TOLEDOTH

The Hebrew word toledoth, means “This is the account of or history of…” and it is used as a literary device to introduce each of the eleven epic sagas that constitute the Book of Genesis.  For example, Moses used this word when he wrote, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created…” (NKJV, Gen 2:4)  He uses the word again when he introduced us to Noah saying, “This is the genealogy of Noah…” (Gen 6:9)  This prose narrative pattern continues on through the book as we are provided with bold, straightforward statements of fact, that do not lend themselves easily to be interpreted as myths, legends, or deceptive fairy tales that have been stolen from other cultures.  However, the vast majorities of present day scholars believe and teach precisely that interpretation of the accounts of Genesis.  In this blog I will examine the folly of some of their interpretive methods and motivations which led them to these erroneous conclusions about Genesis, and the Bible in general.

When approaching the Bible, one must let it speak for itself, realizing that, “…every interpreter has presuppositions, that is, preformed ideas about what the Bible is, what it says, and how it fits together.” (Hill & Walton, pg. 28)  This is especially true when considering the first five books, known as the Pentateuch, and the book of Genesis, more so than any other book in the entire Bible.  The reasons and motivations for questioning the authenticity and reliability of Genesis are very simple and obvious: if you want to chop down a tree, you don’t aim at the leaves with your axe, you aim directly for the trunk of the tree.  In the case of the Bible, Genesis is the trunk and the root system, as evidenced by the fact that it, “…contains the foundations for much of the theology of the OT… [and] an understanding of the book’s content and message is essential to the study of the rest of the Bible.” (Hill & Walton, pg. 78)  The shear amount of theological underpinnings that originate in Genesis is truly astounding, and it defies logic to consider this coincidental. Given this premise, it is even more foolish to assume that calling in to question the validity of Genesis will not have a profound effect on the rest of Scripture.

Yet, men like Julius Wellhausen and the “source criticism” that he advocated, “…asserted that the Pentateuch conveys no historicity for the patriarchs, but merely reflects patriarchal stories retold in a later age.”  (Hill & Walton, pg. 68) But don’t forget that this is a direct contradiction to the “Toledoth:  This is the history of...” formula, and unfortunately it doesn’t stop there.  Literary critics, “…also deny the essential historicity of the biblical narratives.  They speak of “sacred history” and “prose fiction,” affirming the theological truth of Scripture but denying that the message reflects historical reality…” (Hill & Walton, pg. 68)  And how do these so called ‘reconstructionists’ justify this skepticism you ask; with mere assumptions, presumptions, doubt, and incredulous criticism of the doctrine of divine inspiration.  It is worthy of noting that, “Proponents of historical reliability are generally committed to the divine inspiration of the biblical narratives assuring an accurate history of Israel.  Conversely, proponents of some form of a “reconstructionist” view of Old Testament history generally discount the divine or supernatural origin of the biblical narratives.” (pg. 68)

With all of that interpretive baggage and the critical lenses through which the scholar views the Bible, it’s no wonder that by the time they open to the first pages of Genesis, they are already convinced that the, “Israelites borrowed the basic mythological concepts from the Babylonian material but over the centuries adapted them to their distinctive monotheistic outlook.” (Hill & Walton, pg. 80)  Which if correct, it’s no longer “Toledoth”, it has become, “This is the story that we stole from the Babylonians, and we’re trying to deceive you into believing that it is a true story about us and the false god that we’ve made up instead.”  Ultimately, that is the lie that the higher critics of the Bible would like you to believe, oh and of course Satan as well, because he is the father of it.  Understand that, “…we cannot afford to ignore the similarities between biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature…” (Hill & Walton, pg. 80), given the parallels that exist between them.  Ultimately, there is no valid reason for us to exclude the possibility that it is the Babylonian literature that is the source of a gross perversion of the ancient events, while the Israelite tradition handed down from Abraham was without error, instead of the other way around.  Remember that Abraham was a direct descendant of Shem and Noah and this connection provides a direct link for the transmission of the oral traditions regarding the primeval history which was later compiled into its final form by Moses, all of which was guided by the sovereign hand of Yahweh, who inspired him to write it.  This conclusion has been verified by many in the fields of linguistics and literary analysis, who consider it, “…more likely that Mesopotamian and biblical traditions are based on a common source… a piece of more ancient literature…” (Hill & Walton pg. 81), or the actual events and or people who were involved in the events.

As was stated at the beginning of this blog, we must allow the Bible to speak for itself, leaving our preconceived notions and doctrinal agendas at the door.  When we attempt to impose upon the text something that isn’t there, we are resisting the Holy Spirit in His efforts to communicate to us, the truths of God and His will for mankind, which is an exceedingly foolish thing to do.

Works Cited
New King James Version, Holy Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publisher, Gen 2:4
New King James Version, Holy Bible, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Publisher, Gen 6:9
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 28.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 78.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 68.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 68.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 68.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 80.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 80.
Hill and Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Pg. 81.