Post by Josh on Mar 6, 2007 7:17:45 GMT -8
Originally posted 12/29/06:
Kegan was recently asking me about whether it is valid to use Biblical genealogies to ascertain a historical date for Adam and Eve.
Here is a link to an excellent (but long) survey of the topic:
The Genesis Genealogies* (Dr. John Millam- on the Reasons to Believe website, link below)
Since it's so long, I'm going to summarize the main points on this topic here:
1) Biblical genealogies weren't meant to be rigid, "meticulously complete" historical documents. The ancient Biblical writers used them in a fluid manner to make points other than the purely historical.
For instance: in the genealogies Matthew inserts at the beginning of his gospel, Matthew lists 14 generations from Abraham to David, another 14 from David to the Babylonian exile, and another 14 from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. But in comparing the Matthew genealogies to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 (compare it specifically to Matthew 1:8), we see that Matthew dropped 3 names from the list in order to get his three sets of 14.
The reason for these omissions isn't error, but rather that "in many biblical lists of descendants, cadence and pattern hold great importance"- thus, Matthew's preoccupation with three 14's. This may also have been a device (3 14s) to help people remember the genealogies more easily. Also, genealogies served as summaries of the most important or noteworthy people in a line.
Similarly, the list in Genesis 5 ofrom Shem to Abraham has 10 names, but in Luke 3 there are 11.
2) However, and this is crucial, such name dropping doesn't discredit Hebrew genealogies because of a simple Hebrew fact: the Hebrew word for father ('ab) can also mean "grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather and so on".
A great example of both of these points is Matthew 1:1, which states:
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham..."
In other words: To become the father of x can also mean to become the distant ancestor (g.g.g.g. grandfather) of x, just as to be the son of y can mean to be the distant descendant of y.
Thus, names can selectively be dropped from the list with the genealogy still keeping it's integrity.
Conclusion: The genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere (but especially Genesis because of the antiquity of the subject) cannot be used as a simple tool to add up the years back to the creation of Adam and Eve (cf. Lightfoot and Ussher). They give us general information, representative samples, but not a mathematical formula for dating our origins.
Further questions/ rejoinders? Post a reply.
Geneology article:
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/the_genesis_genealogies.shtml
Other quotations on this page taken from "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross.
NOTE, THIS THREAD IS LOCKED. IF YOU WISH TO REPLY TO IT, PLEASE VISIT THIS SAME ARTICLE IN THE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY FORUM:
www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=science
Kegan was recently asking me about whether it is valid to use Biblical genealogies to ascertain a historical date for Adam and Eve.
Here is a link to an excellent (but long) survey of the topic:
The Genesis Genealogies* (Dr. John Millam- on the Reasons to Believe website, link below)
Since it's so long, I'm going to summarize the main points on this topic here:
1) Biblical genealogies weren't meant to be rigid, "meticulously complete" historical documents. The ancient Biblical writers used them in a fluid manner to make points other than the purely historical.
For instance: in the genealogies Matthew inserts at the beginning of his gospel, Matthew lists 14 generations from Abraham to David, another 14 from David to the Babylonian exile, and another 14 from the Babylonian exile to Jesus. But in comparing the Matthew genealogies to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 (compare it specifically to Matthew 1:8), we see that Matthew dropped 3 names from the list in order to get his three sets of 14.
The reason for these omissions isn't error, but rather that "in many biblical lists of descendants, cadence and pattern hold great importance"- thus, Matthew's preoccupation with three 14's. This may also have been a device (3 14s) to help people remember the genealogies more easily. Also, genealogies served as summaries of the most important or noteworthy people in a line.
Similarly, the list in Genesis 5 ofrom Shem to Abraham has 10 names, but in Luke 3 there are 11.
2) However, and this is crucial, such name dropping doesn't discredit Hebrew genealogies because of a simple Hebrew fact: the Hebrew word for father ('ab) can also mean "grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather and so on".
A great example of both of these points is Matthew 1:1, which states:
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham..."
In other words: To become the father of x can also mean to become the distant ancestor (g.g.g.g. grandfather) of x, just as to be the son of y can mean to be the distant descendant of y.
Thus, names can selectively be dropped from the list with the genealogy still keeping it's integrity.
Conclusion: The genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere (but especially Genesis because of the antiquity of the subject) cannot be used as a simple tool to add up the years back to the creation of Adam and Eve (cf. Lightfoot and Ussher). They give us general information, representative samples, but not a mathematical formula for dating our origins.
Further questions/ rejoinders? Post a reply.
Geneology article:
www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/the_genesis_genealogies.shtml
Other quotations on this page taken from "The Genesis Question" by Hugh Ross.
NOTE, THIS THREAD IS LOCKED. IF YOU WISH TO REPLY TO IT, PLEASE VISIT THIS SAME ARTICLE IN THE QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY FORUM:
www.aletheia.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=science