Curse Redux? 1 Corinthians 5:13, Deuteronomy, And Identity In Corinth

By Guy Prentiss Waters

[Guy Prentiss Waters is the James M. Baird Jr. Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS.]

At first glance, 1 Cor 5:1–13 seems to have little to do either with Scripture or identity formation. For one thing, the chapter lacks a citation formula of any kind.[1] Furthermore, the “two-fold” “problem” of a heinous and public instance of πορνεία (v. 1) and of the Corinthian community’s response to this circumstance (v. 2) dominates this chapter.[2] Such concerns seem far-removed from the project of identity confirmation.[3]

On further consideration, however, this portion of Paul’s letter evidences not only an example of Paul’s sophisticated engagement with Scripture, but also illustrates the way in which Paul was engaged in confirming the Christian identity of believers in Corinth. These two concerns, far from running in parallel and non-intersecting lines in 1 Cor 5, are intersecting, even mutually reinforcing. In this chapter, “Paul employs Scripture to foster the conversion of the imagination.”[4] This apostolic objective, furthermore, far from lying at the periphery of the argument in 1 Cor 5, sits comfortably at its center.

We will undertake to demonstrate this point along three lines. First, we will observe that in v. 13, the conclusion to Paul’s argument, he is explicitly referencing an “expulsion formula” drawn from LXX Deuteronomy.[5] Carefully following the work of both Brian S. Rosner and Richard B. Hays along these lines, we will explore the purposes for which Paul has so engaged this portion of Scripture.[6]

Second, we will address a problem posed by Rosner’s and Hays’s work but unaddressed by it. To be sure, Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy is indicative of Paul’s conviction that “his Gentile Corinthian readers” have “been taken up into Israel in such a way that they now share in Israel’s covenant privileges and obligations.”[7] This citation is furthermore indicative of Paul’s conviction that the immoral offender was guilty of “covenant disloyalty.”[8] But, given Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ death as eschatologically curse-bearing (Gal 3:13; cf. 1 Cor 5:7b), what does it mean that an individual is to be removed from the eschatological community (10:11b, εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν) on behalf of which Jesus bore covenant and eschatological curse? In light of Paul’s understanding of all that had transpired in redemptive history, how are we to understand this individual’s transfer back into the realm of curse?

Third, we will argue that in v. 5, recognized by many to stand in close relationship with v. 13, Paul provides an answer to this complex of questions.[9] Verse 5 answers these questions not directly but indirectly. Here Paul is forming the Corinthians’ eschatological sensibilities.[10] He is providing an answer to the question, What is the significance and import of the removal of an offender from the eschatological covenant community? More broadly, he is helping the Corinthians to understand what it means to live, as that eschatological covenant community, between the death and resurrection of Christ and what Paul calls in v. 5 “the day of the Lord” (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου).

I. Verse 13—Deuteronomic Exkommunikationsformel

Such recent critical editions of the GNT as NA28 and UBS4 acknowledge a precise verbal correspondence between Paul’s words in 1 Cor 5:13b and LXX Deut 17:7. Scholars recognize that other Deuteronomic texts correspond verbally to those of Paul in v. 13b.[11] At least six texts have been proposed as candidates: LXX Deut 17:7 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 19:19 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 21:21 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 22:21 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), 22:24 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν), and 24:7 (ἐξαρεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν).[12] Within Deuteronomy, a variant of this phrase appears in LXX Deut 13:6 (ἀφανιεῖς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν).

Two observations emerge from a consideration of these six Deuteronomic texts. First, each is identical to the other; there are no variations of word choice, word order, number, or tense. Second, with respect to these particular phrases, the LXX manuscript tradition is remarkably stable.[13]

With the exception of a contextually mandated change of number (ἐξάρατε), 1 Cor 5:13c (ἐξάρατε τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν) is verbally identical with these six Deuteronomic commands.[14] Notwithstanding the absence of an introductory citation formula, Rosner has convincingly argued that v. 13c is a citation and not merely an “allusion” or “parallel.”[15] Both the precision of the verbal correspondence, and the fact that the Greek verb ἐξαίρω “is a New Testament hapax legomenon” commend this verse as “Paul’s intentional and explicit use of the formula from Deuteronomy.”[16]

To recognize this relationship raises two further questions. First, how widely has Paul cast his net within Deuteronomy? Is he engaging one, some, or all of these texts? Second, for what purpose(s) has Paul chosen this particular Deuteronomic text at this important, concluding juncture of his argument?

First, which of these six Deuteronomic texts is Paul referencing in 1 Cor 5:13c? One way to answer this question is by comparing the Deuteronomic contexts of each of these imperatives with the Pauline context of v. 13c. Two of the Deuteronomic imperatives (22:21; 22:24) entail the expulsion of a sexual offender from the community of Israel, and it is precisely such an offense that is in view in 1 Cor 5.[17] A further clue emerges from the offender’s sin that Paul specifies in v. 1.[18] This instance of πορνεία is one in which γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν (v. 1). Commentators have noted several Pentateuchal texts that verbally approximate Paul’s words in 1 Cor 5:1, indicating that these texts have informed Paul’s moral assessment of this situation in Corinth—Lev 18:18; 20:11; Deut 22:30 (=LXX 23:1), 27:20.[19] As Rosner has noted, these two Deuteronomic references are especially compelling.[20] The Deuteronomic prohibition (Deut 22:30; cf. 1 Cor 5:1) is contextually proximate to the Deuteronomic imperatives to expel the offender (Deut 22:21; 22:24; cf. 1 Cor 5:13c). The offense in view, furthermore, subjects one to “curse” (Deut 27:20); this is “perhaps the reason Paul ‘curses’ the sinner in 1 Corinthians 5.”[21]

Thus, it appears that Paul in this chapter is certainly engaging texts in Deut 22, and perhaps Deut 27:20. That Paul is not merely engaging this one chapter is evident from his vice list in v. 11 (πόρνος ἢ πλεονέκτης ἢ εἰδωλολάτρης ἢ λοίδορος ἢ μέθυσος ἢ ἅρπαξ).[22] This list is important for our consideration of the Scripture text cited in v. 13c. Five of these vices not only find a parallel in Deuteronomy, but also, according to Deuteronomy, “warrant exclusion” from the covenant community.[23] Fornication corresponds to Deut 22:20–22, 30. While greed has “no parallel” in Deuteronomy, it is “paired with ‘robbers’ in 1 Cor 5:9.”[24] Greed may find conceptual pairing, then, with the final item in this list, theft, which corresponds to Deut 24:7. Idolatry corresponds to Deut 17:2–7. Reviling corresponds to Deut 19:15–19. Drunkenness corresponds to Deut 21:20–21.

Whether or not Paul has crafted his vice list both to echo the argumentative structure of this portion of the epistle and to “follow the canonical order of [these vices’] occurrence in Deuteronomy,” two matters are clear.[25] First, Paul signals in v. 11 what we have argued is evident on other grounds—that Paul is self-consciously citing Deuteronomy in v. 13c.[26] Second, and perhaps more importantly, v. 11 indicates that Paul’s engagement of Deuteronomy in this chapter is not confined to an isolated verse. Paul’s argument is thick with Deuteronomic references that bear out the apostle’s sustained engagement with that book of Scripture throughout 1 Cor 5 (vv. 5:1, 11, 13). This is not necessarily to deny the presence in this chapter of other influences from elsewhere within Scripture, or even from outside Scripture. It is to say that the form of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5 compels us to reflect further on what ways Deuteronomy has provided Paul both the vocabulary and categories with which he reasons in this chapter.

Our second and final question is, For what purpose(s) has Paul chosen these particular Deuteronomic texts at the important, concluding juncture of his argument (v. 13c)? To put the question another way in light of our conclusions above, Why are the Deuteronomic expulsion texts important to Paul in 1 Cor 5? As both Rosner and Hays have observed, Paul’s argument surely assumes an identity between Israel and the Corinthian church as covenant community.[27] Paul will formally articulate this identity in 1 Cor 10, but it is palpably present already in 1 Cor 5. Paul here is transferring elements of Israel’s identity to that of the Corinthian church. Like Israel, these Gentile believers are in covenant with God, under obligation to God to pursue holiness, and subject to exclusion from the covenant community for gross and scandalous immoral behavior.

That Paul is reflecting along these lines is corroborated by the way in which he addresses the situation in Corinth. The occasion for Paul’s argument, to be sure, is the behavior of a single Corinthian offender (v.1, τινα; v. 2, ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας; v. 3, τὸν οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενον). At the same time, Paul’s interest in the matter is broader than either a single person or even a single offense.[28] This fact is apparent from the movement in this chapter from specificity to generality. Paul speaks in v. 5 of handing over to Satan “such a one” (τοιοῦτον). Paul warns the Corinthians not to associate with “immoral people” (πόρνοις), before broadening this list to include the greedy, thieves, and idolaters (v. 10), that is, “anyone who is called a brother” (ἐάν τις ἀδελφὸς ὀνομαζόμενος) and nevertheless is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard, or a thief (v. 11). The closing imperative of v. 13, therefore, can be restricted neither to this particular offender nor to this particular class of sexual offenders. It applies to a whole range of persons and offenses within the community. That Paul has this concern for the Corinthian community as a whole corroborates our findings above: Paul identifies the church in Corinth with Israel—God’s covenant people called not only to maintain certain moral standards but also to expel notorious violators of the same.

II. Curse Redux?

This identification between Israel and the Corinthian community, however, raises a problem. We may begin to understand the problem by considering what the import was, according to Deuteronomy, of community expulsion. As Deut 27:20 indicates, the offense of 1 Cor 5:1 was one that not only subjected the offender to community removal (as Deut 22:21) but also to covenant “curse.” In this instance, to be removed from the community meant to be placed outside the realm within which divine blessing was operative, and to be consigned to the realm of covenantal curse.

In light of the identity that Paul has established between Israel and the Corinthian community in 1 Cor 5, we are bound to understand the removal of the Corinthian offender along the same lines. This particular removal entails placement under covenant curse. Given Paul’s categorical application of the Deuteronomic covenant-removal formula to a wide range of offenses, one may conclude that to be removed from the New Covenant community in the fashion delineated in 1 Cor 5 is to be consigned to covenant curse.

Paul’s own argument in 1 Cor 5, perhaps unintentionally, raises a significant problem in connection with this line of reasoning. In v. 6a, Paul admonishes the Corinthians for their “boasting” (καύχημα).[29] He warns them in v. 6b using either “a maxim or proverb” or “a standard metaphor”—that of a little leaven leavening the whole lump.[30] In light of this state of affairs, Paul exhorts the community in v. 7a to “cleanse out the old leaven, in order that you may be a new lump, just as you are unleavened.” This command evokes the Feast of Unleavened Bread which, in turn, naturally evokes the immediately preceding Feast of Passover (Exod 12:18–20; 13:7).[31]

It is Passover that Paul explicitly evokes in v. 7b (γὰρ τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτύθη Χριστός). In the context of Paul’s argument, Christ as Passover provides a further ground for the preceding imperative.[32] Paul’s immediate interest in conjoining Christ and Passover is in the promotion of the moral purification of the Corinthian community.[33] Paul does so in the way in which he represents Christ as the Passover sacrifice, as the verb ἐτύθη surely indicates (cf. LXX Exod 12:22). Associating the death of Christ on the cross with the Passover lamb in this fashion introduces at this juncture not only the “idea” of “sacrifice,” but also of “covenant” (cf. 11:25, τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι).[34] Paul therefore once again identifies the Corinthian Christians with the covenant community, Israel, and here relates Christ to the Passover sacrifice as antitype to type.[35] That Paul is reasoning typologically is evident not only from the way in which other NT writers reason similarly concerning the Passover (cf. John 1:29; Mark 14:24), but also from the immediate context of Paul’s argument. Paul’s statement about Christ as Passover sacrifice logically grounds the prior exhortation to “cleanse out the old [παλαιάν] leaven, in order that you may be a new [νέον] lump, just as you are unleavened” (5:7a). The contrast between “old” and “new,” as R. A. Harrisville has persuasively argued, is decidedly an eschatological contrast of aeonic proportions.[36] The “newness” of the community is on the order of the “new creation” that the Corinthian Christians are in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; cf. Gal 6:15).[37] Also telling is the way in which Paul prefaces the command to remove the “old leaven” in the preceding verse with an admonition regarding the Corinthians’ “boasting” (καύχημα). Boasting, as Paul has earlier argued, is characteristic of “flesh” (πᾶσα σάρξ, 1:29; cf. 3:1–3), that is, of sinful human existence in this present age (cf. 1:20, 21; 2:6). This caution regarding boasting in v. 6, then, provides an eschatological context for Paul’s command in v. 7 to “cleanse out the old leaven.”

Christ is, therefore, the eschatological Passover sacrifice. Using the possessive pronoun ἡμῶν, Paul emphasizes that this sacrifice has particular reference to the Corinthian community. Paul later in this epistle speaks of Christ’s death as “for our sins” (15:3, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν), whether or not this particular dimension of Christ’s death is in the foreground in 1 Cor 5:7.[38] In any case, Paul understands Christ’s death here in 1 Cor 5:7 as redemptive, analogous to the redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt, and as having particular reference to the Corinthian community.

In another epistle, Paul speaks of Christ’s death as redemptive, and proceeds to specify that redemption in terms of curse-removal; see Gal 3:13a, Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα. Time prevents us from exploring all the exegetical questions occasioned by this statement, but we may draw a few observations pertinent to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5.[39] First, Paul speaks of his hearers as having previously been under “the curse of the law.” Second, Christ has “redeemed” them from that curse, and has done so by “becoming a curse on our behalf.” Third, as Paul goes on to say in Gal 3:13b, Christ did so precisely in accordance with the Mosaic Law itself (ὅτι γέγραπται‚ ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου). The passage that Paul cites is Deut 21:23. Christ has borne, and believers have been redeemed from, Deuteronomic curse.

We are now in a position to appreciate the problem that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5 brings to the surface. The Corinthian community is one that is said to have been redeemed from Deuteronomic curse. This redemption is owing to the eschatological Passover-sacrificial death of Christ. Paul, in v. 13, however, invokes a Deuteronomic excommunication formula to remove an offender from the Corinthian community. The effect of this removal is to relegate the individual to the realm of “curse.” What are we to make of an individual who once was included within the community said to have been redeemed from curse and who now, by apostolic injunction no less, is consigned to “curse”? In light of the accomplished, eschatological, curse-bearing death of Christ for the community of believers, how are we to explain this apparently anomalous state of affairs? Furthermore, if removal from the (pre-eschatological) Israelite community meant death, then what does removal from the eschatological community entail for the offender?[40] Does Paul provide us any guidance in answering this question?

III. Another Look At Verse 5

Paul in fact does provide such guidance in v. 5. Although it does not verbally cite or allude to Deuteronomy, v. 5 constitutes what Grosheide has properly called “de geestelijke achtergrond” (“the spiritual background”) of Paul’s Deuteronomic command in v. 13.[41] Paul’s statements in v. 5, then, provide unique insight into and are integrally related to Paul’s engagement of Deuteronomy in this chapter.

The immediate context of v. 5 is a profoundly eschatological one. Leaving aside consideration of the question whether the phrase “with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ” (σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, v. 4) modifies the preceding genitive absolute (“when you are gathered together”) or the following infinitive (“hand over”),[42] we may note that the Lord Jesus’ “power” in this connection is none other than the power of the Holy Spirit, so 2 Cor 13:4: καὶ γὰρ ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ.[43] This power of the Holy Spirit is, in the Corinthian correspondence, an eschatological power. Upon his resurrection, Paul later argues, Jesus assumed a “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν, 1 Cor 15:44a), that is, a body indwelt, inhabited, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Jesus, furthermore, as “last Adam” became “life giving Spirit” (ἐγένετο εἰς πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν, 15:45b), such that “the Lord is the Spirit” (ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 2 Cor 3:17).[44] Whether qualifying the assembly or the assembly’s action in expelling the offender, the phrase “the power of the Lord Jesus Christ” indicates that Paul understands this ecclesiastical removal (and others of like kind, v. 11) in eschatological terms.

Paul’s statements in v. 5, then, are both integrally tied by way of v. 13 to the broader pattern of engagement with Deuteronomy in 1 Cor 5, and situated in an eschatological context. They are therefore well positioned to answer the questions we have posed above regarding the “curse” to which the offender is assigned. In the interests of answering those questions, we will take up in succession three matters relating to the interpretation of v. 5: (1) the meaning of “flesh” (σάρξ) and “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα) in v. 5 and the related question of the meaning of “body” (σῶμα) and “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα) in v. 3; (2) the meaning of the phrase “handing over such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (v. 5a); and (3) the meaning of the phrase “in order that [his/the] S/spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord” (v. 5b).

First, what is the meaning of “flesh” and “S/spirit” in v. 5? There are at least three positions represented in the literature.[45] There is, first, an anthropological understanding of these two terms. “Flesh” and “spirit” correspond to the corporeal and non-corporeal dimensions or parts of the human person, the “physical flesh” and “human spirit,” respectively.[46] On this reading the “flesh” and “spirit” in view in v. 5 are those of the offender. The “destruction” is of his corporeal humanity; correspondingly, the “salvation” is of his soul, his inner self. The problem with this view is two-fold. First, this reading of “flesh” and “spirit” must supply an implied possessive (“his”) that is not present in the Greek text. That Paul does not so qualify these two nouns suggests an alternative interpretation. Second, this reading may suggest that Paul understands eschatological salvation (“on the day of the Lord,” v. 5b) to be non-corporeal in nature, an impossible proposition in view of what Paul will go on to say about the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15.[47]

A second understanding of these two terms is ecclesiological. The “flesh” and “spirit” refer, in the first instance, to the church in Corinth.[48] “Flesh” then refers to “the fleshly orientation of the church, absorbed as it is by boasting,” whereas “Spirit” is the “Holy Spirit resident in the community of faith.”[49] The absence of any possessive pronoun modifying either noun renders this view plausible. It is, nevertheless, unlikely. First, it is unclear from the text precisely how the removal of the offender will produce the desired result, “the destruction of the flesh,” that is, according to one proponent, the destruction of “the church’s sinful attitude.”[50] Second, there is the affirmation, otherwise unprecedented in Paul, that the Spirit himself will be “saved” on the Day of the Lord. Even understanding this statement in terms of the Spirit’s willingness to remain in the community and thus “keep them for the day of the Lord” does not alleviate this difficulty.[51]

A third and compelling understanding of these two terms is eschatological. The “flesh” and “Spirit” refer, in the first instance, to the two orders characterized by sin, curse, and death, on the one hand, and righteousness, blessing, and life, on the other.[52] Each corresponds to the First and Last Adams, respectively (cf. 1 Cor 15:22). When Paul pairs these two terms, they customarily bear this eschatological sense.

Paul therefore does not engage in the anthropological compartmentalization of the offender in v. 5. On the contrary, he describes the offender in relation to each of these orders.[53] As Murphy-O’Connor has aptly paraphrased, the two terms speak of “the whole person as viewed from different angles. ‘Spirit’ means the whole person as oriented towards God. ‘Flesh’ means the whole person as oriented away from God.”[54] The “destruction” and “salvation” that Paul describes therefore have reference to the one individual with respect to these aforementioned dimensions of “flesh” and “Spirit.”

One objection to this view stems from Paul’s terminology in vv. 3–4. In v. 3, Paul describes himself as one who is “absent in the body, but present in S/spirit” (ἀπὼν τῷ σώματι παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι). In v. 4, Paul mentions the presence of “my S/spirit” (τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος) in the Corinthian assembly.[55] Does this terminology not require the kind of anthropological reading of v. 5 that we have above rejected? In fact, although Paul is speaking personally, he is not speaking dualistically. In v. 3, Paul is stressing that he is physically absent from the Corinthians, but he is very much present among them in and by the Holy Spirit, who, Paul argues in 1 Cor 6, 10, and 12, indwells each believer, unites each believer to Christ, and brings these believers into relationship and communion one with another.[56] That Paul, in the very next clause, references the Spirit (“with the power of our Lord Jesus”) only confirms this reading.

Given this understanding of “flesh” and “Spirit” in v. 5, what does Paul have in mind by “handing over [the offender] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh”? The clause “for the destruction of the flesh” likely expresses the purpose of the “handing over to Satan.”[57] The “handing over to Satan” is undoubtedly Paul’s explanation of the significance of the removal of the offender from the Corinthian community. What does this particular expression communicate? The verb παραδίδωμι is one that Paul elsewhere uses of God’s judicially giving over sinners to further sin (Rom 1:24, 26, 28), and of God’s giving over Jesus to death on the cross (1 Cor 11:23; Rom 4:25; 8:32).[58] “Satan” is, Paul writes, the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). To “hand over to Satan” is, in this context, to commit a person to the realm of Satan.

Some interpreters believe that committal to this realm necessarily entails not only the physical suffering but also the death of the one so committed.[59] It has also been argued that this death follows upon the “pronouncement of a curse upon the offender.”[60] Some appeal to Greco-Roman and Jewish magical “curse formulae” as providing background and lending support to this interpretation.[61] At least one interpreter has argued that the curses of Deut 27 are being invoked with the purpose or result of the death of the expelled offender.[62]

At first glance, the phrase “for the destruction of the flesh” may seem to commend this interpretation. Paul emphasizes, however, that what is destroyed is “flesh” (σάρξ). In view is not the offender’s corporeality so much as his participation and involvement in sin.[63] Paul indicates that Satan is the instrument of this destruction (ὄλεθρον; cf. 10:10). Paul does not specify the mechanism or method by which Satan brings to pass this “destruction of the flesh.” It may or may not involve physical suffering, as the conceptual parallel in 2 Cor 12:7 may suggest. It certainly seems to be corrective or instructive, as the verbal parallel in 1 Tim 1:20 indicates (οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν).[64]

That such “destruction of the flesh” is indeed a “remedial process” is also evident from the concluding part of Paul’s statement in 5:5b, ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ κυρίου.[65] In an admittedly difficult locution, but one that deftly expresses the eschatological contrast with “the destruction of the flesh,” Paul stresses that the ultimate purpose of handing over this individual to Satan is his salvation.[66] Paul desires that, on the Day of the Lord, this individual will be found among the number of the saved, who will be presented “blameless” on that day (1:8).[67] That day, which Paul elsewhere emphasizes is a day of ultimate judgment (4:5) and of divine wrath (Rom 2:5, 8), has not yet occurred. The position of the offender is a dire one. He is to be excluded from the eschatological community, and is no longer reckoned among the number of those for whom the crucified and risen Christ has borne curse in judgment. He is to be formally expelled through formulations drawn from the Deuteronomic curses. He will be “outside the edifying and caring environment of the church where God is at work.”[68 ]Even so, the position of the offender is not a hopeless one. His expulsion from the community is not designed to be an act of final, eschatological judgment. That judgment awaits the “Day of the Lord.” And it may be that the offender, upon repentance, will find himself among those who are “saved” on that day.[69]

IV. Conclusions

At one level, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 5:1–13 is remarkably straightforward—a notorious and scandalous moral offender must be put out of the Corinthian community. Two factors contribute to the complexity of the argument. First, presupposing the identity of the Corinthian community with Israel, Paul proceeds to frame not only the offense (and other offenses) in Deuteronomic terms, but also the requisite sanction. Second, Paul’s argument is thoroughly eschatological, not least in his description of Christ as a typological Passover sacrifice.

These two factors raise a host of questions relating to this expulsion. What are we to make of an individual, once included in the community belonging to Christ who has borne “curse” for his people, now to be removed from that community into the domain of curse? Does Paul understand the execution of the sentence of exclusion to entail the death of the offender?

Paul’s argument in v. 5 provides an eschatological answer to these eschatological questions. The offender is indeed being committed to the realm of sin, curse, and Satan. This committal may, but need not, entail his temporal death. Its proximate purpose is that he would be delivered from the dominion of the “flesh” (σάρξ), and that, on the Day of the Lord, the day of final, eschatological judgment, “the Spirit might be saved,” that is, that he, as an individual, might be found to be saved—one whose life exhibited the holiness befitting one indwelt by the Spirit of the risen Christ.

Paul understands the Deuteronomic curses to have found their typological fulfillment in the cursing of Christ at the cross. This likely goes some distance to explain why Paul does not insist on the temporal penalties that would have accompanied the execution of these curses in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, Paul goes out of his way to pronounce the expulsion in clear Deuteronomic terms. Why does he do this within the eschatological community? Paul will develop the answer in 1 Cor 10—like Israel of old (“our fathers,” 10:1), the church is a wilderness community, having been redeemed from bondage in Egypt, but not yet having arrived in the Promised Land. As the offender of v. 1 and the community’s response to him (vv. 2, 6) indicate, the Christian community is incompletely sanctified, and is presently in a place of danger and threat. The prospect of expulsion from the community (v. 13) and its remedial purposes (v. 5) are necessary components of this mode of eschatological existence. These are hardly the sole or even primary weapons in the apostle’s arsenal. What dominates this chapter, and what Paul hoped would dominate the minds of his readers, is an eschatological and ecclesial identity forged by Scripture.[70]

Notes

1. Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 195n44. Stanley properly notes, however, that 1 Cor 5:13 offers a “nearly verbatim quotation (adapted to suit its second-person plural context) of Deut 17.7 / 19.9 / 21.21 / 22.21 / 22.24 / 24.7” (ibid). Dieter-Alex Koch includes 1 Cor 5:13 (Deut 17:7inter alia) in a table of “ungekennzeichnete Zitate,” noting that it lacks “eine Einleitungsformulierung” (Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums: Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus, BHT 69 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 23, 271.
2. See Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 196.
3. I am grateful to Bernard Aubert for his suggestion of the phrase “identity confirmation.”
4. Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 24.
5. The phrase is that of Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7, AGJU 22 (Leiden: Brill, 1994; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 61.
6. In addition to Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, and Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, see Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1997); and Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
7. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 23. It will be in 1 Cor 10 that Paul will provide extended and explicit consideration of this point; so Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 97.
8. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 91; cf. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 24.
9. “Bij deze exegese is ook παραδοῦναι τῷ σατανᾷ zeer wel te verenigen met het ἐξαίρειν van vs 13, het eerste is de geestelijke achtergrond van het tweede” (F. W. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament [Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1957], 144). Cf. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKKNT 7/1 (Zurich: Benziger, 1991), 375, 394; Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge, 278n2.
10. That Paul is doing so stands independently of the question whether Paul is writing this epistle, in part, to correct what has been termed the Corinthians’ over-realized eschatology; so Anthony Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1978): 510-26; and Thiselton’s subsequent qualification, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 40; see also Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12. Note the trenchant dissent of Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 6-7; and the alternative proposed by Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 4-5, 179. On the degree to which Paul’s reasoning in this epistle is eschatological in nature, see David Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 16-17.
11. Koch recognizes this fact, but declines to specify which other texts may be in view (Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums, 13, 18, 23, 102, 188, 271); cf. Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther, HNT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1969), 25. Identifying the relationship as one of “allusion” or “parallel,” E. Earle Ellis sees Deut 22:24 or possibly Deut 24:7 as back of Paul’s text (Paul’s Use of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 153).
12. See representatively Peter S. Zaas, “‘Cast Out the Evil Man from Your Midst’ (1 Cor 5:13b),” JBL 103 (1984): 259n2.
13. Koch notes that Deut 17:7c, with other LXX texts cited by Paul, “stimm[t] … mit dem überlieferten Wortlaut der LXX in seiner ältesten erreichbaren Gestalt überein” (Die Schrift als Zeuge, 102).
14. A few NT MSS render the imperative as an (imperatival) future indicative (ἐξαρεῖτε) or as a present imperative (ἐξαίρετε).
15. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 61-64, responding to the proposals of E. Earle Ellis, Richard Longenecker, and Harold Ulonska.
16. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 63.
17. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 22.
18. Zaas has argued that there is “a word-play between ‘pornos’ and ‘ponēros’” that serves to join vv. 1 and 13 by way of v. 9 (“Cast Out the Evil Man,” 259).
19. So Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 269, 370; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 386.
20. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 82; cf. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 200.
21. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 82.
22. On vice lists in ancient literature, see Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, SP 7 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 218-19. On the vice lists of 1 Cor 5-6 in particular, see Zaas, “Catalogues and Context: 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, ” NTS 34 (1988): 622-29. On these vices’ respective treatments in this epistle, see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 189.
23. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 70. See the tables in Garland, 1 Corinthians, 189; Hays, First Corinthians, 88.
24. Hays, First Corinthians, 88.
25. For the preceding suggestions, see Hays, First Corinthians, 88.
26. Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 70.
27. Ibid., 68-81; Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 23. Ciampa and Rosner argue that “people are excluded [in Deuteronomy] because Israel is the sanctified (holiness motif), covenant (covenant motif) community (corporate responsibility motif) of the Lord, the holy God,” and that Paul has adopted these motifs and applied them to the church (First Letter to the Corinthians, 197-98). Although Ciampa and Rosner do not expressly say so, this transferal of motifs predicates Paul’s prior identification of Israel and the church as God’s covenant community.
28. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3-5, ” RB 84 (1977): 244.
29. Whether the Corinthians’ boasting is confined to the man’s particular sin (as Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 215) or not (as Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 213) is immaterial to our point. See the discussion in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 388-90.
30. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 400.
31. On this motif in 1 Corinthians, see James K. Howard, “‘Christ Our Passover’: A Study of the Passover-Exodus Theme in I Corinthians,” EvQ 41 (1969): 97-108. Thiselton notes how Zeph 1:12 became the basis, in subsequent Jewish interpretation, of understanding “the purging of the house of all leaven … as a symbol of moral purification” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 400).
32. “καὶ γάρ vertalen we door want ook” (Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 146).
33. Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 382. On the connections between the Passover ritual of cleansing and Paul’s argument here, see Howard, “Christ Our Passover,” 100-102.
34. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 99. Conzelmann astutely observes that “it is presupposed that the Corinthians are familiar with Jewish Passover usage” (98n48).
35. “The antitype of the Passover lamb under the law” (Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians, trans. D. Douglas Bannerman [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890], 116). Pace Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 99n50.
36. Roy A. Harrisville, “The Concept of Newness in the NT,” JBL 74 (1955): 69-79, as summarized in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 404.
37. Although the word that Paul uses in both 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15 (καινός) is not identical with that which Paul uses here in 1 Cor 5:7, the two words are surely synonymous. Robertson and Plummer note the verbal connection (παλαιός) with Rom 6:6, Eph 4:22, and Col 3:9 (Archibald T. Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, ICC; 2nd ed. [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914], 102).
38. Some later MSS contain the preposition ὑπέρ prior to the possessive in v. 7. This fact may be indicative of an early scribal interpretation of Paul’s words in v. 7 along these lines. See the discussion in Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 382-83.
39. On which see Guy Prentiss Waters, The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul, WUNT 2/221 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 80-112.
40. On the death of the one removed in conjunction with the covenant curses, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 131; Rosner, Paul, Scripture, and Ethics, 66.
41. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 144. See n. 9 above.
42. Ivan Havener, “A Curse for Salvation—1 Corinthians 5:1-5, ” in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit: Commemorating the Fiftieth Year of the Liturgical Press, ed. Daniel Durken (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979), 336. For the related but distinct syntactical question of the relationship of the clause “in the name of the Lord Jesus” to the clauses around it, see Ernest-Bernard Allo, Saint Paul: Première épitre aux Corinthiens, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 121; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 97; Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3-5, ” 239-40; Simon J. Kistemaker, “‘Deliver This Man to Satan’ (1 Cor 5:5): A Case Study in Church Discipline,” MSJ 3 (1992): 39-40; Michael D. Goulder, “Libertines? (1 Cor 5-6),” NovT 41 (1999): 339; and Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 393-94. This prepositional phrase could modify either Paul, the offender, or the Corinthian assembly. Resolution of this question is not necessary for the work we are presently undertaking.
43. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 206. Fee, however, reaches this conclusion on other grounds, citing 2:4-5; 4:19-20.
44. See further, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Resurrection and Redemption, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1987), 78-97.
45. For a survey of opinion, see Barth Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331-42.
46. So C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 126; Kistemaker, “Deliver This Man,” 44.
47. Note the equally implausible proposal of Havener who apparently understands “spirit” to be the “spiritual body” of 1 Cor 15 (“Curse for Salvation,” 340).
48. This view dates back to Tertullian, Pud. 13, cited in Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit,” 333n14.
49. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 174.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid. Note the hybrid view of Hans von Campenhausen, who regards “Spirit” to be the Holy Spirit, but “flesh” to refer to the offender (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969], 134-35n50, cited in Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit,” 333n13). Cf. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” HTR 73 (1980): 259-61.
52. See, representatively, the discussion of Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John R. de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 64-68. For a defense of this position with respect to v. 5, see Anthony S. Thiselton, “The Meaning of SARX in I Corinthians 5.5: A Fresh Approach in the Light of Logical and Semantic Factors,” SJT 26 (1973): 204-28; Victor C. Pfitzner, “Purified Community—Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community According to Matthew 18:15-18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, ” ABR 30 (1982): 46; N. George Joy, “Is the Body Really to Be Destroyed? (1 Corinthians 5.5),” BT 39 (1988): 433-34; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 390-400; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212.
53. “In vs 3 werd een tegenstelling gemaakt tussen σῶμα en πνεῦμα, hier echter tussen σάρξ en πνεῦμα, waardoor we genoodzaakt worden onder σάρξ te verstaan het zondige vlees, de zondige natuur” (Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143).
54. Murphy-O’Connor, “1 Corinthians 5:3-5, ” 42, as cited in Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212.
55. On the difficulties presented by this verse in particular and some of the positions represented in the literature with respect to this question, see Graham A. Cole, “Short Comments: 1 Cor 5:4 ‘…with my spirit,’” ExpT 98 (1987): 205.
56. See Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 204-5. Fee offers a different rationale than the one suggested above. Cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 391.
57. Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143. Fee notes that it may express either purpose or result, expressing a preference for the latter (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 209 and n67).
58. Scholars note that the same verb is used in LXX Job 2:6 of the Lord’s “handing over” Job to Satan.
59. Havener, “Curse for Salvation,” 341; See the literature cited in Ridderbos, Paul, 471n128.
60. James T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5.1-8, ” NTS 39 (1993): 540.
61. On which see further ibid., 541-43; A. Collins, “Function of ‘Excommunication,’” 255-56. Collins claims that Greco-Roman magic constitutes only a partial background to 1 Cor 5:5, and points to the Qumran literature as providing a closer parallel (pp. 261-63).
62. Göran Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community, within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity, ConBNT 5 (Lund: Gleerup, 1972), 143; cf. South, “Critique of the ‘Curse/Death,’” 544.
63. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 396; James T. South, Disciplinary Practices in Pauline Texts (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1992), 43, cited in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 397. See here the especially illuminating explanation of Grosheide, De eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe, 143-44.
64. Pace A. Collins, “Function of ‘Excommunication,’” 258. See the discussion in George W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 111-12.
65. The phrase is Fee’s (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 210); cf. Calovius’s phrase, “medicinale remedium,” cited in Meyer, Epistles to the Corinthians, 114. After all, Fee notes, “the further instruction in v. 11, that they are not to associate with this man, not even to eat with him, implies that no immediate death is in purview” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 212). See further South, “Critique of the ‘Curse/Death,’” 556-59; Joy, “Is the Body to Be Destroyed,” 434-35.
66. The “last [of the two ‘telic statements’ in v. 5] expresses the final design of the whole measure of the” handing over (Meyer, Epistles to the Corinthians, 113).
67. As Fee notes, “Paul does not intend that he must wait until the final Day to be saved” (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 213).
68. Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 208.
69. Leaving open the question whether 2 Cor 2:5-12 recounts the recovery of this offender, on which see Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 100; Colin G. Kruse, “The Offender and the Offence in 2 Corinthians 2:5 and 7:12, ” EvQ 88 (1988): 129-39.
70. I am grateful to Luke B. Bert for his editorial assistance with this article.

Isaiah’s Herald

By Matthew Seufert

[Matthew Seufert is a PhD candidate in Old Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.]

I. Introduction

Isaiah is well known for his use of the Servant figure, and many scholars have written on the topic. Far less attention, however, has been given to another of Isaiah’s figures. In 1974 Robert W. Fisher observed, “Little if any notice has been given to … the herald of good news” (מבשׂר/מבשׂרת).[1] Nearly forty years have passed since Fisher’s observation and, besides the essay which Fisher himself wrote, little has changed. In this article I attempt to contribute to change with two primary objectives in mind: (1) to provide a robust picture of Isaiah’s Herald by exploring his various appearances and his important precursors, and (2) to show that Isaiah employs the image of the Herald as a theological leitmotif to witness to Yhwh’s victory in war and his ability to speak, exalting him above foreign gods and providing comfort for his people.

1. Terminology

The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms defines leitmotif as “a frequently repeated phrase, image, symbol, or situation in a literary work, the occurrence of which usually indicates or supports a theme.”[2] The book of Isaiah repeats the Herald-image to support the themes of Yhwh’s word (its sureness and existence), Yhwh’s superiority, and the comfort of his people.[3]

2. Method

Since Isaiah’s Herald has largely been unexamined, I first set forth a few items of background information, which are simply intended to illumine the figure. I survey the meaning of the root בשׂר, from which Isaiah’s Herald (מבשׂר/מבשׂרת) comes, both throughout the ancient Near East and in the OT. After a brief look at the main context in which the Herald appears in the OT, the central portion of the study consists of an examination of the pertinent texts in Isaiah. I end the article with brief conclusions and suggestions for further study.

II. The Root בשׂר

The root בשׂר means one of two things, either “to bring good news” or “to bring news.” The consensus of scholarship, arrived at by both an investigation of the root’s usage in other Semitic languages and an evaluation of its occurrences in the HB, has reached this point. No one claims that the root in itself has negative connotations (i.e., “to bear bad news”).[4]

1. בשׂר And The Ancient Near East

The root is well attested in the ancient Near East. It appears in Akkadian, Ugaritic, Arabic, Old Southern Arabic, Ethiopic, Jewish Aramaic, and Tigrinya. Akkadian has the earliest occurrences. It is used to mean to report: “if a subject of mine stays among you, you must report to me,” and to bring news pleasant to the listener: “I brought the good news about the [coming] of rain to the king.”[5] Further, Fisher noted two occurrences where the root is used with an “undeniably negative sense.”[6] He concluded that although the root is used neutrally (“to report”) and negatively (“to announce bad news”) the predominant Akkadian use is positive (“to announce good news”).[7]

The word appears only positively in Ugaritic. Fisher cites Anat’s words to Baal: “The virgin Anat laughed, she lifted her voice and cried, ‘Receive good tidings, O Baal. Thy good tidings I have brought. There shall be built a house for thee like thy brother(s) and a court like thy kin.”8 Further, Fisher contends that in certain instances it should be understood as inherently positive, as the root appears in other contexts without a modifier (i.e., “good” or “glad”).[9]

The lack of a negative use in Ugaritic, along with the word standing alone to indicate a positive message, strongly suggests understanding the term as “to bear glad tidings.”[10]

Arabic’s use is positive. For instance, the word is used in connection with the joyful announcement of the birth of a child.[11] Old Southern Arabic, Ethiopic, Jewish Aramaic, and Tigrinya always employ the word for the bearing of “glad” or “good tidings.”[12] In summary, although there are instances in Akkadian where the root is used negatively and simply to inform, these appear to be quite limited. The majority of cases throughout the ancient Near Eastern literature positively present this term.

2. בשׂר In The Old Testament

The root occurs thirty times in the Hebrew Scriptures: fourteen times as a verb in the piel, once as a hithpael, nine times as a piel substantive participle, and six times as a noun (בשׂרה).[13] The noun appears in 2 Sam 4:10, four times in 2 Sam 18 (vv. 18:20, 22, 25, 27), and once in 2 Kgs 7:9. It is used to mean “the messenger’s reward” (2 Sam 18:22), “good tidings” (2 Sam 4:10; 18:20, 25; 2 Kgs 7:9), and possibly just “news” (2 Sam 18:27).[14] טֹובָה accompanies בשׂרה in 2 Sam 18:27, which has persuaded some to understand the term as neutral. The modifier could, however, be intended to convey really good news.[15] In 2 Kgs 7:9 and 2 Sam 18:20, 25, the word stands alone and clearly indicates “good” news. In 2 Kgs 7, for example, four lepers discover that the Syrians who had been besieging Samaria had fled their camp. They pronounce that it is a day of good news (הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יֹום־בְּשֹׂרָה הוּא, v. 9).

The use of the verb is similar to that of the noun in that it occurs alone to bear good news (1 Sam 31:9; 2 Sam 18:19, 20; Jer 20:15; Isa 60:6; etc.), to receive good news (2 Sam 18:31; hithpael), and with a positive modifier (1 Kgs 1:42). Jeremiah 20:15 reads, “Cursed be the man who brought good news [האִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בִּשַּׂר] to my father saying, ‘A son has been born to you.’ He caused him to rejoice greatly.”[16]

Finally, the participle denotes a messenger who proclaims good news every time but once. In 1 Sam 4:17 the herald (הַמְבַשֵּׂר) recounts his bad news to Eli, “Israel has fled before the Philistines, and also a great slaughter has come about among the people, moreover, your two sons, Hophni and Phineas, have died and the ark of God has been taken.”[17] The remaining contexts of the participle are positive (cf. 2 Sam 4:10; 18:26; Ps 68:12; Nah 1:15; Isa 40:9 [2x]; 41:27; 52:7 [2x]).

To summarize, even though negative news attends the use of this root once, and the presence of a positive modifier could indicate a neutral meaning of the term, the majority of occurrences mean “to bear good tidings.” This is consonant with the findings from the ancient Near East. Despite its single non-uniform occurrence in the OT, the lopsided usage favors the conclusion that the root בשׂר in the OT means “to bear good tidings.”[18]

3. The Main Context Of בשׂר In The Old Testament

בשׂר is typically used in a military context. Second Samuel 18:19–31 is a prime example, as the root is used here nine times. These verses recount the death of David’s son Absalom and the victory of Joab and his men over the enemies of their king. It was the מבשׂר who was responsible for delivering the news of victory. The Cushite, as herald, runs back from the battle to carry the good news to the king that the Lord has delivered him from the hand of his enemies. Ahimaaz, eager to bear the news himself, outruns the Cushite and gives David the good news first saying, “Peace!... Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delivered up the men who had lifted their hand against my lord the king” (v. 28 ESV; for its use in other military contexts, cf. 1 Sam 4:17; 31:9; 2 Sam 1:20; 4:10; 2 Kgs 7:9; 1 Chr 16:23; Ps 40:10; 68:12; Nah 1:15; Isa 40:9; 52:7; 61:1).

It is the mergence of speaking good news with a military context that makes the Herald a particularly fitting figure for Isaiah’s purposes. This is the context of every occurrence of Isaiah’s Herald. And every time he shows up, it is to bear the good news of Yhwh’s victory over Israel’s enemies.

III. The Herald And The Book Of Isaiah

The image of the Herald appears in three verses of Isaiah, each in the latter part of the prophecy (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 52:7). The root בשׂר also occurs in 60:6 (as an imperfect verb) and 61:1 (as an infinitive construct). I discuss these two occurrences after the Herald proper. I divide the first three verses by their purpose and examine them as follows: (1) 41:27—exalting Yhwh as the God who speaks; (2) 40:9—providing comfort through Yhwh’s exaltation; and (3) 52:7—the presence of all three themes, Yhwh as speaker, Yhwh exalted, and Israel’s comfort.

The Herald’s appearance in Isa 41:27 provides a lens through which to view his word-confirming role (i.e., Yhwh can speak, does speak, and the events he speaks of come to pass) in 40:9 and 52:7. Since Isaiah’s use of the Herald-image is closely connected with his theology of the word of Yhwh, as will be made apparent throughout the following three sections, I examine this verse first.

1. Yhwh Exalted As Speaker: Isaiah 41:27

This verse presents a set of interpretive challenges. The MT reads,רִאשֹׁוֹן לְצִיֹּן הִנֵּה הִנָּם וְלִיירוּשָׁלַם מְבַשֵּׂר אֶתֵּן. There are three problems commonly addressed: (1) Is the MT reading “Behold! Behold them!” correct? (2) How does רִאשֹׁוֹן function? (3) For those who hold to the MT reading, to whom does “them” refer in the phrase הִנֵּה הִנָּם? I answer these questions in order in what follows. The broader context is woven throughout the discussion, and I end with conclusions on the Herald and his function.

2. The Masoretic Text Reading And 1qisaa

1QIsaa spells the MT’s הִנָּם as הנומה, which has been identified as “a participle which Middle Hebrew has as נום…‘to speak.’”[19] This would make for nice parallelism and render the last part “to Zion behold I will give a speaker, and to Jerusalem a herald.” J. Gerald Janzen, however, shows that the Qumran reading is not a true variant but merely a different spelling of the MT. Citing the work by Elisha Qimron, he notes that waw sometimes appears where the Tiberian tradition has qamets. Further, he writes, “a long third masculine plural suffix form with ה- is common enough at Qumran.”[20] These observations vindicate the decision of the editors of BHS not to record the reading of 1QIsaa as a variant.[21] The MT reading is correct, “Behold! Behold them!”

3. The Function Of רִאשֹׁוֹן

The MT reads, “ רִאשֹׁוֹןto Zion, Behold! Behold them! And to Jerusalem I will give a Herald.” Janzen comments, “The opening word … is often taken adverbially, modifying ‘I give’ in the following line.” He then quotes C. R. North, however, who noted that when רִאשֹׁוֹן is used adverbially, it is in the feminine form.[22] Koole also writes, “The masc. sing. form … probably refers to a person.”[23] In this regard, other commentators have called attention to the use of רִאשֹׁוֹן as a first messenger or speaker. Janzen mentions D. Winton Thomas’s appeal to 2 Sam 19:21 in support of the rendering “forerunner.” He also lists G. R. Driver’s citation of Prov 18:17 as an instance where the word can indicate the first speaker in a line of other speakers.[24] Second Samuel 18:27 is cited by Janzen to support reading רִאשֹׁוֹן as “the very first herald of a news which will shortly be heard from others as well.”[25]

Koole maintains the personal referent of רִאשֹׁוֹן in agreement with the scholars listed above. Contrary to them, however, he understands it as a nominative referring to Yhwh rather than an accusative referring to another messenger. He writes, “Of course, the view of רִאשֹׁוֹן as acc. makes for a good syntactic and stylistic parallelism with מְבַשֵּׂר. On the other hand, one now expects [in this context] a statement about Yahweh’s own predictions; in contrast to the silent gods, God must announce himself in the nominative רִאשֹׁוֹן.” The most convincing argument Koole makes for the nominative reading is the Lord’s identification of himself as רִאשֹׁוֹן in 41:4. The question is posed by Yhwh, “Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning [מֵרֹאשׁ]?” He answers, אֲנִי יְהוָה רִאשֹׁוֹן. Additionally, רִאשֹׁוֹן is also used in 44:6 and 48:12, in basically the same context, to refer to Yhwh.

Koole comments further, “The interpretation … as a nominative … produces a good symmetry with the two halves of the previous line. None of the gods, v. 26bA, foretold it, but Yahweh did, v. 27a; for this prediction there are no human witnesses, v. 26bB, but Yahweh gave a מְבַשֵּׂר, v. 27b.”[26] According to Koole’s arguments, vv. 26–27 read as follows, “Who announced this from the beginning [מֵרֹאשׁ] so that we may recognize it, and of old, so that we may say ‘He is right’? [v. 26bA]. No, nobody announced it, no, nobody declared it, [v. 26bB] no, nobody heard your words [v. 27a]. As the First One (I said it) to Zion: see, there they are! [v. 27b]. I will give to Jerusalem a herald of good tidings.”

The function of רִאשֹׁוֹן, therefore, is that it stands as the subject who speaks the words, “Behold! Behold them!” Further, it is Yhwh, as the first and only God, who announces it beforehand.

4. Behold! Behold “Them!”

One final issue remains regarding Isa 41:27. To whom does “them” refer in the phrase הִנֵּה הִנָּם? Supporters of the MT have proposed various referents. Amongst the proposals are armies of Cyrus,[27] the exilic returnees,[28] and the old promises or predicted events.[29] Janzen draws a direct connection here with vv. 9–11 of ch. 40 noting the repetition of “Behold!” The verses read, “Behold your God … Behold the Lord God comes with might … Behold, his reward is with him … he will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms” (ESV). Janzen concludes, “An even more succinct abbreviation, reducing to one repetition but retaining the final focus on the returning people, would produce הִנֵּה הִנָּם.”30

While I agree with Janzen’s referents, Yhwh and his people, it is better to understand the text as looking forward rather than back.[31] The Herald’s final appearance (52:7) and the surrounding scene give a full description of this succinct phrase. Following the Herald’s message Isaiah writes, “Your watchmen … sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion.… The Lord has bared his holy arm.… Go out from there!… The Lord will go before you and the God of Israel will be your rear guard” (Isa 52:8a, d, 52:10a, 11a, 12b ESV). This is the climactic result of Yhwh’s declaration in 41:25 that he will raise up Cyrus to trample on rulers. Yhwh, in 41:27, is declaring beforehand his return to Zion with his people.[32]

5. Isaiah 41:27: The Herald’s Conclusions

Isaiah’s use of the Herald in 41:27 stands alone. Here he is seemingly mentioned in passing, whereas in the other two passages, as seen below, the image takes center stage. Here, however, his theological function comes immediately to the fore. Isaiah employs him to undergird Yhwh’s superiority in that he is a God who speaks/predicts/promises. The מבשׂר witnesses to the fact that Yhwh speaks of future events, unlike any other god, and brings them to pass. He is also the mouthpiece through whom Yhwh speaks, as will be further seen in connection with 52:7.

The Herald appears immediately after Yhwh’s charge of the non-existence of other speaker-gods. Isaiah 41:26 reads,מִי־הִגִּיד מֵרֹאשׁ וְנֵדָעָה וּמִלְּפָנִים וְנֹאמַר צַדִּיק אַף אֵין־מַגִּיד אַף אֵין מַשְׁמִיעַ אַף אֵין־שֹׁמֵעַ אִמְרֵיכֶם (“Who has announced from the beginning that we might know, and from former times that we might say, ‘He is right’? Surely there is no announcer, there is no publisher, and there is no hearer of your words”). The repetition of אֵיןcalls attention to the nothingness, the non-existence of other speakers. There is no declarer (אֵין־מַגִּיד) and there is no one who causes to hear (אֵין־מַשְֹׁמִיעַ). There is no hearer of their words (אֵין־שֹׁמֵעַ אִמְרֵיכֶם) because they have no words (cf. vv. 22–24). It is not that the gods have not spoken, but more simply, other announcer-gods do not exist.[33]

Yhwh alone is the God who speaks. Again, v. 27 means, “As the first and only one [רִאשֹׁוֹן] I, Yhwh, said to Zion, Behold! Behold the return of the Lord with his people! And I will give a herald to Jerusalem.” Distinguished from the mute idols, Yhwh foretells the future. But he not only predicts it, he brings it into existence. He will stir up Cyrus to destroy Babylon (cf. 41:25) and return Israel (cf. 43:14), and here announces it in advance. The Herald will be given to witness to Yhwh’s actions (cf. Ps 68:12–13) while he simultaneously, through his heralding, vindicates him as the God who speaks. That he sends a Herald, a proclaimer of events, contrasts him with and elevates him above the non-existent speaker-foreign-gods.[34] In sum, no other gods speak, but Yhwh will give a Herald.

6. The Exalting/Comforting Herald-Appearance: Isaiah 40:9

As 41:27 presented difficulties, 40:9 presents another, though different, challenge. What is its background? For critical scholarship, ch. 40 marks the beginning of Deutero-Isaiah (40–55).[35] Many consider 40:1–11 to be a unit of poetry and perceive it as the prologue to the second part of the book and/or the “call” of the prophet Second-Isaiah.[36] It follows the familiar chapter (39) of Isaiah’s prophecy to Hezekiah concerning the pending Babylonian captivity and opens with the double imperative, “Comfort! Comfort my people!” Because of this smooth transition from the doom of ch. 39 to the comfort of ch. 40 it is tempting to join the chorus and relegate this text’s primary audience to the Babylonian exiles. As I will show, however, this is one step removed from its initially intended audience, Isaiah’s contemporaries.[37]

7. Isaiah 40:9: Context

A few chapters earlier, ch. 36 opens with the words, “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem with a great army.” The Assyrians have taken the cities of Judah and now stand at the wall of Jerusalem threatening war and demanding surrender (36:4–17). Hezekiah prays for deliverance and receives a word of rescue from the Lord (37:14–35). “And the Angel of the Lord went out and struck down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. And when the people arose in the morning, behold [הִנֵּה], these were all dead bodies” (37:36 ESV).

This is the primary background of 40:1–11.[38] In v. 9, the Heralds are commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah what the Angel of the Lord has done. It reads, “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news [מְבַשֶּׂרֶת צִיּוֹן]; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news [מְבַשֶּׂרֶת יְרוּשָׁלָמִ];[39] lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold [הִנֵּה] your God!’” (ESV). After 185,000 Assyrians have been slain, the Herald, Zion/Jerusalem,[40] brings the word of comforting victory (“Behold, these were all dead bodies” [37:36] = “Behold, your God” [40:9]) to the captured cities of Judah.

There are additional arguments for this conclusion concerning the background of our text. First, as a major thematic tie, much of the discourse in chs. 36–37 focuses on the failure of the foreign gods to save. The Lord is both compared (by the Assyrians) and contrasted (by Hezekiah) with these impotent gods (cf. 36:18–20; 37:10–13, 18–20). Yhwh’s contrast with the idols in ch. 40 and following is well known (cf. 40:19–31; 41:7–29; etc.). Specifically in regard to the Herald and what was seen in 41:27, it is the appearance of the Herald which exalts Yhwh above these gods.

Second, the frailty of grass and the surety of the word of the Lord are juxtaposed in 40:6–8. In ch. 37, the Lord describes the victims of Sennacherib’s conquests as grass (cf. 37:26–27). The people are the grass (אָכֵן חָצִיר הָעָם 40:7b; cf. 37:27) and the Assyrians are the breath of the Lord (40:7a) destroying the grass/people and accomplishing his will.[41] Yhwh says to Sennacherib, “I planned from days of old what now I bring to pass, that you should make fortified cities crash … while their inhabitants … have become … like tender grass, like grass [çثِدéّ] on the housetops, blighted before it is grown” (37:26–27 ESV). Isaiah 40:6 says, “Cry!” and the response in light of this is, “What could I possibly call out? The people are all like withering grass before the Assyrian army.”[42] The answer to this objection is v. 8,[43] “the grass withers [יָבֵשׁ חָצִיר], the flower fades [נָבֵל צִיץ], but the word of our God will stand forever”[44] (ESV; cf. 37:32, 35; the remnant and Davidic promise prevent Jerusalem’s destruction—God’s word stands).

Third, for those who hold to an appositional reading (i.e., Zion/Jerusalem is Herald), during the Babylonian captivity Zion-Jerusalem receives the Herald (cf. 41:27; 52:7). Katheryn Darr, who advocates interpreting the whole of Isaiah’s prophecy as a sequential reader would, comments, “The image of a strong and vocal Zion [in 40:9] is congruous with our last glimpse of her (37:22).”[45]

Finally, this background answers the well-known perplexing question, “To whom are the plural imperatives addressed in 40:1–2?”[46] It also resolves the apparent tension between Jerusalem receiving words of comfort in 40:2 but heralding good news to the cities of Judah in 40:9. The imperatives read, “Comfort [נַחֲמוּ], comfort [נַחֲמוּ] my people, says your God. Speak [דַּבְּרוּ] to the heart of Jerusalem, and call [וְקִרְאוּ] to her that her warfare has been completed.” Isaiah is the speaker who commands Eliakim, Shebna, and the senior priests (Hezekiah’s messengers—cf. 37:2) to comfort Hezekiah,[47] who, as king, represents Jerusalem and its people (cf. 37:1–35, esp. vv. 37:2, 5–6, 21–35).[48] The transmission of comfort runs thus: Yhwh → Isaiah → Hezekiah’s messengers → Jerusalem/Zion (Hezekiah) → the cities of Judah.

Knut Holter interprets the utilization of the cities in 40:9 as “an intentional link” to Isa 6:11, “until the cities have become desolate.”[49] He notes the repetition of עד in 6:11 calling attention to the limited duration of the hardening:

“The doubling of עד highlights here that hardening will come to an end. The hardening will be effective [until the cities lie desolate].”[50] The ruin of Judah’s cities by the Assyrians temporarily causes hardening to give way to the return of Yhwh to his people.[51]

8. Isaiah 40:9: The Herald’s Conclusions

In 40:9, contrary to 41:27, the Herald is identifiable with historical figures. He largely falls in line with the standard use as seen in Samuel—the people of Jerusalem witness the Lord’s victory in battle over Assyria and, as Heralds, as military messengers, announce the news to the cities of Judah in order to comfort them. But, in line with his function in 41:27 and peculiar to Isaiah’s employment of him, the Herald also appears as a witness to Yhwh’s word and actions.

The command to the Herald to ascend a high mountain and speak (אִמְרִי, 40:9) immediately follows the statement that Yhwh’s word will forever stand (וּדְבַר־אֱלֹהֵינוּ יָקוּם לְעֹולָם, 40:8b). This is not accidental. As in 41:27, the Herald here functions to call attention to the deeds of Yhwh which confirm his previously spoken promises. Yhwh assured Hezekiah that Assyria would be destroyed (cf. 37:33–35). Shortly after, he makes good on his word, and the Herald is then sent to witness to Yhwh’s deeds by proclaiming the realized promised victory.

The Herald-image calls attention to both the sureness of Yhwh’s word and his pre-eminence over other gods who do not speak and have not acted for the good of their people. This latter element, remember, was Assyria’s charge against the foreign nations’ gods (cf. 36:18–20; 37:10–13, 18–20). Contrarily, Yhwh not only acts, he first promises to act and then sends a Herald to witness to those actions.

Although in 40:9 the Herald certainly does support the exaltation of Yhwh above the foreign gods and proves the reliability of his word, his main purpose, through these actions, is to comfort Yhwh’s people. He declares, הִנֵּה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם “Behold your God,” in contrast to the false gods who are unable to deliver from Assyria. Comfort is secured through the sight of what Yhwh, as Israel’s God, can and did do.

Isaiah 40:10–11 further undergirds the centrality of the comfort-function. It reads, “Behold the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. He will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young” (ESV). Not only is Yhwh far superior to the nations’ deities in both word and deed, but his people are the recipients, the directly intended beneficiaries, of the fruits of their great God’s speech and action.

9. The Climactic Herald-Image: Isaiah 52:7

The Herald’s appearance in ch. 52 is the greatest picture given of the Herald in the text of Isaiah and his themes are all equally present. He is found in the context of Yhwh’s victory over Babylon and Israel’s subsequent return, and is thus best interpreted as a picture of the fulfillment of the Herald promised in 41:27 (41:25 predicts the raising up of Cyrus). Whereas Zion/Jerusalem was the Herald in 40:9, here, following 41:27, the image does not correspond to a particular historical figure. His use, rather, is theological. Having shown the “God speaks!” function of the Herald in 41:27, and his function of comfort and Yhwh exaltation in 40:9, I move to a clearer and more complex picture/function of the Herald wherein he exalts Yhwh as speaker, comforts Yhwh’s people, and speaks as Yhwh’s witness.

10. Isaiah 52:7: Message And Context

The Herald’s first function of 52:7, to support the claim that Yhwh indeed has spoken and does speak, is immediately apparent. In the lines preceding 52:7, Yhwh describes Israel’s history of enslavement, focusing on the Babylonian captivity which has resulted in the despising of his name (cf. 52:3–5). Verse 6 reads, “Therefore, my people shall know my name. Therefore, they shall know in that day that I am he, the one who speaks, behold, it is I [כּי־אֲנִי־הוּא הַמְדַבֵּר הִנֵּנִי].” Isaiah 52:7, again not accidentally (cf. 40:8–9), directly follows: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the herald [מְבַשֵּׂר], proclaiming [מַשְׁמִיעַ] ‘Peace!’, heralding [מְבַשֵּׂר] ‘Good!’, proclaiming [מַשְׁמִיעַ] ‘Salvation!’, saying [אֹמֵר] to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’”

Isaiah uses the Herald-image to convey future events as presently happening.[52] The Herald-image heralds the victory as though it were already accomplished. The repetition of essentially the same message with four different terms (peace, good, salvation, God reigns) emphasizes the mode of communication (i.e., heralding, proclaiming, speaking). He both witnesses to Yhwh’s previously promised actions and speaks for Yhwh, firmly solidifying the point: Yhwh speaks.

Second, the Herald exalts Yhwh above all other gods. The immediately preceding paragraph recalls the earlier contrasts between the non-existence of speaker-gods, in 41:27, and elevates Yhwh above them as one who speaks. Further, the crowning exclamation of the Herald’s message is מָלַךְ אֲלֹהָיִךְ, “your God reigns!” As seen earlier, it is your God, Yhwh, as opposed to the nations’ gods. He alone is the God who reigns as king.[53] As 44:6 reads, “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god” (ESV).

Finally, undergirding the third theme, the Herald’s message is intended to bring comfort to suffering Israel. The content of the victory message is described under four headings: peace, goodness, salvation, and your God reigns.

First is “peace” (שׁלום). Those who had afflicted Israel will now be afflicted (49:22–23). Zion and Jerusalem are told to clothe themselves with strength and beautiful garments because “there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean” (52:1b). The destruction of Israel’s enemies results in their peace. Isaiah 51:11 reads, “And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away” (ESV). There will be peace in place of sorrow.

Second is “good” (טוב). Isaiah uses this term in fifteen other verses.[54] Here it is used to signify the blessings of Yhwh upon his people. Chapter 63 offers an exegesis of the term, “I will recount … the great goodness (טוב) to the house of Israel.… For he said, ‘Surely they are my people’… and he became their Savior.… In his love and in his pity he redeemed them. He lifted them up and carried them” (63:7b, 8c, 9c ESV). It is the all encompassing message, similar to that of peace.[55] It entails the destruction of Israel’s enemies and the redemption of his people, the Lord as Father of his children and Savior of his people.

Third is “salvation” (ישׁועה). Again the same thing is communicated, which, as stated earlier, emphasizes the mode of communication, speech.[56] The noun, as it appears in 52:7, shows up in seventeen other verses. Isaiah 60:18 represents the prophet’s usage well, “Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation” (ESV).[57] Yhwh’s salvation of Israel secures peace within their walls, removal of their enemies.

Finally is “your God reigns” (מלך אלהיך). This is the climax of his message; the source of the peace/good/salvation which has come to Israel. God is exercising his kingship over the nations by claiming what belongs to him, his people, and bringing them back to Zion. Isaiah 52:8 vividly pictures the return of the King: “The voice of your watchmen—they lift up their voice; together they sing for joy; for eye to eye they see the return of the Lord to Zion” (ESV).

The passage continues, “Break forth into singing, you waste places of Jerusalem, for the Lord has comforted his people; he has redeemed Jerusalem” (52:9 ESV). The Herald’s exaltation of Yhwh and his word-confirming function have as their final aim the comfort of Israel. Yhwh speaks and acts and proclaims for their sakes.

These, 41:27, 40:9, and 52:7, are all of the occurrences of the Herald proper. It has been shown that Isaiah uses him as a leitmotif to exalt Yhwh above other gods, to highlight his ability as a speaker, and to comfort Israel in times of the distress of war and exile. For the sake of thoroughness, I will briefly examine the two other occurrences of the root בשׂר. While they are not an occurrence of the Herald proper, they do help to undergird the claims already made about what his function is.

11. The Final Two Uses Of בשׂר: Isaiah 60:6 And 61:1

In these last occurrences of the root, it is not the Herald who appears, but other subjects who are given the Herald’s task. In Isa 60:6 the nations are the subject of the verb בשׂר. The content of their heralding is the praises of Yhwh. The context is the flowing of the nations with their goods (gold and frankincense) to Israel. They will carry gold and frankincense and herald the praises of Yhwh. The nations, taking up the heralding function, witness to the materialization of the global promises of Yhwh which pervade the prophecy. As Yhwh foretells here, “The coastlands shall hope for me, the ships of Tarshish first, to bring your children from afar, their silver and their gold with them, for the name of the Lord your God” (60:9 ESV).

Finally, in Isa 61:1 the root occurs as an infinitive construct. Isaiah 61 has received much attention, as Jesus claims the fulfillment of this text in Luke 4. The figure presented here is a blended one and has been identified as prophet, priest, king, anointed one, Servant, the Spirit-endowed one, the Messiah, and finally, the Herald.[58] This eschatological figure takes up the speaking and comforting functions of the Herald.

The figure says, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me” (61:1a). He then gives the reason why he was anointed, “to proclaim good news to the afflicted [לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים]” (v. 1b). Further, he is sent to proclaim (לִקְרֹא) liberty to the captives (61:1c) and the year of the Lord’s favor (61:2a). The heralding/proclaiming resumes the word-attesting function of the Herald. From what has been gleaned so far, this figure will proclaim and bear witness to what Yhwh has accomplished. He is also responsible, as the Spirit-endowed one, to speak the words of Yhwh.

He is sent to the afflicted. This form of the word (עֲנָויים) occurs twice in Isaiah. The first part of ch. 11 provides a strikingly fitting parallel to 61:1.[59] The relevant verses read, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse.… And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.… He shall … decide with equity for the meek [or “afflicted”] of the earth [לְעַנְוֵי־אָרֶץ]; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked” (11:1a, 2a, 4b–d ESV). The content of the Herald’s message, the good news, as has been seen, is always that the Lord has defeated Israel’s oppressive enemies and set his people free (40:9; 52:7); this is their source of comfort. Likewise, the heralding function of 61:1 is comfort for the afflicted. The figure comes “to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion—to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning” (61:2–3 ESV).

IV. Conclusion

Isaiah utilizes the Herald as a recurring image, a leitmotif, to support various themes which run throughout the later chapters of his prophecy. There are seven things which clearly come into view concerning Isaiah’s Herald. (1) The Herald always emerges in the context of Yhwh’s victory in war over Israel’s enemies. (2) The Herald, when he has a message to bear (40:9 and 52:7), following in the footsteps of standard usage throughout the OT, brings the good news of Yhwh’s triumph to Yhwh’s people. (3) Isaiah always utilizes the Herald-image in conjunction with the word of Yhwh. The Herald confirms that Yhwh does speak (41:27), shows that his word is sure (40:9; 52:7), and is the declarer through whom Yhwh declares (41:27; 52:7). (4) The Herald is sometimes historically identifiable (40:9), sometimes not (41:27; 52:7), but always employed for theological purposes. (5) Isaiah 43:12 sets forth a programmatic statement of Yhwh’s unique operations towards his people, as opposed to other gods, and the Herald is an integral part of this process. First Yhwh predicts/promises salvation, then he acts to bring about the salvation, then he announces the fulfillment.[60] The Herald accomplishes this final part. He bears witness to the fulfilling actions of Yhwh’s promises by announcing the predicted/promised victory over Israel’s enemies. Isaiah has two concrete backgrounds for this unfolding process, the Assyrian (40:9) and Babylonian crises (41:27; 52:7). (6) The Herald, by calling attention to Yhwh’s ability to speak, to act, and to proclaim, exalts Yhwh above the idols. (7) The Herald provides comfort for Yhwh’s people.

Finally, the Hebrew root בשׂר underlies the LXX εὐαγγελίζω (cf. n. 17). This observation, along with Jesus’ appropriation of Isa 60:1 to himself in Luke 4 makes the image of the Herald and his peculiar functions particularly important for Christian readers of Scripture. What light can the above conclusions shed on the gospel and its proclamation? The Herald is certainly an important precursor of Jesus heralding the good news of the kingdom of God and heralding the good news of peace (cf. Eph 2:17), and this connection deserves much more exploration and explanation.

Notes

1. Robert W. Fisher, “The Herald of Good News in Second Isaiah,” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 117.
2. Chris Baldick, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 138.
3. This article assumes these themes of the latter part of Isaiah, as they are immediately apparent.
4. Although the root can be used in a negative context, this is rare and mostly early.
5. See CAD, s.v. “bussuru.” The first meaning listed is to praise, extol, “he should praise (the god) in terms of his (the god’s) liking.”
6. Robert W. Fisher, “A Study of the Semitic Root BŚR” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1966), 120-21.
7. Ibid., 121, 151-54. For a more accessible treatment of the Akkadian texts at Mari, see Robert W. Fisher, “The Mubassirū Messengers at Mari,” in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies, ed. Gordon D. Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 113-20. Cf. O. Schilling, “בשׂר,” TDOT 2:313, who, although noting that in the majority of Akkadian cases both the noun and verb denote a good message, concludes, “In itself, this word is neutral.” Followed by Stephen T. Hague, “בשׂר,” NIDOTTE 1:775; and R. Ficker, “מַלְאָךְ,” TLOT 2:669. Ficker comments that the root “had a neutral meaning at first.”
8. Fisher, “Study of the Semitic Root,” 52.
9. Ibid., 59.
10. Ibid., 69-70; cf. Schilling, TDOT 2:313; Hague, NIDOTTE 1:775.
11. The Arabic usage carries with it the notion of removing the face or surface of something. Cf. Fisher, “Study of the Semitic Root,” 20; BDB, s.v. “בשׂר”; Hague, NIDOTTE 1:775.
12. Schilling, TDOT 2:313; HALOT, s.v. “בשׂר”; contra Millard Burrows, “The Origin of the Term ‘Gospel,’” JBL 44 (1925): 25. Burrows claims that the Aramaic usage was neutral because modifiers, albeit positive ones, accompanied the term. A modified term, however, does not necessarily indicate a neutral term.
13. Cf. Schilling, TDOT 2:313. For a listing of each occurrence see BDB, s.v. “בשׂר” and “בשׂרה.”
14. BDB, s.v. “בשׂר”; HALOT, s.v. “בשׂר.” These classify 2 Sam 4:10 under “the messenger’s reward.”
15. Cf. Schilling, TDOT 2:314, for an alternative explanation.
16. All translations are mine unless otherwise indicated (ESV).
17. For an extensive discussion of this occurrence and the defense of a positive understanding of the word, contrary to its apparent use in this verse, cf. Fisher, “Study of the Semitic Root,” 190-96; cf. Schilling, TDOT 2:314-15; Hague, NIDOTTE 1:775-76. It is noteworthy that the LXX has τὸ παιδάριον here rather than its usual rendering ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος; cf. 2 Sam 18:26; Isa 40:9; Nah 2:1. In fact, every time εὐαγγελίζω appears in the LXX the MT has the root בשׂר. Joel 3:5 is no exception. The MT is וּבַשְּׂרִידִים and the translator apparently misread the root to be בשׂר.
18. Fisher, TDOT, TLOT, and NIDOTTE all conclude the same. They also point out that early on it may have had a neutral sense, but that it developed into a strictly positive word, contra HALOT and apparently BDB.
19. Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 40-48, trans. Anthony P. Runia (Kampen: Kok, 1997), 202. For a discussion of the interpretive possibilities in light of 1QIsaa, cf. A. Gelston, “‘Behold the Speaker’: A Note on Isaiah XLI 27, ” VT 43 (1993): 405-8; Fisher, “Herald of Good News,” 126-27. For further proposals and bibliography, cf. John D. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, WBC (Mexico City: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 647.
20. J. Gerald Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27: Reading הנה הנומה in 1QIsaa and הנה הנם in the Masoretic Text,” JBL 113 (1994): 597-98.
21. Many emendations have also been proposed. See the discussion in Koole, Isaiah 40-48, 201. For more bibliography, see Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 647. As an example, Blenkinsopp comments, “That the text was corrupted early is apparent from LXX: ‘I will give rule to Zion and will comfort Jerusalem in the way’ and Tg.: ‘The words of consolation which the prophets prophesied from the first to Zion, behold they come [to pass]’” (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40-55, AB 19a [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 204-5).
22. Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27, ” 602. He also refers to BDB, which lists about 40 instances of the fem. form being used adverbially.
23. Koole, Isaiah 40-48, 201.
24. Driver himself understood it to refer to “leading counsel.”
25. Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27, ” 604. There the word is used to refer to Ahimaaz who outran the Cushite to proclaim the news of victory in battle to King David.
26. Koole, Isaiah 40-48, 201.
27. Ibid., 202.
28. John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 3:278-79; Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27, ” 602.
29. For these Koole cites J. Ridderbos, E. J. Young, and R. P. Merendino (Koole, Isaiah 40-48, 202-3). See also Targum Isaiah.
30. Janzen, “Isaiah 41:27, ” 601.
31. It could possibly look in both directions. But that Jerusalem is Herald in 40:9 and receives the Herald in 41:27, along with the different backgrounds (Assyrian and Babylonian), argues against this understanding. See below.
32. Koole’s view that “them” refers to Cyrus’s armies misses it by one step. His point that the immediate context refers to Cyrus and his armies (cf. 41:25) is well taken. But Cyrus is raised up for the purpose of the return of Israel and restoration of Jerusalem (cf. Isa 44:26). This, along with the Herald’s other occurrences, is determinative. The thing to “behold” is the Lord’s return with his people, even though this is accomplished through Cyrus and his armies.
33. Verse 29 calls them wind (רוּחַ) and nothingness (תֹּחוּ).
34. The question often asked of the text is, Who is this Herald? Whereas, as will be shown below, the image of the Herald can be connected to historical persons, his implementation here, and in 52:7, is theological. The specific identity of the Herald is not the point. That Yhwh can and will give one is.
35. David Carr remarks on the pre-critical notice of a shift beginning in ch. 40. He writes, “It does not take a text linguistic approach to recognize the radical break that Isaiah 40:1 represents. A perceptive pre-critical exegete like Rashi could observe that ‘from here to the end of the book are words of comfort.’… Likewise, in the Christian tradition, Luther … saw the book of Isaiah as made up of two parts: chapters 1-39 were the book of law, and chapters 40-66 were the book of grace. Such pre-critical perception of the break at the beginning of chapter 40 long preceded the widespread consensus in modern biblical scholarship that 40:1 begins the message of ‘second Isaiah’” (David M. Carr, “Isaiah 40:1-11 in the Context of the Macrostructure of Second Isaiah,” in Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. Walter R. Bodine [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 52). See also Calvin, who too sees a major shift here and says that the addressees are the Babylonian exiles (Commentary on Isaiah, 3:199).
36. Cf. Jan P. Fokkelman, “Stylistic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-11, ” in Remembering All the Way: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fortieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland, ed. Adam S. van der Woude, OTS 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 68-90; David Noel Freedman, “The Structure of Isaiah 40:1-11, ” in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman, ed. John R. Huddlestun (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 2:232-57; Carr, “Isaiah 40:1-11, ” 51-74; Christopher Seitz, “The Divine Council: Temporal Transition and New Prophecy in the Book of Isaiah,” JBL 109 (1990): 229-47; Francis Landy, “The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah,” BI 14 (2006): 332-63; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 294-96; Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, trans. David M. G. Stalker, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 32-46. Westermann summarizes the critical view well: “40:1-11 seem so much like a beginning, an overture, a prologue, as to suggest that they come from the prophet himself, and were intended by him as the introduction to his message” (Isaiah 40-66, 32). There are some who see vv. 1-8 as its own unit and label this the “prophetic call.” For discussion, cf. Seitz, “Divine Council,” 229-30n3; Carr, “Isaiah 40:1-11, ” 59-63.
37. I do not mean to imply that the Babylonian exiles would not have claimed this text for themselves. I would propose that the text serves double duty. It looks back at the immediate deliverance from the Assyrians and forward to a day when the Lord would act against the Babylonians. This latter part seems evident in light of ch. 39 and the fact that Isaiah, shortly after and without any striking break from the material of 40:1-11, mentions the Lord’s raising up of Cyrus (cf. 41:25; 43:14; 44:28; 45:1) and Babylon’s destruction (cf. ch. 47). Their claim of this particular text, however, would be similar to the way an Israelite who had never lived in Egypt would claim the Exodus event and secure hope through it. This approach is a modification of modern scholarly consensus, of which Francis Landy’s comment is representative, “One cannot avoid the immense caesura between chapters 39 and 40, no matter how much it has been retrojected into the text of First Isaiah. In the space between chapters 39 and 40 is the catastrophe [the Babylonian exile]. Chapter 40, and Deutero-Isaiah generally, is a post-catastrophe text” (Landy, “Ghostly Prelude,” 336). For a somewhat modified position, see John N. Oswalt, “Who Were the Addressees of Isaiah 40-66?,” BSac 169 (2012): 33-47. Oswalt defends mid-7th century authorship while still maintaining the primary background of critical scholarship’s Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah as exile and post-exile.
38. I have recently developed the argument made in this section. See Matthew Seufert, “Reading Isaiah 40:1-11 in Light of Isaiah 36-37, ” JETS 58 (2015): 269-81.
39. I understand these two sets of terms to be in apposition. Jerusalem and Zion are personified as Heralds. Against the Tg., LXX, and Vulgate, which interpret the Herald as speaking to Zion and Jerusalem (cf. 41:27 and 52:7, where the Herald is clearly sent to Zion and Jerusalem). Fisher most extensively defended this view (cf. Fisher, “Herald of Good News,” 118-24). The Peshitta, Berges, Beuken, Blenkinsopp, Calvin, Childs, Fokkelman, Freedman, Koole, Oswalt, Watts, and Westermann all favor an appositional reading. Koole notes, “The voice should address itself to ‘the cities of Judah’, which are distinguished from Zion-Jerusalem, 44:26” (Koole, Isaiah, 1:71). He also records that Rashi and Ibn Ezra, among others, favored an accusative reading while Kimchi and most newer exegetes favor apposition. The LXX changes the fem. form to masc. reading ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion maintain the fem. form (see Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 606). The main argument usually given for an appositional reading, apart from the contextual one I use above, is that “the fem. form of … ‘herald’ can only refer to the fem. Jerusalem in this context” (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 54).
40. Zion and Jerusalem do not here refer to two separate entities; cf. 37:22, 32; 51:1-2.
41. That Cyrus is later described as anointed gives this connection further credence; cf. 45:1; also 61:1. Here the “Spirit” being upon the Isa 61 figure is a result of his having been “anointed.”
42. For support of the interpretation that the words of vv. 6b–7 are an objection to “Cry!,” cf. Westermann, Isaiah, 41: “The exiles’ greatest temptation—and the prophet speaks as one of their number—was precisely to be resigned to thinking of themselves as caught up in the transience of all things, to believing that nothing could be done to halt the extinction of their national existence, and to saying, ‘just like the countless other nations destroyed before our time, in our time and after our time, we are a nation that perishes: all flesh is as grass!’”
43. Again, Westermann supports this interpretation (ibid).
44. See also v. 7. Childs calls attention to Isa 28:1-4, which speaks of Ephraim as a drooping flower (צִיצַת נֹבֵל) who will soon be crushed by the Assyrians (Childs, Isaiah, 295-96).
45. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Isaiah’s Vision and the Family of God (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 168. Darr does, however, see the Babylonian exile as the background for ch. 40.
46. For various proposals, including “all flesh,” “a band of prophets,” “divine beings,” and others, see the bibliography listed in n. 36 above.
47. The messengers, in 37:4, refer to Yhwh as “your God” (אֱלֹהֶיךָ—Isaiah’s God). Isaiah, in 40:1, refers to him as “your God” (אֶלֹהֵיכֶם—the messengers’ God), perhaps as a subtle rebuke.
48. The specific message of comfort, that Jerusalem’s warfare has ended, corresponds well with the established peace which will run throughout Hezekiah’s days (cf. 37:30-35; 39:8).
49. Knut Holter, “Zur Funktion der Städte Judas in Jesaja xl 9, ” VT 46 (1996): 119: “eine absichtliche Anknüpfung.”
50. Ibid., 120: “Durch die Verdoppelung von ‘d wird hier markiert, daß die Verstockung ein Ende haben wird. Die Verstockung wird wirksam sein [until the cities lie desolate].”
51. Holter sees the Babylonian exile as the primary historical background for “until the cities lie desolate” in Isa 6. I agree that the climax of the desolation is then reached. But the Assyrian desolation is the first phase of a purging process (cf. Isa 6:11-13) and is a more fitting background for 40:9, especially since the cities of Judah are here explicitly labeled as those who receive the Herald’s message.
52. Nahum 1:15 also employs the Herald in this way. Although victory has not yet taken place, the Herald arrives on the scene announcing the news as though Yhwh had already defeated Israel’s enemies.
53. Before, “your” was plural; here it is fem. singular and refers to Zion.
54. It is used in a variety of ways: for moral good (5:20; 7:15, 16; 38:3; 55:2; 65:2), things that are valuable/well made (5:9; 39:2; 41:7), the good of the land (1:19), “good” as the word spoken to the righteous who eat the fruit of their deeds (3:10), the word which Hezekiah receives from the Lord that disaster will strike after his death (39:8), for a good/everlasting name given by Yhwh (56:5), and the Lord’s true servants rejoicing from “good of heart” (65:14).
55. Blenkinsopp writes, “What the herald announces is first presented in general terms, well being … and good” (Isaiah 40-55, 342).
56. Westermann comments, “The messenger of good tidings … has to proclaim something that has already taken place.… This is salvation for Israel, as all three clauses of v. 7b say in different ways” (Isaiah 40-66, 251). So Koole, who calls them “virtually synonymous” (Isaiah 49-55, 233).
57. Cf. 12:2; 25:9; 26:1, 18; 33:2, 6; 49:6, 8; 51:6, 8; 52:10; 56:1; 59:11, 17; 62:1. In every instance, except 26:18 where Israel has failed to accomplish salvation, it is the Lord who is responsible, either directly or through a mediator (i.e., the Servant), for salvation.
58. For these identifications, cf. Willem A. M. Beuken, “Servant and Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61 as an Interpretation of Isaiah 40-55, ” in The Book of Isaiah, ed. Jacques Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), 411-40; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, AB 19b (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 220-23; Childs, Isaiah, 502-5; John J. Collins, “A Herald of Good Tidings: Isaiah 61:1-3 and Its Actualization in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon, Biblical Interpretation 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 225-40; Bradley C. Gregory, “The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah: Isaiah 61:1-3 in Light of Second Temple Hermeneutics,” JBL 126 (2007): 475-96; H. A. J. Kruger, “Isaiah 61:1-3(4-9), 10-11: Transferor of Privileges, An ‘Identikit’ of the Servant of the Lord?,” Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 58 (2002): 1555-76; James A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4, ” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. Jacob Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 75-106; Jacob Stromberg, “An Inner-Isaianic Reading of Isaiah 61:1-3, ” in Interpreting Isaiah: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 261-72; Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 365-67. The Targum identifies the speaker as “prophet.”
59. Isa 29:19 is the other occurrence.
60. The verse reads, “I alone announced (אָנֹכִי הִגַּדְתִּי), and saved, and declared (וְהִשְׁמַעְתִּי), and there does not exist (וְאֵין) among you a foreign god, and you are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and I am God.” The root שׁמע occurs in 52:7, in the hiphil, and the subject is the Herald. Yhwh declares through the Herald.

Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90? A Semantic Reevaluation Of William Henry Green’s Chronological Gaps

By Jeremy Sexton

[Jeremy Sexton is pastor of the Church of the Good Shepherd in North Augusta, SC.]

I. The Genesis Of The Primeval Chronology Debate

In 1890, William Henry Green, professor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, published his seminal essay “Primeval Chronology.”[1] He argued 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.”[2] He concluded that “the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham.”[3]

Green’s proposal challenged the long-established approach to Gen 5 and 11. Biblical interpreters had been reading the genealogies as chronologies since before Christ. Jewish historians Demetrius (ca. 200 BC), Eupolemus (ca. 160 BC), and Josephus (ca. AD 93), as well as the authors of Jubilees (ca. 150 BC) and Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. AD 150), used the genealogies for chronological computation.[4] Several early and medieval churchmen—for example, Theophilus of Antioch (ca. 168), Julius Africanus (ca. 218), Origen (ca. 230), Eusebius (ca. 315), Augustine (ca. 354), Bede (ca. 723), and Cedrenus (ca. 1060)—did likewise.[5] Luther dated creation to 3960 BC, Melanchthon to 3963 BC, and “Geneva” to 3943 BC.[6] During the interval between the Reformation and the publication of Green’s essay, Ussher dated creation to 4004 BC, Vossius to 5590 BC, Playfair to 4007 BC, Jackson to 5426 BC, Hales to 5411 BC, and Russell to 5441 BC.[7] This is merely a small sampling of those who used Gen 5 and 11 for the construction of a chronology. By 1890 the chronological interpretation had deep roots.

Chronological computation has always been so inviting because Gen 5 and 11 specify the age of each patriarch at the birth of his descendant, unlike any other genealogies in Scripture or in extant ancient Near Eastern writings.[8] The text says that when Adam was 130, he begat Seth (Gen 5:3); when Seth was 105, he begat Enosh (5:6); when Enosh was 90, he begat Kenan (5:9); and so forth. It appears that one can construct a chronology from Adam to Abraham by adding up the patriarchs’ begetting ages. Green conceded that Gen 5 and 11 give “the prima facie impression” of a chronology, but he attempted to refute the chronological interpretation by arguing for the possibility of genealogical gaps created by the biblical author’s “omission of unimportant names.”[9]

During the twentieth century, Green’s proposal became the consensus view among evangelical OT scholars. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. included Green’s landmark paper in his compilation of Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, considering it one of “the finest moments in Old Testament scholarship.”[10]

Green’s hypothesis is attractive because it reconciles Scripture with the academically accepted antiquity of mankind. According to the chronological interpretation of Gen 5 and 11 in the Masoretic Text (MT), God created Adam ca. 4000 BC. The Septuagint (LXX), with its higher begetting ages, puts the creation of Adam ca. 5500 BC. Few anthropologists accept such recent dates for the origin of the human race. Green’s theory also removes any discrepancy between the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt and the date of the flood. A deluge that destroyed all of mankind must have happened before Egypt’s first dynasty, whose accepted date of commencement is ca. 3000 BC.[11] The problem is that Noah’s flood, according to the chronology in the MT, dates to ca. 2500 BC at the earliest (Ussher dated it to 2348 BC). The longer chronology in the LXX puts the flood before Egyptian history, but Green insisted on the accuracy of the MT’s begetting ages.[12] He proposed an appealing solution: gaps in Gen 5 and 11 that do not impose a timeline on the interpreter.

II. Green’s Gaps

1. The Case For Genealogical Gaps

In the first half of his essay, Green shows that biblical genealogies are sometimes “abbreviated by the omission of unimportant names.”[13] He appeals first to the familiar omissions in the genealogy of Jesus in Matt 1.[14] For example, Matt 1:8 says that “Joram begat Uzziah,” even though Uzziah (also called “Azariah”) was Joram’s great-great-grandson (1 Chr 3:11–12). Green then points out omissions in OT genealogies (e.g., Ezra 7:1–5; cf. 1 Chr 6:3–14).[15] He also discusses OT passages that use the Hebrew verb ילד (“to bear, give birth to, bring forth, beget”).[16] The hiphil of ילד occurs fifty-three times in Gen 5 and 11:10–26, thirty-six times as וַיּוֹלֶד (“he begat”) and seventeen times as הוֹלִידוֹ (“[after] he begat”).[17] Green’s purpose is to show that this verb can be used of remote descendants as well as immediate offspring.

Green recognizes that the hiphil verbs וַיּוֹלֶד and הוֹלִידוֹ describe the event of birth throughout Gen 5 and 11. Commenting on Gen 5:9 (“When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begat [וַיּוֹלֶד] Kenan”), Green affirms that “when Enosh was ninety … one was born.”[18] Eight more times Green acknowledges that the genealogies specify the age of each patriarch at the “birth” of his “son.”[19] Modern OT scholars concur. Hamilton states that וַיּוֹלֶד and הוֹלִידוֹ refer to “the birthing process,” that is, “the actual delivery of a son or daughter.”[20] He notes in his commentary on Genesis that the genealogies provide “the age of the father at the birth” of his son, for וַיּוֹלֶד “repeatedly” describes “the son’s birth.”[21] Lessing and Steinmann agree that the genealogies furnish “the age of each ancestor at the birth of his descendant.”[22] Waltke and O’Connor show that the hiphil and hophal (the causative forms) of ילד describe the “event” of birth.[23] They translate בָּניִם וַיּוֹלֶד וּבָנוֹת in Gen 5:4 as “he begat (Hiphil) sons and daughters (lit., caused sons and daughters to be born [as an event]).”[24] They translate הֻלֶּדֶת אֶת־פַּרְעֹה יוֹם in Gen 40:20 as “on Pharaoh’s birthday (Hophal) (lit., on the day of Pharaoh’s having been caused to be born [as an event]).”[25] One is “caused to be born” on the day, and in the event, of birth. Isaiah 45:10 illustrates well that the hiphil of ילד refers to delivery. The child in utero asks his father, “What will you bring forth [מַה־תֹּולִיד]?” (Isa 45:10), which indicates that the father has not yet “brought forth” or “begotten” (ילד, hiphil) the child. Oswalt says that the hiphil verb תֹּולִיד in this verse makes “future reference” to the time when the unborn child will be “brought to birth.”[26] Young similarly explains that this verse points ahead to the time when the father “will bring forth” (תֹּולִיד) his already conceived child.[27] A father “begets” or “brings forth” (ילד, hiphil) his child on the day in which his child is “brought to birth.” Tov argues that the hiphil of ילד throughout the genealogies “refers to the birth of the son rather than the fathering [of the son].”[28] The translation “begat” (as well as “fathered”) potentially obscures this point. English Bibles convey the “birthing” sense of ילד in Gen 5 and 11 when they translate it as “had.” For example, the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, CEB, RSV, NRSV, and NLT say that Enosh “had [וַיּוֹלֶד]” other sons and daughters (Gen 5:10b). Throughout the genealogies, the hiphil of ילד describes “the birthing process” or “the actual delivery” of descendants. Neither Green nor modern Hebrew scholars dispute this semantic reality. A descendant was “brought to birth” at the specified age of each patriarch in Gen 5 and 11.

Green argues that ילד can be used “of descendants beyond the first generation.”[29] He supports this conclusion initially with some biblical passages that use ילד in the qal.[30] Then he cites two verses (Deut 4:25 and 2 Kgs 20:18) that use the hiphil of ילד and that uphold his contention unquestionably.[31] Deuteronomy 4:25 contains the following dependent clause: “when you have had [תוֹלִיד] children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land.” Here the hiphil verb תוֹלִיד takes as its direct objects both immediate offspring (“children”) and remote descendants (“grandchildren”). Second Kings 20:18 records Isaiah’s prediction that Hezekiah “will bring forth [תֹּולִיד]” remote “sons” who will be taken into exile. These “sons” turn out to be Hezekiah’s great-great-great-grandson Jehoiachin and great-great-grandson Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24:12–17; 25:1–7). We must agree with Green that ילד can be used “without restriction to the immediate offspring.”[32]

In the second half of his essay, Green turns to the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11. He contends that the inspired author may have condensed these genealogical tables by omitting unimportant links. For example, Kenan may have been “a remote descendant of Enosh.”[33] We concede Green’s point, granting for argument’s sake that Gen 5 and 11 contain genealogical gaps.

2. From Genealogical Gaps To Chronological Gaps

Green assumes, without explicit argument, that chronological gaps are a corollary of genealogical gaps. He states that if the author of Genesis had intended to provide a gapless chronology, then “he must of course have aimed to make his list complete. The omission of even a single name would create an error.”[34] However, an unbroken chronology does not logically or semantically require an unbroken genealogy. As long as Seth was born when Adam was 130, and Enosh was born when Seth was 105, and Kenan was born when Enosh was 90 (whether Kenan was Enosh’s son, grandson, great-grandson, or great-great-grandson), and so on, the chronology would remain intact.

The formula that links together the generations in Gen 5 and 11 is “When A had lived X years, he had [וַיּוֹלֶד] B.”[35] This construction communicates how old each patriarch was when he “had” or “brought to birth” his descendant. Table 1 uses Gen 5:9 to illustrate the grammar of this recurring formula:

Table 1: The Grammar of Genesis 5:9

אֶת־קֵינָן	וַיּוֹלֶד	שָׁנָה	תִּשְׁעִים	אֱנוֹשׁ	וַיְחִי
Kenan	he had	years	90	Enosh	when he had lived
“When Enosh [A] had lived 90 [X] years, he had Kenan [B].”

Who was born when Enosh was 90? The untranslatable particle אֶת marks קֵינָן (“Kenan”) as the direct-object accusative of וַיּוֹלֶד (“he had”). A “direct-object accusative is the recipient of a transitive verb’s action.”[36] The transitive verb וַיּוֹלֶד describes birth. Therefore Gen 5:9 refers to Kenan’s birth when Enosh was 90.[37]

Could Gen 5:9 be describing the birth of someone other than Kenan when Enosh was 90? Green supposes so. He suggests that Enosh’s anonymous son “from whom Kenan sprang” could have been born that year.[38] Thus Gen 5:9 may mean “When Enosh had lived 90 years, he had [the son from whom sprang] Kenan.” On Green’s reading, we have no way of knowing when Kenan himself “sprang.” He could have been born thousands of years later. Green asserts this semantic premise directly:

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.[39]

Green assumes that asking “whether Kenan was an immediate or a remote descendant of Enosh” (a semantically legitimate question) is tantamount to asking “whether Kenan was himself born, when Enosh was ninety years of age or one was born from whom Kenan sprang.” Green’s contention is unwarranted. Whether Kenan was an immediate or a remote descendant of Enosh, the text says that when Enosh was 90, he had Kenan, not Kenan’s ancestor. Kenan himself was born when Enosh was 90.

Green complicates what is lexically and grammatically straightforward. He inserts an unstated direct object, B’s unnamed ancestor, into the text, creating chronological gaps. Yet he offers no semantic evidence that ילד in any active form can describe the birth of someone other than its stated object. Here is Green’s argument presented as a syllogism:

Premise 1:	Gen 5 and 11 may contain genealogical gaps (that is, B may be a remote descendant of A in some cases).
Premise 2:	Where B is a remote descendant of A, the formula “When A had lived X years, he had B” means “When A had lived X years, he had [the son from whom sprang] B.”
Conclusion:	Gen 5 and 11 may contain chronological gaps.

We grant P1. However, we find several problems with P2.

(1) As noted above, in general, “the direct-object accusative is the recipient of a transitive verb’s action.”[40] With a hiphil verb in particular, “the object participates in the event expressed by the verbal root.”[41] For example, Lev 23:30b (“I will cause that soul to perish from among his people”), which uses the hiphil verb והַאֲבַדְתִּי, “presents the object, that soul, as an actor in the event of perishing.”[42] Similarly, Gen 5:9b (“he caused Kenan to be born”), which uses the hiphil verb וַיּוֹלֶד, presents the object, Kenan, as an actor in the event of being born. Kenan himself received the action of וַיּוֹלֶד when Enosh was 90. Kenan, not his anonymous ancestor, participated in the event expressed by the root of וַיּוֹלֶד (the event of birth) when Enosh was 90.[43]

(2) P2 does not follow from P1, but actually undermines it. On the one hand, P1 affirms that ילד can be used of “a remote descendant,” that is, “without restriction to the immediate offspring.”[44] On the other hand, P2 restricts the use of ילד to the birth of the immediate son “from whom [the remote descendant] sprang.”[45]

(3) The standard Hebrew lexicons (BDB, HALOT, DCH) lend no credence to P2. None of them suggests that ילד ever describes the birth of an unstated object instead of its grammatical object.

(4) P2 cannot be established from usage. Nowhere does ילד (or either of its Greek counterparts, τίκτω and γεννάω) take a remote descendant as its object while describing the birth of the remote descendant’s anonymous ancestor. No text is clarified by positing that ילד describes the birth of an unmentioned object instead of its explicit object.

(5) It is counterintuitive to think that the statement “When A had lived X years, he had B” describes the birth of someone other than B when A was X years old. Green illustrates this when he refers to “the ages of different patriarchs at the birth of the son named.”[46] This slip of the pen betrays the natural reading: “the son named” (not an unnamed ancestor of the son named) was born at the specified age.

(6) The evidence from usage shows that the hiphil of ילד describes the birth of its grammatical object even when its grammatical object is a remote descendant (contra the logic of P2). Unambiguous examples of this occur in Deut 4:25 and 2 Kgs 20:18 // Isa 39:7, to which we now return.

(a) Deuteronomy 4:25. In Deut 4:25, Moses utters this temporal clause: “when you have had [תוֹלִיד] children and grandchildren and have grown old in the land.”[47] This supports P1, confirming that the hiphil of ילד can take as its grammatical object “grandchildren” (בָניִם בְניֵ) as well as “children” (בָּניִם). But it defies P2, because the verb תוֹלִיד describes the births of both objects, the grandchildren as well as the children.

Let us apply the logic of P2 to this clause: “when you have had children and [children from whom will spring] grandchildren and have grown old in the land.” On this reading, Moses awkwardly refers to the births of the same immediate offspring twice (“when you have had children and children”). This interpretation also ignores the progression of thought in the clause, for Moses intends to give an overview of life in the land: God’s people will have children, then grandchildren, as they grow old in Canaan.

This example is instructive because it comes from the Pentateuch and because ילד appears in the hiphil with a masculine subject. It illustrates that when the hiphil of ילד is used of grandchildren, it describes the births of the grandchildren, not the births of the children from whom the grandchildren spring.

(b) Second Kings 20:18 // Isaiah 39:7.[48] In 2 Kgs 20:12–15, Hezekiah shows the envoys from Babylon all the treasures in his storehouses. In response, Isaiah tells Hezekiah that one day the Babylonians will come and take back to Babylon all these treasures, along with some of Hezekiah’s descendants (vv. 16–18). In v. 18 (// Isa 39:7) Isaiah tells Hezekiah that the Babylonians “will take away some of your sons, who will issue forth from you, whom you will bring forth [תּוֹלִיד].” Isaiah’s prediction here, uttered in the late eighth century BC, is that Hezekiah “will bring forth” or “will have” remote “sons” who will be taken to Babylon. This prophecy was fulfilled in the early sixth century BC when Jehoiachin (Hezekiah’s great-great-great-grandson) and Zedekiah (Hezekiah’s great-great-grandson) were taken captive (2 Kgs 24:12–17; 25:1–7). Isaiah’s usage supports P1, but it challenges P2, because Isaiah is describing the births of Hezekiah’s distant grandsons, not the birth of the son (Manasseh) from whom Hezekiah’s grandsons sprang.

Isaiah is not predicting, as the logic of P2 would require, that Hezekiah will bring forth the ancestor of the remote sons who will be taken into exile. The second relative clause in Isaiah’s prophecy (“whom you will bring forth”), no less than the first (“who will issue forth from you”), makes future reference to the births of the remote sons themselves, not the birth of their ancestor Manasseh.[49] According to Thiele, Hezekiah’s son Manasseh was already born when Isaiah spoke this prophecy.[50] And Hezekiah died before his grandson, Manasseh’s son Amon, was born. Thus Isaiah’s “whom you will bring forth” refers to the births of descendants born after Hezekiah’s death. Hezekiah had Jehoiachin and Zedekiah postmortem just as Joram had Uzziah postmortem (Matt 1:8).

To save P2, one OT scholar proposed to me that an unmentioned immediate son must have been born to Hezekiah sometime after Isaiah’s prophecy, and that Isaiah’s “whom you will bring forth” refers to the birth of this unknown son, whose descendants must have been exiled to Babylon in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. This unprecedented interpretation reverts to speculation for the sole purpose of upholding the semantic logic of P2. Moreover, 2 Kgs 24:12–17 and 25:1–7 unmistakably identify the captivity of Manasseh’s descendants, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Provan affirms that the deportations of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah constitute the prophecy’s realization.[51] Additionally, Mart. Isa. 1:2 states that Manasseh was Hezekiah’s only son.

Deuteronomy 4:25 and 2 Kgs 20:18 // Isa 39:7 reinforce the implausibility of Green’s ad hoc conjecture (P2). The hiphil of ילד describes the birth of its grammatical object, whether that object is an immediate or a remote descendant.

III. Goodenow’s Little-Known Response To Green’s Essay

Shortly after Green published his paper, Smith Bartlett Goodenow wrote a critical response in which he showed that “the ‘begat’ indicates the birth of the person named after it; and the date of that birth being given, it matters not how many un-named generations intervene. The chronology is fixed and unchanged. No such anomaly is known in Scripture, or in reason, as a dating given to an un-named ancestor’s birth.”[52] Goodenow submitted his critique of Green’s hypothesis to Bibliotheca Sacra, along with a second manuscript titled “Primeval Man.”[53] The editor, G. Frederick Wright, wrote the following in an acceptance letter to Goodenow dated June 29, 1893: “The two Mss. which I have in my hand ought to be published in the Bibliotheca, and I can say to you positively, that if you will let them remain in my hands, I will work them into the January and April numbers.”[54] Inexplicably, Goodenow’s response to Green’s essay never appeared in the journal.[55]

IV. Green’s Unimportant Begetting Ages

We noted above that in all of Scripture and known ancient Near Eastern literature, only the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 contain begetting ages. Even if Green were correct that the genealogies technically allow for chronological gaps, we would need to ask why the author provided nineteen begetting ages, one for each patriarch, if not for the purpose of indicating when the named descendants were born. According to Green, these temporal qualifiers may only record how old the fathers were when they brought forth “unimportant names.”[56] Green does not explain why the author would date the births of unimportant (that is, unnamed) names.

The biblical author did not need to include begetting ages for genealogical purposes; every ancient genealogy outside of Gen 5 and 11 communicates lineage without using begetting ages. In the immediate context, for example, Gen 4 and 10 illustrate the genealogical conventions that do not use begetting ages: “to Seth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh” (4:26); “the sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram” (10:22); “Arpachshad had Shelah, and Shelah had Eber” (10:24). The genealogy in 1 Chr 1:1–27 goes from Adam to Abraham without using begetting ages. The genealogy in Ruth 4:18–22 links its patriarchs together with the hiphil of ילד, but without using begetting ages. I have been unable to find a published interpretation that posits a reason why the author of Gen 5 and 11 included the begetting ages if not for a chronological purpose.

In response to this point, one dialog partner proposed to me the following non-chronological purpose: the begetting ages in Gen 5, when compared to the lower ones in Gen 11, suggest the virility of the antediluvians. This scholar noted more broadly that the intent of Gen 5 and 11 is to continue the themes (developed in Gen 1–4) of life, death, and reproduction. First, the themes of life, death, and reproduction could have remained in Gen 5 and 11 without the begetting ages. Second, the begetting ages indicate neither when the patriarchs became virile nor when they became sterile. Adam fathered children before he had Seth at age 130 (Gen 4:25; 5:3), “which shows it to be no purpose of these birth-dates to give the age of beginning paternity.”[57] And the fathers on both sides of the flood stayed virile indefinitely after their specified ages of begetting, having “other sons and daughters.” So we know when the patriarchs were born, when they had their important sons, and when they died, but not when they gained or lost virility. Nothing suggests that the antediluvians were virile for a larger percentage of their lives than the postdiluvians. It is difficult to deny that Green’s “theory takes away all purpose on the part of the sacred writer in giving the birth-dates he has so carefully arranged.”[58]

Green assigns importance only to the patriarchs’ life spans, which reveal “the original term of human life. They show what it was in the ages before the Flood. They show how it was afterwards individually narrowed down.”[59] We agree that Gen 5 and 11 communicate each father’s length of life. However, if the author of the genealogies had wanted to supply life spans, but not chronology, he could have accomplished this more efficiently without begetting ages. The genealogy in Exod 6:16–20 gives the fathers’ life spans without using begetting ages.[60] For example, Exod 6:18 says, “The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. And the years of the life of Kohath were 133.” Genesis 5:9–11 would still provide Enosh’s life span if v. 9 did not specify how old Enosh was when he had Kenan, and if v. 10 did not mention how long Enosh lived after he had Kenan. It would read thus: “9Enosh had Kenan. 10And Enosh had other sons and daughters. 11And all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.” As the text stands, v. 9 specifies and v. 10 accentuates the year in which the important son, Kenan, was born: “9When Enosh had lived 90 years, he had Kenan. 10Enosh lived 815 years after he had Kenan, and had other sons and daughters.”

Green argues that since the genealogies provide numbers that are of no use chronologically (i.e., “how long each patriarch lived after the birth of his son, and what was the entire length of his life”), we ought not to think that any of the numbers were intended for a chronological purpose.[61] However, the author surely could have had one aim for the begetting ages (to provide a chronology) and another for the ages at death (to show the patriarchs’ longevity and humanity’s declining life span).

Green says that the author of Genesis “nowhere sums these numbers [that is, nowhere sums the begetting ages], nor suggests their summation,” and that “there is no computation [of primeval chronology] anywhere in Scripture.”[62] However, the author of Genesis does more than merely suggest the summation of the begetting ages. He uses words and grammar that inescapably link these numbers together chronologically (as I have demonstrated in this article). That Scripture never computes the chronology is irrelevant, inasmuch as the semantics and syntax of the genealogies support chronological computation. Green himself acknowledges that the author of these genealogies expected his readers to make some important computations with the numbers provided. Genesis 11 does not total the length of the fathers’ lives, but Green determines that we can know the life span of each postdiluvian patriarch by adding his begetting age to the number of years he lived after his son’s birth.[63] Thus Green deduces that “the term of human life” was “individually narrowed down” after the flood.[64]

One of Green’s own arguments for genealogical gaps (P1) involves tallying the names in each genealogy: “Each genealogy includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah.”[65] Green sees this as one of the “striking numerical coincidences” in Gen 5 and 11, and concludes that “the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is artificial.”[66] While an artificial ten-and-ten symmetry would only entail genealogical (not chronological) gaps, it is worth noting that MT Gen 11 comprises only nine names.[67] To arrive at ten names in each genealogy, Green includes Noah in both genealogies, even though Noah does not appear in the second one. In a later publication, Green acknowledges that the two genealogies have “nearly the same number of links (one ten, the other nine).”[68]

Actually, it is Green’s interpretation that generates the most striking numerical coincidence. According to Green, we cannot know when Methuselah died in relation to the flood, because we cannot know how big the chronological gap was between him and Noah. Methuselah could have died thousands of years before the flood. According to the chronological interpretation, however, Methuselah died in the very year of the deluge (Gen 5:25–29; 7:6).[69] Green does not discuss this phenomenon, but on his premises, it is a mere happenstance of unsanctioned chronological computation. To avoid this improbability, one must concede that the author of MT Gen 5 expected his readers to use the begetting ages of Methuselah and Lamech for chronological computation. To maintain Green’s hypothesis, however, one must restrict the author’s chronological intent to the begetting ages of Methuselah and Lamech. Such a restriction requires much special pleading, and it still contradicts Green’s claim that the author “nowhere … suggests” the summation of the begetting ages.[70] The simplest explanation of the data is that the author provided all the begetting ages, not just Methuselah’s and Lamech’s, for chronological computation.

V. Summary

Green’s hypothesis must bear five burdens. (1) It must show that Gen 5 and 11 may contain genealogical gaps (P1). (2) It must demonstrate that ילד, in the case of a genealogical gap, can describe the birth of the named descendant’s unnamed ancestor (P2). (3) It must explain why ילד functions according to the logic of P2 in Gen 5 and 11, but not in Deut 4:25 or 2 Kgs 20:18 // Isa 39:7. (4) It must establish a purpose for the nineteen begetting ages. (5) It must account for the striking numerical coincidence discussed in the previous paragraph. Green and subsequent proponents of his gaps have only borne the first burden, at most.[71]

VI. Green’s Offspring

In 1911, Benjamin B. Warfield published his essay “On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race,” using as his exegetical starting point Green’s “illuminating article.”[72] Warfield’s commendation helped to propel Green’s gaps into wider acceptance among conservative scholars.

Green’s hypothesis became a staple of evangelical literature during the second half of the twentieth century. Leading the way, Francis Schaeffer argued that because “the word begat in Gen 11 does not require a first-generation father-son relationship” (P1), “it can mean, fathered someone who led to” (P2).[73] However, P1 does not imply that וַיּוֹלֶד (“he begat”) can describe the birth of “someone who led to” its named object. The action of וַיּוֹלֶד is accomplished only when its grammatical object is born.

K. A. Kitchen rehearses Green’s semantics in his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen defends P1 and then asserts P2: “A fathered B” may mean “A fathered [P, who fathered Q, who fathered R, who fathered S, who fathered T, who fathered …] B.”[74] He does not show how P2 follows from P1, and his ensuing comments indicate that the impetus for positing chronological gaps is extra-biblical data: “Thus we can neither date the flood before Abraham nor the creation before Noah merely by counting the Genesis figures continuously as did the worthy Archbishop Ussher in the carefree days when no evidence from outside the Bible was even imagined,” for “in the context of that external data, any such literalism fails.… So an Ussherite solution is ruled out.”[75] Kitchen’s use of “literalism” here is a distraction, because Green’s approach, which Kitchen adopts, is no less literal than the chronological interpretation. Kitchen contends for chronological gaps precisely because he believes the text communicates literal history, and he wants to show how that history can be reconciled with the “evidence from outside the Bible.” Kitchen puts forth the semantics of P2 because he realizes that we may not rule out the chronological interpretation until we can demonstrate that the words and grammar of Gen 5 and 11 literally allow for time gaps.

C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary and Old Testament editor of the ESV Study Bible, has made regular use of Green’s theory. In 1994, Collins wrote, “W. H. Green showed, however, that these genealogies have an unknown number of omissions; that is, when we read that X begat Y, this need only mean that X became the ancestor of Y (as in the NIV margin).”[76] We grant that Enosh, at 90, may have become Kenan’s “ancestor” rather than his immediate father (P1). However, this still means that Kenan was born when Enosh was 90, for a man only “becomes the ancestor of” his descendant when the descendant himself is born. Hence the translation “became the ancestor of” creates genealogical gaps (P1), but not chronological gaps (P2). In 2003, Collins opted for the translation “fathered an ancestor of.”[77] This wording incorporates both P1 and P2. Like Green, though, Collins never defends P2; he merely assumes that it follows from P1. In his 2006 commentary on Gen 1–4, Collins begins his defense of Green’s hypothesis with the subheading “Do biblical genealogies have gaps?”[78] The entire section merely argues for P1. In his 2011 book on Adam and Eve, Collins again fails to differentiate genealogical gaps from chronological gaps when he says that the genealogies “do not claim to name every person in the line of descent, and thus are not aimed at providing detailed chronological information.”[79] This non sequitur epitomizes Green’s argument.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, the only lexicographical work known to me that affirms the possibility of P2, says that when ילד points to a remote descendant (P1), the verb nevertheless may describe the birth of the offspring at “the beginning” of the line (P2).[80] For support, TWOT cites only Matt 1:1, where “Christ is called a son of David and a son of Abraham.”[81] But Jesus did not become Abraham’s son when Isaac was born, or David’s son when Solomon was born. Jesus became “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt 1:1) when Jesus was born.

TWOT also makes this supporting claim: “In Hebrew thought, an individual by the act of giving birth to a child becomes a parent or ancestor of all who will be descended from this child.”[82] This appears to say that an individual becomes an ancestor of his grandchildren, not when his grandchildren are born, but when his child leading to the grandchildren is born (“by the act of giving birth to a child”). The author does not cite where this notion exists in so-called Hebrew thought. Perhaps the author had in mind Heb 7:9–10, which says that Levi existed figuratively (“so to speak,” v. 9) “in the loins of his ancestor [Abraham]” (v. 10). Still, Abraham did not become Levi’s ancestor when Isaac was born. Figuratively, Abraham already was Levi’s ancestor before Isaac was born (Levi existed in Abraham’s loins). Literally, Abraham was “childless” (Gen 15:2) before he had children and “grandchildless” before he had grandchildren. A man only “becomes a parent or ancestor of” a descendant when that descendant himself is born. This analysis of Heb 7:9–10 applies equally to b. Sanh. 37a, which says that every “soul of Israel” contains “an entire world” of descendants.[83] None of this suggests that אֶת־קֵינָן וַיּוֹלֶד, “he had Kenan,” can mean “he [in the act of having Kenan’s ancestor] had Kenan.”

VII. Conclusion

Many evangelicals treat Green’s chronological gaps as a settled conclusion, but the crucial P2 remains unwarranted. Green conflated genealogical gaps and chronological gaps, and failed to provide a raison d’être for the begetting ages. In Deut 4:25 and 2 Kgs 20:18 // Isa 39:7, the hiphil of ילד describes the births of its grammatical objects, which are remote descendants. Green needed to show why the hiphil of ילד does not necessarily describe the births of its grammatical objects throughout Gen 5 and 11. He also needed to account for the striking numerical coincidence that exists in a chronological interpretation of the MT, Methuselah’s death in the year of the flood.

We commend Green for seeking a scriptural response to the aspersions of skeptics, but we must conclude that he did not find a tenable one. A computable chronology of the human race, going back to Adam on the sixth day of creation (Gen 1:26–27; 5:1–3), is lexically and grammatically inescapable. If we suppose that the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 do not communicate chronology, then the possibility of a chronogenealogy becomes difficult to imagine, for “no mode of speech could be contrived to give successive dates to Bible generations if those tables in Genesis be denied as such.”[84]

VIII. Appendix A: Other Non-Chronological Interpretations

1. Gardiner’s Hypothesis

One of Green’s contemporaries, Frederic Gardiner, suggested that the begetting ages indicate how old each patriarch was at the birth of his firstborn, and that the named son, though an immediate offspring, was not necessarily the firstborn; thus, the named son could have been born at any point in the patriarch’s life after the birth of the firstborn.[85] According to Gardiner, then, “Seth, e.g., might have begun to be a father at 105, but might have actually begotten Enos[h] at any reasonable time during the 807 years which he afterward lived.”[86] Gardiner’s proposal, unlike Green’s, does not allow for unlimited time gaps in Gen 5 and 11, for it requires that the named son be born during the father’s lifetime.

Gardiner first appeals to Gen 5:32, which lists all three of Noah’s sons, only the oldest of whom was born when Noah was 500. Gardiner shows persuasively that Shem, though named first, was not the oldest. Gardiner makes the same point about Terah’s three sons in Gen 11:26, demonstrating that Abram, though named first, was not the oldest. (These interpretations of Gen 5:32 and 11:26, which I uphold below, are not original to Gardiner.) Gardiner extrapolates from this that “any of the patriarchs named may have been begotten at any reasonable time in the life of their fathers subsequent to the date given for the beginning of paternity.”[87] Thus Gen 5:6 may mean “When Seth had lived 105 years, he had [his unnamed firstborn, and later in life had] Enosh.”[88]

Gardiner’s hypothesis has severe problems. (1) Genesis 5:7 says, “Seth lived 807 years after he had Enosh, and had other sons and daughters.” According to Gardiner, Enosh may have been one of the “other sons and daughters” born in the final “807 years” of Seth’s life. The text, however, says that these other sons and daughters were born to Seth “after he had Enosh” and that the final 807 years of Seth’s life likewise came “after he had Enosh.” Gardiner never explains how this recurring temporal clause, “after he had B,” fits into his theory.

(2) Another “great fault of [Gardiner’s] theory” is that it leaves “no adequate motive for giving the dates.”[89] This problem besets both Gardiner’s and Green’s proposals.

(3) Gardiner provides no criteria for determining when the begetting ages apply to “the beginning of paternity.” If they always do, then Adam was 130 when his first son Cain was born (Gen 5:3). That is implausible. Adam was 130 when Seth was born. Consequently, Gardiner uses Seth and Enosh (Gen 5:6–8), rather than Adam and Seth (Gen 5:3–5), to illustrate his hypothesis (see the quote in the opening paragraph of this section). Genesis 5:3 establishes at the beginning of the genealogy that the begetting ages date the births of sons named in the text.

(4) As for Gen 5:32 and 11:26, each of these verses names the son born at the specified date; he does not remain anonymous. That he is not named first is a literary move in keeping with the theology of Genesis, wherein younger brothers (e.g., Seth, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Perez, and Ephraim) often replace, or are chosen over, their older brothers. It is therefore fitting that Shem and Abram, listed first because of their theological significance, are younger brothers.

Furthermore, Genesis fills in the chronological gaps created by 5:32 and 11:26, indicating how old Noah and Terah were when their sons Shem and Abram were born. Noah was 600 at the flood (Gen 7:6). Shem was (100 – 2 =) 98 at the flood (Gen 11:10). Therefore Noah was (600 – 98 =) 502 at Shem’s birth.[90] Terah died at 205 (Gen 11:32). Abram was 75 at Terah’s death (Gen 12:4; Acts 7:4). Therefore Terah was (205 – 75 =) 130 at Abram’s birth.[91] The Bible displays its chronological meticulousness here.

2. Non-Literal Numbers

In his commentary on Genesis, Gordon Wenham questions whether the ages in the genealogies are literal. He determines that non-literal numbers would avoid the “historical problems” of a chronology that “is hard to correlate with archeological discoveries about the origins of mankind.”[92] However, non-literal ages do not help Wenham, who both accepts that all the names in Gen 5 and 11 refer to “real people” and rejects Green’s gaps.[93] To lengthen the chronology between Adam and Abraham, Wenham would need the actual begetting ages to be higher than those in the text (lower begetting ages would shorten the chronology and so exacerbate the historical problems). However, only exceedingly higher begetting ages would satisfy most anthropologists. For example, to date Adam to ca. 40,000 BC (a recent date by mainstream standards), the average begetting age of the nineteen patriarchs would need to be roughly 2, 000 years old. An average begetting age of 1, 000 years old (still unreasonably high) would not get us much beyond 20,000 BC.

I am unaware of any interpreter who argues that the actual begetting ages were higher on average than the ones in the text. Proponents of non-literal numbers generally attempt to account for the high figures in Gen 5 and 11 by positing that the actual ages were lower than those in the text. Theories about non-literal numbers do not readily serve to extend the primeval chronology.

IX. Appendix B: Was Enosh 90 Or 190 At Kenan’s Birth? A Textual Reevaluation Of The Chronology In Genesis 5 And 11

The conventional Egyptian chronology presents the most concrete challenge to the primeval timeline in the Hebrew Bible (MT). Even some “young earthers,” who maintain literal creation days, point to the accepted antiquity of Egypt as evidence for chronological gaps in Gen 5 and 11. Snoeberger, for example, contrasts scientific arguments that are based on “uniformitarian presuppositions” with “a class of much ‘harder’ evidence,” namely, “a well-established Egyptian chronology that extends back many centuries before the flood date demanded by the chronogenealogist.”[94] Green acknowledged that some interpreters adopted the Septuagint’s longer chronology, which affords “the needed relief,” but he insisted on the “incontrovertibly established” accuracy of the MT’s lower begetting ages.[95] The evidence, however, does not show the incontrovertibility of the MT at this point.

Before the Reformation, the church in the east and the west subscribed to the longer chronology (that is, the higher begetting ages) in LXX Gen 5 and 11.[96] Jewish histories written before the second century AD (e.g., the chronologies of Demetrius and Eupolemus, and Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities) also adopted the higher begetting ages.[97] The Septuagint dates Noah’s flood 780 years earlier, and the creation of Adam 1, 386 years earlier, than the MT does (see Table 2). Although Jerome used the MT’s lower begetting ages in his Vulgate, in his Chronicon he followed Eusebius’s LXX-based chronology, which “gained general acceptance in the west.”[98] The Venerable Bede in the eighth century was castigated as an innovator for constructing a chronology from the smaller numbers in the Vulgate.[99] The Roman Catholic Church officially regarded the Septuagint’s higher begetting ages as original until after the Reformation.[100]

Table 2: The Begetting Ages in Genesis 5 and 11[101]

	MT	LXX	SP	Josephus
Adam	130	230	130	230
Seth	105	205	105	205
Enosh	90	190	90	190
Kenan	70	170	70	170
Mahalalel	65	165	65	165
Jared	162	162	62	162
Enoch	65	165	65	165
Methuselah	187	187 *	67	187
Lamech	182	188 †	53	182
Noah	500	500	500	—
Shem	100	100	100	—
Arpachshad	35	135	135	135
Cainan	—	130	—	—
Shelah	30	130	130	130
Eber	34	134	134	134
Peleg	30	130	130	130
Reu	32	132	132	130 ‡
Serug	30	130	30	132
Nahor	29	79	79	120
Terah	70	70	70	70

* In some minuscules and manuscripts of the Greek Bible (e.g., Codex Vaticanus and Berlin Papyrus 911) Methuselah begets at 167, while in others (e.g., Codexes Alexandrinus, Cottonianus, and Coislinianus) he begets at 187. The chronologies of Demetrius (ca. 200 BC) and Eupolemus (ca. 160 BC), who used the Septuagint, imply 187 (Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 241; Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, 1:69–72; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:33–34). Swete’s edition of the Septuagint, though based on Codex Vaticanus, prefers 187 (Henry Barclay Swete, ed., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887], 1:8). Hayes, Shuckford, Hales, and recently Merrill put forth 187 as the original begetting age for Methuselah in the LXX (Charles Hayes, A Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint [London: T. Woodward, 1741], 91, 136; Samuel Shuckford, The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected, rev. James Creighton, 5th ed. [London: William Baynes, 1819], 1:50; Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 1:272; Merrill, “Chronology,” 115); contra Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 6n1, 14n9; Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 66.

† Jackson presents evidence for both 182 (MT) and 188 (LXX), ultimately favoring 182 (Chronological Antiquities, 1:37–39).

‡ Apparently Josephus accidentally transposed Reu’s and Serug’s begetting ages.

The Reformers, in their return ad fontes, broke with the consensus and subscribed to the MT’s shorter chronology. However, many biblical scholars in the west during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries (e.g., Vossius, Pezron, Des Vignoles, Hayes, Jackson, Hales, Faber, Russell, Seyffarth, Rawlinson, Budd, and Goodenow) called for a return to the numbers in the Septuagint.[102] This text-critical discussion lost steam after the publication of Green’s essay, which left the begetting ages with no clear purpose.

1. The Case For LXX Genesis 5 And 11.

The higher begetting ages have existed in the Septuagint since its inception in Alexandria in the third century BC, and this raises an important question: Did the LXX translators use a Hebrew text with these higher begetting ages or did they fabricate the longer chronology? A common assumption in the west since the Reformation has been that the Alexandrian Jews, who supposedly “had none of that almost superstitious veneration for the letter of Scripture, which characterized the Jews of Palestine,” intentionally expanded the chronology in Gen 5 and 11 to reconcile it with Egyptian antiquity.[103] A major difficulty with this supposition is that “no ancient author says any such thing.”[104] Green was loath to accept this theory because it assumes that “the original intent with which these textual changes were made, was after all a chronological one.”[105] He proffered instead that the numbers in the Septuagint were invented “to make a more symmetrical division of individual lives” and “to introduce something like a regular gradation” to the begetting ages.[106] This speculation similarly lacks historical grounding and plausibility. The evidence, as we shall see, suggests that the Greek translators used a Hebrew text with the higher begetting ages.

Textual scholars generally recognize a distinct Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint, that is, a Hebrew text used by the LXX translators that differs from the MT in many places. “For books other than Isaiah,” write Jobes and Silva, “the LXX translation offers a larger proportion of genuine variants, that is, readings that very likely reflect a Vorlage different from the MT.”[107] Anneli Aejmelaeus, leader of the Research Project for Textual Criticism of the Septuagint at the University of Helsinki, says,

The scholar who wishes to attribute deliberate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and new accents to the translator is under the obligation to prove his thesis with weighty arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot have originated with the Vorlage. That the translator may have manipulated his original does not mean that he necessarily did so. All that is known of the translation techniques employed in the Septuagint points firmly enough in the opposite direction.[108]

According to Tov, the LXX “variants are equally as important for text-critical analysis as the readings found in Hebrew sources. Some scholars even claim that they are more important than these sources since the [LXX] readings are often superior to elements in [the MT].”[109] Tov concludes that “the assumption is unavoidable that the Hebrew scrolls used for the Greek translation were valuable, authoritative, and sometimes more ancient than [the MT].”[110]

Textual scholars specifically recognize a distinct Hebrew Vorlage behind the Septuagint’s primeval chronology. Tov states that the variants in LXX Gen 5 and 11 “should not be ascribed to the translator, but to his Hebrew Vorlage.”[111] Tov also cites Klostermann’s defense of the Septuagint’s longer chronology, “which, according to Klostermann, was based on Hebrew sources.”[112] The historical evidence points to the Hebrew origin of LXX Gen 5 and 11. As noted above, the chronologies of Jewish historians Demetrius (ca. 200 BC) and Eupolemus (ca. 160 BC) bear witness to the Septuagint’s higher begetting ages. Eupolemus was a Palestinian Jew who “utilized the Hebrew text as well as the LXX.”[113] Eupolemus’s Hebrew and Greek texts must have shared the same numbers in Gen 5 and 11, for Eupolemus likely did not choose the Septuagint over a differing Hebrew text. The higher begetting ages in the LXX also appear in Josephus (Ant. 1.67, 83–87, 149–50).[114] This is especially noteworthy, because Josephus worked directly from the Hebrew (Ant. 10.218; Ag. Ap. 1.1).[115] Hales states that the “book of Enoch, as cited by Alexander Polyhistor” in the first century BC, puts the patriarch Enoch in the “1286th year of the world, which exactly accords with the Greek chronology.”[116] The Septuagint’s longer chronology existed in Hebrew texts during the centuries before and the century after Christ’s birth.

Modern textual critics have rightly questioned whether the MT preserves the original primeval chronology.[117] Hughes says that “it is far from obvious that the original figures are preserved in MT,” and Hendel concludes more decisively that it is “no longer tenable” to maintain that the MT perfectly reflects the archetypal chronology.[118] Yet we should question the general assumption among western textual critics that “the higher set of figures” in LXX Gen 5 and 11, SP Gen 11, and three generations of MT Gen 5 “was secondarily derived from the lower set” in SP Gen 5, MT Gen 11, and six generations of MT Gen 5 (SP = Samaritan Pentateuch).[119] The evidence indicates that the lower begetting ages are secondary and the higher ones original. While the ancient Jewish witnesses betray no demonstrable attempt to inflate chronology, the tendency toward chronological deflation is confirmed in several places. (1) The text of Ant. 1.148 has been altered (the interval between the flood and the birth of Abraham having been reduced by 700 years) to make Josephus reflect the timeline in MT Gen 11, contra Josephus’s longer postdiluvian chronology in Ant. 1.149-50.[120] (2) A similar corruption was attempted in Ant. 1.82 (the interval between Adam and the flood having been reduced by 600 years in the bracketed insertion of “1,656”) to make Josephus reflect the timeline in MT Gen 5, contra Josephus’s longer antediluvian chronology in Ant. 1.83-87.[121] “Plainly,” notes Goodenow, “a mighty effort has been made by corruptors to make Jos. seem to endorse the present Heb. text.”[122] (3) The antediluvian chronology in the SP is 349 years shorter than the one in the MT (see Table 2).[123] (4) The antediluvian chronology in Jubilees “agrees for the most part with SP’s antediluvian chronology.”[124]

(5) The antediluvian chronology in “Jerome’s Samaritan” (no longer extant) was 100 years shorter than the one in the MT.[125] (6) Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. AD 150), a Jewish chronology that dates creation to 3761 BC, reduces the interval between the Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the second temple in AD 70 by approximately 185 years.[126] Notably, we find in this compromised Jewish history “the first mention of the present Hebrew values of Gen. v, xi.”[127] That is, the chronologically corrupted Seder Olam Rabbah is our earliest witness to the MT’s begetting ages. Even apart from the unreliable nature of Seder Olam Rabbah, it is significant that our earliest witness to the longer chronology (the LXX) predates our earliest witness to the MT’s chronology (Seder Olam Rabbah) by about 400 years. The evidence suggests that the chronology in the MT did not exist before the second century of the Christian era. Russell concludes that “in the days of Josephus, as well as in those of the annalists who preceded him as compilers from the Jewish Scriptures, there was no difference in the numerical statements of the Greek version, as compared with the text of the original Hebrew.”[128]

Interpreters have discussed what likely motivated the second-century Jews to reduce the interval between creation and Christ to less than 4, 000 years (3, 761 years in Seder Olam Rabbah). Prevalent among the ancient Jews and early Christians was the belief that the Messiah was supposed to come in the sixth millennium after creation (between AM 5000 and AM 6000). The Septuagint’s primeval chronology, which existed in Hebrew texts before the second century AD, puts the birth of Jesus at ca. AM 5500. Many scholars have argued that during the second century AD, the Palestinian Jews shortened the chronology in the Hebrew copies of Gen 5 and 11 to remove the life of Jesus far from the sixth millennium of the world.[129] A similar tendency may exist in Seder Olam Rabbah’s postexilic chronology, which (having been reduced by roughly 185 years) artificially lays the groundwork for the Jewish interpretation of Daniel’s seventy weeks (Dan 9:24–27), specifically the belief that the cutting off of the מָשִׁיחַ (“anointed one”) in Dan 9:26 was fulfilled ca. AD 70.[130] This manufactured timeline in Seder Olam Rabbah was apparently an attempt to undermine the Christian interpretation of Daniel’s messianic prophecy. Goodenow concludes, “Since the Jews of that day did thus fabricate a false [postexilic] chronology in their attempt to defeat Christianity; the only question is, Did they go further, and corrupt the numbers of Genesis for the same purpose?”[131] Additionally, Hughes notes that “according to the Babylonian Talmud, the Rabbinic ‘school of Elijah’ calculated that the world would last for a total of 6000 years: ‘the first 2000 years are to be void, the next 2000 years are the period of the Law, and the following 2000 years are the period of the Messiah’ (T. b. Abodah Zarah 9a; T. b. Sanhedrin 97b).”[132] This may explain why the second-century Jews reduced the chronology as much as they did: their new timeline removed Jesus from (and put themselves on the verge of) “the period of the Messiah.” The view that the Palestinian Jews in the second century AD condensed the primeval chronology in the Hebrew text to discredit Jesus as the Messiah extends back at least to Christian theologian Ephraem Syrus (325–378).[133]

2. The Particularly Strong Case For LXX Genesis 11.

(1) The begetting ages in LXX Gen 11 are attested not only in Demetrius, Eupolemus, and Josephus, but also in the SP, and there is no evidence of dependence between the LXX and the SP at this point. Two important differences corroborate the independence of these two major textual witnesses: unlike the SP, the LXX in Gen 11 closes each generation with “and he died” (as does Gen 5) and includes the generation of Cainan (as does Luke 3:36). The higher begetting ages shared by the LXX and the SP in Gen 11 are not likely the result of a desire to inflate the chronology, for the SP exhibits a tendency to deflate the chronology in Gen 5 (see Table 2), and any explanation for the higher begetting ages must apply to the SP as well as the LXX.[134]

(2) Cainan’s begetting age of 130 in LXX Gen 11:13 is accounted for in the computations of Demetrius and Eupolemus.[135] The book of Jubilees, which “attests an independent form of the Hebrew text,” also includes Cainan (Jub. 8:1–5).[136] More significantly, Luke 3:36 puts Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah in agreement with the LXX. The MT omits Cainan and says that Arpachshad was only 35 at Shelah’s birth (Gen 11:12). If Arpachshad was 35 at Shelah’s birth, as MT Gen 11:12 says, and if Cainan belongs between Arpachshad and Shelah in Luke 3:36, as every NT editor has determined, then Arpachshad must have had Cainan at about 17, and Cainan must have had Shelah at a similar age. Far more likely, the Septuagint preserves the original chronogenealogical data in Gen 11.[137]

An objection to LXX Gen 11 is that its higher begetting ages (in the 130s) make Isaac’s birth when Abraham was 100 seem unexceptional, whereas Gen 17:17 says that Abraham laughed at the thought of begetting the promised son at the century mark (cf. Rom 4:19).[138] But Abraham’s laughter, whatever it means, does not imply that 100 years old was an unusual age for a man to have children. Terah had Abraham at 130.[139] Jacob had Benjamin at about 105.[140] Abraham himself had six children by Keturah (Gen 25:1–2) at some point after he was 86 (Ishmael’s birth), most likely after he was 137 (Sarah’s death). Abraham had six children by Keturah in his late eighties and nineties at the earliest. His laughter in Gen 17:17 must have been tied specifically to the thought of fathering a son through his wife Sarah at this point in their marriage.[141]

The chronology in LXX Gen 11 relieves any discrepancy between the accepted antiquity of Egypt and the date of Noah’s flood. On the assumption that Abraham was born in 2166 BC (a standard dating), the flood dates to 3298 BC in the Septuagint. According to the conventional Egyptian chronology, the first dynasty dates to ca. 3000 BC.[142] Yet regardless of which begetting ages accurately reflect the autograph, we must accept the chronological intent of Gen 5 and 11. We may question where the original chronology exists text-critically, but not whether it exists lexico-grammatically.[143]

Notes

1. William Henry Green, “Primeval Chronology,” BSac 47 (1890): 285-303.
2. Ibid., 286.
3. Ibid., 303.
4. E. H. Merrill, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 117-18.
5. William Hales, A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, 2nd ed. (London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830), 1:211-12; Hugh Magennis, The Cambridge Introduction to Anglo-Saxon Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 100-101.
6. Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard, 2nd ed. (Columbus, OH: Scott & Bascom, 1852), 145.
7. Michael Russell, A Connection of Sacred and Profane History, rev. J. Talboys Wheeler, 2nd ed. (London: William Tegg, 1865), 1:31-32, 88-90. The earlier dates for creation (ca. 5500 BC) are based on the Septuagint’s longer primeval chronology, to which most Christian interpreters before the Reformation, and many afterward, subscribed (see Appendix B below).
8. Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, ” Origins 7 (1980): 53, 62; see also Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and Their Alleged Babylonian Background,” AUSS 16 (1978): 361-74.
9. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 285-86.
10. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., ed., Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 7.
11. See, e.g., Anthony J. Spalinger, “Chronology and Periodization,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald B. Redford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1:267.
12. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 300.
13. Ibid., 286.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 286-93.
16. Ibid., 290-94; see BDB, HALOT, DCH, NIDOTTE, TLOT, TDOT, and TWOT, s.v. “ילד.”
17. ילד occurs only in the hiphil stem throughout Gen 5 and 11.
18. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 298.
19. Ibid., 296-97, 300-301.
20. Victor P. Hamilton, “ילד,” NIDOTTE 2:456. Hamilton wrote the following to me: “The Hebrew word yalad refers to the actual delivery of a son or daughter. That is what I mean by ‘the birthing process.’ The birthing process begins and ends with delivery” (quoted with permission).
21. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 255.
22. R. Reed Lessing and Andrew E. Steinmann, Prepare the Way of the Lord: An Introduction to the Old Testament (St. Louis: Concordia, 2013), 55-56.
23. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 447-48.
24. Ibid., 447 (parentheses, brackets, and italics original).
25. Ibid., 448 (parentheses, brackets, and italics original).
26. John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 209.
27. Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 3:204.
28. Emanuel Tov, “Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in Three Different Versions,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint, vol. 3 of Collected Essays, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 222n3.
29. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 293.
30. Ibid., 291-93.
31. Ibid., 294.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 297.
34. Ibid., 296.
35. See Gen 5:3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 28; 11:12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26. Gen 5:32 and 11:10 replace “had lived X years” with “was X years old.”
36. Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 164, italics original.
37. The particle אֶת, which precedes “B” in the formula “When A had lived X years, he had B,” is not merely an object marker. This “emphatic particle” can also precede the subject of ילד in its passive forms (Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 177-82). Genesis uses אֶת with the qal, hiphil, niphal, and hophal of ילד to mark the name of the person born: (1)Qal. Gen 10:24: “Shelah had [יָלַד] Eber [אֶת־עֵבֶר].” (2)Hiphil. Gen 11:14: “Shelah … had [וַיּוֹלֶד] Eber [אֶת־עֵבֶר].” (3)Niphal. Gen 21:5: “Abraham was 100 years old when there was born [בְּחִוָֹּלֶד] to him Isaac [אֵת יִצְחָק].” (4)Hophal. Gen 40:20: “… the day on which was born [הֻלֶּדֶת] Pharaoh [אֶת־פַּרְעֹה].” When אֶתis used with ילד, it identifies the one born (J. Kühlewein, “ילד,” TLOT 2:544).
38. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 298.
39. Ibid., 297-98, emphasis added.
40. Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 164, italics original; see n. 36 above.
41. Ibid., 435.
42. Ibid.
43. The translations of Gen 5:10a in the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (“After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years”) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (“Enosh lived 815 years after the birth of Kenan”) capture well that Kenan was born when Enosh was 90. So also the RSV and NRSV.
44. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 294, 297.
45. Ibid., 298.
46. Ibid., 300.
47. Cf. the NIV: “After you have had children and grandchildren and have lived in the land a long time.”
48. These two verses are identical in the Hebrew (qere).
49. The ESV translates תּוֹלִידאֲשֶר מִמְּךָ יֵצְאוּ אֲשֶר וּמִבָּנֶיךָ in 2 Kgs 20:18 as “and some of your sons, who shall be born to you.” This recognizes that both of Isaiah’s relative clauses (“who will issue forth from you, whom you will bring forth”), which the ESV reduces to one clause (“who shall be born to you”), describe the births of the remote sons themselves.
50. Isaiah spoke his prophecy to Hezekiah at some point during the last 15 years of Hezekiah’s life (2 Kgs 20:6). According to Edwin R. Thiele in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 173-77, Manasseh co-reigned with his father Hezekiah during the last 10 years of Hezekiah’s life, beginning when Manasseh was 12 years old (2 Kgs 21:1). Thus Manasseh would have been about (12 + 10 =) 22 when Hezekiah died and so at least (22 – 15 =) 7 when Isaiah prophesied.
51. Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBCOT 7 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 278-80.
52. Smith Bartlett Goodenow, Bible Chronology Carefully Unfolded (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1896), 322, italics original.
53. Smith Bartlett Goodenow, “Primeval Man,” BSac 51 (1894): 158-64.
54. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 317.
55. Goodenow’s response (later published in Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 317-27) also includes a critique of Frederic Gardiner’s attempt (in 1873) to provide a non-chronological interpretation of Gen 5 and 11 (see Appendix A below).
56. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 286.
57. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 324.
58. Ibid., 322, italics original.
59. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 297.
60. James B. Jordan, “The Biblical Chronology Question: An Analysis (Part 1),” Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 2, no. 2 (1979): 14.
61. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 297. See James B. Jordan, “The Biblical Chronology Question: An Analysis (Part 2),” Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 2, no. 3 (1980): 17-19, 21-22, who demonstrates the “implicit reductionism in this line of reasoning” (21).
62. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 297.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid., 302.
66. Ibid.
67. The Septuagint alone includes ten generations in each genealogy (Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 [Waco: Word Books, 1987], 251).
68. William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895), 146. Some seek to arrive at ten links in the second genealogy by counting Abram (Gen 11:26). However, this logic requires that we also count Shem in the first genealogy (Gen 5:32), giving it eleven links (Hasel, “Meaning of the Chronogenealogies,” 60). Ten-and-ten symmetry is unachievable in the MT.
69. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 130; see also the note on Gen 5:27 in the ESV Study Bible.
70. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 297.
71. Wenham notes that even Green’s notion of genealogical gaps in Gen 5 and 11 (P1) “requires special pleading” (Genesis 1-15, 133).
72. Benjamin B. Warfield, “On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race,” Princeton Theological Review 9 (1911): 3.
73. Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1972), 155, italics original.
74. K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 440-41.
75. Ibid., 441.
76. C. John Collins, “How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1-2:3, ” Presbyterion 20 (1994): 115-16, italics original.
77. C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 108.
78. C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2006), 203, italics original.
79. C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 115.
80. “ילד,” TWOT 1:379 (no author listed).
81. Ibid.
82. Ibid.
83. Thanks to Joel Garver for this observation.
84. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 323. In response to this, an interlocutor suggested to me that the use of a passive form of ילד throughout Gen 5 and 11 would have ensured an intact chronology. But if we accept the semantic logic of P2 in the active voice, we must allow its application in the passive voice as well. Had the author used a passive form of ילד throughout the genealogies, a proponent of chronological gaps might insist that Gen 5:9 can mean, “When Enosh had lived 90 years, there was born to him [a son from whom sprang] Kenan.” Such an assertion would indeed be unjustifiable, but not more so than Green’s hypothesis. The active-voice version of P2 is not more plausible than its passive-voice equivalent. A chronogenealogy is as achievable in the active voice as it is in the passive voice.
85. Frederic Gardiner, “The Chronological Value of the Genealogy in Genesis V,” BSac 30 (1873): 323-33.
86. Ibid., 325.
87. Ibid., 329.
88. Gardiner’s argument resurfaced recently in 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): 11-12.
89. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 321, italics original.
90. The translation of Gen 10:21 in the Septuagint confirms that Shem was a younger “brother of Japheth the elder [ἀδελφῷ Ιαφεθ τοῦ μείζονος].” The KJV, NKJV, and NIV (see also the NASB margin) similarly translate the Hebrew to show that Japheth was older. Ham, though listed second in Gen 5:32, was the youngest (Gen 9:24).
91. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles 1-14 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2008), 262-63; Henry Girdlestone, Genesis: Its Authenticity and Authority Discussed: The First Eleven Chapters (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1864), 183-86; see also the note on Acts 7:4 in the NIV Study Bible.
92. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 133-34.
93. Ibid.
94. Snoeberger, “Why a Commitment to Inerrancy Does Not Demand,” 13.
95. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 300.
96. Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1888), 1:206.
97. Josephus, Ant. 1.67, 83-87, 149-50; Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, JSOTSup 66 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 241; John Jackson, Chronological Antiquities (London: J. Noon, 1752), 1:69-73; Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 1:289-303; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:33-37; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 222, 302, 325, 383-84.
98. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 260.
99. Delitzsch, New Commentary on Genesis, 1:206; see also Thomas Wright, Biographia Britannica Literaria: Anglo-Saxon Period (London: John W. Parker, 1842), 295-96.
100. Delitzsch, New Commentary on Genesis, 1:206.
101. Cf. the table in Merrill, “Chronology,” 115; see Josephus’s begetting ages in Ant. 1.67, 83-87, 149-50.
102. Ibid.; G. Seyffarth, Summary of Recent Discoveries in Biblical Chronology, Universal History and Egyptian Archaeology, 2nd ed. (New York: Henry Ludwig, 1859), 114-59; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:1-6, 94; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 301-16; Martin Anstey, The Romance of Bible Chronology (New York: Marshall Bros., 1913; repr., Mountain City, TN: Sacred Truth, 2012), 1:50-53.
103. Anstey, Romance of Bible Chronology, 1:15.
104. Seyffarth, Summary of Recent Discoveries, 123.
105. Green, “Primeval Chronology,” 300.
106. Ibid., 300-301.
107. Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 149.
108. Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993), 92-93, italics original; quoted in Jobes and Silva, Septuagint, 149.
109. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 136.
110. Ibid., 140.
111. Tov, “Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11, ” 221.
112. Tov, Textual Criticism, 306.
113. Merrill, “Chronology,” 117.
114. For thorough discussions of the chronology and corruptions in Josephus, see Hayes, Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, 127-220; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 351-84.
115. Dov Gera, “Unity and Chronology in the Jewish Antiquities,” in Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History, ed. Jack Pastor, Pnina Stern, and Menahem Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 125; Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 1:274; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:36-37.
116. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 1:281, italics original.
117. See, e.g., Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11, 61-80; Tov, Textual Criticism, 138, 306; R. W. Klein, “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament,” HTR 67 (1974): 255-63; Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 5-30, 267; Tov, “Genealogical Lists in Genesis 5 and 11, ” 237; Ronald S. Hendel, “A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis? The Implications of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5, ” HBAI 1 (2012): 448-64.
118. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 6; Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11, 63.
119. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 19. Hendel and Hughes, building on Klein, argue that Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech outlived the flood in the original antediluvian chronology, and that the three editions of Gen 5 in the MT, the LXX, and the SP represent three scribal recensions aimed at resolving this exegetical problem. Accordingly, the minimal revisions in the SP essentially preserved the original begetting ages, but adjusted the life spans of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech so that they die in the year of the flood; the moderate revisions in the MT put Jared’s and Lamech’s deaths before, and Methuselah’s death in the year of, the flood; the major revisions in the LXX ironically failed to accomplish their chief end, with Methuselah still outliving the flood (this view maintains that Methuselah begat at 167 in the LXX instead of 187). This theory, which focuses internally on “the differences concerning who dies before, in, or after the flood,” fails to account adequately for Jared’s higher begetting age in the MT and most of the higher begetting ages in the LXX, which could have remained lower and still avoided the postulated “problem of the aquatic antediluvians” (Hendel, “Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis?,” 454-55). A more plausible explanation of the internal data emerges when we focus externally on the documented tendency toward chronological reduction among ancient Jews, and on a discernible motivation behind this tendency (see below). We shall find that the higher set of begetting ages predates the lower set and prevails in our earliest witnesses. The begetting ages in LXX Gen 5 and 11, SP Gen 11, and three generations of MT Gen 5 compose the original chronology, to which the oldest Jewish writings bear ample witness.
120. Hayes, Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, 211-20; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 304, 384; Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, 1:67; see also William Whiston, “Dissertation 5: Upon the Chronology of Josephus,” in Josephus: The Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1037.
121. Hayes, Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, 127-210; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 304, 384. The non-bracketed number in Ant. 1.82 is also corrupted, reading “2656” instead of “2256,” which is the sum of the begetting ages in Ant. 1.83-87.
122. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 304.
123. The timeline in SP Gen 5 is also thirty-five years shorter than Hendel’s (as well as Klein’s) reconstructed antediluvian chronology, and two years shorter than Hughes’s (Hendel, “Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis?,” 463-64; Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 21, 267).
124. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 22.
125. Whiston, “Dissertation 5: Upon the Chronology of Josephus,” 1037. Jackson, Russell, and Goodenow also discuss a lost Hebrew text (what Whiston calls “Jerome’s Samaritan [Pentateuch]”) whose anteduluvian chronology was 100 years shorter than the MT’s (Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, 1:51-52; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:48-49; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 311). The difference between the antediluvian chronology in the MT and that in Jerome’s Samaritan is the latter’s reduction of Jared’s begetting age from 162 to 62 (this lower number survives in the SP). In reducing Jared’s begetting age by 100, Jerome’s Samaritan (or in Jackson’s terms, “the Babylonian Hebrew Text, which was followed by the Eastern Jews”) carried the MT’s revisional scheme “to its utmost practicable limits” (Russell, 1:49) (Jared’s is the only higher begetting age remaining in the MT that could have been reduced by 100 without creating problems).
126. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 306, 311; see also J. Paul Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1,” BSac 166 (2009): 184-85; Merrill, “Chronology,” 118.
127. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 311; see also Hayes, Dissertation on the Chronology of the Septuagint, 89; Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, 1:xxxi; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:45.
128. Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:38.
129. See, e.g., Seyffarth, Summary of Recent Discoveries, 114-23; Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, 1:92-100; Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:41-43; Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 304-8. Tov writes, “The frequent use of [the LXX] by Christians caused the Jews to dissociate themselves from it and to initiate new translations” (Textual Criticism, 141). Says Jackson, “For had they not altered their Hebrew Copies, there could have been no Occasion for a new Translation, because it was confessed but about thirty-five Years before it was made, by the Jews themselves universally, and especially by their two most learned Writers, Philo and Josephus, that the Septuagint was an accurate and faithful Interpretation of the Law of Moses. But as soon as the new Greek Version was published, there appeared numerous Differences between that and the old Translation of the Septuagint, and particularly in the Computation from the Creation to Abraham” (Chronological Antiquities, 1:93, italics original). Russell states that “before the second century of the Christian religion, no traces can be found of any controversy as to differences supposed to exist in the Greek and Hebrew texts of the sacred books” (Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:38).
130. See Tanner, “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic?,” 184-85.
131. Goodenow, Bible Chronology, 306-7.
132. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 261.
133. Anstey, Romance of Bible Chronology, 1:46.
134. Benjamin Shaw, “The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and Their Significance for Chronology” (PhD diss., Bob Jones University, 2004), 72-73.
135. Russell, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, 1:89-90; Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 1:289.
136. The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis, ed. and trans. R. H. Charles (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1902), xxxviii.
137. Hughes concludes that Cainan “is clearly secondary, since he borrows his name from the fourth antediluvian ancestor, and his age of begetting [130] and remaining years [330] are borrowed from Shelah, whom he precedes” (Secrets of the Times, 9). Hughes assumes here that Cainan was inserted into the chronology sometime after the number of Shelah’s remaining years was changed to 330. We agree with Hughes that Shelah’s remaining years did not originally number 330 in the proto-LXX tradition. However, we best explain this corruption by maintaining that Cainan existed in the proto-LXX tradition before the number of Shelah’s remaining years became 330. Hughes suggests that 330 evolved from 403 (the supposed original), becoming 430 and then 330. He thinks that this evolution from 403 to 430 to 330 “presumably occurred before” the addition of Cainan, “whose remaining years also number 330” (p. 18). But once again our thesis that Cainan and the higher begetting ages are original yields a simpler and more compelling explanation: In the original chronology, Shelah’s remaining years numbered 303. This number survives in the SP. It is reflected in the MT’s 403 (which was increased by 100 to offset the reduction of Shelah’s begetting age by 100). In the LXX, or in its Hebrew Vorlage, the original 303 was altered to the graphically similar 330, an accidental assimilation to the number of Cainan’s remaining years.
138. Hughes, Secrets of the Times, 11.
139. See discussion in Appendix A.
140. Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 76-78.
141. According to Hendel, “Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis?,” 457-58, the notorious exegetical problem in MT Gen 11 suggests that the MT’s postdiluvian chronology is original: “The chronological revisions in the MT of Genesis 5 were, I have argued, motivated by a local exegetical problem. A comparable situation exists in Genesis 11, where the chronology also differs among MT, SP, and LXX. As Klein has convincingly maintained, this is also due to an exegetical problem. To the dismay of many commentators, in MT all of the postdiluvian ancestors of Abraham are alive during his lifetime, including Noah. Hence, according to rabbinic midrash, Isaac studied Torah at the academy of Shem (Genesis Rabbah 56.11).” Hendel concludes that while the scribes in the proto-MT tradition “apparently did not perceive this cluster of living ancestors as a problem,” the scribes in the proto-SP and proto-LXX traditions “did respond to this problem” by inflating the postdiluvian chronology. This theory forces us to imagine that the original author created a problematic chronology. More likely, this “cluster” problem in the MT is recensional rather than original, the unavoidable consequence of a grand-scale chronological reduction. (Gen 25:8 potentially sharpens the problem. It says that Abraham, at 175, “died in a good old age, an old man and full of years,” even though in the MT’s chronology Eber was still alive and far more than twice Abraham’s age at this point.)
142. Peter James and four of his colleagues, all non-evangelical antiquarians, have made a plausible argument that the conventional Egyptian chronology is inflated “by some 250 years” (Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology [London: Pimlico, 1992], 257). Bimson, an evangelical expert in Near Eastern chronology, shows that Centuries of Darkness has not been refuted (John Bimson, (When) Did It Happen? New Contexts for Old Testament History [Cambridge: Grove, 2003], 9-27). Snoeberger dismisses Centuries of Darkness as one of several works in which “Velikovsky’s theories have been preserved, with substantial modification” (“Why a Commitment to Inerrancy Does Not Demand,” 17n47). But this description of Centuries of Darkness as a continuation of Immanuel Velikovsky’s discredited ideas is entirely baseless. Bimson responds, “I cannot agree with that description as the two schemes have insufficient common ground to justify it. They are similar only in the very general sense that both propose a revision of Egyptian chronology. The differences are enormous and the Centuries of Darkness revision does not rely on Velikovsky at any point” (quoted from private correspondence with permission). According to James, the “conventional scheme” dates Egypt’s first dynasty to ca. 2920 BC (Centuries of Darkness, 223). Thus, James implicitly dates the first dynasty to ca. (2920 – 250 =) 2670 BC, more than 600 years after the Septuagint’s flood date.
143. Thanks to Peter Green for reading several drafts of this paper and suggesting its title. Thanks also to Jonathan Barlow and Robert Murphy for their invaluable feedback.