Was Adam born in 4004 B.C. as Bishops Usher and Lightfoot contended?
(Bishop Lightfoot actually refined the date and found that Adam was
created on October 23, at nine A.M. forty-fifth meridian time! This
led Brewster to quip, "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the
Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit
himself.") Lightfoot, Usher and many moderns sorely need the type of
evidence William Henry Green first published in 1890.
 
 

PRIMEVAL CHRONOLOGY
by 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, scientists, 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 unfriendly eye, as though
they were antagonistic to religious faith.

In 1863, I had occasion to examine the method and structure of the
biblical genealogies, and incidentally ventured the remark 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 chronology so largely does. Who is to certify us that the
antediluvian 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, demonstrate
all that any have imagined they might demonstrate, what then? They
will simply show that the popular 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 8:25), Joash (2 Kings
12:1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1); and in verse 11 jehoiakim is
omitted after Josiah (2 Kings 23:34; 1 Chron. 3:16); and in verse 1
the entire 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 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 Hebron, and Hebron was (v.12) the son of Kohath,
the son of Levi (v.6). 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 Ahi tub
18. Zadok Zadok
19. Shallum Shallum
20. Hilkiah Hilkiah
21. Azariah Azariah
22. Seraiah Seraiah Ezra

Still further, Ezra relates (8:1, 2):
"These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy
of them that went up with me from Babylon, 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 Babylon after the captivity.

This disposition to abbreviate genealogies by the omission of
whatever is unessential to the immediate purpose of the writer is
shown by still more remarkable reductions than those which we
have been considering. Persons 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 contemporaries: 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 pas-
sages 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 Genesis 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 son
from the first to the second great progenitor of mankind; and that the
last three are brothers, although nothing 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 Chronicles 1:36: "The sons of Eliphaz: Teman and
Omar, Zephi and Gatam, Kenaz and Timna, and Amalek."

Now, by turning to Genesis 36:11, 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 Chronicles, 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 statement 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, v.33, the
difference in orthography is due to our translators, and is not in the
original), which is given in 1 Chronicles 6 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...."

The extent to which the framer of this list has studied comprehensive-
ness and conciseness will appear from the fact, which no one would
suspect unless informed from other sources, 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 Exodus 6:24, and the parallel genealogy, 1 Chronicles
6:36, 37. So that the true line of descent is the following, viz.:

In verses 22-24 ... Kohath In verses 37-38 ... Kohath
Amminadab Izhar
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 discrepancy and can
create no embarrasment, since it is no unusual thing for the same
person to have two names. Witness Abram and Abraham; Jacob and Israel;
Joseph and Zaphenath-paneali (Gen. 41:45), Hoshea, Jehoshua (Num.
13:16) (or Joshua) and Jeshua (Neh. 8:17), Gideon and Jerubbaal (Judg.
6:32), Solomon and Jedidiali (2 Sam. 12:24, 25), Azariali and Uzziah
(2 Kings 15:1, 13), Daniel and Belteshazzar, Hananiah, Mishael,
Azariab and Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego (Dan. 1:7); 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 Exodus 6: V.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 Hebron, and
Uzziel; and the years of the life of Kohath were an hundred and
thirty and three years.
19. "And the sons of Merari . . . ."
20. "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister 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 . . ."
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 genealogies of the
same period; as that of Bezaleel (1 Chron. 2:18-20), which records
seven generations from Jacob; and that of Joshua (1 Chron. 7:23-27),
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 Numbers 3:19, 27, 28,
from which it appears that the four sons of Kohath 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 8600 one year after the
Exodus. So that, if no abridgment has taken place in the genealogy,
the grandfather of Moses had, in the lifetime of the latter, 8600
descendants of the male sex alone, 2,750 of them being between the
ages of thirty and fifty (Num. 4:36).

Another proof equally convincing is to be found in the fact that
Levi's son Kohath was born before the descent into Egypt (Gen.
46:11); and the abode of the children of Israel in Egypt continued
430 years (Exod. 12:40, 41). Now as Moses was eighty years old at the
Exodus (Exod. 7:7) 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 clearly estab-
lished, 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 four links, and no more, from Jacob to Moses. The names
which are found without deviation in all the genealogies are Jacob,
Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses (Exod. 6:16-20; Num. 3:17-19; 26:57-59;
1 Chron. 6:1-3, 16-18; 23:6, 12, 13). Now unquestionably Levi was
Jacob's own son. So likewise Kohath was the son of Levi (Gen. 46:11)
and born before the descent into Egypt. Amram also was the immediate
descendant of Kohath. It does not seem possible, as Kurtz proposed,
to insert the missing links between them. For, in the first place,
according to Numbers 26:59, "The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed,
the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt," this
Jochebed being (Exod. 6:20) Amram's aunt, or his father's sister.
Now, it is true, that "a daughter of Levi" might have the general
sense of a descendant of Levi, as the woman healed by our Lord (Luke
13:16) is called "a daughter of Abraham;" and her being born to Levi
might simply mean that she sprang from him (comp. Gen. 46:25). 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 consequence have been Amram's own father. This
appears from a second consideration, viz., that Amram was (Num. 3:27)
the father of one of the subdivisions of the Kohathites, these
subdivisions springing from Kohath's own children and comprising
together 8600 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. 3:27) but
is still liable to that which arises from making Jochebed the mother
of Moses. And further, the structure of the genealogy in Exodus 6 is
such as to make this hypothesis unnatural and improbable. Verse 16
names the three sons of Levi, Gershom, Kohath, and Merari; verses
17-19, the sons of each in their order; verses 20-22, the children of
Kohath's sons; verses 23, 24, contain descendants of the next
generation, and verse 25 the generation next following. Now,
according to the view of Tiele and Keil, we must either suppose that
the Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel of verses 20-22 are all different from
the Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel of verse 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. 16:1; Lev. 10:4).

This subject may be relieved from all perplexity, however, 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 (Exod. 6:20; Num.
26:59), 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 Genesis 46:18, 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
(v.25): "She bare these unto Jacob; all the souls were seven," (comp.
also vv. 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 Matthew 1:11,
Josias begat his grandson Jechonias, and verse 8, Joram begat his
great-great grandson Ozias. And in Genesis 10:15-18 Canaan, the
grandson of Noah, is said to have begotten several whole nations, the
Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgasite, the Hivite, etc. (Comp. also
Gen. 25:23; Deut. 4:25; 2 Kings 20:18; Isa. 51:2.) 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(2).

It is no serious objection to this view of the case that in Leviticus
10:4 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 relationship, 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 (Exod.
2:1), "and there went a man of the house of Levi, and took a wife a
daughter of Levi."

After these preliminary observations, which were originally drawn up
for another purpose, I come to the more immediate design of the
present paper, by proceeding to inquire, whether the genealogies of
Genesis 5 and 11 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 decidedly against
such a supposition. In numerous other instances there is incontro-
vertible evidence of more or less abridgment. This may even be the
case where various 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 examination 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 designed 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 continuity and completeness.

If, therefore, any really trustworthy data can be gathered from any
source whatever, from any realm of scientific or antiquarian
research, which can be brought into comparison with these genealo-
gies for the sake of determining 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 unhesitatingly allowed to do in regard to
those genealogies previously examined.

And it may be worth noting here that a single particular in which a
comparison may be instituted between the primeval history of man and
Genesis 5, suggests especial caution before affirming the absolute
completeness of the latter. The letter of the genealogical record
(5:3) 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 4
that he had already had two sons, Cain and Abel, and from 4:17 that
he must have had a daughter, and from 4:14 that he had probably had
several sons and daughters, whose families had swollen to a
considerable number before Adam's one hundred and thirtieth year, in
which Seth was born. Yet of all this the genealogy gives us no
inkling.

2. Is there not, however, a peculiarity in the construction 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 omitted. But do
not the chronological statements introduced into these genealogies
oblige us to regard them as necessarily continuous? Why should the
author be so particular 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 elements 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 himself. 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 Egypt to the Exodus (Exod. 12:40), or from the
Exodus to the building of the temple (1 Kings 6:1). And if the
numbers in these genealogies are for the sake of constructing a
chronology, why are numbers introduced which have no possible
relation 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 conspectus of
individual lives. And for this reason doubtless they are recorded.
They exhibit in these selected examples the original term of human
life. They show what it was in the ages before the Flood. They show
how it was afterwards gradually narrowed down. But in order to do
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 specimen lives, with the appropriate
numbers attached, 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; whether 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 Israel in Egypt affords 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
Egypt and their settlement there. And at its close mention is made of
some incidents in the life of Moses and the events leading 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 (Exod. 6:16-26). This genealogy records the
length of each man's life in the principal line of descent, viz.,
Levi (v.16), Kohath (v.18), Amram (v.20). The correspondence in the
points just indicated with the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, and
the periods which they cover, is certainly remarkable. And as they
proceeded from the same pen, we may fairly infer from the similari-
ty of construction 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 Exodus 12:40: 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 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. As is well known, the texts of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan
Pentateuch vary systematically from the Hebrew in both the
genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. 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
(Septuagint). 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 accuracy of the Hebrew text in this
instance, as well as generally elsewhere, can be incontrovertibly
established. This resource, then, is a broken reed.

Thus in the Hebrew text of Genesis 5, the ages of different
patriarchs at the birth of the son named are quite irregular, 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 regular gradation. The Septuagint proceeds on the
assumption that patriarchs of such enormous longevity should be
nearly two centuries old at the birth of their son. Accordingly,
when, in the Hebrew, they fall much below this standard, one hundred
years are added to the number 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 diminution 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 before the birth of their son in these
several texts is as follows:-

Patriarch Hebrew Septragint Samaritan
--------- ------ ---------- ---------
Adam 130 230 130
Seth 105 205 105
Enosh 90 190 90
Kenan 70 170 70
Mahalalcl 65 165 65
Jared 162 162 62
Enoch 65 165 65
/167(3)
Methuselah 187 { 67
\187
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 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
contemplated in these changes was to make the lives more symmetrical,
rather than to effect an alteration in the chronology.

5. The structure of the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 also
favors the belief that they do not register all the names in these
respective lines of descent. Their regularity seems to indicate inten-
tional 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 (4:17-22). The Sethite genealogy (chap. 5) cul-
minates in its seventh member, Enoch, who "walked with God, and
he was not, for God took him." The Cainite genealogy also cul-
minates 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
Matthew 1 into three periods of fourteen generations each is
brought about by dropping the requisite number of names, it seems in
the highest degree probable 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 Chapter 11 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 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
Abraham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years, provided
11:26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that Abraham was born in
Terah's seventieth year. This conclusion is well-nigh incredible. The
calculation which leads to such a result, must proceed upon a wrong
assumption.

On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures 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.

References
----------
(1) He is called in 1 Chron. 24:20 a son of Arnram, the ancestor of
Moses; for Shubael and Shebuci are in all probability mere
orthographic variations of the same name.

(2) In Ruth 4:17 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 seme. Zerubbabel is called familiarly the son of
Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2; Hag. 1:1), and is so stated to be in the
genealogies of both Mait. 1:12 and Luke 3:27, though in reality
he was his nephew (2 chron. 3:17-19). 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.

(3) The number varies in different manuscripts.