During the past two centuries the accuracy of the chronology given in the book of Genesis has been increasingly questioned by widely accepted scientific viewpoints regarding origins. It is significant that not until the chronological framework of Genesis, based on conservative, grammatical-historical exegesis, was abandoned in favor of long-age, uniformitarian concepts of evolution did a metaphorical interpretation of Scripture (and the theology associated with it) become established in modern Christendom.
The classical approach to the chronological data in Genesis is epitomized in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible (New York: Funk and Wagnalls) under the heading "Creation" (p. 210). The authorities cited there place Creation week between 6894 B.C. and 3616 B.C. depending on their choice of a scheme for correlating secular history with the time framework developed in the Pentateuch, the basic text that most accurately conveys the chronology originally given by Moses, and the length of time the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. Current attempts to accommodate Scripture to evolutionary concepts of origins make it desirable to restudy the constraints placed on the length of the patriarchal period by the Bible and particularly by Genesis.
The most direct approach begins with a point of correlation between secular history and the chronological data for the period of the Hebrew kings. First Kings 6:1 records that Solomon's Temple began to be built 480 years after the Exodus. Based on the chronological development of Edwin R. Thiele1 and a calculated four-year coregency of David and Solomon, William H. Shea, of Andrews University, places the start of this construction in 970 B.C. , a date agreed upon by liberal and conservative scholars alike with a variation of only some ten years. This date provides a precise and detailed correlation of those second-millennium B.C. events that are recorded both in the Old Testament and in secular sources. 2 Accordingly, the beginning of the construction of Solomon's Temple may be placed with confidence at c. 970 B.C. and the Exodus at c. 1450 B.C.
A 430-year residence of the Hebrews in Egypt prior to the Exodus is specified in Exodus 12:40, 41. Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 also support at least a 400-year residence in Egypt. Based on the principle that an inspired writer's interpretation of a previous inspired writer is normative, Galatians 3:17 has been taken to indicate that the 430-year period actually includes more than just the time the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt, and spans the time between Abraham's settlement in Palestine and the Exodus. However, we still face the task of correctly interpreting the later inspired writer. Did the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40,41 and Galatians 3:17 begin at God's initial covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), at one of the three subsequent reaffirmations (chaps. 15:1-21; 17:1-19; 22:15-18), or at the final confirmation to Jacob when he sought counsel from God before moving his family into Egypt (chap. 46:1-4)? Only the latter of these interpretations brings perfect harmony between Exodus 12:40, 41, Genesis 15:13, Acts 7:6, and Galatians 3:17. Thus we may designate 1880 B.C. as the approximate year in which Jacob's family began residence in Egypt.
From Genesis 47:9; 25:26; 21:5; and 12:4 it is readily established that Abraham settled in Palestine when he was 75 years old, or 215 years before the relocation of his descendants in Egypt. Accordingly we can assign Abra ham's settlement in Palestine to the year 2095 B.C., and place his birth in 2170 B.C. From Genesis 12:4 and 11:32 it is evident that Abraham (probably the youngest of the three sons of Terah mentioned in Genesis 11:26) was born when his father was 130 years old. Accordingly Terah must have been born c. 2300 B.C.
At this point the genealogical lists found in Genesis 5 and 11 make it possible to calculate approximate dates for the Flood and for Creation itself. Some have objected to such a use of these lists on the basis that they are most likely abbreviated and that the descendant listed for a patriarch is not necessarily his firstborn.
It is true that these lists give a lineage of only those most prominent individuals who maintained integrity to God. Indeed, there is no reason for presuming that the lists are not abbreviated, as is generally the case for genealogical accounts in both the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, it is also true that the words translated "son" and "father" can mean any male descendant or ancestor. A critical comparison of genealogical lists in the Bible indicates that the words translated "begat" (in the K.J.V.) can establish only lineage, not the fact of immediate, next-generation offspring. 3 Seth is an exceptional case; yet it is worth noting that he was at least the third male child of Adam and Eve. From Genesis 8:13 and 11:10, it is evident that Shem was born in Noah's 503d year and that he was not the oldest of the three sons listed in chapter 5:32. Nor is it unreasonable to presume that Noah had other sons before he was 500 years old, but that they are not mentioned because they either did not survive the Rood or did not participate with their father in preparing for it. We have no means of estimating how many other of Adam's descendants listed in Genesis 5 and 11 were not firstborn sons, but doubtless some were not.
Despite these objections, the grammar and literary style of Genesis 5 and 11 suggest that Moses intended to establish both a genealogical lineage and a time framework. He carefully specified the age of each named patriarch at the time the next-named was born (combining Genesis 8:13 and 11:10 for Noah, chapters 12:4 and 11:32 for Terah, and chapter 21:5 for Abraham). The possibility that some of the individuals listed may have been grandsons, great-grandsons, or great-great-great-great-grandsons4 does not invalidate the associated chronological framework. To add the ages given for each patriarch at the birth of the next-named as a means of arriving at the total extent of an unspecified period is no more unwarranted than to add mileage data from a map in order to obtain an unspecified distance between two locations.
The data given in Genesis 11:10-24 specify a period of 222 years between the end of the Rood and the birth of Terah. Accordingly, the exit from Noah's ark can be placed in c. 2522 B.C. and the beginning of the Flood in c. 2523 B.C. (see Gen. 8:13-19; 7:11. Similarly, the data given in Genesis 5:1-29 and 7:11 specify a period of 1656 years between Creation week and the beginning of the Flood, placing Creation week in c. 4179 B.C.
Three considerations—two minor ones and one that is much more significant—call for caution in accepting these precise Christian calendar dates for the patriarchal period. First, the dating of an event in terms of the age of some individual could differ by plus or minus one year in regard to a calendar specification, depending on when in the calendar year the individual's birthday was located. Assuming that such uncertainties are randomly distributed, a variation of several years could occur in precise dates.
A second consideration comes from the observation that of the ages given for a patriarch at the birth of the next-named individual, six out of ten in Genesis 5 and seven out of ten in Genesis 11 are evenly divisible by five. Random selection from the total range of numbers would call for an average of only two out of ten to be evenly divisible by five. The probability of six out of ten being so divisible is approximately one in 182, and of seven out of ten only one in 1,272. For the total life-span data, six out of ten in chapter 5 and four out of ten in chapter 11 are evenly divisible by five. The respective probabilities are one in 181.7 and one in 11.35. 5 The most reasonable conclusion is that Moses did not have precise age data for about half the patriarchs listed and was able to give only approximations rounded to the nearest five years. Whether an estimate was rounded down or up we have no way to know. This element also introduces a probability of some minor variations in determining precise dates for such specific events as the Flood and Creation week.
The third, and most significant, consideration regarding the accuracy of the chronological calculations derived from Genesis 5 and 11 is uncertainty regarding the accuracy with which the data set down by Moses has been transmitted by copyists and translators. The calculations in this article have been based on the Hebrew Masoretic text as prepared in the ninth and tenth centuries of the Christian era. The Bible used in the Greek-speaking world of Jesus and the apostles was the Septuagint (LXX), a free translation from Hebrew into Greek originally made at Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C. The numerical data in the Septuagint places the Flood 1,102 years prior to the birth of Terah, or 880 years earlier than does the Masoretic text. Instead of the Masoretic text's 1,656 years between Creation week and the Flood, the original Septuagint gave 2,242 years. Later editions corrected the incongruity of having Methuselah live 14 years after the Flood by extending this time period to 2,262 years. Using the same chronological development presented so far in this article, Septuagint figures place the Flood at c. 3403 B.C. and Creation week at c. 5665 B.C.
The question is, Shall we place greater confidence in the more recent copies of Hebrew manuscripts or in the older copies of a translation prepared by scholars who worked 1,100 years closer to the original manuscripts? The Masoretes took extraordinary precautions to transmit a faithful copy of the Hebrew manuscripts available to them. The Septuagint was a free translation prepared at a center of liberal learning and gives evidence of an effort to obtain favorable recognition from the Greek-speaking world. On the other hand, the Septuagint was the Bible of the early Christian church. Luke, who directed his writing primarily to the Greek-speaking world of the first century, used the Septuagint for quotations from the Old Testament. A conspicuous example is his use of the Septuagint version of Genesis 11 in listing the ancestry of Abraham, giving an extra generation (Cainan) between Arphaxad and Salah in comparison with the Masoretic text (see Luke 3:34-36).
Throughout the Septuagint there is evidence that its translators and subsequent editors had difficulties with numbers. A few examples will illustrate. At least one edition gives 2400 days in Daniel 8:14 instead of 2300. The earliest edition had Methuselah living 14 years after the Flood. The time interval in 1 Kings 6:1 is 440 years rather than 480 as in the Masoretic text. The age of Nahor at the birth of Terah and the life spans of Arphaxad, Eber, and Nahor vary among the available versions. The number of Hebrew males who moved to Egypt with Jacob is given as 75 in Genesis 46:27 (as quoted in Acts 7:14), versus 70 in the Masoretic text and also in the Septuagint text for the corresponding Exodus 1:5. Hence there seems to be a sound basis for placing greater confidence in the numerical data from the Masoretic text. However, a recent authority on the Septuagint has stated, "One of the problems, as yet defying solution, is that of the genealogies in Genesis v and xi, which differ in the Hebrew, LXX, and the Samaritan Pentateuch." 6 Aramaic manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch that were produced in the llth century A.D. and based on manuscripts from the 4th century A.D. yield 590 more years between the Flood and Abraham than does the Masoretic text, but allow only 1,307 years between Creation week and the Flood. Using the chronological development presented in this article, figures from the Samaritan Pentateuch yield c. 3113 B.C. for the beginning of the Flood and c. 4420 B.C. for Creation week.
It should be noted that although the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint are the products of completely diverse traditions since the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, they disagree by only 290 years for the time of the Flood, and the average Flood date between them is only 735 years older than that obtained from the more recent Masoretic text. To the extent that modern scientific investigations are an aid in clearing up moot interpretations of Scripture, it must be said that population growth studies, 7 archeological investigations (particularly concerning ancient Egypt), and radiocarbon-age evidence overwhelmingly favor a Flood date based on the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Septuagint, in preference to one based on the Masoretic text.
The study of chronology for the period preceding reliable, adequate secular records confronts one with the conviction that the Bible was written by dedicated and depend able men who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, placed on record instruction and information from God concerning His activity in human history. (See 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Cor. 10:11.)
Obviously, the data obtained from various lines of scientific investigation such as geology, paleontology, archeology, and isotope dating can be explained either on the basis of a uniform operation of presently observed processes over long ages or on the basis of a Creation week 6,200-7,700 years ago followed by a supernaturally initiated, worldwide destruction 4,500-5,400 years ago. 8 The philosophical bias of an individual will determine which approach he accepts. Since scientific disciplines seek explanations solely on the basis of presently observable and understandable processes, independent of possible unique activity by a controlling Deity, they cannot by strict scientific methodology proceed from empirical data to an independent development of a seven-day, Creation week model, or the concept of an abrupt, universal catastrophe by water. Neither can they be harmonized, on the basis of a strictly scientific methodology, with time constraints that are given in the Bible for the patriarchal period. Nevertheless, in many other areas the results of scientific investigation and the testimony of Scripture illuminate each other. Where seemingly irreconcilable disagreement exists one must make a personal decision whether the current majority view among scientists or the testimony of Scripture is the more reliable guide to truth.
Notes:
1 Edwin R. Thiele, A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1977).
2 William H. Shea, "Exodus, date of," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Edition, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980).
3 See the Revised Standard Version, The Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard Bible, and The New
International Version; also Strong's The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Co.).
4 Lamech could have been six generations removed from Methuselah, and Noah six generations removed from Lamech if their intervening ancestors fathered a male child at the average age of 30.
5 For the proportion of Genesis 5 and 11 age data divisible by ten, the probabilities are one in 17.42 for both ages at birth of next-named and total life spans in chapter 5, and one in 7,258 for ages at birth of next-named and one in 5.16 for total life spans in chapter 11.
6 Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), p. 245. For a thorough analysis of the Masoretic, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Septuagint text data for pre-Abrahamic chronology see Gerhard F. Hasel, "Genesis 5 and 11; Chronogenealogies in the Biblical History of Beginnings." Origins, vol. 7. No. 1 (1980); and "The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11." Origins, vol. 7, No. 2 (1980).
7 Edward N. Lugenbeal, "Was There a Population Explosion After the Flood?" Ministry, December, 1978, pp. 20-22.
8 R. H. Brown, "Radiometric Age and the Traditional Hebrew-Christian View of Time," Origins, vol. 4, No. 2 (1977), pp. 68-75; "The Interpretation of C-14 Dates," Ibid., vol. 6, No. 1 (1979), pp. 30-44; Michael J. Card, "The Flood and the Ice Age," Ministry, May, 1980, pp. 22, 23.
