Bibliotheca
Sacra 47 (April, 1890) 285-303.
Public Domain.
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 285
ARTICLE VII.
PRIMEVAL CHRONOLOGY.
BY THE REV.
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HENRY GREEN,
THE question of the possible reconciliation
of the results
of
scientific inquiry respecting the antiquity of man and
the age
of the world with the Scripture chronology has
been long
and earnestly debated. On the one hand, sci-
entists, deeming them irreconcilable, have been
led to
distrust the
divine authority of the Scriptures; and, on
the
other hand, believers in the divine word have been
led to
look upon the investigations of science with an un-
friendly eye,
as though they were antagonistic to religious
faith. In my reply to Bishop Colenso in 1863, I had occa-
sion to examine the method and structure of
the biblical
genealogies, and
incidentally ventured the remark1 that
herein lay
the solution of the whole matter. I
said:
"There
is an element of uncertainty in a computation of
time which
rests upon genealogies, as the sacred chronol-
ogy so largely does. Who is to certify us that the ante-
diluvian and ante-Abrahamic
genealogies have not been
condensed in
the same manner as the post-Abrahamic?
. . . . Our
current chronology is based upon the prima
facie
impression of these genealogies. But if
these
recently
discovered indications of the antiquity of man,
over
which scientific circles are now so excited, shall,
when
carefully inspected and thoroughly weighed, demon-
strate all that any have imagined they might
demonstrate,
what
then? They will simply show that the
popular
1 The Pentateuch
Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, p.
128 footnote.
April] Primeval
Chronology. 286
chronology is
based upon a wrong interpretation, and that,
a
select and partial register of ante-Abrahamic names
has
been
mistaken for a complete one."
I here repeat,
the discussion of the biblical genealogies
above
referred to, and add some further
considerations
which seem
to me to justify the belief that the genealogies
in
Genesis 5 and 11 were not intended to be used, and
cannot
properly be used, for the construction of a
chronology.
It can scarcely be necessary to adduce
proof to one who
has even
a superficial acquaintance with the genealogies of
the
Bible, that these are frequently abbreviated by the
omission of
unimportant names. In fact, abridgment
is the
general
rule, induced by the indisposition of the sacred writers
to
encumber their pages with more names than were necessary
for
their immediate purpose. This is so
constantly the case,
and the
reason for it so obvious, that the occurrence of it need
create no
surprise anywhere, and we are at liberty to suppose
it
whenever anything in the circumstances of the case favors
that
belief.
The omissions in the genealogy of our Lord
as given in
Matthew 1 are familiar to all.
Thus in verse 8 three names are
dropped
between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), viz., Ahaziah
(2 Kings
14:1); and
in verse 11 Jehoiakim is omitted after Josiah
(2 Kings
genealogy is
summed up in two steps, "Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham."
Other instances abound elsewhere; we
mention only a few of
the most
striking. In 1 Chronicles 26:24 we read
in a list of
appointments made by King David (see 1 Chron. 24:3;
25:1;
26:26), that
Shebuel,1 the son of Gershom,
the son of Moses,
was
ruler of the treasures; and again in 1 Chronicles 23:15, 16,
we find
it written, "The sons of Moses were Gershom and
Eliezer. Of
the sons of Gershom, Shebuel
was the chief." Now
it is
absurd to suppose that the author of Chronicles was so
grossly
ignorant as to suppose that the grandson of Moses could
1 He is called in 1 Cron. 24:20 a son of Amram, the
ancestor of Moses; for Shubael and
Shebuel are
in all probability mere orthographic variations of the same name.
1890.] Primeval Chronology. 287
be
living in the reign of David, and appointed by him to a
responsible
office. Again, in the
same connection (1 Chron.
26:31), we
read that "among the Hebronites was Jerijah the
chief;"
and this Jerijah, or Jeriah
(for the names are identical),
was,
according to 23:19, the first of the sons of
So that if
no contraction in the genealogical lists is allowed,
we have
the great-grandson of Levi holding a prominent office
in the
reign of David.
The genealogy of Ezra is recorded in the
book which bears
his
name; but we learn from another passage, in which the same
line of
descent is given, that it has been abridged by the omission
of six
consecutive names. This will appear from
the following
comparison,
viz.:
1 Chronicles 6:3-14 Ezra 7:1-5
1. Aaron Aaron
2. Eleazar Eleazar
3. Phinehas Phinehas
4. Abishua Abishua
5. Bukki Bukki
6. Uzzi Uzzi
7. Zerahiah Zerahiah
8. Meraioth Meraioth
9. Amariah
10. Ahitub
11. Zadok
12. Ahimaaz
13. Azariah
14. Johanan
15. Azariah Azariah
16. Amariah Amariah
17. Ahitub Ahitub
18. Zadok Zadok
19. Shallum Shallum
20. Hilkiah Hilkiah
21. Azariah Azariah
22. Seraiah Seraiah
Ezra
288 Primeval Chronology. [April,
Still
further, Ezra relates (viii. 1, 2): --
"These
are now the chief of their fathers, and this is
the
genealogy of them that went up with me from Baby-
lon, in the reign of Artaxerxes
the king. Of the sons of
Phinehas, Gershom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel.
Of
the sons
of David, Hattush."
Here, if no abridgment of the genealogy is
allowed,
we
should have a great-grandson and a grandson of Aaron,
and a
son of David coming up with Ezra from
after the
captivity.
This disposition to abbreviate genealogies
by the omis-
sion of whatever is unessential to the
immediate purpose
of the
writer is shown by still more remarkable reduc-
tions than those which we have been
considering. Per-
sons of
different degrees of relationship are sometimes
thrown
together under a common title descriptive of the
majority, and
all words of explanation, even those which
seem
essential to the sense, are rigorously excluded, the
supplying of
these chasms being left to the independent
knowledge of
the reader. Hence several passages in the
genealogies of
Chronicles have now become hopelessly
obscure. They may have been intelligible enough to
con-
temporaries; but
for those who have no extraneous sources
of
information, the key to their explanation is wanting.
In other cases we are able to understand them, because
the
information necessary to make them intelligible is
supplied from
parallel passages of Scripture. Thus the
opening
verses of Chronicles contain the following bald
list of
names without a word of explanation, viz.: Adam,
Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Mahalalel,
Jared; Enoch, Methu-
selah, Lamech; Noah,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
We are not told who these persons are, how they were
related to
each other, or whether they were related.
The
writer
presumes that his readers have the book of Gene-
sis in
their hands, and that the simple mention of these
names in
their order will be sufficient to remind them
that the
first ten trace the line of descent from father to
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 289
son from
the first to the second great progenitor of man-
kind; and
that the last three are brothers, although noth-
ing is said to indicate that their
relationship is different
from the
preceding.
Again the family of Eliphaz,
the son of Esau, is spoken
of in
the following terms in 1 Chron. i.
36: "The sons of
Eliphaz: Teman and Omar, Zephi and Gatam, Kenaz and
Timna, and Amalek."
Now, by turning to
Genesis xxxvi. 11, 12, we shall see
that the
first five are sons of Eliphaz, and the sixth his
concubine, who
was the mother of the seventh. This is
so
plainly written in Genesis that the author of the Chron-
icles, were he the most inveterate blunderer,
could not
have
mistaken it. But trusting to the knowledge of his
readers to
supply the omission, he leaves out the state-
ment respecting Eliphaz's
concubine, but at the same time
connects her
name and that of her son with the family to
which they
belong, and this though he was professedly
giving a
statement of the sons of Eliphaz.
So, likewise, in the pedigree of Samuel
(or Shemuel,
ver. 33,
the difference in orthography is due to our trans-
lators, and is not in the original), which is
given in 1
Chron. vi. in both an ascending and
descending series.
Thus in
verses 22-24: "The sons of Kohath; Amminadab
his son,
Korah his son, Assir his
son; Elkanah his son,
and Ebiasaph his son, and Assir his
son; Tahath his
son,"
etc.
The extent to which the framer of this
list has studied
comprehensiveness and conciseness will appear from the
fact,
which no one would suspect unless informed from
other
source, that while the general law which prevails
in it
is that of descent from father to son, the third, fourth,
and
fifth names represent brothers. This is
shown by a
comparison of
Ex. vi. 24, and the parallel genealogy, 1
Chron. vi. 36, 37, 50 that the true line of descent is the
following,
viz.: --
VOL: XLVII. NO. 186. 8
290 Primeval Chronology. [April,
In ver. 22-24-Kohath In ver. 37-38-Kohath
Amminadab Izbar
Korah Korah
Assir, Elkanah, Ebiasaph Ebiasaph
Assir Assir
Tahath, etc.
Tahath, etc.
The circumstance that the son of Kohath is called in
one list
Amminadab, and in the other Izhar,
is no real dis-
crepancy and can create no embarrassment, since it
is no
unusual
thing for the same person to have two names.
Witness
Abram and Abraham; Jacob and
and Zaphenath-paneah, Gen. xli. 45, Hoshea,
Jehoshua,
Num. xiii. 16 (or Joshua) and Jeshua, Neh. viii. 17, Gideon
and Jerubbaal, Judg. vi. 32, Solomon and Jedidiah, 2 Sam.
xii. 24, 25,
Azariah and Uzziah, 2 Kings
xv. I, 13, Daniel
and Belteshazzar, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah and Shad-
rach, Meshach, Abednego, Dan. i. 7; Saul and
Paul,
Thomas and Didymus, Cephas and Peter, and in
profane
history Cyaxares and Darius, Octavianus and
Augustus,
Napoleon and Bonaparte, Ferretti and
Pius IX.
The genealogy of Moses and Aaron is thus
stated in the
sixth
chapter of Exodus: --
Ver. 16. "And these are the names of the sons of Levi,
according to
their generations; Gershon,
and Kohath,
and Merari: and the years of the life of Levi were an
hundred and
thirty and seven years."
17. "The sons of Gershon
. . . . ."
18. "And the sons of Kohath; Amram, and Izhar, and
were an
hundred and thirty and three years."
19. "And the sons of Merari . . . . ."
20. "And Amram
took him Jochebed his father's sis-
ter to wife; and she bare him Aaron and
Moses: and the
years of
the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty
and seven
years."
21. "And the sons of Izhar . . . ."
22. "And the sons of Uzziel . . . ."
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 291
There is abundant proof that this
genealogy has been
condensed, as
we have already seen that so many others
have been,
by the dropping of some of the less important
names.
This is afforded, in the first place, by
parallel genealo-
gies of the same period; as that of Bezaleel (I Chron. ii.
18-20),
which records seven generations from Jacob; and
that of
Joshua (I Chron. vii. 23-27), which records eleven.
Now it is
scarcely conceivable that there should be
eleven
links in the line of descent from Jacob to Joshua,
and only
four from Jacob to Moses.
A still more convincing proof is yielded
by Num. iii.
19, 27, 28,
from which it appears that the four sons of Ko-
hath
severally gave rise to the families of the Amramites,
the Izharites, the Hebronites, and
the Uzzielites; and
that the
number of the male members of these families of a
month old
and upward was 8,600 one year after the Ex-
odus.
So that, if no abridgment has taken place in the
genealogy, the
grandfather of Moses had, in the lifetime
of the
latter, 8,600 descendants of the male sex alone,
2,750 of
them being between the ages of thirty and fifty
(Num. iv. 36).
Another proof equally convincing is to be
found in the
fact that
Levi's son Kohath was born before the descent
into
of
Now as Moses
was eighty years old at the Exodus (Ex.
vii. 7) he
must have been born more, than 350 years after
Kohath, who
consequently could not have been his own
grandfather.
This genealogy, whose
abbreviated character is so clear-
ly established, is of special importance for
the immediate
purpose of
this paper, because it might appear, at first
sight, as
though such an assumption was precluded in the
present
instance, and as though the letter of Scripture
shut us
up to the inevitable conclusion that there were
292 Primeval Chronology [April,
four
links, and no more, from Jacob to Moses. The
names
which are found without deviation in all the gene-
alogies are Jacob, Levi, Kohath,
Amram, Moses (Ex. vi.
16-20; Num. iii. 17-19; xxvi. 57-59; I Chron. vi. 1-3,
16-18; xxiii. 6, 12, 13). Now unquestionably Levi was
Jacob's own
son. So likewise Kohath
was the son of
Levi (Gen. xlvi. 11) and born before the descent into
Kohath. It
does not seem possible, as Kurtz proposed,
to
insert the missing links between them.
For, in the
first
place, according to Num. xxvi. 59, "The name of
Amram's wife
was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom
her
mother bare to Levi in
(Ex. vi. 20)
Amram's aunt, or his father's
sister. Now,
it is
true, that" a daughter of Levi " might have the gen-
eral sense of a descendant of Levi, as the
woman healed
by our
Lord (Luke xiii. 16) is called "a daughter of
Abraham;"
and her being born to Levi might simply
mean that
she sprang from him (comp. Gen. xlvi. 25).
But these expressions must here be taken in a strict
sense, and
Jochebed accordingly must have been Levi's
own
daughter and the sister of Kohath, who must in con-
sequence have
been Amram's own father. This appears
from a
second consideration, viz., that Amram was (Num.
iii. 27) the
father of one of the subdivisions of the Ko-
hathites, these subdivisions springing from Kohath's own
children and
comprising together 8,600 male descendants.
Moses'
father surely could not have been the ancestor of
one-fourth
of this number in Moses' own days.
To avoid this difficulty Tiele and Keil assume that there
were two Amrams, one the son of Kohath,
another the
father of
Moses, who was a more remote descendant but
bore the
same name with his ancestor. This
relieves the
embarrassment created by the Amramites (Num. iii. 27)
but is
still liable to that which arises from making Joche-
bed the
mother of Moses. And further, the
structure of
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 293
the genealogy
in Ex. vi. is such as to make this hypothe-
sis
unnatural and improbable. Verse 16 names
the three
sons of
Levi, Gershom, Kohath, and Merari; ver. 17-19,
the sons
of each in their order; ver. 20-22, the children
of Kohath's sons; ver. 23, 24, contain
descendants of the
next
generation, and ver. 25 the generation next follow-
ing.
Now, according to the view of Tiele and Keil, we
must
either suppose that the Amram, Izhar,
and Uzziel
of ver. 20-22 are all different from the Amram,
Izhar, and
Uzziel of ver. 18, or else that Amram,
though belonging
to a
later generation than Izhar and Uzziel,
is introduced
before
them, which the regular structure of the genealogy
forbids; and
besides, the sons of Izhar and the sons of
Uzziel, who
are here named, were the contemporaries of
Moses and
Aaron the sons of Amram (Num. xvi. 1;
Lev. x. 4).
This subject may be relieved from all
perplexity, how-
ever, by
observing that Amram and Jochebed
were not
the
immediate parents, but the ancestors of Aaron and
Moses. How many generations may have intervened,
we
cannot tell. It is indeed said (Ex. vi.
20; Num. xxvi.
59), that Jochebed bare them to Amram. But in the
language of
the genealogies this simply means that they
were
descended from her and from Amram. Thus, in Gen.
xlvi. 18,
after recording the sons of Zilpah, her grandsons,
and her
great-grandsons, the writer adds, "These are the
sons of Zilpah and these she bare unto Jacob,
even
sixteen souls." The same thing
recurs in the case
of Bilhah (ver. 25): "She bare
these unto Jacob; all the
souls were
seven." (Comp. also ver. 15,
22.) No one
can
pretend here that the author of this register did not
use the
terms understandingly of descendants beyond the
first
generation. In like
manner, according to Matt. i.
11, Josias begat his grandson Jechonias,
and ver. 8, Jo-
ram
begat his great-great-grandson Ozias. And in Gen.
x. 15-18
294 Primeval Chronology [April,
begotten
several whole nations, the Jebusite, the Amor-
ite, the Girgasite,
the Hivite, etc.
(Comp. also Gen.
xxv. 23;
Deut. iv. 25; 2 Kings xx. 18; Isa, li,
2.)
Nothing can
be plainer, therefore, than that, in the usage
of the
Bible, "to bear" and "to beget" are used in a
wide
sense to indicate descent, without restriction to the
immediate offspring.l
It is no serious objection to this view of
the case that
in Lev.
x.4 Uzziel, Amram's
brother, is called "the uncle
of
Aaron." The Hebrew word here
rendered "uncle," though
often
specifically applied to a definite degree of relation-
ship,
has, both from etymology and usage, a much wider
sense. A great-great-grand-uncle is still an uncle,
and
would
properly be described by the term here used.
It may also
be observed that in the actual history of the
birth of
Moses his parents are not called Amram and
Jochebed. It
is simply said (Ex. ii. I), "and there went
a man
of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter
of
Levi."
After these preliminary observations,
which were origi-
nally drawn up for another purpose, I come to
the more
immediate
design of the present paper, by proceeding to
inquire,
whether the genealogies of Gen. v. and xi. are
necessarily to
be considered as complete, and embracing
all the
links in the line of descent from Adam to Noah
and from
Shem to Abraham. And upon this I remark --
1.
That the analogy of Scripture genealogies is decid-
edly against such a supposition. In numerous other in-
stances
there is incontrovertible evidence of more or less
abridgment. This may even be the case where various
1 In Ruth iv, 17 Ruth's child is called
"a son born to Naomi," who was
Ruth's mother-in-law and not even an
ancestor of the child in the strict sense.
Zerubbahel is
called familiarly the son of Shealtiel (Ezr, iii 2; Hag.i. 1),
and is so stated to be in
the genealogies of both Matt. i. 12 and Luke iii.
27, though in reality he was his nephew (1 Chron.
iii. 17-19). That descent
as reckoned in genealogies
is not always that of actual parentage appears
from the comparison of the
ancestry of our Lord as given by Matthew and
by Luke.
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 295
circumstances combine to produce a different impression
at the
outset. Nevertheless, we have seen that
this first
impression, may
be dissipated by a more careful examina-
tion and a comparison of collateral data. The result of
our
investigations thus far is sufficient to show that it is
precarious to
assume that any biblical genealogy is de-
signed to
be strictly continuous, unless it can be subjected
to some
external tests which prove it to be so.
And it is
to be
observed that the Scriptures furnish no collateral
information
whatever respecting the period covered by
the
genealogies now in question. The
creation, the
Flood, the call of Abraham, are great facts, which stand
out
distinctly in primeval sacred history. A
few incidents
respecting our
first parents and their sons Cain and Abel
are
recorded. Then there is an almost total
blank until
the
Flood, with nothing whatever to fill the gap, and
nothing to
suggest the length of time intervening but what
is
found in the genealogy stretching between these two
points. And the case is substantially the same from
the
Flood to
Abraham. So far as the biblical records
go, we
are left
not only without adequate data, but without any
data
whatever, which can be brought into comparison
with
these genealogies for the sake of testing their con-
tinuity and completeness.
If, therefore, any really trustworthy
data can be
ered from any source whatever, from any realm
of scien-
tific or antiquarian research, which can be
brought into
comparison with
these genealogies for the sake of deter-
mining the
question, whether they have noted every link
in the
chain of descent, or whether, as in other manifest
instances,
links have been omitted, such data should be
welcomed and
the comparison fearlessly made. Science
would simply
perform the office, in this instance, which
information
gathered from other parts of Scripture is un-
hesitatingly allowed to do in regard to those genealogies
previously
examined.
296 Primeval Chronology. [April,
And it may be worth noting here that a
single particu-
lar in which a comparison may be instituted
between the
primeval
history of man and Gen. v., suggests especial
caution
before affirming the absolute completeness of the
latter. The letter of the genealogical record (v. 3)
if we
were
dependent on it alone, might naturally lead us to
infer that
Seth was Adam's first child. But we know
from
chapter iv. that he had already had two sons, Cain
and
Abel, and from iv. 17 that he must have had a daugh-
ter, and from iv. 14 that he had probably had
several sons
and
daughters, whose families had swollen to a considera-
ble number before Adam's one hundred and
thirtieth
year, in
which Seth was born. Yet of all this the
geneal-
ogy gives us no inkling.
2.
Is there not, however, a peculiarity in the construc-
tion of these genealogies which forbids our
applying to
them an
inference drawn from others not so constructed?
The fact
that each member of the series is said to have
begotten the
one next succeeding, is, in the light of the
wide use
of this term which we have discovered in other
cases, no
evidence of itself that links have not been omit-
ted.
But do not the chronological statements introduced
into
these genealogies oblige us to regard them as neces-
sarily continuous? Why should the author be so partic-
ular to state, in every case, with unfailing
regularity, the
age of
each patriarch at the birth of his son, unless it
was his
design thus to construct a chronology of this
entire
period, and to afford his readers the necessary ele-
ments for a computation of the interval from
the creation
to the
deluge and from the deluge to Abraham?
And if
this was
his design, he must of course have aimed to make
his list
complete. The omission of even a single
name
would
create an error.
But are we really justified in supposing
that the author
of
these genealogies entertained such a purpose?
It is a
noticeable fact
that he never puts them to such a use him-
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 297
self. He nowhere sums these numbers, nor suggests
their
summation. No chronological statement is
deduced
from
these genealogies, either by him or by any inspired
writer. There is no computation anywhere in Scripture
of the
time that elapsed from the creation or from the
deluge, as
there is from the descent into
Exodus (Ex.
xii. 40), or from the Exodus to the building
of the
temple (I Kings vi. 1). And if the
numbers in these
genealogies are
for the sake of constructing a chronology,
why are
numbers introduced which have no possible rela-
tion to such a purpose? Why are we told how long each
patriarch
lived after the birth of his son, and what was
the
entire length of his life? These numbers
are given
with the
same regularity as the age of each at the birth
of his
son; and they are of no use in making up a
chronology of
the period. They merely afford us a con-
spectus of individual lives. And for this reason doubtless
they are
recorded. They exhibit in these selected
exam-
ples the original term of human life. They show what it
was in
the ages before the Flood. They show how
it was
afterwards
individually narrowed down. But in order
to
this it
was not necessary that every individual should be
named in
the line from Adam to Noah and from Noah to
Abraham, nor anything approaching it. A
series of spec-
imen lives, with the appropriate numbers
attached, was
all that
was required. And, so far as appears,
this is all
that has
been furnished us. And if this be the
case, the
notion of
basing a chronological computation upon these
genealogies is a
fundamental mistake. It is putting them
to a
purpose that they were not designed to subserve, and
to
which from the method of their construction they are
not
adapted. When it is said, for example,
that "Enosh
lived
ninety years and begat Kenan," the
well-established
usage of
the word “begat” makes this statement equally
true and
equally accordant with analogy, whether Kenan
was an
immediate or a remote descendant of Enosh; wheth-
298 Primeval Chronology. [April,
er Kenan was
himself born, when Enosh was ninety years
of age
or one was born from whom Kenan sprang. These
genealogies may
yield us the minimum length of time
that it
is possible to accept for the period that they cover;
but they
can make no account of the duration represented
by the
names that have been dropped from the register,
as
needless for the author's particular purpose.
3.
The abode of the children of
for our
present purpose the best Scripture parallel to the
periods now
under consideration. The greater part of
this term
of 430 years is left blank in the sacred history.
A few
incidents are mentioned at the beginning connected
with the
descent of Jacob and his family into
their
settlement there. And at its close
mention is made
of some
incidents in the life of Moses and the events lead-
ing to the Exodus. But with these exceptions no account
is
given of this long period. The interval is
only bridged
by a
genealogy extending from Levi to Moses and Aaron
and
their contemporaries among their immediate relatives
(Ex. vi. 16-26). This genealogy records the
length of
each
man's life in the principal line of descent, viz., Levi
(ver. 16), Kohath
(ver. 18), Amram (ver. 20). The corre-
spondence in the points just indicated with the
genealogies
of Gen.
v. and xi., and the periods which they cover, is
certainly
remarkable. And as they proceeded from
the
same pen,
we may fairly infer from the similarity of con-
struction a similarity of design. Now it has been shown
already that
the genealogy from Levi to Moses cannot
have
recorded all the links in that line of descent, and
that it
could not, therefore, have been intended to be used
as a
basis of chronological computation. This
is rendered
absolutely
certain by the explicit statement in Ex. xii. 40.
It further
appears from the fact that the numbers given
in this
genealogy exhibit the longevity of the patriarchs
named, but
cannot be so concatenated as to sum up the
entire
period; thus suggesting the inference that the
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 299
numbers in
the other genealogies, with which we are now
concerned,
were given with a like design, and not with
the view
of enabling the reader to construct the chronology.
4.
In so far as a valid argument can be drawn from
the
civilization of
show that
the interval between the deluge and the call of
Abraham must
have been greater than that yielded by
the
genealogy in Gen. xi., the argument is equally valid
against the
assumption that this genealogy was intended
to
supply the elements for a chronological computation.
For altogether apart from his inspiration Moses could not
have made
a mistake here. He was brought up at the
court of
Pharaoh, and was learned in all the wisdom of
the
Egyptians, of which his legislation and the marvellous
table of
the affinities of nations in Gen. x., at once the ad-
miration and the despair of ethnologists, furnish independ-
ent proof.
He lived in the glorious period of the great
Egyptian monarchy. Its monuments were then in
their
freshness and
completeness. None of the irreparable
damage,
which time and ruthless barbarism have since
wrought, had
been suffered then. The fragmentary rec-
ords, which scholars are now laboriously
struggling to
unravel and
combine, with their numerous gaps and
hopeless
obscurities, were then in their integrity and well
understood.
better
known to Moses, and he was in a position to gain a
far more
intelligent comprehension of it than is possible
at
present; for exuberant materials were ready at his
hand, of
which only a scanty and disordered remnant now
survives. If, then, Egyptian antiquity contradicts the
current
chronology, it simply shows that this chronology
is
based upon an unfounded assumption. It
rests upon a
fundamentally mistaken interpretation of the ante-Abra-
hamic genealogy, and assigns a meaning to it
which Moses
could
never have intended that it should have.
As is well known, the texts of the
Septuagint and of the
300 Primeval Chronology. [April,
Samaritan
Pentateuch vary systematically from the He-
brew in
both the genealogies of Gen. v. and xi.
According
to the
chronologies based on these texts respectively,
the
interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham
was 292
(Hebrew), 942 (Samaritan), or 1172 years (Septua-
gint).
Some have been disposed in this state of the case
to
adopt the chronology drawn from the Septuagint, as
affording here
the needed relief. But the superior accu-
racy of
the Hebrew text in this instance, as well as gener-
ally
elsewhere, can be incontrovertibly established.
This
resource,
then, is a broken reed. It might,
however, be
plausibly imagined,
and has in fact been maintained, that
these
changes were made by the Septuagint translators
or
others for the sake of accommodating the Mosaic narra-
tive to the imperative demands of the accepted
Egyptian
antiquity. But if this be so, it is only a further confirma-
tion of the argument already urged that the
ante-Abra-
hamic genealogy cannot have been intended by
Moses as
a
basis of chronological computation. He
knew as much
of the
age of
in their
day. And if so brief a term as this
genealogy
yields, was
inadmissible in their judgment, and they felt
constrained to
enlarge it by the addition of nearly nine
centuries is
it not clear that Moses never could have in-
tended that
the genealogy should be so interpreted?
Furthermore, it seems to me worthy of
consideration
whether the
original intent with which these textual
changes were
made, was after all a chronological one.
The
principle by which they are obviously and uniformly
governed, is
rather suggestive of a disposition to make
a more
symmetrical division of individual lives than to
protract the
entire period. The effect of these
changes
upon the
chronology may have been altogether an after-
thought.
Thus in the Hebrew text of Gen. v. the
ages of differ-
ent patriarchs at the birth of the son named
are quite ir-
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 301
regular, and
vary from sixty-five to one hundred and
eighty-seven. But the versions seek to bring them into
closer
conformity, and to introduce something like a reg-
ular gradation. The Septuagint proceeds on the assump-
tion that patriarchs of such enormous
longevity should be
nearly two
centuries old at the birth of their son.
Ac-
cordingly, when, in the Hebrew, they fall much
below
this
standard, one hundred years are added to the num-
ber preceding the birth of the son and the
same amount
deducted from
the number following his birth; the total
length of
each life is thus preserved without change, the
proportion of
its different parts alone being altered.
The
Samaritan,
on the other hand, assumes a gradual diminu-
tion in the ages of successive patriarchs
prior to the birth
of
their son, none rising to a century after the first two.
When,
therefore, the number in the Hebrew text exceeds
one
hundred, one hundred is deducted and the same
amount
added to the years after the son was born.
In
the case
of Lamech the reduction is greater still, in order
to
effect the necessary diminution.
Accordingly the
years
assigned to the several antediluvian patriarchs be-
fore the
birth of their son in these several texts is as fol-
lows : --
Hebrew. Septuagint. Samaritan.
Adam 130 230 230
Seth 105 205 105
Enosh 90 190 90
Kenan 70 170 70
Mahalalel 65 165 65
Jared 162 162 62
Enoch 65 165 65
| 1671
Methuselah 187 | 187 67
Lamech 182 188 53
Noah 600 600 600
A simple glance at these numbers is
sufficient to show
that the
Hebrew is the original, from which the others
1 The number varies
in different manuscripts.
302 Primeval Chronology. [April,
diverge on
the one side or the other, according to the
principle
which they have severally adopted. It
likewise
creates a
strong presumption that the object contem-
plated in
these changes was to make the lives more sym-
metrical,
rather than to effect an alteration in the chronol-
ogy.
5. The structure of the genealogies in
Gen. v. and xi.
also
favors the belief that they do not register all the
names in
these respective lines of descent. Their
regu-
larity seems to indicate intentional
arrangement. Each
genealogy
includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from
Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah.
And each ends
with a
father having three sons, as is likewise the case
with the Cainite genealogy (iv. 17-22). The Sethite gene-
alogy (chap. v.) culminates in its seventh
member, Enoch,
who
"walked with God, and he was not, for God took him."
The Cainite genealogy also culminates in its seventh
member, Lamech, with his polygamy, bloody revenge, and
boastful
arrogance. The genealogy descending from
Shem divides
evenly at its fifth member, Peleg; and "in
his days
was the earth divided." Now as the
adjustment
of the
genealogy in Matt. i. into three periods of fourteen
generations each
is brought about by dropping the requi-
site
number of names, it seems in the highest degree prob-
able that
the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is
artificial
rather than natural. It is much more
likely that
this
definite number of names fitting into a regular
scheme has
been selected as sufficiently representing the
periods to
which they belong, than that all these striking
numerical
coincidences should have happened to occur in
these
successive instances.
It may further be added that if the
genealogy in chap.
xi. is complete, Peleg, who marks the
entrance of a new
period,
died while all his ancestors from Noah onward
were
still living. Indeed Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and
Eber must
all have outlived not only Peleg, but all the
1890.] Primeval
Chronology. 303
generations
following as far as and including Terah. The
whole
impression of the narrative in Abraham's days is
that the
Flood was an event long since past, and that the
actors in
it had passed away ages before. And yet
if a
chronology is
to be constructed out of this genealogy,
Noah was for
fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abra-
ham, and
Shem actually survived him thirty-five years,
provided xi.
26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that
Abraham was
born in Terah's seventieth year. This con-
clusion is well-nigh incredible. The calculation which
leads to
such a result, must proceed upon a wrong as-
sumption.
On these various grounds we conclude that
the Scrip-
tures furnish no data for a chronological
computation
prior to
the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records
do not
fix and were not intended to fix the precise date
either of
the Flood or of the creation of the world.
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: