By Rev. William M. Brennan, TH. D.

Introduction

Few literary features of the book of Genesis have generated as much debate as the recurring tôledôt (“generations,” “descendants,” or “record/account”) formulas. Appearing eleven times in the book (e.g., Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1), these formulas clearly mark literary divisions. The question is: Do they function as superscriptions introducing what follows, or as colophons—subscription statements concluding a written tablet?
A notable scholarly tradition, particularly stemming from P. J. Wiseman and later advocates, argues that the tôledôt phrases reflect ancient Near Eastern (ANE) colophon conventions and thus close the preceding section rather than introduce a new one. If so, Genesis may preserve a mosaic of earlier written tablets authored by antediluvian patriarchs, compiled later by Moses under inspiration.

This interpretation has major implications for the literary structure of Genesis, the authorship of its earliest sections, and the historical question of population origins in the early chapters—especially concerning the presence of people outside of Adam’s immediate lineage.

I. The Tôledôt Formulas in Genesis: Function and Form

1. Etymology and Semantic Range

The Hebrew term tôledôt derives from the root ילד (yld), “to beget,” and in the Hebrew Bible usually refers to genealogical or historical records. Its standard English renderings include:

“generations”
“descendants”
“record”
“account”
“history”

Traditional exegesis often assumes it is a heading introducing what follows, e.g., “These are the generations of Noah” (Gen 6:9) as a heading for Noah’s story. But the term itself is neutral: it may refer either backward or forward depending on context.

2. Placement and ANE Literary Parallels

ANE cuneiform tablets frequently concluded with a colophon—a closing note identifying:

the owner or writer
the subject of the tablet
sometimes a date
sometimes a summary of contents

Importantly, colophons appear at the end of tablets, not the beginning.

Examples include tablets from:

Ebla (3rd millennium BC)
Mari and Nuzi (2nd millennium BC)
Babylonian omen texts
Sumerian king lists
Various Akkadian epics

Scholars such as Wiseman, R. K. Harrison, Kenneth Kitchen, and others have noted striking formal similarities between ANE colophons and the tôledôt formulas in Genesis.

3. Structural Observations in Genesis Supporting a Colophon Function

Several internal features make more sense if tôledôt formulas conclude, rather than begin, sections:

The mismatch between heading and content
For instance, Genesis 2:4 (“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth…”) does not introduce a genealogy of the heavens and the earth, but rather the story of Adam and Eve. As a conclusion to the creation narrative in 1:1–2:3, however, it fits perfectly.
Repetition patterns
The tôledôt statements consistently stand at transitional seams, which function more cleanly as closures than as introductions.
The presence of personal names in several colophons
E.g., “This is the book of the generations of Adam” (Gen 5:1). If this closes the preceding material, it identifies Adam as the possessor or composer of the tablet.

II. Genesis 1–2 Under the Colophon Interpretation

1. Genesis 1:1–2:3 as Adam’s Written Tablet

If Genesis 2:4 is a colophon, then it reads:

“These are the generations (record) of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”

Under the tablet theory, this means:

Genesis 1:1–2:3 is the content of a written account.
The tôledôt identifies the subject of the tablet (“the heavens and the earth”).
The tablet’s author or owner is implied to be Adam, the first human capable of writing.

This aligns with early Jewish traditions attributing Adamic authorship to primeval materials, and harmonizes with the chronological placement of writing in the early ancient Near East.

2. Genesis 2:4–4:26 as a Distinct Tablet Concerning Adam’s Personal History

Under this model, Genesis 2:4 is not the heading for creation, but the conclusion of the creation tablet. The next literary unit begins at 2:5 and focuses on:

Adam formed individually from dust
His covenantal status
The Garden
Eve’s formation from Adam
The fall
Cain and Abel
Early civilization

This section ends at Genesis 5:1a with another colophon:
“This is the book of the generations of Adam.”

Thus:

Genesis 1 is not a retelling of Genesis 2.
Genesis 2 is not a second creation account.
They are two distinct documents focusing on different subjects.

Genesis 1 presents cosmic creation.
Genesis 2–4 presents the personal history of Adam as covenant head.

This resolves many narrative tensions.

III. Implications for the Question of Other Humans Outside Adam’s Line

One of the perennial interpretive challenges in Genesis concerns the apparent existence of people outside Adam’s immediate family:

Whom did Cain marry (Gen 4:17)?
Who inhabited the city he built?
Why did Cain fear being killed by “whoever finds me” (Gen 4:14)?
How could large enough populations arise so quickly?

1. Under the traditional reading

Interpreters often assume:

Adam and Eve were the only humans created.
All other people must be descended from them.

This raises population and chronological difficulties, requiring speculative assumptions about invisible generations or long lifespans alone producing large populations.

2. Under the colophon / tablet reading

If Genesis 1 (Adam’s cosmic tablet) is a general creation narrative describing the creation of all humanity in God’s image, and Genesis 2 (Adam’s personal tablet) describes the special formation of Adam and Eve as covenantal representatives, then:

Genesis 1 may describe the creation of humanity at large.
Genesis 2 focuses narrowly on Adam, the covenant head through whom sacred history proceeds.

Thus:

Other humans could have existed outside the Garden.
Adam and Eve’s line is the priestly, covenant-bearing line, not the only biologically existing line.
Cain’s fear (Gen 4:14), marriage (Gen 4:17), and the city (Gen 4:17) have an immediate sociological context.

This view has been proposed by various scholars (e.g., J. R. Payne, W. H. Green, and modern theistic anthropologists) and avoids reading Genesis as demanding that Adam and Eve were the only humans alive.

Importantly, the text of Genesis itself never says:

“Adam and Eve were the only humans created.”
“Cain married his sister.”

The colophon interpretation strengthens the reading that Genesis 2 narrates not the creation of humanity per se, but the creation of the covenantal couple from whom sacred history proceeds.

IV. Historical and Theological Considerations

1. Adam as Covenant Head

The Pauline typology (Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15) treats Adam as:

The first covenantal representative of humanity
Not necessarily the first biological human strictly in a numeric sense, but the first to whom a divine command is addressed and through whom death enters covenantally

This aligns well with Genesis 2 being a focused covenantal narrative.

2. Literary Coherence

The colophon-based reading:

Maintains unity of Genesis
Avoids the assumption of contradictory doublets (common in Documentary Hypothesis approaches)
Honors the narrative flow and internal seams

3. Preservation and Compilation

Under this view:

Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, and others composed early tablets
Moses compiled them into Genesis under divine inspiration
The tôledôt formula preserves the original tablet endings

Conclusion

The tôledôt formulas in Genesis, when read in light of ancient Near Eastern colophon conventions, provide a coherent, historically plausible explanation for the book’s structure. Far from being mere headings, these formulas likely serve as subscription statements marking the end of textual tablets.

This interpretation clarifies:

Genesis 1 and 2 are not duplicate accounts, but distinct literary units.
Genesis 1:1–2:3 likely reflects Adam’s own written record of cosmic creation.
Genesis 2:4–4:26 preserves a separate tablet focused on Adam as covenant head.
The presence of other humans outside Adam’s immediate line is textually unobjectionable and historically plausible.
Population questions regarding Cain’s wife, urban development, and early civilization find a natural resolution.

By allowing the tôledôt formulas to function as they do in ANE literature, we gain a deeper appreciation for the literary sophistication of Genesis and a historically grounded understanding of its earliest narratives.

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

An Analysis of the Tôledôt Subscriptions in Genesis as Ancient Colophons