Author: thebibleword.org

Samuel’s Genealogy

thebibleword.org

As you read through your Old Testament, you will come across a rather curious genealogy at the beginning of 1 Samuel. We are well familiar with Samuel as God’s prophet and pupil of Eli the high priest. 1 Samuel opens by tracing a man named “Zuph the Ephraimite.” It appears difficult to explain that an Ephraimite could have such place in the Tabernacle service. There are several elements to this discussion. When pieced together, I believe it shows an excellent literary commentary on that period of time, a masterful display of God’s providence and mercy, and a subtle but powerful anticipation of the Messiah himself.

Compare the lists:

We must first notice the records of Samuel’s forefathers. There are three accounts of Samuel’s line. Let’s see them compared:

1- The name Nahath is admittedly different from either Tohu or Toah, but shares similar Hebrew characters in reverse.
2- Uriel and Zephaniah are quite different. I do not see any spelling variances. It’s just a different name. Perhaps still the same person.
3- Exodus 6 sheds light on understanding successive verses concurrent generations. We learn that Assir and Elkanah were most likely concurrent children of Korah, and the line of 1 Chron 6:33-38 agrees and traces the lineage through Ebiasaph directly back to Korah.
4- Amminadab is the name of Aaron’s father-in-law recorded in Exodus 6:23. It’s a different branch of the family, so I am less inclined to think it is a text corruption. It is more likely that Amminadab is another name for Izhar or was another name for Amram (Amram is a different branch of the family, but still a son of Kohath).

Surely, several of these lines have room for explanation in other settings. The focus, here, is upon the latter stages of the genealogies. Although there are several spelling changes (and some rather hard to explain alternative names) these three lines agree on the latter stages. There is a certain level of ambiguity in the Hebrew genealogies where generations are skipped, whether a list of children should be in the same generation of successive generations, and whether name repeats are back-tracking or unique individuals. We are actually lucky, in this case, to have three different tellings (four if we go back to Exodus 6) by which to compare these details. Our focus is going to be on 1 Samuel 1:1.

A note on the words:

You may notice some translation variances. Some translations (KJV, ESV) use the term “Zuph an Ephrathite” while others (NASB, NIV) say “Zuph an Ephraimite.” It comes down to interpretation. Some passages are rather clear that the word “Ephrati” should intend the tribe of Ephraim (Judges 12:5; 1 Kings 11:26). Other times it is used to describe those from Ephrathah (Bethlehem) (1 Samuel 17:12; Ruth 1:2). The confusion stems from the name “Ephrath” who was a prominent wife of Caleb son of Hezron. 2 Chronicles 2:24 even combines Caleb-Ephrathah as the name of a location in which Hezron died. Later on (vs 50-51; and 4:4) we discover that Bethlehem was a grandson of Ephrathah. Thus, the Israelites sometimes referred to Bethlehem as Ephrathah (Genesis 35:19; Ruth 4:11; Micah 5:2). To be called an Ephrathite identifies one with the region of Bethlehem, not from the bloodline of Ephrathah. In the case of Ruth, her family was from Bethlehem (1:22), thus Elimelech’s family were called Ephrathites (1:2). Jesse is called a “Bethlehemite” in 1 Samuel 16:1, which is synonymous with “Ephrathite of Bethlehem” in 17:12.

The two designations of “Ephrathite” are linguistic coincidence rather than family association. Even though Hebrew “Ephrati” looks identical, they are two different words because they stem from two different linguistic sources. All other references to Ephraimites bear the contruction “of Ephraim.” Context must tell us whether “Ephrati” denotes the region of Ephrathah or the region of Ephraim. In the case of Ruth and Jesse, the passages are overtly clear about their ties to Bethlehem. In the case here in 1 Samuel 1:1, I believe the text is equally clear that Ephraim is in mind. Therefore, I believe the translation “Ephrathite” in this verse to be incorrect, and “Ephraimite” to be accurate.

Although the following does not change our interpretation, I also want to quickly point out the phrase “man from Ramathaim-zophim” (NASB) to be confusing. Elkanah is from the city of Ramah, and the area is associated with Zuph. Therefore I believe the NIV to have the best understanding with “man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim.” I believe this properly identifies Zuph as coming from the hill-country of Ephraim, rather than implying that Ramah was in the hill country of Ephraim (it is not, and is clearly established as being Benjamite territory). Therefore Elkanah himself was born and raised in Ramah, and was not himself from the hill country. The designations to Ephraim are redundant to distinguish the Zuphite family from the native Benjamites (we will explore this more later).

Literary explanations:

Every genealogy is given for a reason. Each of these genealogies accomplish a different nuance to the purpose of the authors. You may readily notice that some genealogies trace downwards toward a certain son. Other genealogies trace upwards towards a certain ancestor. Most genealogists perceive the downward genealogies as tracing qualities or characteristics. The forefather is passing on something to his children. The upward genealogies are perceived to trace pedigree or authority. The child inherits a title or serves in a role which has authority based on the ancestor. Applying this to our three lists gives one kind of explanation. 1 Chronicles 6:33ff is tracing from Heman upwards. Heman is the patriarch for a very important Levitical family whom God authorizes to prophecy in song and instrumentation at the temple. Heman’s pedigree here affirms his authority as a prominent Levite and Prophet. 1 Chronicles 6:22ff is passing on the leadership baton of Kohath’s family. The sub-tribe of the Kohathites were charged with taking care of the ark, the holy place furniture, the service utensils, and the Holy of Holies veil (Numbers 3:27-32) This gives Samuel direct right to serve in the tabernacle and care for the logistics of service.

The head-scratcher is 1 Samuel 1:1. Why, if Samuel was about to be introduced as dedicated to the house of God, would he be given a pedigree from Ephraim? The literary explanation regards the phrase “from the hill country of Ephraim.” Since the reader has just finished the awful stories of the Judges, this phrase should be familiar (used over a dozen times). Close at hand, Judges 17 attaches this phrase to Micah and his hired Levite (Judges 17:1, 8). The hill country of Ephraim is where the Danites passed through and robbed Micah (18:2, 13). This story describes blatant violations of the tribal duties, violations of the priesthood, and violations of the worship process. At the end of that story (18:31), the house of God was at Shiloh (where they were supposed to be going to worship). The un-named Levite in Judges 19:1 was also from the hill country of Ephraim. Not only did he act despicably, but he incited civil war and near extermination of the Benjamites. To replenish the family of Benjamin, they plotted to kidnap women from Shiloh to be their wives (21:19). So when 1 Samuel opens, we have a few points of correlation.

The introduction to Elkanah from the hill country of Ephraim going to Shiloh takes an unexpected turn. Rather than this being a repeat of the problems at the end of Judges, this story is beginning to reverse the problems. The ultimate goal being the delivery of a King and the eventual grounding of God’s worship at the Temple in Jerusalem. Elkanah is attempting honorable worship at the proper site, as opposed to the others from the hill country of Ephraim. Samuel shall honor and respect roles rather than invent his own or disrespect God’s (like Micah and co. or like Eli and sons). This introduction to Elkanah from a literary standpoint is about transitioning the reader out of the nebulous “everybody do what they want and pretend to speak for God” into a God-given kingship and prophet.

Logistics:

So how can it be that Samuel is called an Ephraimite? I believe it more fitting to call Samuel a Levite who’s family is identified as Ephraimite, rather than call Samuel an Ephraimite who is labeled a Levite later on. Some would rather see the 1 Chronicles 6 genealogies as taking liberties in order to fit Ephraimic Samuel into the Levite line in order to invent some credentials for him and his grandson Heman. Instead, I think that 1 Samuel 1:1 is the anomaly, and that the Levite genealogies are the more dependable historical fixtures. The audience and author of 1 Samuel would have been well familiar with both Samuel and Heman’s legacies. Therefore the introduction as “an Ephraimite” would have been shocking. Therefore this is the passage that needs explained moreso than 1 Chronicles 6.

First, the identification as “an Ephraimite” in 1 Samuel 1:1 may be likened to Judges 17:7. The Levite there was from “Bethlehem in Judah, of the family of Judah, who was a Levite and he was staying there.” The Levites who were given portions from each of the tribes could have such close ties to their kinsmen that they might even identify as one of them. This Levite was “of the family of Judah” by means of living amongst them, perhaps even intermarrying with them. The Priestly family was given cities from among Judah (Joshua 21:4), therefore it is more likely that this Levite was of a priestly background (this was the assumption of Micah). Zuph, on the other hand, has integrated with the Ephraimites because Ephraim sponsored the Kohathites (Joshua 21:5).

Second, cities from Ephraim were given to the Kohathites as their inheritance (Joshua 21:5). Specifically mentioned is Shechem “in the hill country of Ephraim” (Joshua 21:21). Now, Samuel was said to be from Ramah, which is listed as a inheritance to Benjamin (Joshua 18:25). The most likely geographic placement of Ramah would be close to Gibeah, another Benjamite city where Saul was from (Joshua 18:28). But we know that the tribal allotments were not always honored (as in the case with the Danites in Judges 18). Judges 19:13-16 feels the need to point out that the Ephraimite was different from the Benjamites who owned Gibeah. The point is that the Levites appeared mobile at the end of Judges, and it should not surprise us if a Levite family from Kohath gravitates away from the original Ephraimite city allotments. Therefore if an Ephraimic Levite family gravitated to Ramah (owned by Benjamin) it would make sense to distinguish them as Ephramites in opposition to the native Benjamites. In fact, Zuph’s family became so influential that the area was known as “the land of Zuph” (1 Samuel 9:4-5, which indicates that Ramah, indeed was not in the normal Ephraimite territory, but in Benjamite regions). Indicating Zuph’s Ephramic association makes sense on a geopolitical basis.

Third, although the Priestly families were charged to keep their lines “of his own people,” (Leviticus 21:14) the rest of the Levite families were not given that restriction. If interpreted strictly, the Priests were to keep the family line within the tribe of Levi. But no such restrictions apply to the rest of the Levites, letting them remain free to intermarry with the other tribes. The responsibilities for the Levitical duties pass down through the sons. The inheritance of the land primarily passed through sons as well, although daughters could inherit land when sons are not part of the picture (Numbers 36). Dual tribal-ship was never a thing. A person was from one tribe only and had the responsibilities of that tribal family (Numbers 36:6-9). Since the Levites were taken care of through goodwill sharing of the people, a time of spiritual degradation is a time of destitution for a Levite. It would not be surprising at all that a destitute Levite family (Zuph, lets propose for a moment) intermarries with a neighboring Ephraimite family and chooses to identify as Ephraimite. This would fit Samuel’s situation from a story telling point of view. Hannah’s dedication of her firstborn was not just a firstfruits offering, but a way of correcting generations of role-abdication. Samuel would have become the first in the family in many generations to actually fulfill their true obligations as a Kohathite: caring for the tabernacle items. Correcting roles is a theme of the Samuel story (the line of Eli is another study in the same vein).

Fourth, it might be advantageous to distance Samuel from the priestly line. As mentioned before, Benjamin, Judah, and Simeon were given the priestly families to care for. Ephraim, Dan, and Mannasseh were given the Kohathites (Joshua 21). Therefore, by distinguishing Samuel as an Ephramic Levite (as I am interpreting here), the author is placing barriers to Samuel serving as priest. Didn’t Samuel act as a priest? No. He did not. Samuel’s ministry to Eli was ministry to Eli personally and the logistics of the house of God, not training to be an ordained priest. Samuel does not serve as priest in the tabernacle, nor do his sons. Samuel’s role was chosen by God to be a prophet. Samuel leaves Shiloh, and does not accompany the journey to Nob. Instead, he returns home to Ramah (“High place”) where there was a reputation of prophecy (Judges 4:5; 1 Samuel 19:18-24). The sacrifices which Samuel is in the habit of offering (1 Samuel 7:17; 9:13; 13:8-13; 16:2-3) were prophetic, like those of Noah (Genesis 8:20), Abraham (Genesis 15:9), Balaam (Numbers 23:4), and Elijah (1 Kings 18:38). Atonement or dedication sacrifices according the the regulations of the Law were strictly to be done by the priests at the tent of meeting (tabernacle) (Leviticus 17:8-9). Therefore these sacrifices were of another type. Saul’s error in 1 Samuel 13:8ff was not his lineage, but his presumption and disobedience. He was trying to take the role of a prophet without authority, and was directly overlooking something God had told him to do (presumably to wait for Samuel). Samuel takes steps to distance himself from the priesthood (and indeed, Eli’s cursed family line) by moving to a different city, engaging in different sacrifices, and (in 1 Samuel 1:1) identifying with Ephraim rather than Benjamin. By doing these things, Samuel honors his role and does not tempt the people nor his own family to fill the role of High-Priest, even though he would have done very well in that role. It’s not where God placed him. We see this theme throughout the Samuel books as Saul, David, Jonathan, and even David’s children continually grapple with retaining or rejecting their given role.

Literary Review:

Samuel’s genealogy is very consistent in all its tellings (once you weed out variances in name spellings and format). Samuel is clearly from the line of Kohath. His designation in 1 Samuel 1:1 is an anomaly which serves literary and thematic purposes. It is not a designation which intends to denote lineage, but region and role. Just as Elimelech and Jesse were called Ephrathites for living at Ephrathah (but were not descended from Ephrathah), Zuph is called Ephraimite for regional purposes. It contrasts the earlier stories of Levites and Ephraimites and their failures with Samuel’s righteousness. It distinguishes the Zuphite clan from the local Benjamites. It distinguishes the Ephramic Levites from the Benjamic Levites and marks Samuel’s role as that of a Kohathite, not an Aaronic priest.

Theological Lessons:

God’s mercy knows no limits. Even in the whole mess through the period of Judges, God still gives chances to undeserving families. No matter how you read it, Elkanah’s family did not deserve to be heard and blessed. God chooses Samuel, a child from a wandering family to be a prophet, while Eli continued to disrespect his High Priestly role. Samuel’s attention to obedience and roles becomes a type for what God wanted all along. How amazing is it that one of the descendants of Korah (the infamous rebeller from Numbers 16) would have the chance to seize the high priesthood for himself, but instead walked away from the temptation. No matter who we are or where we are from, God has given us a role and we must seek to fill it in obedience, trust, and respect. This also anticipates Jesus’ messianic coming. The messiah was from David, the son of an Ephrathite. Samuel was also a son of an Ephra*imite. Samuel was somehow both an Ephraimite and a Levite. Jesus is somehow the Son of Man and the Son of God. Samuel appears to be from a different family than we would expect for his role. Jesus was from Nazareth, and his birth in Ephrathah was not common knowledge. Samuel honored both the family role and the prophetic role God had given him. Jesus does the same, filling shoes as the son of David and Son of God. Samuel offered different sacrifices than the Temple atonement. which were in accordance with obedience (1 Samuel 15:22; Matthew 12:7). Jesus offers the better sacrifice of His own blood, in full obedience to the Father, and surpasses all forms of sacrifice before Him. Samuel was rejected by the people as leader, symbolizing the people’s rejection of God’s kingship (1 Samuel 8). Jesus was rejected as king, crowned with thorns and anointed with spit. Samuel died alone and in sorrow, weeping over the people’s rejection of God’s true king. He came back from the dead in spirit to issue a proclamation of judgment to Saul. Jesus rose from the dead in both spirit and body and becomes both judge of the wicked but also savior for those who commit themselves to obedience. We live in a place where we don’t really belong. We identify with our culture insofar as our humanity is concerned, but we must identify ourselves by the role: children of God. Only by full commitment to this role will we honor God’s plan for us and mirror the life of Jesus the Messiah.

Featured Image Credit:
John Heseltine / Pam Masco / FreeBibleimages.org

Genesis 11 Chronology: Conclusions

thebibleword.org

If Egyptology and Biblical data were mutually exclusive, then I would have to side with Biblical historical accuracy. There is enough fluidity in both scientific dating and Egyptology that I have no worries about upsetting Biblical Historicity.

One will find as many interpretations and opinions about Egyptology as there are about the Biblical timeframe. If, for the sake of argument, both sources are mutually exclusive, why would historians side with Egyptology over Biblical documentation when the Bible has been proven historically accurate in hundreds of other ways? That would come down to theology, not Historical accuracy. If I had to make the choice, I would choose the documentation that is supported by both historical veracity and theological accountability. The Bible has proven itself more credible than any other source of ancient history. Because of that, my faith holds to the veracity of scripture over archeology.

Having said that, I do not believe that ancient historical data and Biblical data are mutually exclusive. I do not believe we have to pick one over the other in this issue. I believe one could interpret Egyptology data to match the Biblical records, and I also believe the opposite is true. The most reasonable approach allows for a little of both. The time and research put into the study of ancient history cannot be overlooked. But we must caution taking any human endever as flawless. In the absence of solid proof, we must choose neutral ground. While we wait for ancient dating methods to be more secure, and while we examine the best ways to understand scripture, we should not feel compelled to exclude either side. As evidence becomes clear we can make additional reasonable arguments.

It is my personal opinion that we should read the text of Genesis 11 under a new light. Rather than adding up the numbers we have textual indication that the author had a different intention. On the other hand, rather than ignoring the names or numbers in Genesis 11, we should allow for fluidity of ancient dating methods rather than outright denying the Genesis data. In the search for truth we must not defend an interpretation as higher value than the source itself. Truth will never contradict truth. Scripture as truth is perfectly compatible with the truth we find in nature and in history.

Genesis 11 Chronology – Solution Two

thebibleword.org

Conform Biblical Timeline to Egyptology

We must be willing to apply the same standards of historicity to the Biblical data as the Egyptian data. We must consider the possibility that the traditional understanding may not be what the author intended. If we misunderstand how to read the data in Genesis 11, then of course it will end in historical inaccuracy. Let us assume for this article that Egyptology has the best historical foundation for the earthly timeline. Let us consider what must happen within the text of scripture to comply with this proposed timeline.

One of the attempts to expand the Biblical timeline lies in the interpretation of the numbers themselves. The Septuagint gives different years to each person’s life. They might have had a different copy of the original or a different understanding of what the numbers meant. The numbers in the septuagint are often different. Differences could be due to the language barrier. Is the Masoretic text immune to this problem? Certainly the Hebrew manuscripts are more likely to be understood correctly by those who were closer to the language. But two thousand years pass from Moses’ life until the Masoretic texts. This considered, it is more likely that the Hebrew manuscripts accurately transmit the correct information rather than the Greek translation. But it is possible that both misunderstood how to accurately transmit the numbers. This is not, however, the position of this article.

Assuming the numbers themselves are accurate in our translations, some try to change the interpretation of how to apply them. “Years” may not mean years. Instead of indicating that each person lived hundreds of years, some say that the numbers indicates families or dynasties. Some translate years as generations or an undetermined period of time. This reasoning lacks any real contextual, language, or consistent arguments. Genesis 1 indicates that years are comprised of seasons which are regulated by the sun. The only reason one may try to change the years or numbers is to match other agendas. There is no textual president to doing so.

So if the numbers are accurate and are understood accurately, we must proceed with how to fit the numbers together. There is a textual indication that may support an extended timeline. This is related to the principles of sonship and genealogical gaps. It is textually supported that gaps do occur within many genealogies. This does not indicate inaccuracy. It indicates a different intended meaning. The problem with the basic gaps theory in Genesis 11 is that it applies gaps for no other reason than to match ancient archeological hypothesis. If we are to extend this timeline, it ought not be for human assumption, but for textual purpose.

I believe there are four major indicators that show the traditional interpretation (adding the years together) of the timeline within Genesis 11 is faulty. Again, this does not attack the historical veracity of the Bible. This is a reconsideration of how we understand what the text says.

The first indication that the numbers in Genesis 11 are not intended to be added together is that the author does not add them together. This may seem trite, but it is important. What indicates this as hazardous is the difference to Genesis 5. The pre-flood genealogy takes the first age and adds it to the second age to arrive at the total lifespan of the individual. Genesis 11 does not do so. We are only given the total age of Terah in this genealogy. Did the author forget how to count within six chapters? No, the reason must be purposeful. The intention was not to add the first to the second in Genesis 11. This means there is a fundamental difference in approach. If the lengths of life are not added together, we can make an argument that the ages of all individuals are not supposed to be added either.

The second indication is Luke’s appraisal of the generations. If Luke validates Cainan’s presence between Arpachshad and Shelah then we must come to an understanding other than the traditional. Unless Arpachshad and Cainan both averaged 17 years old, then Shelah would not have been born at Arpachshad’s 35th year. It is possible, but the fact that Genesis 11 doesn’t record Cainan means that the author does not intend to add up all the individuals.

The third and fourth indications are noticed with Noah and Terah. Noah is 500 years old when he “begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” The text says Noah entered the ark at 600 years old. This would make Shem 100. The flood lasted a year. But Genesis 11 says that Shem begot Arpachshad at 100 years old two years after the flood. If Arpachshad was born two years after the start of the flood, then Shem would have been born in Noah’s 502nd year. If Arpachshad was born two years after the end of the flood Shem would have been born closer to Noah’s 504th year. So did the author forget how to count again? This begins to pinpoint our misunderstanding.

What is the text intending to say about Noah’s 500th year? If we are consistent with the traditional interpretation of Genesis 11, then Shem, Ham, and Japheth were all three born in the same year. Shem’s name is listed first, but doesn’t have to indicate age. Genesis 10 lists Shem’s family last. Though this may be due to his significance, the genealogies in Genesis tend to provide the genealogies of related persons by age (note: Cain then Seth Gen 4-5; Ismael then Isaac Gen 25; Jacob then Esau because Jacob had birthright and blessing Gen 35-36; sons of Jacob Gen 46.) Is this a case of triplets or does this indicate that Noah’s 500th year does not have to correspond with the birth of Shem?

Terah is a mirror of Noah. He is also the 9th generation in the list, and has three sons. Abram, Haran, and Nahor are all said to have been born in Terah’s 70th year by the traditional reading. Stephen, however, in his commentary in Acts 7 says that Abram left Haran when Terah died. Genesis says Terah died at age 205. Genesis 12 says that Abram was 75 when he departed from Haran. This means Terah must have given birth to Abram at age 130, not 70. How can this be? Again the text implies that Haran is probably the oldest: Haran’s son is listed first and his death is significant to the family structure.

Putting all this together I believe reveals the key to interpreting the Genesis 11 chronology. If the first and last persons in the genealogy follow the same necessary pattern, it is likely that all names between them are subject to the same rules. I believe between Noah’s sons and Terah’s sons we see the implication that the age of the father does not have to correspond to the birth all children, but rather the first born. Noah’s first born was birthed at 500; the others followed. This allows for Shem to be 100, two years after the flood. Terah was 70 when he begot his first born. Abram was not born until Terah was 130. So here is the question. How confident are we that every child in Genesis 11 is the first born? If there is a possibility that the list is not exclusively first borns, then the first age of the fathers do not have to correspond to the child who is mentioned.

This theory makes sense of Noah’s sons, Terah’s sons, and Luke’s addition of Cainan. The post-child years make no difference to the chronology. It is most likely what it appears to be: how long the father lived after begetting that child which shows the theological lesson that sin brings death. But it is possible to pursue other interpretations. As far as the dating system is concerned, this theory opens up hundreds of years. We cannot pursue any specific time table, but could reasonably add as much as a hundred extra years to each generation if necessary.

Adapting the Biblical data to match ancient Egyptology and archeology is possible. If we do so, we must be willing to re-interpret the traditional reading. The post flood years indicate the birth of the first born or, in other words, when they started having children. The child who is mentioned is one of many “sons and daughters,” born at different times.

Genesis 11 Chronology – Solution One

thebibleword.org

Conform Egyptology to match Biblical records

So what can we make of this contradiction of historical timeframes? First we must ask the question: are the same standards of historicity being applied to the Bible and to Egyptology equally? The tendency is to apply stricter standards to what we have already decided to be wrong. This first reconciliation will focus on re-evaluating Egyptology data to match the Biblical apparent meaning.

There are some fundamental considerations of ancient Egyptology (as representative of other ancient cultures) that show that we ought not place our current knowledge of the data as absolute. We simply do not have the kind of data we need to prove absolute dates. Some will certainly interpret the data absolutely, but do so having already decided on an absolute time. (note a summary of Ancient Dating)

We must first recognize that neither Manetho nor any archeological find provide absolute dates. They only provide relational context. It is our modern theories that place the data into our absolute dating system. The first attempt has been the Sothic Cycle. This theory dates Manetho’s king lists based upon an astrological year called the Sothis. The theory is that Egyptians used this year as a fixed time from which to date events. Two legitimate problems exist with this dating method: sources disagree when the Sothis year was, and we have no evidence that Egypt used the Sothis year to date events. That ancient Egypt used the Sothis year is just a theory that became popular when Egyptology was a hot topic. Should they have used it, we must then choose a Sothis year. Scholars will assume the Sothis year and dating method to match the timeframe they believe works best. In the absense of the Sothis dating method, Egyptologists try to create new dating systems that match this general timeframe. I will not criticize the tedious efforts to date ancient Egypt, but we must be careful not to accept as fact what is actually just a theory.

Should a true starting point be validated, there is a second problem: our records of all lists are incomplete. For most written lists we rely on several key historians. With each historian is a different version of the work. If the lists conflict we have no way of knowing which list is original. When we try to consult all works and partial data, we must pick and choose which information is valid and which does not match. We have only educated guesses where and if lists overlap or meet. As with any investigation, we tend to match data and set aside others as it benefits our chosen result. Again, historians do the best they can, and probably do well, but we must take it for what it’s worth.

Should the traditional framework be validated there is another problem. We cannot be sure we are interpreting the data the way the original writers intended. When most historians look at lists of rulers, they understand them as consecutive. As studies within the chronology of Jewish kings proves, sometimes rulers overlap. Whether they overlap as father and son, king and prince, or rivals, not all lists of kings with reignal years can be read consecutively. We cannot assume that the numbers of reignal years in these lists can be added together. We also cannot know the context of the writing. I could pick up Tolkein’s appendices in a thousand years and not realize it’s nature. I am not suggesting all ancient data is worthless or fictional, but without context, data is difficult if not impossible to use.

If we come to an understanding of how to read the numbers, there is a fourth problem. We assume that these lists are historically accurate. Manetho himself was commissioned by Pharaoh to this task. Other historical data is also most likely recorded by the order of the rulers. We don’t know if this is something they did to the best of their abilities or just to keep their life and paycheck. We have to know whether we are dealing with the modern equivelant to a published encyclopedia or an un-peer reviewed wikipedia. We have no sources for our sources, and no easy way to counter-check our interpretation of the lists. It would be like relying on a modern clergyman (Manetho was a priest) to document every ruler of Palestine back to the time of Hezekiah (covering 2500 years) or a modern preacher being asked to document every major ruler in western civilization going back to the founding of Rome. These ancient authors would have had to interpret their sources with the same human calculations and limitations that we have for their data. History can be accurate and understandable with the proper context in mind. Ultimately we must admit that ancient secular dates, though historically possible, are not historically verified.

Matching Egyptian historical data to the traditional meaning of Biblical data is not difficult. Historically, 500 years is not that much to condense in this context. Validating historical persons is easy compared to establishing western dates to place them in. Once we are willing to admit fluid Egyptian dates, we see no need for absolute contradiction with Biblical data. Historical reconstruction can give us accurate information. But we must realize that any historical data is subject to interpretation. If we try to fit Historical data into predetermined limits of our version of history, we cannot hope to find truth. Egyptology can show many accurate things, but a western dating system is not one of its purposes.

Genesis 11 Chronology: Egyptian Data

thebibleword.org

Technically Egyptology is not the sole ancient culture to review. The Sumerians are believed to have predated the Egyptians. The difference is that we have no evidence about the ancient Sumerians other than pottery, building materials, and the tales of Gilgamesh. The hard objects we can try to date through analyzing the decay of various chemicals and ions. The proponents of this method of dating recognize the limitations of these dating procedures. Most will admit that the further back the dating process goes, the less accurate it becomes. Past a few thousand years, the variables become so unpredictable, that we must caution taking those dates as reliable by themselves. By cross-referencing contemporary data, ancient objects within a few thousand years from the present can be validated. The ancient Sumerian and Egyptian artifacts must have proven timeframes with which to cross reference. If scientific dating processes are the sole understanding for the timeframes past a few thousand years, we should be willing to let these dates be fluid.

The tales of Gilgamesh were written (supposedly) around the time of Abraham. The historical data within it mirrors stories from Genesis. Its writing style is designed as an epic rather than history. The Jewish Torah has a very different historical focus and literary style. Genesis intends to establish events and peoples who had direct impact on current readers. The Epic of Gilgamesh, unfortunately, is not able to identify dates or verified timelines. Its use for dating is at a stand still.

We arrive, then, at the data of the Egyptians. The ancient Egyptians can be commended for many written advancements. There are two primary sources that record their ancient history. One is written carvings found archeologically, the other is preserved writings. Examples of these are the Palermo Stone, the Turin Kinglist and the writings of Manetho. The early Egyptian framework we owe to Manetho, a third century priest. Manetho was charged by Ptollomy II to reconstruct a history of Egyptian rulers. Like most other ancient documents, we do not have the original. We have most of his work preserved by key historians like Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. His list is sumarized below.

              The apparent meaning is that the periods of the first six dynasties range from 1446-2405 years. Since there is no 20th century dating procedures in place, Manetho’s list is accompanied with a theory to establish solid dates. Using this list as a rough structure guide, Egyptologists have reconstructed all 18+ (many more) dynasties from archeology. The result is a list of kings/pharaohs by dynasty and length of reign that stretch back past 3000 BC. Many egyptologists will admit that these dates are fluid. Currently, fewer Egyptologiests hold to Manetho’s dates as canon. Instead, they use various similar documents. Legitimate debates exist trying to place together our fragmented data into a proper western context.

Portions of these lists are verified by archeological findings which retain ruler lists that overlap. These archeological findings by themselves cannot establish precise dates, but can give credence to ruler order and historical presence. Lists within archeology and documentation have similar characteristics to Manetho’s list. Most things that are said about Manetho’s list can be said of the rest of ancient lists. The academic world has agreed upon an Egyptian timeline which was first based from Manetho’s lists and then from archeological findings which cross-reference or clarify these periods. Before 3000ish BC we have no documentation other than scripture. So, past these lists and the artifacts that collaborate with them, we are at the limitations of scientific dating.

Genesis 11 Chronology: Genesis Data

thebibleword.org
The first goal in settling disputes is to clearly see both presentations. To that end we will begin by observing the data within Genesis 5 and 11. There are three sets of years which are established: The individual’s age at the birth of child, the years lived after birth, and the total years lived.
 

            The apparent meaning of this information is that Noah gave birth to his sons 1556 years after creation. Add 100 years to that date gives the time of the flood. Shem birthed Arpachshad two years after the flood (ended or started?). Giving wiggle room for Jewish counting methods places Issac’s birth around 2148-2188 years from creation. This apparent meaning of the text coupled with the accepted timeframe of Abraham’s life places the flood at about 2500BC. The problem most people see is the implication in Egyptology that their rulers go back as far as 3000BC and beyond.

Another consideration is the data within the Septuagint. Whereas its accuracy is in question, it is still the predominant text quoted in the NT. We must at least see what it has to offer. Below is the data of the Septuagint concerning Genesis 11 next to the Masoretic Hebrew.

 

 

In the Greek data we find extended dates for many of the persons. These number differences tend to stick to whole numbers like 100, 70, 50, 30. There is no expectation to match these numbers perfectly. Remember, the Septuagint is an egyptian-greek translation of Hebrew which is nowhere approved as a divinely historical translation. But it is sufficient to support the messages found within the New Testament. Lest we be too quick to dismiss all information, this is the only record of Cainan, which Luke adopts in Jesus’ genealogy. There is something historically credible that Luke found valid. Luke offers no comment on the numbers however. Remember that Data does not equal proof. We must interpret the data to arrive at an understanding of what the author meant. We will hold the interpretations of this data to a following article. Keep this data ready for analysis.

Genesis 11 Chronology – Introduction

thebibleword.org

 A particularly concerning issue within Biblical genealogies is the chronology issues in Genesis 5 and 11. The consensus for many years within the historical academic arena is that numbers within these genealogies present a timeframe which is much too abbreviated compared to what we reason to be possible from our studies in ancient history. This issue poses difficult questions for those who favor Biblical historical accuracy. For many, the solution is to ignore either the Biblical data or the extra-Biblical data. I argue that neither have to be ignored if both are understood within a proper context. We are allowed for both the Biblical information and extra-biblical information to present their intended goal harmoniously. History for the sake of academics must be understood as a human endeavor. History for history’s sake is not a primary part of the message within the Bible. The data both inside and outside the Bible is subject to context and interpretation. The Bible writes with a theological premise; and extra-biblical sources write from political, social, or pagan reasons. If we believe our understanding of history is credible, and that the Bible is truth itself, then neither will contradict the truth found in each other. We must pursue a reasoned answer when truth is questioned.

The book of Genesis was the first historical context the children of Israel were given concerning God’s plan for them. The detailed information contained within are based in part on family records and stories, but primarily upon God’s choice of information. There is certainly some information only made known by the revelation of God. His thought process and actions are only made known by His dictation. We must assume that He has the final say in all information. The Jewish (and Christian) religion is not philosophical in origin, it is historical. Belief in God is rooted in creation. Terms of salvation are rooted in actual death and sacrifice. This means that historical information with scripture has a significance. It would be inconsistent for God to include his own divine truth as indistinguishable from blatant error (See article on Historicity). If we hold to scripture as standard, we must also believe that the data within the genealogies are accurate to their intended meaning.

It is vital, then, to understand that there is a potential difference between the apparent meaning of scripture and the historical meaning. In other words, if the intended meaning was figurative, then we cannot apply historical guidelines to it. The truth is never in question if we believe in accurate transmission. The apparent meaning is what we as readers interpret the text to indicate. This understanding may change due to context, other passages, language issues, and other historical data. We must remember to be open to interpretations outside of our own perspective. With this in mind, the apparent meaning of the text is often the best interpretation. Most authors do not intend to make the meaning difficult to understand. It takes a great deal to turn the apparent meaning.

Another consideration is that apparent meaning depends on the reader. The original readers will usually have a better understanding of the intended meaning than we will. They were more aware of the cultural and contextual issues that may have guided the author. The apparent meaning for them may seem hidden and elusive to us. Likewise our post-messianic perspective gives us an advantage in may cases. So the best we can do is to try to first understand the apparent meaning through the original reader’s perspective. Second, we can interpret the original meaning through Jesus to find how to understand it today.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Conclusions

thebibleword.org

Having considered all the previously stated views, I will attempt to arrive at a sound conclusion of how to treat the Matthew-Luke discrepancy of the genealogy of Jesus. Above all, there are multiple possible explanations. None of them are fool proof, and none of them solve all the questions. Yet all are indeed possible, meaning  an absolute contradiction in the genealogies is not mandated. The actual resolution may never be known; there is no definite argument for any. What shall be presented is the most likely explanation in regards to the context of each Gospel, and the expectations about the Messiah.[1]

The context of the genealogies within the Gospels directs the readers in a particular direction. In both Gospels, Jesus is implicitly stated as coming only from Mary, and not at all from Joseph. Matthew introduces Jesus’ genealogy to show that Jesus was the heir of Abraham and David through Joseph. Since he is called the husband of Mary even before they came together, his legal position is transferred to his wife’s son as if to his own son. If, for the sake of argument, Mary was the daughter of Jacob, then the legality of his ‘title’ would not have passed to Mary but to her husband and then their son. Jesus’ right to the throne is set (the Jews were not completely aware of the implications of this). As the years pass and David’s decedents increase in number, the significance of Joseph perhaps fades. There would have been hundreds or thousands of others were just as defended from David. There is little question as to Matthew’s context; it is primarily about the kingship title.

Luke, for his part, focuses more on Mary than Matthew does. Where Joseph was a central figure in Matthew’s opening, Luke expands more on Mary and her side of the story. Nothing is said of Joseph except that he is from David (1:27 and 2:4). Luke, therefore, also identifies that Joseph is from David and that Mary was being registered with him in Bethlehem. By chapter three, Luke begins to show Jesus as both the Son of Man and the Son of God. God identifies Jesus as his son when he is baptized, Luke shows Jesus is the son of Adam who is also in his own way from God. Afterward, Satan challenges Jesus’ son-ship of God. Throughout the book there is a struggle between the people’s understanding and the reader’s point of view. The people assume and suppose that Jesus is the son of Joseph. Over and over they come back to this point as the reason why Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Luke in his genealogy stresses that Jesus is not from Joseph but from God. This context should slowly move the reader to think that Luke is not intending to bring up Joseph’s genealogy, since Jesus was never from Joseph to begin with. Why would Luke extensively research the background of a man whom Jesus was never from? This is the man Jesus was allegedly from, yet the genealogy goes back to God Himself. If Luke is trying to distance Jesus from Joseph, it does not seem as likely that he would try to show Joseph as a viable father to the messiah. Rather it is more likely in context that Luke is directing attention to Jesus’ spiritual and physical nature, both of which trace back to God.

The Hebrew writer says of Jesus that “it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah” (Heb 7:14). If both Matthew and Luke represented genealogies extending through Joseph and yet Jesus was never from Joseph, how would it have been evident to all that Jesus was from the line of Judah?  One fact can be stated upon this verse and Peters use of Psalm 132 in Acts 2: Jesus was from the line of Judah, and decedent of David. This means that Mary had to be defended from David. Mary’s ancestry to David is a necessary implication of Jesus’ descendency from him. The Gospels are not required to give Mary’s genealogy. The authors of Scripture may have left the implication as it was. But since Mary was from David, and Joseph was from David, what need would Luke have to use Joseph’s line instead of Mary’s? This question proves nothing, but adds heavy weight to the scales. I believe the context of Luke’s genealogy focuses on Mary and Jesus’ physicality, and the expectation of Scripture about the messiah was that his own flesh and blood would be David’s.

The result of the two contexts would by themselves bend the reader in the direction of Matthew showing Jesus’ right to be called king, and Luke showing Jesus’ right to be called both God and man (which cannot be shown through Joseph). Luke already established that Joseph was from David, so he would not have needed to present the genealogy for that purpose. He had previously shown that Mary was Jesus’ only earthly parent, so he may not have needed to clarify the genealogy any more than he already did. Without a reason to produce Joseph’s line, it is highly unlikely that Luke does so.

We must recognize that there are differences in the genealogies. We must pursue an explanation based on the purpose of each gospel. The Levirate and Historicity explanation do not have the factual data to support their views consistently. The Joseph solution and Mary solution agree on Matthew’s account. Luke’s account is then the one in question. The Joseph solution cannot provide any satisfactory explanation toward context and purpose. It seems to me, then, that if our explanation is to based on purpose, then the Mary view is the only one that meets this end. Therefore the most probable explanation is that Matthew presents Joseph’s line of inheritance, and Luke, not needing to reproduce Joseph’s line, produces Mary’s through her husband’s name in order to show Jesus’ own line back to David and Adam. Jesus’ blood line would have been very crucial to understand who Jesus was and where he comes from, which is the focal point of both gospels. We can rest assured about Jesus’ right to the throne, and his right to messiahship. Both gospels work together to show that Jesus is the Son of David, the ‘son of man’, and the son of God.

[1] The issues of Shealtiel to Jeconiah or Neri have been adequately dealt with in their own way. This author is open to legal vs. literal, levirate law, and in-law interpretations as equally valid contextual suggestions in that case. The most consistent option is to choose the same preference as the conclusions about Jesus’ own genealogy.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: Expectations for the Messiah

thebibleword.org

This discussion is valuable here because Luke and Matthew were writing to an audience who had either heard about the Messiah or were still expecting the Messiah. Expectations of where he would come from influence the context or focus that Luke and Matthew may use. The expectations of the Messiah are twofold. One is from Scripture, the other from the people.

The Gospels constantly show that the people’s expectations are almost always off the mark. The expectations of Scripture on the other hand are always fulfilled in Jesus. Although the people expected the Messiah to be physically from the blood of David, one must not be too quick in dismissing this view. The Scriptures are difficult to interpret any other way. In Genesis 15, Abraham considers his chief servant to be his heir in the absence of a child. This relationship could easily have been considered an adoption in his culture. Yet, legitimate as this would have been culturally, God makes it clear that this is not what He has in mind. God states that his heir would come forth “from your own very being” in direct contradiction to a figurative sonship. This is the strongest language that could be used to show that Abraham’s own body would produce an offspring. Genesis 15 does not necessarily incorporate the ‘seed’ promise directly, but of Isaac specifically.

The matter becomes more decisive, however, when 2 Samuel 7 is considered. God makes the messianic promise to David and uses the same words, “from your very being.” If God intended for Abraham’s seed to be a direct blood line, there is no indication that this same promise to David should be thought about in any other way. Peter has the same surety of Jesus’ relation to David by quoting Psalm 132 in his first sermon in Acts 2. Peter first calls David Jesus’ patriarch and then quotes the saying, “God swore with an oath to him to seat one of his descendents on his throne.” The actual passage in Psalm 132:11 says, “the Lord has sworn to David a truth which He will not turn back: ‘Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.’” It is hard to argue in this light that the Scriptures expected anything less than the Messiah to come from David’s own body.

Now it is certainly possible that Matthew’s genealogy was purely legal succession and so did not have to coincide at all with Joseph’s actual line. If Joseph was from Shealtiel then he came next in line. The biggest problem is that if the Jews were keeping such ‘legal’ tabs on people, then why did it surprise them that Jesus was the son of the carpenter? If Joseph was next in line to the throne, then they would have had little doubts about Jesus’ Messiahship. Yet they doubted his Messiahship explicitly because he was so unknown. Matthew’s list is proof of kingship against the popular opinion. For there to be two genealogies kept in tact (one of Joseph, and one of the legal heir) would imply a greater significance to the title of King than the people gave Joseph credit for. Since they did not appear to keep such royal tabs on people, it suggests that Matthew’s may just be a humble account of the firstborn rights within the kingly line. This information was not capitalized on during Jesus’ day, which makes it less likely that it was stressed enough to present as an independent genealogy of legal rights. It may be that the last of Jacob’s line was dwindling and Joseph inherited the title by default without much ado. But I doubt based on Matthew’s context and his aptitude to complex authoring that he intended to convey a fluke of title inheritance.

The significance of the previous thought is this: why would the Jews keep a literal line of Joseph and a legal line of Joseph if they were going to culturally ignore it in the face of Jesus’ legitimacy? Logic would direct us to a conclusion that includes the Jewish expectation about the Messiah along with the scriptural view. The people behave towards Jesus and Joseph as menial lower class workers. The Matthew genealogy, then was either not produced, or not as important to the Jews as Matthew stressed to his readers. If they understood Joseph’s line to be “legal” and not literal, they may have only seen Joseph as a physical option for kingship, not a legitimate forefather to “the Messiah.” These doubts may have influenced their hesitancy in accepting Jesus.

The Jewish expectation of the messiah was very literal and physical. This physical blood line lent to their expectations of the physical kingdom. God has a knack of turning physical expectations into spiritual realities. It should not surprise us if God chose to switch gears to a spiritual light. One must keep in mind that spiritual does not necessarily mean figurative any more than figurative means “not-real.” The Messiah was very real, and is literally the king of God’s spiritual people. It turns out that God also stressed a physical descendency through David. The scriptural expectation of the Messiah’s origin was equally as physical. There was a need for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, there was a need for him to visit Egypt, and there was a need for him to be called a Nazarene. For once, the Jewish expectation was God’s as well.

The Matthew-Luke Discrepancy: The Levirate and Historicity Solution

thebibleword.org

So far, we have considered a Mary solution and a Joseph solution which have been proposed throughout the millennia. Another ancient argument dates to Africanus, who argues for a levirate law situation. A different article on Levirate Law can go into more detail on this subject. The basic Law states that if a man dies before he has children, his next eligible brother shall marry his widow and raise at least one child in the first brother’s name. This child would then be counted as the son of the first brother, not as the second brother’s. This is how the argument is applied to Jesus’ genealogy: if Heli and Jacob were brothers, and one died, the one left then brought up Joseph in the other’s name. It would be impossible to identify which brother was the actual father. The predominant view is that Luke traces the bloodline (actual father) while Matthew uses the inherited name (legal father). The same thought or similar thoughts could be said of the second set of names during the days of the kings. Jeconiah may have faced a time where he needed to bring up children in the name of his next of kin: Neri. Conversely, Jeconiah may have died “childless” (no actual blood children) and Neri raised up Sheiltiel with the royal name.

The advantage to this view (which is really a branch of the Joseph solution) is that where few of the other solutions have biblical precedent, this has both a law and a NT discussion to back up its credibility as an option.[1] It is a version of the legal vs. literal line and allows for both lines. The weakness of this argument is that it is factually misapplied. The Levirate law states that those who are legally obligated to this task must be brothers of the same house. If Heli and Jacob were of the same father (as opposed to half brothers through the mother) then the lines would be the same. If they were not of the same house and lineage and were operating by principle only, then the legality would be different. One of the other views must be taken past this single generation to adequately apply the Levirate Law. Beyond this, the same disadvantages of the other Joseph solutions may apply.

Some argue on a separate plane altogether. A popular trend today challenges the historicity of the genealogies. They want to show that genealogies were rarely intended to be biologically accurate. They say that ancient cultures did not always intend to record biological connections, therefore they could choose whomever they desired to pass the name through. This argument is based on research of ancient oral cultures. Much of the genealogical tradition is based on memory aid. This could significantly impact numbers of generations, sets of names, etc. Much of the purpose of those genealogies was to establish social connections with the community. Ancient society was more dependent on social interactions and neighborly connections. Genealogies may have been used in some societies to: establish links to other families that one was familiar with, establish links to a new family for the purpose of opening a new relationship, or/and confirm legitimacy and rights for heritage. Historians believe that these cultures may accomplish their goals by many means. One mean may be association of contacts rather than blood relation. One family who was closely associated with another could be grouped by genealogy. By these assumptions they would rather think that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are not intending to be a strict biological chain anyway.

The strength of this argument is that it makes any discrepancy of accounts a non-issue, since there could be near infinite ways of recording the line. It is an extended version of the royal title argument, just applied to both genealogies and to social connection instead of kingship. Its weakness, like the previous argument, lacks historical proof. As covered in the Historicity article, in order to believe that the historical data is not literal, there must be an alternative credible historical source. Since there is no indication in the text that these lines are figurative, one must have another source to indicate this. Even if most ancient genealogies were figurative, we must show by text how this impacts the genealogies of scripture and bypasses Luke’s intent as preserving ‘the exact truth’ of Jesus. Additionally, this view does not take the Jewish culture into account, nor the expectations of their messiah. The Jewish culture was fiercely nationalistic, and valued bloodline religiously. Other cultures may have valued this to certain levels, but the scriptures clearly indicate that heritage and genealogy was a focal point of culture and religion. (see sonship and purpose articles). To apply a historicity argument nullifies much of the truth on which Christianity is based. It does not fit well with any context of the passages.