Intro Part 1. Here is the New American Standard Version's (1) translation of the opening and ending verses of the second section. Other translations are much of a muchness.
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. (Gen 2.4) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.(Gen 5.1a)
This is how the verses are formatted in the Masoretic text (2) (3).
Gen 2.4: @ëlleh thôledhôth hashshämayim wehä@ärets behibäre@äm ~ (space) <> (indent) beyôm øásôth YHWH @Élöhîm @erets weshämäyim #
Gen 5.1: zeh sëpher tôledhöth @ädhäm ~ beyôm berö@ @élöhîm @ädhäm bidhemûth @élöhîm øäsäh @öthô #This is how I translate and format them, adding in the Septuagint variant. (4)
These [are] the proceedings of the heavens and the earth when they were brought into existence. When YHWH @élöhîm fashioned land and sky (planet earth) This [is] the book of the proceedings of Adam. When @Élöhîm brought into existence Adam, in the likeness of @Élöhîm He fashioned him #
Genesis 2.4 As I stated in Section 01, I think Genesis 2.4 should be split into two separate verses, with the first half functioning as the ending signature statement of Genesis One. The second half is the opening statement for Section 02, the book of the proceedings of Adam. However, in comparing Genesis 1.1 to what should have been Genesis 2.1 (instead of 2.4b), I noticed something very interesting.
The Hebrew sentence construction in Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 2.4b is identical.
The chart below demonstrates the similarity in the word choices and construction of the two sentences in Hebrew. Each sentence begins with a preposition attached to an indefinite noun followed by a third masculine plural verb, the subject, and a merismus.(5). The Gen 1.1 merismus is definite while the Gen 2.4b merismus is indefinite. In English, Genesis 2.4b reads more like a title than a full sentence, while Genesis 1.1 translates as a full sentence.
| Gen 1:1 | Gen 2:4b | ||||
| English | Grammar | Hebrew | Hebrew | Grammar | English |
| in a beginning | prep/indef noun | berë@shîth | beyôm | prep/indef noun | in a day (when) |
| created | verb | bärä@ | øásôth | verb | fashioned |
| God | name | @élöhîm | YHWH @élöhîm | name | LORD God |
| the heavens | definite noun | @ëth hashshämayim | @erets | indefinite noun | land |
| and the earth | definite noun | we@ëth hä@ärets # | weshämäyim # | indefinite noun | and sky |
| '@erets' (earth, land) has two major meanings in the OT: 'earth' in the cosmological sense and 'land' in the territorial, or a particular spot sense TWOT 167. (6). For Genesis Two, I translate it as 'land' because I think that '@erets weshämäyim' (land and sky) is a merismus meaning 'the planet earth', the same as the phrase '@ëth hashshämayim we@ëth hä@ärets' (the heavens and the earth) in Genesis 1:1 is a merismus meaning 'the cosmos.' | |||||
| 'shämäyim' (heavens, sky) also has two major meanings in the OT: 'heavens' referring to the physical heavens, all that is above the earth, in part or in whole, or heavens as an abode of God TWOT 2407. (7). For Genesis Two, I translate it as 'sky' as part of the merismus 'land and sky,' referring to 'the planet earth.' | |||||
If Genesis One was an oral story (no matter when it was written down verbatim), and the language was familiar to the author of Genesis Two (which I don't think was an oral story), then I hypothesize that, at the direction of Rûãch @Élöhîm, the author of Genesis Two patterned his opening statement after the opening statement of the oral story. I don't think the identical sentence structures were an accident or a coincidence: I think Genesis 2.4b was a deliberate imitation of Genesis 1.1. I contend that this repetitive element supports the idea that a division of Genesis 2.4 into two separate sentences (Genesis 2.4a and 2.4b) is a more accurate formatting of the text in English than the current format of one sentence. Section 02: Author and Content
As I also stated in Section 01, I think that the ending transition sentences function as signature statements, identifying the author. Here the author named is Adam.
This [is] the book of the proceedings of Adam. (Genesis 5.1a)
I think that, under the inspiration of Rûãch @Élöhîm, Adam wrote down his personal account of the stories that most directly concerned him and his sons. These stories told the beginning of the corruption of mankind and the swift-following consequences of his and Eve's disobedience in the lives of their sons. I would title the stories as follows: - How YHWH @Élöhîm fashioned hä@ädhäm (the man) and his wife (Gen 2) - How hä@ädhäm and his wife brought themselves to open shame (Gen 3) - A Tale of Twin Brothers (Gen 4) - The descendents of Cain - Two Wives for Lamech - The replacement for Abel: Seth - Called by the name of YHWH These stories are foundational to understanding why YHWH sent His uniquely generated Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem His creature @ädhäm. I contend they are true stories, a genuine record of the creation of the race of @ädhäm and the beginning of the Line of the Promise. For YHWH gave a promise inherent in Genesis 3, the Promise that one day Someone would come to restore the relationship broken at the tree. It's interesting that Rûãch @Élöhîm preserved the genealogical line of Cain in addition to the line of Seth (Gen 5). It was in Lucy Bates' The Original Meaning of Scriptural Names(8), that I first came across the idea that the names in a genealogical list could comprise what Rabbinic scholars called a 'sod,' or "a revelation of what is otherwise hidden."hidden.. (9) She listed a 'sod' for Seth's line. I found another 'sod' for Cain's line on that same 1990s Hebraic Roots Forum (now defunct). The poster held that these names described the Anti-Christ in contrast to Seth's line describing the Christ:
"Man [Adam]
created (acquired) [Cain]
a teacher [Enoch],
a lawless one [Irad],
who is under God's wrath (fighting against God) [Mehujael],
who, setting himself up as a god-man, seeks the death of God [Methushael],
to overthrow God [Lamech],
by advancing (continuing) [Adah]
his leading influence [Jabal]
to carry along (mankind) [Jubal]
in (spiritual) darkness [Zillah]
to fabricate a new world order [Tubal Cain]
of pleasure-seekers. ([Naamah]."
Perhaps this 'hidden prophetic messsage' was one reason to preserve a geneaology of Cain's line. However, another reason might also have been to include the story of Lamech and his two wives. This was the first breaking of YHWH's command of one man-one woman marriage. Cain's geneaology ends with Lamech's children. The information on Seth and his son Enosh also seems related to the timing of an event.
At that time, it was caused to begin to call by the name of YHWH (literal translation of Genesis 4.26)
Does this refer to a separation between those obeying YHWH (call by the name of YHWH) as Abel had done, and those not obeying Him, as Cain had done? Is this verse recording another effect of the Fall, as Lamech having two wives was an effect of the Fall? Something to think about. More Questions Was Adam the sole author or did Genesis 2.4-5.1 have an editor? I think that there is some editing in this section, particularly the description in Genesis Two of the rivers flowing out of Eden. Still, I think that the primary author was Adam and that this writing pre-dates the Flood. It's probably one of the two sections of Genesis pre-dating the Flood. The most likely editor is Moses. Now the geneaological information in the Genesis 5 geneaology must have been recorded in some form before the Flood. It might have been reworked into the geneaological formula after the Flood, but the genealogical list itself would have been recorded in the family records over the centuries between Adam and the Flood. I don't think the practice of recording geneaologieshas changed from then even to the 21st century. I don't know what the original medium of this writing was - clay tablets or vellum scroll - but vellum scrolls would have been easier to pass down the family line or transport on the ark. Of course, vellum scrolls had to be re-copied every several hundred years. There was probably more than one copy of the writing passed down through the various lines of Adam's descendents. I fully expect Noah would have preserved his family's copy on the ark and handed it down through Shem's line at the very least. He might have provided copies to Japheth and Ham too. I have heard the argument that these were oral stories written down by Moses. (10) I disagree. I do not think these were oral stories because they do not read like oral stories: they read like written stories. Could Moses have written down oral stories without transcribing them verbatim? Of course he could have, but then, why ascribe these stories to Adam, to "the book of the proceedings of Adam," as the ending signature statement does? I understand that some might claim that this is an example of pseudopigrapha, or attributing a writing to someone other than the author, often someone viewed as more authoritative than the author. I would point out that there are no pseudopigrapha found among the 49.. (11) (66)Moses. (12) books that all Christian traditions agree are canonical. I suspect that Rûãch @Élöhîm is behind that agreement. (13) Therefore, I don't think that 'the book of the proceedings of Adam' is an example of pseudopigrapha, but rather it is an example of Rûãch @Élöhîm having an eye-witness record the true story. It seems arrogant to me to presume that a written account of these stories could not have predated the Flood and must have been written down later in response Sumerian stories, as mainstream Biblical scholars do. I contend that Rûãch @Élöhîm took steps to have an eye-witness, Adam, write up his personal account of what happened to him and his family, and to have Noah preserve a copy of the writing on the ark. The Next Genesis Section Following the signature statement, "This is the book of the proceedings of Adam," the next "book" begins with an introductory statement:
When @Élöhîm brought into existence Adam, in the likeness of @Élöhîm He fashioned him #
So, on to Section 3, Genesis 5.1b to 6.9a, the proceedings of Noah.
FOOTNOTES
(1) Lockman Foundation. New American Standard Bible, Reference Edition. La Habra, CA: Foundation Press Publications.1973, 1334p.,
396p., 115p. Return
(2) Elliger, K. and Rudolph, W., eds. Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 1967/77, 1574p Return
(3) My transliteration system is my own. I based it on the official transliteration system, but re-worked it for use in MS Word; the diacritical
marks were not available in MS Word in 1996 when I started my research (or, at least I didn’t know how to access them). While this
mostly affects the vowels, I also use @ for aleph and ø for ayin. Half the time I could not tell the difference between the apostrophe and
the reverse apostrophe due to bad eyesight. So, I found symbols that I could see and easily distinguish between for clarity. Return
(4) Doede, D.M. "On the Generations Of: A Pattern of Usage in Scripture.". Badgerholt 2.0, WordPress Return
(5) Merismus (rhetoric): A metonymic term to describe a type of synecdoche in which two parts of a thing, perhaps contrasting
or complementary parts, are made to stand for the whole. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/merismus retrieved 09/06/2019 Return
(6) Harris, R. Laird, Archer, Jr., Gleason L., Waltke, Bruce K. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (2 vols). Chicago: Moody Bible Institute.
1980, 1124pReturn
(7) Ibid. Return
8(8) Bates, Lucy. The Original Meaning of Scriptural Names. Warwick, NY: Margaret Williams, 1974 (C) 1949, 222p Return
(9) Notes from a post in a discussion in the Hebraic Roots Forum in the 1990s, which no longer exists online Return
(10) Naturally, I don't remember where I read this but I know I read it somewhere. Return
(11) Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913) "Canon of the New Testament." Catholic Encyclopedia. New York; Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved Aug 11, 2020.
Martin, Ernest L. The Original Bible Restored. Pasadena; Foundation for Biblical Research. 1984, 326p.
Although the Catholic Encylopedia article emphatically denies the following scenario and claims the Roman Catholic Church had the
authority to set the New Testament canon, Dr. Ernest L. Martin, in The Original Bible Restored, argues that Peter and John (as the
surviving witnesses of the Transfiguration) along with input by Paul (writer of half the New Testament) were the men authorized by Rûãch
@Élöhîm to establish and close the New Testament canon of 27 books, even as He had authorized Ezra the scribe to establish and
close the Hebrew canon of 22 books (per Josephus) in the fifth century B.C. This meant a complete Christian canon of 49 books. Return
(12) With the Christian canon closed by John at the end of the first century A.D., the second-century Jewish rabbis quickly realized the
significance of the Christian canon having 49 books. Forty-nine, or 7 x 7, is a symbolic number of completion in Scripture, allowing
Christians to claim the complete written revelation of God. Dr. Martin argues that is why the second century rabbis divided the two books,
Joshua-Judges and Ezra-Nehemiah, into four books for a total of 24 books in the Hebrew canon and 51 books in the Christian canon. Return
(13) Later, the Roman Catholic Church split the Hebrew canon into 39 books, bringing the number of books in the Christian canon to 66,
which is a symbolic number of man. Dr. Martin disputes the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it had the authority to set the canon.
He contends that the Apostle John finished the selections and closed the canon in the late 90s A.D. before his death. He hypothesizes
that the first full combined Hebrew and Christian Scriptures used the new codex (bound pages) format instead of individual scrolls,
which prevented the addition of other books not selected. Return
Return to blog post
Return to Patterns Menu
Site Creator: Dori This page last modified: August 13, 2020 Send correspondence to: dori@badgerholt[dot]com Legal Stuff: Copyright 2020 by D.M. Doede. All Rights Reserved. Permission to distribute this material via e-mail, or individual copies for personal use, is granted on the condition that it will be used for non-commercial purposes, will not be sold, and no changes made to the format or content. When quoting, please keep the context and provide the source URL: http://www.badgerholt.com. Scriptures are cited from New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) Young's Literal Translation (YLT), Geneva Bible, 1599 ed., Jay Green's KJ3' Literal Translation, Gary Zella's Analytical Literal Translation of the New Testament, or my own translation ( dmd).