To this date there exists no comprehensive study of Old Babylonian colophons, but some studies of colophons attached to specific genres of texts are available..._

From the first I assume that it is also saying first millennium colophons are much more systematic, codified and informative - no?
From the second it suggests that there is a gap in the study of Babylonian colophons - no?


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

Learning about Cuneiform Tablets Behind the Scenes at the British Museum


We’ve talked before on this blog about the importance of hands-on experience with inscriptions. Seeing and handling the real thing gives a much clearer idea of the practical realities of reading an…




crewsproject.wordpress.com





_In particular, he told us about Neo-Assyrian scholarship and the contents of Aššurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. Aššurbanipal, who ruled Assyria in the seventh century BC, had never expected to be king. As his father’s youngest son, he was trained as a priest and scholar, and this included learning to read and write. After acceding to the throne, he boasted proudly of his literacy – he claimed he could even read ancient tablets ‘from before the flood’.

Most of the the text is impressed into the clay in the standard way, but the scribes left it too late before adding the colophon – information about the production of the text. As the clay had already dried, the information was added in ink._


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

CORDIS | European Commission







cordis.europa.eu





This seems to be an academic attempt at crowd funding?



https://www.jstor.org/stable/43307258?seq=1



_...a concern with the protection of intellectual material.._

Was the early colophon a sort of assertion of intellectual property rights?



https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49554/1/Jimenez_May_the_Reader_Not_Withhold_the_Tablet.pdf


_Most cuneiform literary tablets contain copies of texts on earlier tablets. However, many of them include a part that, by definition, cannot have been copied: the colophon. Especially in the Late Babylonian period, colophons feature many unusual and learned writings, which have usually been regarded as a display of the scribe’s learnedness and ingenuity.









Colophon - A Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria


A Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria - September 2014




www.cambridge.org




_
Colophons are a thing


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

If the view of toledot (H8435) as an introduction is correct, then *why is it absent at the start of Genesis?* Moffat took this view and transposed Genesis 2:4 with it's toledot to become Genesis 1:1!


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

One of my insights from education and neuroscience is that we have a limited working memory. There are only so many factors we can consciously keep in mind.

When looking at Genesis I am aware that it comes from the dawn of time and does assert that writing was present from the beginning. I have no problem with that. It also means that the Genesis Flood is the original script and the Gilgamesh epic a poor copy.

_Déjà vu_​There has long been a rumour that Deep Space 9 was a concept stolen from the Babylon 5 script. What I didn't realise was that Deep Space 9 tacitly acknowledged this in an out of court settlement.

The Gilgamesh epic is probably the earliest case of plagiarism!

I say this to firmly plant the idea of which came first, Genesis or Gilgamesh.

Now that that is in your working memory which came first, the records used by Moses or the cuneiform Mesopotamian tablets? Chronologically the book of Genesis predates the cuneiform tablets. Why should we not be asking why *the Mesopotamian tablets deviate from the older colophon formula of Genesis!* 

I encounter a similar mindset when the LXX is used to correct the Masoretic text on the basis it is older??? The Masoretic text _*is*_ the original, faithfully copied and predates it's translation into Greek. Carbon dating may establish an LXX papyrus as older (chronologically) that does not mean it is more authorative.

Were we to have a nuclear war and Bibles were all but lost, yet a copy of the Message printed in 1980 was found predating a King James printed in 2020, I know which I would reprint as the more accurate.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> Were we to have a nuclear war and Bibles were all but lost, yet a copy of the Message printed in 1980 was found predating a King James printed in 2020, I know which I would reprint as the more accurate.



The analogy breaks down, as the preface/intro to the Message explains that it is a paraphrase and notes that the KJV predates it.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 14, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> Why should we not be asking why *the Mesopotamian tablets deviate from the older colophon formula of Genesis!*


You started out getting an idea from Wiseman, which was that the toledoth formulae in Genesis were colophons because they functioned similarly to colophons in ancient Mesopotamian tablets. Now that you have been informed that evangelical OT scholars generally find that argument unconvincing (though worthy of examination, not merely dismissing it), you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes? That is the exact opposite of Wiseman's own view and would immediately refute it. Can you adduce some evidence for it? After all the evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT, not so much due to Mesopotamian evidence (though there are questions there as well). 

By the way, this discussion has nothing directly to do with the date or unity of the Pentateuch. Both views could be held by advocates of Mosaic authorship (such as myself) or advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 14, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> You started out getting an idea from Wiseman, which was that the toledoth formulae in Genesis were colophons because they functioned similarly to colophons in ancient Mesopotamian tablets. Now that you have been informed that evangelical OT scholars generally find that argument unconvincing (though worthy of examination, not merely dismissing it), you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes? That is the exact opposite of Wiseman's own view and would immediately refute it. Can you adduce some evidence for it? After all the evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT, not so much due to Mesopotamian evidence (though there are questions there as well).
> 
> By the way, this discussion has nothing directly to do with the date or unity of the Pentateuch. Both views could be held by advocates of Mosaic authorship (such as myself) or advocates of the Documentary Hypothesis.



Dr. Duguid, are there still those who hold to the Documentary Hypothesis around? I thought that had been thoroughly debunked decades ago.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> you want to argue that the differences are due to the Mesopotamian tablets making changes



I don't want to make the argument I would just ask the question. Asking questions is my superpower, it has probably been responsible for a few firings and my early retirement. (I find a creative outlet in Socrates cartoons)


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 14, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Dr. Duguid, are there still those who hold to the Documentary Hypothesis around? I thought that had been thoroughly debunked decades ago.


Sadly, the Documentary hypothesis (in a variety of different forms) remains the standard scholarly construct. It's acknowledged that the history is more complicated than Wellhausen's version, and the redactors are sometimes allowed to be a little more skillful, but in broad outline the hypothesis still holds near universal sway. The few that have argued for authorial unity tend to place that author during the post-exilic setting, so that's hardly an advance.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> evangelical scholars largely repudiate Wiseman based on the use of the toledoth formula elsewhere in the OT,



That was in fact one of the reasons I don't trust them. 

They compare *apples *and *oranges.* * 

If *the rest of the Old Testament was written originally in *Hebrew on scrolls* I would not expect to see evidence of translation from an original *cuneiform clay tablet. *

That may be circular logic but it is internally consistent and attempts to address the problem of no toledot at the start of Genesis - a problem which nobody seems to be bothered by? (that is asked by way of question, not assertion)


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> *If *the rest of the Old Testament was written originally in *Hebrew on scrolls* I would not expect to see evidence of translation from an original *cuneiform clay tablet.*



That's more or less our main point on why we don't find him plausible. Further, as in Chronicles, toledoth never suggests authorship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 14, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> That may be circular logic but it is internally consistent and attempts to address the problem of no toledot at the start of Genesis - a problem which nobody seems to be bothered by? (that is asked by way of question, not assertion)



Because we aren't convinced that toledoth is anything more than a structuring device. You are assuming without evidence that it means authorship, and then finding evidence to fit that assumption.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 14, 2021)

If there is a problem with Genesis not beginning with a toledoth, why is there not a problem with the book not ending with a colophon?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 14, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> That was in fact one of the reasons I don't trust them.
> 
> They compare *apples *and *oranges.* *
> 
> ...


No apples or oranges required. If you think the prologue of Genesis is a problem, what do you do with the Joseph narrative, which is left hanging entirely outside the toledoth structure of Genesis on your theory, since it has no colophon? It's much easier to explain an introduction which leads into the literary structure, than a loose end that involves the final thirteen chapters of the book. Second, is it more likely that the account of Ishmael's relatives (Gen 25:13-18) is connected to 25:12: "This is the family history (toledoth) of Abraham's son Ishmael" which precedes it, or with "This is the family history of Abraham's son Isaac" which follows. That's before we even get to comparing Scripture with Scripture and the use of the formula elsewhere in the OT. By all means ask questions, but please listen to the answers you are given.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 14, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> If there is a problem with Genesis not beginning with a toledoth, why is there not a problem with the book not ending with a colophon?


There is an inherent assumption that Genesis begins on clay cuneiform and ends on Egyptian on papyrus. Sorry thought I mentioned that. Will look at the structure more closely tomorrow. 

Thank you for being restrained and gentle (just noticed your colophon)


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2021)

This may go some way to answering the "most recent scholarly work" criticism


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 15, 2021)

Um...no. Linking to a low level self-published paper by a graduate student in theology that doesn't address the specific objections we raised doesn't really advance the discussion much. Please answer the objections we raised to the idea that the toledoth formulae are introductions rather than conclusions if you want to further the conversation.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> If there is a problem with Genesis not beginning with a toledoth, why is there not a problem with the book not ending with a colophon?


Ah an intelligent question. The assumption is that the cuneiform clay tablets were up to the sojourn in Egypt. Josephs contributions would have been on vellum (or papyrus) and either in Hebrew or Egyptian. So Moses has to deal with different languages some on clay tablets some on Egyptian vellum or papyrus. Hope that explains why there is not a problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 15, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> The assumption is that the cuneiform clay tablets were up to the sojourn in Egypt. Josephs contributions would have been on vellum (or papyrus) and either in Hebrew or Egyptian.



Is that your assumption or others'?


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> That's before we even get to comparing Scripture with Scripture and the use of the formula elsewhere in the OT.



The book of Daniel, Ezra and Jeremiah have passages written in Aramaic. This is generally accepted. If parts of Genesis were written in Mesopotamian cuneiform we would not expect the toledoth to follow native Hebrew books. Similarly I would not expect Aramaic passages, albeit translated into Hebrew, to follow the conventions of native Hebrew writing.

I think we can agree that Moses was updating earlier documents. He did not sit down to write Genesis with a clean slate. The real question is whether we can see remnants of another language and cultural conventions underlying the final product. 

When I write to folks in Germany or Finland where they think in another language there are occasional glimpses, they slip through into English. Those are accidental and one of the reasons folks write in English is to iron out the German or Finnish grammar and idioms. If there are traces of cuneiform from Moses translation, it is probably down to respect for the original text and a deliberate decision to leave an earlier structure.

You cannot compare the early cuneiform colophons (translated into Hebrew) with later toledoths written in Hebrew according to Hebrew conventions. If correct these are pre-Flood documents. As a Biologist I view the Flood as a genetic bottleneck, it was also I have come to realise a knowledge bottleneck. If you had to pick eight individuals to carry the torch for humanity who do you include, who do you exclude? It is worse than that in some ways because it was only one family! These are rescued ante-deluvian documents from a lost world.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 15, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> Why should we not be asking why *the Mesopotamian tablets deviate from the older colophon formula of Genesis!*



I was struck by the similar question from Damien F Mackey p5

"_Did the authors of the scriptural books really borrow much of their written material, stories , their poetry, their wisdom, from pagan mythology and the literature of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians for instance, or do the latter owe a debt to the Hebrews?_"

I am an advocate of presuppositional apologetics and a creationist. The objections I am encountering assume that Genesis was written in the same style of Hebrew as the last book of the Bible. They assume that all ante-diluvium documents were destroyed (at least some do) and the likes of Derek Kidner assume that writing was one of the last inventions of humanity as we left the stone age. *If I were to share these assumptions, I would repudiate the colophon hypothesis*. Perhaps it is because of that that I stumbled upon the colophon hypothesis in a creationist book dealing with monkey, ape and human fossil bones. Marvin Lubenow would have none of these presuppositions which would lead him to repudiate, far less consider, the colophon hypothesis.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> "_Did the authors of the scriptural books really borrow much of their written material, stories , their poetry, their wisdom, from pagan mythology and the literature of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians for instance, or do the latter owe a debt to the Hebrews?_"



Neither. All cultures were embedded within the same cultural river. And since the Mesopotamians and Egyptians generally predate the Hebrews, it would be hard for them to borrow from the Hebrews.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 17, 2021)

I tend to the theory that we have written records from Adam. That necessarily predates anything else. Mesopotamian cuneiform may have been contemporary with later descendants but as Adams descendants the postulated clay tablets from Adam predate them. *We are talking antediluvian records which necessarily predate later civilisations*. It is interesting that we are really getting down to presuppositions.


----------



## iainduguid (Apr 17, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> I tend to the theory that we have written records from Adam. That necessarily predates anything else. Mesopotamian cuneiform may have been contemporary with later descendants but as Adams descendants the postulated clay tablets from Adam predate them. *We are talking antediluvian records which necessarily predate later civilisations*. It is interesting that we are really getting down to presuppositions.


Another way of putting it is not that we are getting down to presuppositions but we are delving deeply into speculation. I'm not sure that the Scriptures require us to take a position on whether writing was present from the beginning of mankind or was a later invention, or the relative date of cuneiform to other forms of script. Do we know for sure what language Adam and Eve spoke? Although I haven't read the book for a while, I suspect Wiseman's assumptions here are actually quite different from yours.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> I tend to the theory that we have written records from Adam. That necessarily predates anything else. Mesopotamian cuneiform may have been contemporary with later descendants but as Adams descendants the postulated clay tablets from Adam predate them. *We are talking antediluvian records which necessarily predate later civilisations*. It is interesting that we are really getting down to presuppositions.



I find it hard to believe that Adam's clay tablets survived the flood, unless you are arguing that the Sumerians and Akkadians found his tablets and preserved them.


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I find it hard to believe that Adam's clay tablets survived the flood, unless you are arguing that the Sumerians and Akkadians found his tablets and preserved them.




One of the injustices inflicted on my family was that the family bible with the genealogical charts at the front went to a cousin in Cumbernauld. This was the WRONG cousin and an affront to the correct lineage (so I am told).

Family records were passed down from Adam and added to by others. How long did Noah take to build the Ark - the better part of a century as I recall. This was not a spontaneous cruise with *lastminute .com. *It was a planned departure with the removal van being built in the back yard. I assume that Noah took his "family Bible" or it's equivalent in written records into the Ark along with some gardening implements and maybe a loom and spinning wheel. He probably put wine onboard of the antediluvian vintage. I wonder how much that amphorae would fetch at auction today?

Culturally we are predisposed to dismiss the story of the flood and Creation as myths. I am coming around to the conviction that our working memory is able to consider only one or two ideas simultaneously. Everything else is in the shadows as feelings, a sense or predisposition - long term memory. This fits with all the facts and goes a long way to explain human nature.

Incredulity seems to be based on predispositions and imagining the only way to survive was outside the Ark to be discovered by a Sumerian archeological dig led by a Sumerian Indiana Jones. You are not picturing Noah walking up the ramp with a crate labelled "family records".


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> One of the injustices inflicted on my family was that the family bible with the genealogical charts at the front went to a cousin in Cumbernauld. This was the WRONG cousin and an affront to the correct lineage (so I am told).
> 
> Family records were passed down from Adam and added to by others. How long did Noah take to build the Ark - the better part of a century as I recall. This was not a spontaneous cruise with *lastminute .com. *It was a planned departure with the removal van being built in the back yard. I assume that Noah took his "family Bible" or it's equivalent in written records into the Ark along with some gardening implements and maybe a loom and spinning wheel. He probably put wine onboard of the antediluvian vintage. I wonder how much that amphorae would fetch at auction today?
> 
> ...



So...what evidence do you have that Noah took the Adamic Tablets onto the ark?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eoghan (Apr 19, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So...what evidence do you have that Noah took the Adamic Tablets onto the ark?


Are we talking photographic, eye witness accounts or literary evidence? While the former may be lacking the colophon hypothesis is points to the literary evidence within the text. Indeed if we follow the precept that the first occurrence sets the precedence for subsequent encounters, *there is no toledoth for Genesis 1:1-2:3* but there is a colophon in 2:4 which the Good News translation calls a "history". 

Apart from a firmly held conviction do you have any evidence to the contrary? The opening passage lacks the toledoth of your (?) position and the absence of a colophon in Josephs history is explained by the colophon hypothesis. The Good News translation adopts the colophon approach (unwittingly?) for the first passage and use of "toledoth" - then abandons it subsequently?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 19, 2021)

Eoghan said:


> While the former may be lacking the colophon hypothesis is points to the literary evidence within the text.



That's the thing needing to be proven. So far you are arguing in a circle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

