Gaps In The Genealogies In Genesis 5 And 11?

By Andrew E. Steinmann

[Andrew E. Steinmann is Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew, Concordia University, Chicago, Illinois.]

Abstract

A handful of recent articles have argued that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are complete, skipping no generations. However, the major arguments they use are defective and falsifiable. The syntax of the Hiphil of ילד allows for generations to be skipped, while gaps in other Old Testament genealogies suggest that most biblical genealogies are selective. Evidence from Egyptian and Sumerian chronology indicates that the same is the case for the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.

----------------

Despite a fairly widespread consensus among evangelical scholars that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must contain gaps where some generations are skipped and left unnamed, a handful of recent articles have sought to argue that the genealogies probably contain no gaps.[1] That is, they are complete

and move from father to son; they do not skip over generations. From this conclusion, Tanner uses the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 to calculate the date of the great deluge (Gen. 7-8) at 2543 BC ± 25 years and the date of creation as 4199 BC ± 25 years, and others give similar estimates.[2]

This article argues that the advocates of gapless, complete genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 employ several defective arguments that effectively undermine their conclusion. Rather, the evidence indicates that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 are indeed selective and do not include every generation. In fact, in some cases multiple generations may be left unmentioned.

At the outset, it ought to be noted that these authors who advocate for complete genealogies make some tendentious statements in order to buttress their arguments. For instance, Tanner states that Wenham is “hesitant to embrace the idea of gaps” in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.[3] However, the quotation from Wenham demonstrates that he believes no “large gaps” or “long gaps” are in these genealogies.[4] Wenham argues that the text of Genesis will not allow for an earth millions of years old (i.e., “large gaps”), but he is not hesitant about more reasonable gaps in the genealogies that would allow for an earth that may be somewhat older than the 6,000 or so years proposed by Tanner’s calculations.

Another tendentious statement is that “there is only one omission” in the genealogy at Matthew 1 of three or four names that allowed Matthew to preserve his fourteen-generation scheme.[5] While this is true, it misses the point: Biblical genealogies can be selective and can contain gaps. That Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus contains only one gap does not prove that the Genesis genealogies contain no or few gaps. It only demonstrates that selective genealogies are possible.

A third questionable statement is that Jude 14 says there are seven generations from Adam to Enoch, so there are no gaps between Adam and Enoch in the Genesis 5 genealogy.[6] However, Jude does not say this. It says that Enoch was “seventh after Adam” (ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδάμ). In fact, Jude 14 might simply be a reference to Genesis 5 and to the seventh person in the genealogy that begins with Adam. It need not be claiming that there are seven and only seven generations from Adam to Enoch.

More important problems with these gapless treatments of genealogical information in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament revolve around whether the genealogies in Genesis are complete (i.e., skipping no generations) or selective (i.e., listing only some generations and skipping over others).

The Meaning And Implication Of תּוֹלִיד At Deuteronomy 4:25 And 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7

Pierce and Ham make the startling claim that “nowhere in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word for begat (yalad) used in any other way than to mean a single-generation (e.g., father/son or mother/daughter) relationship.”[7] However, Deuteronomy 4:25 shows this to be false:

. . . כִּי־תוֹלִיד בָּנִים וּבְנֵי בָנִים

When you have [ילד] children and grandchildren. . . .[8]

Clearly, the verb ילד, here employed in the Hiphil stem, can refer to producing descendants beyond the next generation.

A more subtle false contention is found in Tanner’s overstatement: “Of the 170 times that a hiphil form of the verb ילד is used in Genesis, it always is used of a man being the literal father of a son, not merely an ‘ancestor.’ ”[9] This statement presumes the conclusion (i.e., the Genesis chronologies are complete, and therefore each moves from father to son). This circularity negates the value of the contention that Hiphil forms of the root ילד in Genesis can refer only to the fathering of a son and not the generating of descendants. Perhaps it would be helpful to look outside Genesis to see how such verbs can be used. A noteworthy example stands in 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7.

Following Hezekiah’s foolish pursuit of an alliance with Babylon, Isaiah prophesied to him concerning the Babylonian captivity as judgment for his reliance on Babylon instead of Yahweh. That prophecy included these words (2 Kings 20:18/Isa. 39:7):

וּמִבָּנֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יֵצְאוּ מִמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר תּוֹלִיד יִקָּחוּ וְהָיוּ סָרִיסִים בְּהֵיכַל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל

Some of your descendants—who come from you, whom you father [ילד]—will be taken away, and they [i.e., Hezekiah’s descendants] will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

Commentators agree that the descendants to whom Isaiah refers cannot be Hezekiah’s sons, but must be some later generation, since four generations of kings will rule Judah after Hezekiah’s death.[10] Chronology bears this out. This prophecy came to Hezekiah sometime during or after the fourteenth year of his reign (2 Kings 18:13; Isa. 36:1). Therefore, if the prophecy applied to Hezekiah’s sons, they would have been sons born sometime between Hezekiah’s fourteenth and twenty-ninth years on the throne (cf. 2 Kings 18:2). This would place their births between 709t and 687t.[11] Since the first captives were taken to Babylon in 606t, Hezekiah’s sons would have been between 81 and 103 years old at that time, had any lived that long. It is extremely unlikely that such elderly men would have been pressed into royal service in Babylon and made eunuchs.

Since this prophecy refers to Hezekiah’s descendants who would be several generations removed from him, the use and meaning of the verb תּוֹלִידin this prophecy is interesting. The verb is a Hiphil imperfect form from the root ילד. The verb’s subject is Hezekiah. His action will make him the ancestor of those who would be later taken into captivity. It is important to note several implications of Isaiah’s use of this verb:

1. It refers to an act of Hezekiah during his lifetime (since he is the subject of the verb)—he would father children who would subsequently have their own children, and those children would have their own children until the generation taken to Babylon was produced.
2. It does not require that the descendants be the next generation. The noun בֵּן is used here to denote a future generation born well after the death of Hezekiah.
3. It most likely does not refer to generating the line of Manasseh, who was born in 710t or 709t and was probably an infant or toddler at the time of this prophecy.[12]

Moreover, there is no evidence that any king of Judah from Manasseh’s line was made a eunuch and served in the Babylonian court. Jehoiachin, the only Judean king taken into captivity, was initially imprisoned but later freed and given a place at the king’s table (2 Kings 25:27-30). Instead, this prophecy must have been fulfilled by other descendants of Hezekiah, among whom may have been Daniel, Azariah, Hananiah, and Mishael (Dan. 1:3). In fact, ancient rabbinic literature speculates that these young men may have been made eunuchs for service in the Babylonian palace.[13]

Sexton argues against the first implication of the verb תּוֹלִיד listed above—that the verb refers to the fathering of a child or children who would in turn become the ancestor(s) of the named descendant(s). He insists, “The hiphil of ילד describes the birth of its grammatical object, whether that object is an immediate or remote descendant.[14] Sexton’s argument downplays the causative function of the Hiphil stem with ילד, and he misunderstands the grammatical relationship of causative verbs and their direct objects. Both Deuteronomy 4:25 and 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7 use the causative Hiphil stem of the root ילד, a nuance not easily represented in English translation. One cannot “father” or “beget” grandchildren (Deut. 4:25), one can only cause their begetting by setting off a chain of actions by fathering a son (or daughter) who will become one’s grandchildren’s father (or mother). While this causative nuance is not as pronounced as in many other verbal roots in Hebrew that occur in the Hiphil stem, it is clearly in view at both Deuteronomy 4:25 and 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7.

Sexton contends that, even if the Hiphil of ילד meant “become the ancestor of” in the sense of “bear a child who would bear another, etc.,” the subject would not actually “become the ancestor” until the named descendant was finally born.[15] Thus, there would still be no chronological gaps in the genealogies: the older man would have been alive (and at the listed age) for the birth of his named descendant.[16] Focusing so closely on ילד, though, overlooks examples of other causative verbs that display a temporal gap between the causation of the situation and the result. That is, one can “cause” a situation at a certain time, even if the situation itself does not transpire until much later.

For instance, consider the condemnation of the Levitical priests at Malachi 2:8:

וְאַתֶּם סַרְתֶּם מִן־הַדֶּרֶךְ הִכְשַׁלְתֶּם רַבִּים בַּתּוֹרָה שִׁחַתֶּם בְּרִית הַלֵּוִי אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת

“You, on the other hand, have turned from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have violated the covenant of Levi,” says the Lord of Armies.

The Hiphil verb הִכְשַׁלְתֶּםdoes not here mean that the priests caused the people to stumble immediately over the requirements of the Law. Instead, it is quite clear that the instructions that the priests gave the people led to stumbling later when they brought sacrifices to the altar (cf. Mal. 1:13-14).

For another example, note the description of the cedar tree at Ezekiel 31:4:

מַיִם גִּדְּלוּהוּ תְּהוֹם רמְמָתְהוּ

The waters caused it to grow; the underground springs made it tall

 The D stem verbs גִּדְּלוּהוּ (Piel) and רמְמָתְהוּ (Polel) are both causative.[17] Yet the waters did not cause an immediate, noticeable growth of a large cedar, nor did the springs immediately cause the tree to be tall—these things take time. The temporal nexus between subject and verb is immediate. However, the temporal nexus between verb and direct object—especially for causative verbs—need not be immediate; the resulting situation may at times be temporally remote from the triggering action and from the actor who caused it.

The upshot of this is that the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy could be put in these terms: When Hezekiah was between 39 and 54 years old, he “caused the begetting” (יוֹלִיד) of descendants who would become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. The verb at 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7 refers to an action by Hezekiah during his lifetime, though the actual birth of the descendants took place decades after Hezekiah’s death. This contradicts the assertion that verbs from the root ילד are always used “of a man being the literal father of a son, not merely an ‘ancestor.’ ”[18] This also negates the contention that “the fact remains that Jared was 162 years old when Enoch—whoever he was—was born. . . . It is the numbers, not the names, that we have to deal with.”[19] However, as the above analysis demonstrates, it is the verbs and not simply the numbers that must be taken into account.

Moreover, the use of ילד at 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7 has direct implications for the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. For instance, consider the statement, “Reu lived 32 years and fathered (וַיּוֹלֶד) Serug. After he fathered (אַחֲרֶי הוֹלִידוֹ) Serug, Reu lived 207 years and fathered other sons and daughters” (Gen. 11:20-21). In light of 2 Kings 20:18/Isaiah 39:7 all this need mean is that when Reu was 32 years old he had a son who established a line that led to Serug some generations later. After this he had other sons and daughters; that is, before he died at 207 years old he produced lines that led to other descendants.

What Is The Point Of Including Age Data In The Genesis Genealogies?

Tanner believes that some information included in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies—specifically, the age when a man had a child and his age at death—would be superfluous if generations were skipped between the named ancestor (e.g., Reu) and the named descendant (e.g., Serug).[20] Sexton quotes Goodenow’s statement that a theory allowing gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 chronologies “takes away all purpose on the part of the sacred writer in giving the birth-dates he has so carefully arranged.”[21] However, this assumes that the information was included for chronological purposes and then argues that the genealogies must therefore be useful for chronological calculations. In fact, the author does not state the reason for including this information. Considering the overall narrative of Genesis 1-11, this information could well have illustrated several points without being intended to be used in chronological calculations relating to the events of the narrative. For instance, the information may simply have been intended to demonstrate:

1. The different environmental and societal conditions that prevailed in that era. People not only lived longer in Genesis 5, they matured more slowly and/or married at a later age.
2. That conditions had changed in Genesis 11 and people came to marry and have children at a younger age, and they lived shorter lives.
3. That the persons in the genealogies were actual historical persons, not fictions or fictionalized historical persons.

These points could be illustrated with selective genealogies that do not include every generation. The information would not be superfluous, but it also would not be useful for the purpose of chronological calculations.

Sexton argues against such an interpretation, stating, “The begetting ages indicate neither when the patriarchs became virile nor when they became sterile.”[22]

That may or may not be true, but the point is that men were living longer and having children later before the flood than afterward. In the Masoretic Text the average age at “begetting” in Genesis 5 is 155.6 years with a median age of 117.5 years. The average age after the flood in Genesis 11 is 43.3 years with a median age of 32.0 years.[23] The higher pre-flood ages may have been due to later onset of virility, but virility may have nothing to do with it. Social factors combined with longer lifespans may have led to delays in marrying and having children. The point is that the author of these genealogies does not state the reason for including the age data in his genealogy. While it is tempting to say he did it for a chronological purpose, that is not necessarily correct. Other reasons for the inclusion of age data are possible. It is also possible that the author’s reason for including age data has been irretrievably lost over time.

Moreover, the contention that the information would be superfluous does not square with other Old Testament genealogies. For instance, the ultimate ages of Kohath (133 years) and Amram (137 years) are given in the genealogy of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 6:18-20). Are we to assume that this is superfluous information, since we cannot use it to construct a chronology of Moses’s ancestry?

The Implications Of Old Testament Genealogies Other Than Those In Genesis 5 And 11

The Genealogy Of David (Ruth 4:18-22)

Tanner maintains that the ten-generation genealogy from Perez to David at Ruth 4 “does not conclusively have gaps.”[24] He discounts the argument by Mathews that David’s genealogy is too short to cover the necessary time span.[25] Instead, Tanner claims that a comparison of the genealogy in Ruth 4 with that in 1 Chronicles 2:4-15 “supports a tight chronology for Ruth 4.”

In fact, the evidence appears to vindicate Mathews’s contention.

First Chronicles 2:4-15 clarifies that the sequence Perez–Hezon–Ram must be father–son–grandson, since brothers are listed for all three men. However, from Ram to Boaz there is simply a linear genealogy identical to that of Ruth 4.[26] From Ruth 4:17 it would appear that the sequence Boaz–Obed–Jesse–David is probably father–son–grandson–great-grandson. This still permits a genealogy that may have skipped several generations anywhere between Ram and Boaz. A closer look at chronology bears out that Ruth 4 and 1 Chronicles 2 most likely are selective genealogies.

Perez was one of the two sons of Judah by his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. 38:27-30). With information given in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament, it is possible to date the birth of these twins to about 1877 BC.[27] David’s birth can be dated to 1039 BC.[28] That is a span of 838 years in which the nine generations subsequent to Perez must have been born. A simple calculation reveals that if there were no generations skipped in the genealogies of Ruth 4 and 1 Chronicles 2, the average age of a father when his son was born would have been 93 years old. That is an average, and one would expect some fathers to be younger than the average and some to be older than the average at the birth of their son. Therefore, it is quite unreasonable to conclude that there are no generations skipped. It is more likely that the average age of a father when his son was born was 25, implying that there were about 33 or 34 generations from Perez to David, and that fewer than one-third of the generations are listed in Ruth 4.

Moreover, there is more information that militates against Tanner’s contention of a complete genealogy for David. Matthew 1:5 states that Salmon fathered Boaz by Rahab (Σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βόες ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ). Since Jericho fell to Israel in 1406 BC, forty years after the exodus from Egypt,[29] this would place Salmon’s fatherhood sometime around 1400 BC. There are four generations subsequent to Salmon. This means that without skipping generations from Salmon to David the average age for a father when his son was born would have been 90 years old. Instead, given that the sequence from Boaz to David is probably without gaps, it is likely that 12 or 13 generations are skipped from Salmon to Boaz.

Working in the opposite direction, there are five generations subsequent to Perez, culminating in Salmon, who had to have been born during the wilderness wanderings and could not have been more than forty years old in 1406 BC (cf. Num. 14:35; 32:13). The period between Perez’s birth and Salmon’s birth spanned at least 431 years and at most 451 years, producing an average age at fatherhood of 86-90 years if no generations were skipped. This implies that there are missing generations—again probably 12 or 13 generations—somewhere between Ram and Salmon.

Another genealogy in 1 Chronicles bears out that there are missing generations in David’s genealogy. Unlike the other tribes, the Levites would have had reason to keep track of every generation. One had to be certain of direct descent from Aaron in order to serve as a priest. Similarly, other Levites had to be able to prove descent from Levi to serve in the tabernacle or temple. At 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 there is a genealogy of eighteen generations from Korah, who was an adult at the time of the exodus (Exod. 6:21, 24; Num. 16:1-49; 26:9-11), to Heman, a temple musician in David’s day (1 Chron. 6:33), making the average age of a father when his son was born about 25 years old. Is it reasonable to assume that during the same period there were only five generations from Salmon to David?

This analysis of the Ruth 4 genealogy is important for countering the theory that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete. Advocates of this theory often point out that some of the links in the Genesis genealogies must be from father to son. Freeman notes, “The Genesis text itself establishes that no generations came between Adam and Seth (5:3), Seth and Enosh (4:26), Lamech and Noah (5:28), Noah and Shem (6:10; 7:13; 8:15; 9:18; 10:1; 11:10), Eber and Peleg (10:25), or Terah and Abraham (11:27−32), thus making the generations between the other men unlikely.”[30] In a similar manner, Pierce and Ham write, “Although in the Hebrew way of thinking, the construction ‘X is the son of Y’ does not always mean a literal father/son relationship, additional biographical information in Genesis 5 and 11 strongly supports the view that there are no gaps in these chapters. So we know for certain that the following are literal father/son relationships: Adam/Seth, Seth/Enosh, Lamech/Noah, Noah/Shem, Eber/Peleg, and Terah/Abram.”[31] Tanner also notes, “In fact, at many points literal fathers and sons are clearly involved: Adam-Seth, Seth-Enosh, Lamech-Noah, Noah-Shem, Eber-Peleg, and Terah-Abram.”[32]

However, the same might be argued about David’s genealogy in Ruth 4—since there are proven or likely father-to-son sequences, the genealogy must be without gaps. In Ruth 4, there apparently are no gaps between Perez and Hezon, Hezron and Ram, Boaz and Obed, Obed and Jesse, Jesse and David. Yet, as demonstrated above, there are gaps in the Ruth 4 genealogy. The presence of some father-to-son links in a genealogy does not preclude the possibility that other links may skip generations.

Ezra’s Genealogy (Ezra 7:1-5)

Tanner admits that in the current text of Ezra 7:1-5 six names are missing from Ezra’s genealogy, as a comparison with 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 demonstrates. However, Tanner proposes that the original text of Ezra contained all six names and that these names were lost by parablepsis when a scribe’s eye skipped from the first Amariah to the second.[33] If this were the case, there should be no names listed in Ezra 7:1-5 between the younger Amariah and his ancestor Meraioth. However, this is not the case. Azariah, father of Amariah and grandfather of Ahitub, is listed between Amariah and Meraioth in Ezra 7:3. Thus, Tanner’s explanation for the missing generations in Ezra’s genealogy is defective. Instead, we have a selective genealogy that skips six generations from Azariah to Maraioth—not a scribal error that omitted the generations from Amariah to Maraioth.

In addition, there are two or three more generations missing in Ezra’s genealogy. His immediate forebear is given as Seraiah, son of Azariah. This Seraiah was killed by Nebuchadnezzar when he conquered Jerusalem in 587 BC (2 Kings 25:18-21; Jer. 52:24-27). Ezra, however, was probably born around 500 BC.[34] Since Seraiah died at least eight decades before Ezra was born, he cannot have been his father, and there must have been two or three generations between him and Ezra. Therefore, Ezra’s genealogy contains two gaps: one between Ezra and Seraiah and another between Azariah and Maraioth.

Other Indications Of Selective Genealogies In The Old Testament

We should also note that there are other selective genealogies in the Old Testament. Both Exodus 6:12-20 and Numbers 3:14-39 contain information relative to Moses’s genealogy (as does 1 Chron. 6:1-3). In all three the same three generations are listed: Kohath–Amram–Moses. Kohath was one of the original Israelite migrants to Egypt with Jacob (Gen. 46:11). Moses was born eighty years before the Exodus (Exod. 7:7). Since the Egyptian sojourn lasted 430 years (Exod. 12:41), Moses was born some 350 years after Kohath entered Egypt. Surely more than one generation separated Moses from Kohath. Considering that Moses was one of 8,600 male descendants of Kohath at the time of the exodus (Num. 3:27-28), there must have been quite a few generations between him and Kohath.

This discussion of genealogies suggests that the majority of biblical genealogies are probably selective—that is, they contain gaps. This does not prove that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are selective, but it shows that one ought not lightly dismiss the contention that they contain gaps.

Problems For The Complete Genealogy Theory Vis-À-Vis Ancient Chronology

The complete-genealogy theory’s most basic arguments that the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 do not skip any generations are falsifiable. Instead, indications are that selective genealogies are fairly common in the Old Testament. Of course, none of this proves that the pre- and post-flood genealogies are selective genealogies. However, evidence from ancient Near Eastern chronology strongly suggests that they are. Extrabiblical historical records establish quite well that a flood such as described in Genesis 7-8 cannot have taken place around 2543 BC as Tanner would hold.[35] Such a flood would require a complete eradication of Egyptian culture in the middle of the Sixth Dynasty during the Old Kingdom period and a simultaneous rebirth of it almost immediately following the flood. In addition, this would place the flood in the middle of the early dynastic period of Sumer and require a similar instant resurrection of that culture.

In order to argue that Genesis 5 and 11 present complete genealogies, one must offer a convincing alternate interpretation of the Egyptian and Sumerian evidence. As far as I know, none is forthcoming. The evidence suggests none will be. It is far more in keeping with the data—both biblical and extrabiblical—to hold that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies are selective and that many generations are missing from them. For instance, if there is only one gap of a dozen generations in the post-flood genealogies, one might have 654 years unmentioned.[36] If there are multiple gaps, the total could be much higher. In a similar fashion, if there is only one gap of twelve generations in the pre-flood genealogy, 1,872 years could be unmentioned.[37]

Sexton recognizes this problem for the complete genealogy theory and seeks to preclude it by arguing for the larger numbers given in the Septuagint tradition.[38] This allows him to place the flood at 3298 BC, in the pre-dynastic era of ancient Egypt and in the Uruk period in Sumer. This in reality does nothing to solve the problem, since it still requires the destruction of thriving societies and their nearly instantaneous revival after the flood.

However, there are further problems with advocating for the Septuagint tradition in Genesis 5 and 11. One of Sexton’s arguments is that there was a tendency to reduce numbers during the transmission of texts, making the lower numbers in the Masoretic tradition secondary. However, this is only a tendency, and Sexton offers little proof that the numbers in Genesis 5 were reduced to produce the sequence found in the Masoretic Text. In fact, examination of the data in the Septuagint of Genesis 5 suggests that many of the numbers were inflated in the Septuagint tradition by adding 100 years to the begetting ages. Often—but not always—the Septuagint tradition compensated by subtracting 100 years from the remaining lives of the pre-flood patriarchs. This pattern of inflation and compensation is repeated in Genesis 11.

For the sake of argument assuming that there are no gaps in the Genesis 5 genealogy, the inflated Septuagint numbers place Methuselah’s death 2,256 years after creation but place the flood only 2,242 years after creation. This discrepancy is not found in the Masoretic tradition, which places Methuselah’s death 1,656 years after creation, the same year as the flood. This was already noted by Sarfati, a complete-genealogy advocate, who states, “The Septuagint chronologies are demonstrably inflated, as they contain the (obvious) error that Methuselah lived 14 years after the Flood.”[39] It also should be noted that the Samaritan Pentateuch tradition can likewise be dismissed, but this time for deflating the Masoretic tradition’s numbers in Genesis 5 and thereby implausibly placing the death of three pre-flood patriarchs—Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech—in the year of the flood.

One potential advantage of following the Septuagint involves the presence of Cainan in the Septuagint genealogy of Genesis 11. The inclusion of Cainan allows the flood to be dated 130 years earlier than if Cainan is not included. The 130 years is significant, since a flood 130 years later (i.e., 3168 BC) is only two or three centuries before the founding of the first dynasty of united Egypt, making that date for the flood virtually impossible. It would require the cessation and near-instant revival of a lively late pre-dynastic culture in the separate kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt. Unfortunately for Sexton, Sarfati has demonstrated that Cainan is likely an addition to the text in the Septuagint, not a deletion in the Masoretic text.[40]

• Cainan appears in the genealogy of Jesus in many manuscripts at Luke 3:36 and in many Septuagint manuscripts at Genesis 11:12. In these genealogies he is the son of Arphaxad and father of Shelah. However, Sarfati argues convincingly that Cainan was not in the original of either Luke 3:36 or Septuagint Genesis 11:12. He notes the following:
• Cainan is found only in Septuagint manuscripts of Genesis 11:12 that were written long after Luke. The oldest Septuagint manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text that Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, with no mention of Cainan.

The earliest extant copy of Luke, P75, Papyrus Bodmer (AD 175-225), does not list Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah. It could also be noted that Cainan does not appear at Luke 3:36 in the fifth-century Codex Bezae (D).

• Josephus’s data for the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 generally agree with the Septuagint, but he has no mention of Cainan.[41]
• Julius Africanus, the first Christian known to have attempted a complete world chronology (c. AD 220), agrees with the Septuagint genealogical data but has no mention of Cainan.

To this evidence we might add that the Samaritan Pentateuch follows the Septuagint’s begetting ages in the Genesis 11 chronology exactly, yet it also has no mention of Cainan.

Sarfati offers a plausible mechanism to explain how Cainan came to be inserted at both Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12. A copyist of Luke accidentally transferred the name from Luke 3:37 to Luke 3:36, producing two Cainans, one before the flood (as in all traditions of Genesis 5:9-13; “Kenan” in English translations) and one after the flood between Arphaxad and Shelah. Later Septuagint manuscripts were then adjusted by adding Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah and assigning him the same ages as Shelah (130 years at begetting, 330 more years of life; Septuagint Gen. 11:14-15).

Therefore, the evidence contradicts Sexton’s contention that the Septuagint contains better genealogical data than the Masoretic tradition. Instead, the evidence suggests that the Masoretic tradition is superior to that of either the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch.

A “Straightforward Reading” Of The Genesis 5 And 11 Genealogies

A frequent contention of complete-genealogy advocates is that their reading of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies is “straightforward” and self-evident. They say that reading the genealogies as selective is counter-intuitive and therefore mistaken.[42] White builds on this by arguing that since the author totals the ages of the patriarchs in the Genesis 5 genealogy (begetting year + years after begetting) to yield an age at death, the author clearly wanted readers to total the years since the creation of the world.[43] However, this is a non sequitur—summing the patriarchs’ ages does not mean that the author also intended readers to calculate the age of the earth. He may have listed only the totals for the ages of the patriarchs and not the age of the world because he wanted the reader to understand that one could be summed, but the other could not.

Problems abound in arguing for a “straightforward” reading of a text, since what is considered to be a self-evident reading is often a reading without consideration of relevant contextual or extra-textual factors. In this case, Sexton lists interpreters from pre-Christian antiquity through the Reformation era who read the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies as having no gaps and who used them for chronological purposes.[44] However, this raises the question: Would any of these interpreters have reconsidered their approach to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies had they been aware of the evidence for ancient Egyptian and Sumerian chronology as we are? Of course, it is impossible to say, but it is also possible to think that some of them, perhaps many or all of them, would have reconsidered their interpretive assumptions about the Genesis genealogies.

In addition, there are two places where the “straightforward” readings of Genesis 5 and 11 fail the complete genealogy advocates:

וַיְהִי־נֹחַ בֶּן־חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ אֶת־שֵׁם אֶת־חָם וְאֶת־יָפֶת׃

Noah was 500 years old, and he fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 5:32).

וַיְחִי־תֶרַח שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת־אַבְרָם אֶת־נָחוֹר וְאֶת־הָרָן׃

Terah lived 70 years and fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gen. 11:26).

With both of these verses a “straightforward reading” would suggest that both Noah and Terah fathered triplets. However, a closer reading of Genesis reveals otherwise.

Genesis 11:10 tells us that two years after the flood Shem begat Arphaxad at the age of 100 years. Noah was 600 when the flood began (Gen. 7:6), making him 602 when Arphaxad was begotten, and placing Shem’s birth when Noah was 502 years old, not 500 years old. This implies that at least one of Shem’s brothers was born when Noah was 500. However, Shem, who at Genesis 5:32 appears to have been born when Noah was 500, was not born that year.[45] A straightforward reading might also suggest that Shem was the oldest brother, since he is listed first. However, he clearly is not the oldest of Noah’s three children.

Likewise, Abram was not born when Terah was 70 years old, as a straightforward reading of Genesis 11:26 might suggest. Genesis 12:4 notes that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and this occurred after Terah died at the age of 205 years (Gen. 11:32; cf. Acts 7:4). Terah was actually 130 years old when Abram was born (205-75 = 130). This again implies that at least one of Abram’s brothers was born when Terah was 70 years old, but Abram was not born that year. Abram is listed first, even though he is not the oldest brother as a straightforward reading might again suggest.

This should give anyone pause about advocating a straightforward reading of the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, in light of the extrabiblical evidence from Egyptian and Sumerian chronology, the biblical evidence that Hiphil verbs from the root ילד do not necessarily denote direct begetting, and the fact that many, if not most, Old Testament genealogies are selective genealogies.

Conclusion

A careful look at the major arguments adduced by no-gap advocates demonstrates that all of them are falsifiable. Instead, the modern consensus among evangelical scholars that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are selective is a more plausible reading. This does not, however, require an old earth that is millions or billions of years old. Instead, it simply argues that the earth is older than the 6,000 years that can be obtained by a simple arithmetic calculation based on the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

Notes

1. Travis R. Freeman, “A New Look at the Genesis 5 and 11 Fluidity Problem,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42 (2004): 259-86, republished as Rick Freeman, “Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps?,” https://answersingenesis.org/bib-le-timeline/genealogy/do-the-genesis-genalogies-contain-gaps/, accessed March 16, 2016; Jonathan Sarfati, “Biblical Chronogenealogies,” Journal of Creation 17 (December 2003): 14-18, republished at http://creation.com/biblical-chronogenealogies, accessed March 16, 2016; Larry Pierce and Ken Ham, “Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?” in The New Answers Book 2: Over 30 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible, ed. Ken Ham (Green Forest: Master Books, 2008), 173-82, republished as “Chapter 5: Are There Gaps in the Genesis Genealogies?,” https://answersingenesis.org/anwers/books/new-answers/book-2/gaps-in-the-genesis-genealogies/, posted April 8, 2010, accessed March 16, 2016; Jeremy Sexton, “Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90? A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green’s Chronological Gaps,” Westminster Theological Journal 77 (2015): 193-218; J. Paul Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology and Its Implications for the Creation and Flood Accounts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172 (2015): 24-44; Bernard White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11: A Close Look at the Chronogenealogies,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53 (2015): 253-77. For an older article, see Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, ” Origins 7 (1980): 53-70, republished at http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/hasel.htm, accessed March 16, 2016. When online versions are available, they will be referenced in this article, since these are the most readily accessible versions. Tanner helpfully lists the following evangelical scholars who believe that the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies must contain gaps: Derek Kidner, Victor Hamilton, Bruce Waltke, Kenneth Mathews, and Eugene Merrill (Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 25 n. 5). Sexton adds Walter Kaiser (Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 194).
2. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 44; Hasel, “The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies,” chart C, gives the dates 2462 BC for the flood and 4118 BC for creation if one follows Masoretic Text.
3. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 26.
4. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 133; see Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 26-27.
5. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 32.
6. Pierce and Ham, “Chapter 5: Are There Gaps,” point 3 under the heading “Missing Generations?”
7. Pierce and Ham, “Chapter 5: Are There Gaps,” under the heading “Two Keys to Consider.”
8. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible (2017).
9. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 31.
10. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary 13 (Waco, ΤΧ: Word, 1985), 295; R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1 & 2 Kings,” in The New Interpreter’s Biblical Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 275; D. J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1993), 288; Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 2:537; John H. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1−39, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 697; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 486.
11. Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 141. The notation is that proposed by Rodger Young, “When Did Jerusalem Fall,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47 (2004): 21-38. A year followed by t is an autumnal year that began in the month of Tishri and ran through the month of Elul. Thus, 709t began in Tishri 709 BC and ended in Elul 708 BC.
12. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, 147.
13. Louis Ginsberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909-1938), 4:326; 6:415; see also the discussion in Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2008), 90-91.
14. Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 201, emphasis added.
15. Ibid., 206.
16. Ibid., 206-7.
17. On the causative force of the D stem, see Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 396-400, §24.1.
18. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 31.
19. White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11, ” 263.
20. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 30.
21. Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 202, quoting Smith Bartlett Goodenow, “Primeval Man,“ Bibliotheca Sacra 51 (1894): 297.
22. Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 202.
23. Similar patterns are found in the Septuagint tradition. The pre-flood average is 214.2 years with a median age of 179.0 years. The post-flood average is 117.0 years with a median age of 130.0 years.
24. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 31.
25. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 31; see Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, New American Commentary 1A (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 303.
26. The only difference is that the name Salmon at Ruth 4:20-21 is Salma in 1 Chronicles 2:11.
27. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, 78-79.
28. Ibid., 115-23.
29. Both Tanner and I accept 1446 BC as the date of the exodus. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, 45-65; Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 36.
30. Freeman, “Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps,” under the heading “The Chronological Genealogy View.”
31. Pierce and Ham, “Chapter 5: Are There Gaps,” under the heading “Two Keys to Consider.”
32. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 44.
33. Tanner, “Old Testament Chronology,” 33. Note also the similar argument in White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11, ” 264-66.
34. Steinmann, Ezra and Nehemiah, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2010), 286-87. This is based on the supposition that Ezra likely was less than 50 years old when he came to Jerusalem in 458 BC. See the discussion of the date of Ezra’s mission to Jerusalem in Steinmann, Ezra and Nehemiah, 40-48; Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul, 195-209.
35. On this see the brief but well-written discussion of the hard evidence for ancient Egyptian chronology by Mark A. Snoeberger, “Why a Commitment to Inerrancy Does Not Demand a Strictly 6000-Year-Old Earth: One Young Earther’s Plea for Realism,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 18 (2013): 13-17.
36. The average age of a father at the birth of his son in the post-flood genealogy of Genesis 11 is 54 years old (54 x 12 = 654).
37. The average age of a father at the birth of his son in the pre-flood genealogy of Genesis 5 is 156 years old (156 x 12 = 1,872).
38. Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 210-18.
39. Sarfati, “Biblical Chronogenealogies,” under the heading “Which Text Should Be used?”
40. Sarfati, “Biblical Chronogenealogies,” under the heading “Is Cainan a Gap?”
41. Josephus differs from the Septuagint in three places concerning the ages at which a man begat his descendant: he gives Lamech 182 years (in agreement with the Masoretic Text, and contrary to the Septuagint’s 187 years); inverts the ages of Reu (132 years in Septuagint) and Serug (130 years in Septuagint); and gives Nahor 120 years (contrary to Septuagint’s 79 years). In addition, Josephus omits the begetting ages for Noah and Shem.
42. Sarfati, “Biblical Chronogenealogies,” under the heading “Summary”; Pierce and Ham, “Are There Gaps,” paragraph five; Freeman, “Do the Genesis Genealogies Contain Gaps?” under the heading “Introduction.”
43. White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11, ” 268−69.
44. Sexton, “Who Was Born,” 193-94.
45. This is completely overlooked by White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11, ” 267−68, when he argues that the evidence suggests that the author of Genesis intended for the data in the genealogies to be totaled to yield a chronology. Clearly, this is wrong, since totaling the genealogical data misses the fact that Shem was not born when Noah was 500 years old, as the genealogy might seem to suggest.