what precedes, and render the noun by 'origin': 'This is
the origin of,' etc. But it is doubtful if (
Hebrew characters) can bear any
such meaning, and altogether the half-verse is in the last
degree perplexing. It is in all probability a redactional
insertion.
The formula (and indeed the whole phraseology) is characteristic of
P; and in that document it invariably stands as introduction to the
section following. But in this case the next section (24b-426) belongs
to J; and if we pass over the J passages to the next portion of P (ch. 5),
the formula would collide with 51, which is evidently the proper heading
to what follows. Unless, therefore, we adopt the improbable hypothesis
of Strack, that a part of P's narrative has been dropped, the attempt to
treat 24a in its present position as a superscription must be abandoned.
On this ground most critics have embraced a view propounded by Ilgen,
that the clause stood originally before 11, as the heading of P's account
361. 9, 1 Ch. 129, Ru. 418) this sense is entirely suitable; the addition of
a few historical notices is not inconsistent with the idea of a genealogy,
nor is the general character of these sections affected by it. There are
just three cases where this meaning is inapplicable: Gn. 69 2519 372.
But it is noteworthy that, except in the last case, at least a fragment of
a genealogy follows; and it is fair to inquire whether 372 may not have
been originally followed by a genealogy (such as 3522b-26 or 468-27 [see
Hupfeld, Quellen, 102-109, 213-216]) which was afterwards displaced
in the course of redaction (see p. 423, below). With that assumption we
could explain every occurrence of the formula without having recourse to
the unnatural view that the word may mean a "family history" (G-B.
s.v.), or "an account of a man and his descendants" (BDB). The natural
hypothesis would then be that a series of (Hebrew characters) formed one of the sources
employed by P in compiling his work: the introduction of this genealogical
document is preserved in 51 (so Ho.); the recurrent formula
represents successive sections of it, and 24a is a redactional imitation.
When it came to be amalgamated with the narrative material, some
dislocations took place: hence the curious anomaly that a man's history
sometimes appears under his own Tôlĕdôth, sometimes under those of
his father; and it is difficult otherwise to account for the omission
of the formula before 121 or for its insertion in 369. On the whole, this
theory seems to explain the facts better than the ordinary view that
the formula was devised by P to mark the divisions of the principal
work.—(Hebrew characters)] 'in their creation' or 'when they were created.' If the
lit. minusc. has critical significance (Tu. Di.) the primary reading was
inf. Qal ((Hebrew characters)); and this requires to be supplemented by (Hebrew characters) as subj.
It is in this form that Di. thinks the clause originally stood at the beginning
of Gen. (see on 11). But the omission of (Hebrew characters) and the insertion
of the (Hebrew characters) minusc. are no necessary consequences of the transposition of
the sentence; and the small (Hebrew characters) may be merely an error in the archetypal
MS, which has been mechanically repeated in all copies.
