“Now, the phrase “@ëlleh thôlëdôth” occurring only five times and only in Genesis begs the question of why its usage was so limited, but I’ll address why I think this happened in another post .”
So, why do I think that Scripture uses “@ëlleh thôlëdôth” only five times? Because I think that the phrase was used only for the five scrolls that were written before the time that Yaøáqöv went down to Mitsräyim (Egypt), telling the Story from the rehabilitation of the earth to the death of Yitschaq. The sixth section that tells the stories of Yôsëph and Yehûdäh lacks this signature statement, but, since it ends the book of Genesis, I suspect that it too was a separate writing.
So, here’s the first part of the essay that I wrote discussing my research and conclusions.
In studying YHWH’s Story over the past 20 years, as recorded in the Bible, I believe that Rûãch @Élöhîm (Spirit of God) has led me to the following conclusion:
Mösheh was not the writer of Genesis, but rather he was the editor of Genesis. He edited together writings handed down in the Line of the Promise over the millennia, three of which pre-dated the Flood.
By the time of Mösheh in Mitsräyim, the writings had probably been copied onto scrolls of vellum or papyrus, whatever their original format had been. I think that Mösheh just copied them (maybe with some editorial clarifications and maybe not—those could have come later) onto a single scroll, which formed the first book of the Law and set the context for the Law.
I realize that I am probably not the first nor the only person to whom Rûãch @Élöhîm has pointed this out. However, my research findings and conclusions are original and I’m going to write them up, even if others have already written up their similar research findings. I’ve already started with my blog post in August, “On the Generations of: A Pattern Usage in Scripture.” So, on with it.
To summarize “On the Generations of: A Pattern Usage in Scripture,” I concluded, based on my research and analysis, that the phrase “These are the proceedings (tôledôth) of X indicated the end of a section written by X, and that the phrase “Now/And these are the generations (tôledôth) of X” indicated the beginning of a genealogical list of the descendants of X. The first phrase occurs only in Genesis and (I contend) functions as a transition end point between writings by different authors.
Now, in looking at these ending transition points in Genesis in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, which is the Masoretic text, I found other patterns within them. I also concluded that whoever came up with the chapter and verse divisions for the Masoretic text (c. early 13th century) apparently did not see the patterns that I see because the phrase “These are the proceedings of X” is not numbered as its own verse but rather is the first part of a longer verse.
Given these other patterns, I think that the rabbinical scholars should have separated “These are the proceedings of X” as a separate sentence from the rest of the verse, and probably started a new paragraph, if not a new chapter, for the rest of the verse. I reiterate, these sentences are ending transition points between writings by different people.
I’ll point out the patterns as I discuss the six sections separately. The Hebrew is from the Masoretic text found in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The Greek is from the Septuagint. The English translation is my own. The non-letter markings record how the Hebrew appears in the BHS. For example, <> indicates a new line.
The six sections are:
Gen 1.1 – Gen 2.4a; an oral story written down verbatim
Gen 2.4b – Gen 5.1a; authored by @Ädhäm
Gen 5.1b – Gen 6.9a; authored by Nöãch
Gen 6.9b – Gen 11.10a; authored by Shëm
Gen 11.10b – Gen 37.2a; authored by Yaøáqöv
Gen 37.2b – Gen 59.26; likely authors Yôsëph and Yehûdhäh
In my next post, I’ll look at Section 1, Gen 1.1 – Gen 2.4a.
Grace and peace to you,
 I use a transliteration of the Hebrew names just because I find the Hebrew names very interesting. Also my transliteration system is my own, loosely based on the official one, but re-worked for use in MS Word; the diacritical marks weren’t available in MS Word in 1996 when I started my research (or, at least I didn’t know how to access them).
 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14682-verse-division, accessed 11/5/2016
 I 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.