John S.: In the words of Professor James Barr, both the Jewish commentators of the time of Jesus and the Fathers of the Church after them held that "the figures contained in the Genesis chronologies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." For reasons that we will consider in the appropriate place below, modern scholars have attempted to reconcile the genealogies of Genesis with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years from Adam to Abraham. By making this attempt, these scholars have contradicted the plain sense of the text as interpreted by Jewish and Christian commentators for more than two thousand years.

R. Sungenis: I think we should examine our motivations in this exercise. As you see above, the motivation is to keep Genesis from supporting the "hundereds of thousands (if not millions) of years from Adam to Abraham. Having the motivation of denying evolution is one thing (and admirable), but it might also be the case that the Creationist argument "proves too much" or "cuts off his nose to spite his face," since another way of seeing the gaps in the genealogies is to bring Earth back to about 10,000-13000 years old - a date that fits much better in current scientific evidence than 6000 years old. I've see the "10,000" date all over the literature. So what I'm saying is that, those CRI people who are fighting against seeing gaps may be clouding their thinking, since none of them have realized that the gaps can produce a 10,000 year old Earth and fit in better with the historical and scientific evidence we have (see below). They are only interested in fighting against a 4.5 billion year old Earth, and thus they become myopic. END

John S.: In his recent book Faith, Form and Time, Dr. Kurt Wise, a Harvard paleontologist and former student of the late Stephen Jay Gould, offers a brilliant analysis of the genealogical data in Genesis 1-11. Dr. Wise observes that:

Genealogies are usually only marginally useful for chronology purposes. A list of names, even if it contains a complete list of fathers and sons in the proper sequence, provides only the number of generations. This can be translated into actual time only when the average generation time (the average age of parents at the birth of their children) is known-or guessed-information that is rarely provided in any genealogy. The most common time-type information given in genealogies is the age of people at their deaths. And although this kind of information is somewhat helpful, at least to provide an upper limit on generation time, it does not give us the actual generation time. The genealogy that is most useful for chronology is one that provides the age of parents at the time of the birth of their children. But this is uncommon among genealogies, both ancient and modern.

It is interesting, then, that the genealogies of both Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 do provide the age of fathers at the birth of their sons-exactly the kind of information we need in developing a chronology. Since the words of Scripture are both accurate and economical, the structure of these genealogies suggests a chronological purpose.

A chronological function is further evidenced by comparison of these with other biblical chronologies-and there are many of them (including the genealogies in Gen. 4, 5 10, 11; Exod. 6; 1 Chron. 1-8; Neh. 7; Matt. 1; and Luke 3). The genealogy of Moses in Exodus 6:16-20 contains the age of the patriarchs at the time of their deaths. This is more useful than a list of patriarchs but not sufficient to determine an accurate genealogy. Yet at least this brief genealogy does contain some time information-a feature that stands in contrast even with the larger genealogical list in which it is found (Exod. 6:14-29). In fact, aside from the three genealogies of Genesis 5, Genesis 11, and Exodus 6:16-20, none of the many genealogies of Scripture (including genealogies of Genesis 4 and 10) contain anything more than a list of people.

R. Sungenis: Exodus 6:14-29 is very important in these discussions, because, as he said, it is unique among the genealogies. You will notice that it gives the length of the years only of Levi, Kohath and Amram. If the numbers are added up, and assuming that Levi stayed in Egypt for 77 years, then we have exactly 430 years for Israel's stay in Egypt, which agrees precisely with Exodus 12:40's "430 years, to the day." (Levi's 77 + Kohath's 133 + Amram's 137 + Aarons age (cf., Ex 7:7; Num 33:39) of 83 = 430 years). The only thing one needs to prove, however, is that Jacob spent 40 years in Haran, instead of 20, otherwise, Levi's can't be in Egypt for 77 years, but it can be done.

We can also do it another way. If we add Levi's 137 years from Ex 6:16 + Kohath's 133 + Amram's 137 + Aaron's age at death and the year Israel entered Canaan, 123, we get 530 years. If we subtract 40 years of wandering in the desert, we have 490 years. We can now get to 430 years if we note that Jacob was 130 years when Israel went into Egypt (Gen 47:9). We also know that Joseph was 30 when made ruler over Egypt (Gen 41:46), and it was 9 years later (7 years plenty and two years famine = 9, cf., Gen 45:6) that he revealed himself to his brothers. At the time Jacob enters Egypt he is Jacob's 130 and Joseph is 39, thus Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born. If we assume Levi was 21 years older than Joseph (since he was Jacob's third son while Joseph was his eleventh), then Levi is 60 when he enters Egypt with Jacob. If we add Jacob's 17 years in Egypt (Gen 47:28) to Levi's 60 it = 77 as the years of Levi in Egypt. Or, we can subtract Levi's 60 years from the 137 years of Ex 6:16 which = 77 years.

The importance of this genealogy is not only that the numbers add up to 430 years, but also because none of the names are indicated to be father-son relationships.

1) Unlike Genesis 4:25-26, no one in Ex 6:14-20 is said to name his successor. The only instance we have of someone being named is Ex 2:10 (and which means that Amram and Jochebed are not his parents (Ex 6:20)).

2) If Kohath was the son of Levi, and Amram the son of Kohath, then this would necessitate that, if their ages are for the purpose of marking a calendar for the 430 years in Egypt, it would mean that Kohath would have to be born the year Levi died, and Amram would have to be born the year Kohath died. This is highly unlikely if they are father-son relationships, but very likely if they are ancestral. The calendar would be kept intact by obtaining the new calendar marker after Levi, Kohath, by selecting him from among the men who were born in the year that Levi died. Also, they would have selected Amram to replace Kohath in the same way (Amram was born in the year Kohath died). This would allow a precise and uninterrupted calendar.

3) If this were not the case, then it would be impossible to account for Kohath's "8600" descendants, which Num. 3:27-28 assures us he had, and which census took place when Moses was already 82 years old (Num 3:1), the apparent grandson of Kohath. You can't have 8600 descendants within two generations. But if we understand that the descendants of Kohath included the Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites (1 Chr 16:23), then we can understand where these 8600 originated. They would have had enough time to produce 8600 because Kohath, according to the formula 77 + 133 + 137 + 83 = 430, would have died 220 years before the Exodus. A 220 year period could produce five to six generations, which could easily produce 8600 descendants.

4) These figures coincide with Gen 15:13-16 which says that Abraham's descendants would be oppressed 400 years and four generations. The four generations are Levi, Kohath, Amram and Aaron.

For these reasons, it is almost certain that Kohath, Amram and Aaron were not the son, grandson and great-grandson of Levi, but his descendants. This is entirely acceptable by the way Hebrew uses the word "ben," since it can refer either to an immediate son or a descendant. END

John S.: Of all the steps in a biblical chronology from creation to Christ, only two steps require a genealogy-the time between creation and the Flood and the time between the Flood and Abraham. And guess what? These happen to be the only genealogies that have chronological information!

An accurate and efficient Scripture would suggest strongly that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 were specifically designed for chronology

R. Sungenis: No argument here. But here are the problems you run into when you give an early age for the Flood (which this author says is 2238 BC, or as Ussher said was 2349 BC):

1) It has been established that written history goes back, without pause, to at least 3000-3500 BC, if not longer. That can easily be proven. Hence, the Flood would have had to occur before that date. For example, it can be shown that Ur, Erech, Lagash, Eridu existed around 3700 BC (cf., William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 1957, p. 32). Sumerian epigraphy is known to have existed around 3100 BC (Ignace Gelb, A Study of Writing, Univ of Chicago Press, 1952, p. 63). The Maya calendar begins on August 11, 3114 BC (George E. Stuart, "The Maya Riddle of the Glyphs, National Geographic, 1975, p. 773).

2) The date of the division of Solomon's kingdom (between Rehoboam and Jeroboam) has been set at 931 BC (See Theile, et al). In fact they have found that "Shoshenq's" (aka Shishak) rampage of Rehov is now set at 925 BC (San Francisco Chronicle, 4-14-03). 1 Kings 14:25 and 2 Chr 12:2 say that Shishak came against Jerusalem in the fifth year of Rehoboam, which would confirm the date of division of the kingdom in 931 BC, right after Solomon's death.

1 Kings 6:1 says there was 480 years between Solomon's fourth year (967 BC) and the Exodus, which brings us back to 1447 BC. Adding the 430 years of Exodus 12:40, we get back to 1877 for Jacob's entrance into Egypt. If we add the age of 60 when Jacob entered Egypt, and the 175 years of Abraham (Gen 25:7), and the 60 years of Isaac when Jacob was born (Gen 25:26), we come to 2172 BC.

Now, if the Flood, according to this author, took place in 2238 BC, that means we have 66 years to fit in the Flood and all the generations between Noah and Abraham. Quite impossible.

John S.: Dr. Wise goes on to observe that the only way to reconcile the genealogies of Genesis with tens or hundreds of thousands of years would be if there were gaps in the genealogies. But the only apparent basis for believing in "gaps" in the Genesis genealogies is the so-called "second Cainaan" who appears in the genealogy of Luke Chapter 3 between Shem's son Arphaxad and Salah but who does not appear at all between Arphaxad and Salah in the genealogy of Genesis 11.

R. Sungenis: No, it's not the only basis. It is a confirmation of the basis that we saw in Exodus 6:14-16 for the 430 years and the 8600 descendants of Kohath, and the basis why few of the pre-Flood genealogical heads are named by their predecessor, except for Seth, Enosh and Noah.

In fact, so blinded can Dr. Wise become to protecting Genesis from evolutionists, that he can miss a clear sign given by God to Creationists in the Arphaxad-Shelach genealogy, that is, that God is telling us we do not need to see them as father-son relationships. If we want to save ourselves from embarrassment, then we are going to have to make the numbers of Scripture add up. They can't add up if we consider all the genealogies as father-son relationships. This is also why Ussher ended up saying that the sojourn in Egypt lasted only 230 years instead of 430. God chose specific words which allow us to see them as non-father/son relationships. It would be wise for us to use them. END

John S.: Many modern scholars have argued that the appearance of this Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah "proves" that there is an unspecified "gap" between the two. They argue further that if there is one gap, there are probably many others, perhaps accounting for tens of thousands of years between Adam and Abraham. However, as masters of Scriptural exegesis, the Fathers of the Church considered this question long ago and noted that no matter how many names or descendants might be missing between Arphaxad and Salah, the relationship between their ages is clearly given-since, at the time of Salah's birth, Arphaxad was 35 years old.

R. Sungenis: I know few Fathers who argue for this. Most of the Fathers did not even address the Genesis genealogies. The few that did have widely varying dates. Some just opted for saying that there would be 6000 or 7000 years from Adam to Christ, but there was little Scriptural basis for saying so. Thus, there is no consensus among them, and according to Leo XIII, we are not bound to their varying opinions on this topic. Moreover, no Father who dealt with the genealogies exegeted the passages, since most didn't know Hebrew, and they couldn't rely on the LXX since it is well-known to be corrupted regarding the genealogies.

Moreover, Genesis 11:12 does not say "at the time of Salah's birth, Arphaxad was 35 years old." It says, in Hebrew, Arphaxad was 35 years old when he BEGAT Salah. BEGAT (Hebrew: yalad) is never confined to "birth" of father-son relationships in Scripture. If it was, then Scripture would contradict itself in many places, especially the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 3-10 and Matthew 1. END

John S.: It follows that the only real question is why Cainan's name is missing from the genealogy of Genesis 11. Some commentators have argued that insertion of Cainan's name in Luke 3:36 is a "copyist's error." But there are many plausible explanations for the omission of Cainan from Genesis 11 that do not require us to believe that God allowed errors to creep into the Holy Scriptures.

For an excellent discussion of this question see Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament (Woodlands, Texas: KingsWord Press, 1993-1999), pp. 33-37. Jones argues convincingly for the conclusion that "Cainan is probably either a) a son by adoption and/or a son-in-law, not a direct son-hence he is not listed in Genesis 10:24 or b) Cainan is not mentioned in Genesis as the blessing passes over him, going directly from Arphaxad to Salah who is almost certainly Cainan's younger brother."

R. Sungenis: There is no "blessing" distributed in the Genesis genealogies, and thus it cannot serve as a criterion for why Cainan is not added.

Allow me to give a further example. Genesis 10:25 says Eber had two "sons," and the name of one was Peleg, for in his days "the earth was divided." This is repeated in 1 Chron 1:19 for emphasis. In Genesis 11:16-19 we find that Eber begat Peleg and Peleg begat Reu. Now, if we claim that these were father-son relationships, then Eber was 34 when Peleg was born, and 30 years later, Reu was born to Peleg. Let's say that we start from 3000 BC. Then

- 4000 BC Eber was born
- 3966 BC Peleg born
- 3936 BC Reu born
- 3727 BC Peleg died
- 3697 BC Reu died
- 3536 BC Eber died

So, not only do you have Eber outliving both his "sons," we have the additional oddity that Eber, to whom the so-called "blessing" would have been bestowed, having his name eliminated and replaced with Peleg when Scripture records that "the earth was divided." None of this makes sense.

Instead, if we consider Peleg and Reu as descendants of Eber, and each of them as calendar reference points, everything fits.

- 4000 BC Eber was born
- 3966 BC Eber begets ancestor of Peleg
- 3536 BC Eber dies, Peleg is born
- "earth is divided"
- 3506 BC Peleg begets ancestor of Reu
- 3297 BC Peleg dies, Reu is born
- 3265 BC Reu begets ancestor of Serug
- 3058 BC Reu dies

Additionally, if Cainan was Salah's younger brother, then this makes an indictment against Luke 3:36 for saying that Salah begat Cainan, since Luke has already informed us that his "begat" formula for all the other personages in his genealogy are NOT brothers, but either ancestors or father-son. END

1 2