This study proposes that (1) Abram was born when Terah was 130 years old rather than 70, (2) Yahweh’s call to Abram occurred while he was still in Ur [of the Chaldeans], (3) Genesis 12:1–3 functions as a literary flashback explaining the departure narrated in Genesis 11:31, and (4) the Samaritan Pentateuch has unnecessarily reduced Terah’s lifespan to 145 to resolve perceived chronological and ethical difficulties.
In this presentation at the annual Regional Meeting of The Evangelical Theological Society, I provide an overview of the evidence.
*Below is commentary supplementing and expanding upon this video presentation. I hope it is helpful to you.
The migration of Abram and his family from Ur to Haran and then on to Canaan in Genesis 11:26–12:5 is among the most significant sets of events in the history of redemption. Questions surrounding the chronological order of events, the location of Abram’s call, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, the timing of Terah’s death, and text-critical divergences in the Masoretic Text (MT), Septuagint (LXX), and Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) have all been vigorously debated in the academic literature.
We begin with Genesis 11:26, which reads (ESV): “When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran” (literally, “he caused Abram, Nahor, and Haran to be born”). This translation indicates that Terah was 70 years old when Abram was born since he is named first. Some commentators even argue that Terah had triplets at the age of 70.
Conversely, since Terah died at the age of 205 in Haran (both the MT and LXX preserve this figure), and Abram departed from Haran for Canaan at the age of 75 (Gen. 12:4) after Terah’s death (Acts 7:2), Terah would have been 130 years old when Abram was born, not 70 (205 minus 75).
Points of Resolution
1. Genesis 11:26 is syntactically similar to Gen. 5:32 (my translation): “Now after Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” (The difference in verbs—lived vs. was—carries little exegetical significance). Each is a segmented genealogy appearing after the end of a linear genealogy. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, a close examination of Gen. 5:32, 7:11, 9:24; 28–29, 10:21 and 11:10 demonstrates that Shem was born when Noah was 502 years of age, not 500. Japheth was the eldest son (10:21; NIV, KJV, LXX), born when Noah was 500 years old or soon thereafter, but prior to Shem. Finally, Ham was the youngest son (9:24), born at some unknown time after Shem. Shem is the first son listed in Gen. 5:32 not because he was the oldest but because he is the chosen son in the Messianic line (Gen. 11:10; Luke 3:36).
2. Genesis 11:26 should be interpreted along the same lines as 5:32. Both verses state the age of the father (500/70), then indicate the names of three sons who were born sometime afterwards. The prominent son in the Messianic line is named first (Shem, Abram), but we discover from a careful examination of other verses that neither one is the eldest.
3. The ESV’s rendering of 11:26 with “when” is unintentionally misleading and is not demanded by the Hebrew. The following is more faithful to both the broader context and syntax: “And Terah lived 70 years. And he fathered [lit. caused to be born] Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” This is akin to the KJV translation. The Jewish translators in Egypt (ca. 280 BC) treated the Hebrew similarly with the use of καὶ = and (καὶ ἔζησεν Θαρα… καὶ ἐγέννησεν…).
4. The translation could also read: “After Terah lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.” This is close to the NIV translation. Although the preposition “after” does not appear in the Hebrew, its use is warranted if the syntax and broader context allow for it.
Despite the assertions of many evangelical commentators, Gen. 5:32 and 11:26 are not structured in the same way as Gen. 5:3–31 and 11:10–25. The remaining year formulas (Gen. 5/11) and lifespans with epitaphs (Gen. 5) are not present, and three sons are named instead of one specific son/descendant. Both are segmented genealogies, not linear ones. While chronological ambiguity exists in 5:32 and 11:26 when each verse is taken by itself, that is not the case with Gen. 5:3–31 and 11:10–25. after the age of 500/70, Noah/Terah caused three named sons to be born. In the case of 5:32, other verses provide us with the birth order (Japheth, Shem, Ham), and from all the biblical data we can determine Noah’s age at the birth of Shem (502).
In the case of 11:26, only Terah’s age (130) at Abram’s birth can be determined. We can deduce that Abram’s brother Haran is the eldest. Since Haran dies in Ur (11:28) and Nahor marries Haran’s daughter Milcah (11:29), Haran was most likely the oldest son, possibly born during or soon after Terah’s 70th year. This would follow the pattern in Gen. 5:32 with the chosen son listed first (Shem/Abram) and the oldest son listed last (Japheth/Haran). Of this we cannot be certain, but it is a reasonable deduction.
5. Genesis 11:27–31 provides background for the pending events in Abram’s life. Verse 27 introduces a new toledoth, a vitally important macro-syntactical feature found throughout Genesis: “These are the generations of Terah.” Abram’s brother Haran dies in Ur, in his father Terah’s presence (v. 28). Abram marries Sarai, and his brother Nahor marries Haran’s daughter, Milcah (v. 29). Then, Terah leads the group consisting of Abram, Lot, and Sarai from Ur to go to Canaan. However, the reason for their journey has not yet been stated. Before arriving in Canaan, they all settle in Haran (Gen. 11:31). Terah’s epitaph follows (Gen. 11:32): “The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.”
__________________________________________________________________
A Brief Note on the Septuagint’s reading in Gen. 11:32
The Greek of 11:32 reads: καὶ ἐγένοντο αἱ ἡμέραι Θαρα ἐν Χαρραν διακόσια πέντε ἔτη καὶ ἀπέθανεν Θαρα ἐν Χαρραν. English = “and the days of Terah were 205 years in Haran, and Terah died in Haran.” The 205 years “in Haran” is an obvious scribal error, likely due to dittography. Since the phrase “in Haran” appears after Terah’s name at the end of the verse, it is easy to see how a scribe repeated it and inserted it by accident earlier. This repetition must have arisen very early in the Septuagint’s transmissional history since it is not missing from any major manuscripts. Or, it appeared in the Hebrew manuscript used by the Alexandrian translators. The phrase “in Haran” appears right after Terah’s name in the MT (תֶּרַח בְּחָרָן) so accidental dittography in the Hebrew prior to the Greek translation is also possible. In either case, this error does not disqualify the LXX from being utilized for textual reconstruction in Genesis despite claims made by some who reject the usefulness of the LXX for reconstructing the original Genesis text.
__________________________________________________________________
6. Although it is ignored, dismissed out of hand, and/or downplayed by OT commentators, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:2–4 must be taken into serious consideration. There, Stephen indicates that Yahweh appeared to Abram in Mesopotamia (Ur; “the land of the Chaldeans”) before he lived in Haran. This places Yahweh’s call upon Abram in Gen. 12:1–3 chronologically prior to Gen. 11:31. This is not a novel innovation or error on Stephen’s part. The Lord’s speech to Abram affirms his interpretation of events: “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess” (Gen. 15:7; Cf. Jos. 24:2; Neh. 9:7). Stephen’s speech also has close affinities with the LXX of Genesis and close examination of the relevant Genesis texts in this study justifies Stephen’s exegesis.
7. Genesis 12:1–3 is a literary flashback, occurring chronologically prior to Gen. 11:31. The verses explain the reason for the family’s departure from Ur to begin with. Genesis 12:1 is therefore best translated as a pluperfect: “The Lord God had said to Abram…” (KJV, NIV, NIV Chronological Study Bible; ESV footnote). the standard Hebrew pluperfect form is not used, but a pluperfect translation is permitted when the context allows or even requires it. This translation is supported by 12:4, which does employ the standard pluperfect in Hebrew—“So Abram went, as the Lord had told him…”
Moses placed the theophany to Abram after Gen. 11:32 as a literary device: to flash back to 11:31 so that the reason for the family’s departure from Ur is explained, but before 12:4ff, which looks ahead in faith to Abram’s departure for Canaan after Terah’s death. This kind of literary nuance bears the marks of genuine historiography. God’s appearance to Abram is the central hinge linking the post-Flood genealogy specifically and the primeval history more broadly to the inauguration of new revelation and covenant promises now coming through Abram. God dealt universally with sinful humanity in Gen. 1–11 (Creation, Fall, Flood, Table of Nations, and Babel) previously, but now God narrows His dealings with sinful humanity by revealing His redemptive plans to one group of people—Abram and his offspring.
8. Ancient interpreters often believed that Terah’s age of 70 at Abram’s birth created a chronological and ethical dilemma. Since Abram left Haran for Canaan at the age of 75 (Gen. 12:4), Terah would have been 145 years old at that time (70 plus 75). Since Terah died at the age of 205, he would have been abandoned by Abram in Haran for 60 years. The Ancients thought this was unthinkable, so they came up with a variety of inventive solutions to resolve this infamous problem, all of which are unnecessary and untenable.
9. Terah’s 145–year lifespan in the Samaritan Pentateuch is a deliberate 60-year deflation designed to solve the chronological “problem” described above. Perhaps an SP scribe(s) could not accept the idea that Abraham would have left his father Terah behind in Haran for 60 years, so he reduced Terah’s lifespan. he may have also sincerely believed he was “fixing” a chronological problem.
The tendency in the SP towards chronological revisionism is not limited to Terah’s Lifespan. For example, the SP’s nine numbers for Jared, Methuselah and Lamech differ from both the MT and LXX, and they are certainly secondary readings. An SP scribe deflated the figures for these three patriarchs, shortening the length of the antediluvian epoch to 1307 years and causing all three men to die in the year of the Flood. In Genesis 11, the SP’s remaining year figures have been deflated from Arpachshad to Nahor and inaccurate lifespan figures have been added by an uninspired scribe more than a millennium after the original text was written by Moses.
9. the ESV translation in 11:31, “they went forth together,” is inadequate. In the MT, the verse begins with Terah as the subject, but then it switches to the 3rd person plural, וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם. Literally, “they went with them.” This is grammatically awkward and does not make sense in context.
the SP reading in the Hiphil masculine singular should be adopted as the original instead (ויצא), and the plural direct object should be revocalized as אֹתָם. This is independently supported by the LXX’s rendering, καὶ ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς χώρας τῶν Χαλδαίων: “he [Terah] led them out of the land of the Chaldeans.” The SP and LXX highlight Terah’s prominent leadership role in the family at this point in time. The “harder reading” principle in textual criticism does not support the MT when a minor scribal error and incorrect vocalization best explain the difficulty. The fact that Moses has designated 11:27 as Terah’s Toledoth highlights his leadership role and supports the SP’s reading.
After receiving the revelation from Yahweh, Abram must have persuaded his father not only to depart from Ur, but also to do so as the leader of the expedition. This is consistent with Terah’s explicit conversion recorded in Gen. 31:53 (ESV): “May the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father [Terah], judge between us.” When this conversion took place, we do not know, but it could have been part of the impetus for their departure from Ur originally.
The conclusions of this study in resolving the Terah/Abram problem are supported by:
- The textual evidence.
- The chronological evidence.
- Stephen’s testimony.
- The literary flashback structure.
The traditional assumption that Abraham was born in Terah’s seventieth year creates difficulties that disappear once Genesis 11:26–12:5 is carefully read in its own literary, chronological, and canonical context.
Bibliography
Campbell, George Van Pelt. “Refusing God’s Blessing: An Exposition of Genesis 11:27–32.” Bibliotheca Sacra 165, no. 659 (2008): 268–82.
Collins, C. John. “The Wayyiqtol as ‘Pluperfect’: When and Why.” Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 1 (1995): 117–40.
DeRouchie, Jason S. “The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, no. 2 (2013): 219–47.
Emerton, John A. “When Did Terah Die (Genesis 11:32)?” In Language, Theology, and The Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr, edited by Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton. Clarendon Press, 1994.
Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kato, Teppei. “Ancient Chronography on Abraham’s Departure from Haran: Qumran, Josephus, Rabbinic Literature, and Jerome.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 50, no. 2 (2019): 178–96. doi.org/10.1163/15700631-12521249.
Kim, Ju-Won. “Explicit Quotations from Genesis within the Context of Stephen’s Speech in Acts.” Neotestamentica 41, no. 2 (2007): 341–60.
Mare, W. Harold. “Acts 7: Jewish or Samaritan in Character?” The Westminster Theological Journal 34, no. 1 (1971): 1–21.
Richard, Earl J. “Acts 7: An Investigation of the Samaritan Evidence.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39, no. 2 (1977): 190–208.
Smith Jr., Henry B. “MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Textual and Chronological Conundrum in Genesis 5,” Bible and Spade 31, no. 1 (Winter 2018): 18–27.
Whitenton, Michael R. “Rewriting Abraham and Joseph: Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2–16) and Jewish Exegetical Traditions.” Novum Testamentum 54, no. 2 (2012): 149–67.
Leave a Reply