The passage Gen. 15: 13 is strong to the same purport, since it was “in a land not his own” (i. e. not Canaan), and was a state of tyrannous oppression which was to continue 400 years—points which forbid us to include in this 400 years the life-history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.——As to Paul (Gal. 3: 17) his readers had before them only the Septuagint; he would therefore naturally follow its authority, and the more readily because the difference between that and the Hebrew in the length of the interval was a point of no importance to his argument.
The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt is of great, not to say decisive, importance to our question. Here, however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test passages is Ex. 6: 16–20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years; of Kohath, his son, 133; of Amram—apparently his son and the father of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7: 7) was 80. Kohath was born in Canaan; his father was older by several years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older; yet Benjamin had ten sons when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 46: 21). If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath’s death at 133 and Amram’s birth to have occurred in the same year; also Amram’s death at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year; yet the sum is only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these data the short period (215) might be readily provided for.
But several circumstances combine to show that there must be several omitted links between the Amramhere spoken of, and Kohath. For in this genealogical list (Ex. 6: 16–20) we have but two names between Levi, the tribe-father, and Moses, viz. Kohath and Amram. But between Joseph, a younger tribe-father, and Zelophehad, a contemporary of Moses, there are four intervening names (Num. 26: 28–33); between Judah and Bezaleel there are six (1 Chron. 2: 3–5, 18–20); between Joseph (through Ephraim) and Joshua, there are nine (1 Chron. 7: 22–27).——Again, we have in Num. 3: 27, 28, a census of the four Kohath families. The males, from one month and upward, are 8600. If we set off one-fourth of these to Amram (i. e. 2150) and remember that the Amram who was father to Moses had but one other son, Aaron, (known to this genealogy) with four sons, and that Moses had but two, we shall see it utterly impossible that the male offspring of Moses and of Aaron could number 2150. Therefore Amram, the immediate son of Kohath, must have been several generations back of the Amram who was father of Moses.——The genealogy of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, might also be explained, but space forbids.——The vast increase of Hebrew population, from the 70 souls who went down into Egypt to the 600,000 men of age for war who went out (Ex. 12: 37), suggests a longer time than 215 years. The evidence on the whole preponderates decisively against the shorter and in favor of the longer period, 430 years.
The third doubtful period in Hebrew chronology lies between Abraham and his father Terah, the question being the age of Terah at Abraham’s birth. Some authorities make it 70 years; others, 130. The proof texts are—(a.) Gen. 11: 26; “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.”——(b.) Gen. 11: 32; “The days of Terah were 205 years; and Terah died in Haran.”——(c.) Acts 7: 4; “Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran; and from thence, after his father was dead, he removed into this land wherein ye now dwell.”——(d.) Gen. 12: 4; “Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran.”——The difficulty is that if Abram was born when his father was 70 and lived with him till his death at the age of 205, he should have been 135 and not merely 75 when his father died and he went into Canaan.——To surmountthis difficulty some construe the text (a.) to mean that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his first son; that Abram was not his first-born but is named first on account of his greater prominence in history and in character; and that Abram was not born till his father was 130.——Others assume that Stephen made the slight mistake of supposing that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran for Canaan, misled by the circumstance that the historian, in order to dispose of his case, narrated Terah’s death before he spoke of Abram’s emigration to Canaan, although (as they assume) it in fact occurred 60 years afterwards.——Others assume an error in the number of years assigned as the full age of Terah, making it 145 instead of 205—the Samaritan text giving these figures.
The assumption that Stephen was mistaken is to be rejected; partly because it was vital to the purposes of his speech that his historic points should be accurately made—at least in harmony with current Jewish opinion—to say nothing of the further fact that he is before us as one “filled with the Holy Ghost” and specially inspired; partly because the history represents Terah as sympathizing fully in the spirit of the removal from Ur to Canaan, and apparently prevented from going only by the infirmities of age.——The choice seems, therefore, to lie between the first named explanation and the last. The first—making the passage (Gen. 11: 26) mean only that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his eldest, but became the father of three sons—leaving us at liberty to fix Abraham’s birth at his 130th year—is a possible construction, but is rendered somewhat improbable by Abram’s question (Gen. 17: 17) “Shall a son be born to him that is 100 years old”? How could he have thought this strange if in fact he himself had been born when his father was 130?——There may be an error in the number of years of Terah’s life; the Samaritan text may be right in making it 145. This is below the average age of his fathers; but in those as in all other days, men were subject to die before they reached the maximum age of their generation. It would seem that he set out from Ur with the reasonable expectation of going to Canaan. Hence a probability that he died unexpectedly, and at an earlier agethan his fathers. I can express no positive opinion upon this case.
Two other doubtful periods remain to be considered, viz. The interval from the creation to the flood; and the interval from the flood to the call of Abram. The question upon these two intervals is substantially the same, so that they may properly be presented together. It hinges in both cases upon the authority of the texts—viz. for the former interval, Gen. 5: 3–32; and for the latter, Gen. 11: 10–26.——In form these tables are not chronological but genealogical. They do not reckon from any given era, as if (e. g.) to show the interval from the creation to the flood, but give the age of each member of the genealogical line when his son of the same line was born. It is therefore by adding together these measured portions of each man’s life, viz. the years he lived before the next member in the line was born, that we obtain the entire interval.——The tables give three facts as to each man’s life; (a.) how old he was when his son in this line was born; (b.) how long he lived afterwards; and (c.) the sum total of his years. If the chain is perfect, with neither missing nor supernumerary links, and if the numbers of the first class are all correct, the result must be reliable. But plainly the result will be changed at once by changing the first set of numbers and the second to correspond,—without changing the third at all.
In the present case from Adam to Noah inclusive are ten generations. The sum of the first class of numbers as it stands in our Hebrew text is 1656, to the year of the flood. The only question of difficulty is upon the authority of the text. The Septuagint makes the same interval 2262—an excess above the Hebrew of 606 years.——In like manner from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram (ten generations inclusive) the Hebrew text makes a total of 365 years; the Septuagint 1015, or by another text of the Sept. 1115, making an excess of 650 or 750 years. The sum of excess in the two periods is 1256 or 1356.——The following tables will serve to show how these diverse footings are produced. The numbers given by Josephus have some interest: I therefore place them in the table for the period before the flood. The numbers given inthe Samaritan text are frequently brought into this comparison. They differ considerably from either of the other authorities, but seem to me of no particular value, and are therefore omitted.