The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 have long been central to discussions concerning biblical chronology and human origins. While a few evangelical interpreters argue these genealogies yield a continuous chronology from Adam to Abraham, many argue that ostensible genealogical gaps prohibit chronological computation.
This article argues that the syntax of Genesis 5:3–31, 11:10–25, and other directly relevant verses establish a precise chronological framework that remains intact even if genealogical gaps are present. Special attention is given to Genesis 5:32, a key verse which is often inadequately analyzed and frequently misunderstood.
The Syntax of Genesis 5:3–31 and 11:10–25 [1]
Understanding the precise way in which the verb ילד (yālad) is deployed throughout Gen. 5/11 is crucial to interpreting the two genealogies correctly. Yālad means: to bear, bring forth, become the father of, father, give birth to, beget.[2] It describes “‘the birthing process’ or ‘actual delivery’ of the descendants.”[3] Old Testament scholars such as Hamilton, Waltke and O’Connor, Tov, Oswalt, and Young concur with this assessment.[4] This understanding is supported by passages outside of Gen. 5/11, including Gen. 21:2, 3, 5, 7, 9; Deut. 4:25; II Kgs. 20:18; and Is. 39:7; 45:10; 66:9. In the last five verses noted, yālad appears in the hiphil stem, which indicates causative verbal action.[5] Yālad can point to the birth of a remote descendant such as grandchildren (Deut. 4:25), or to immediate offspring, such as Adam’s son Seth (Gen. 5:3; 4:25). Throughout Gen. 5/11, yālad appears in the hiphil stem 55 times.
Van der Merwe, et. al. observe that “…the subject of the stem in the Hiphil causes the object of that verb to act as a subject in the idea expressed by the verb.”[6] Similarly, Waltke and O’Connor note that “the [direct] object participates in the event expressed by the verbal root.”[7] In the case of the hiphil of yālad, the named descendant (the direct object) is a participant in the verb’s action, i.e. his/her own birth.
Waltke and O’Connor expand on this further:
…the Hiphil represents the subject as causing an object to participate indirectly as a second subject in the notion expressed by the verbal root. In fact, this notion probably accounts for the Hiphil’s distinctive form. The Hiphil stem’s characteristic h preformative, derived from a third person personal pronoun, reflects a designation of a second subject’s participation in the action.[8]
Consider how the hiphil of yālad works in the case of Genesis 5:18–20, where numerical modifiers are also present.
When Jared had lived 162 years, he caused Enoch to be born. Jared lived 800 years after he caused Enoch to be born and he caused [other] sons and daughters to be born. Thus all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died (my translation).
Jared is the subject, who, in year 162 of his life, causes Enoch (the direct object) to indirectly participate as a second subject in the notion expressed by the verbal root, yālad. Syntactically and logically, Enoch would have been able to participate in the event expressed by yālad during Jared’s 162nd year only if Enoch was in fact born during Jared’s 162nd year.
The event expressed by the verbal root is the very event in which the direct object participates—in the case of yālad, it is his/her own birth. While other actions could be inferred from any causative act—in the case of the hiphil of yālad, intercourse or even events leading up to intercourse could be logically inferred—no other action is entailed in the verbal root itself. Sexton explains:
… linguists and Hebraists agree that a causative (such as the hiphil of ילד) describes the caused event [being born], not the causing action [intercourse, etc.], and that a causative’s temporal qualifier [year 162] thus refers to the time of the caused event [being born/brought forth], not to the time of the causing action.[9]
Throughout Gen. 5/11 the birthing of the explicitly stated direct object is the only verbal activity semantically in view.
Building on the syntax, Sexton makes this additional observation: “Genesis uses´et [אֶת] with the qal, hiphil, niphal, and hophal of ילד [yālad] to mark the name of the person born.”[10] ´Et [אֶת] is not merely a direct object marker but also an emphatic particle that stresses the noun—in this case, the named descendant—that follows it. In the case of Gen. 5:18–19, et [אֶת] specifies Enoch as the recipient of the action entailed by the verbal root, yālad. No other intermediate, unnamed descendant is being referenced, nor does the syntax allow for it. (more on this below).[11]
The birth of Enoch in Jared’s 162nd year is further established and confirmed by the remaining year formula that immediately follows: “Jared lived 800 years after he caused Enoch to be born…” (Gen. 5:19). The hiphil infinitive of yālad (אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ)[12] is translated “after he caused [patriarch X] to be born,” and appears in 16 additional instances throughout Gen. 5/11.[13] As if the author was intent on removing any doubt, Enoch and only Enoch is the direct object of Jared’s fathering and indirectly participates as a second subject in the action. This is only possible if Enoch is being born in year 162. The syntax of the two verses combine to make this unambiguous and inescapable. The same syntactical structure runs throughout Gen. 5:3–31 and 11:10–25.
Strictly speaking, we do not know if Enoch is Jared’s immediate son since no other verses in Scripture explicitly tell us about their actual biological relationship. In theory, Enoch could be Jared’s great-great grandson since the hiphil of yālad can point to the birth of a remote descendant as its direct object (such as the grandchildren of Deut. 4:25). This hypothetical scenario would involve three genealogical gaps, i.e., three missing names. However, their actual relationship does not matter since Enoch’s birth explicitly occurs in year 162 of Jared’s life (and at no other time).
The chronology is therefore fixed—the lives of Enoch and Jared are numerically interlocked with one another. When Jared is 162 years old, Enoch is brought forth/born, regardless of their biological relationship. Because of this syntactical precision, any hypothetical missing names are irrelevant to the question of chronological interpretation and computation. While genealogical gaps may theoretically exist, the syntax eliminates any possibility that chronological gaps exist.
In this video, I discuss Genesis 5 and 11 in detail and include additional material to supplement this post.
The “Line-of-Descent” Eisegesis
To my knowledge, the assertion that an unspecified and unknown descendant could have been born in Jared’s 162nd year first emerged in the 19th century. Variegated permutations of this interpretative maneuver are now legion in literature published by professing evangelicals.[14] The following translation was unknown for the better part of 2000 years.[15] It reads something like this: “When Jared had lived 162 years, he fathered an unnamed son whose ancestral line eventually led to the birth of Enoch at some later, unknown time.” A “line-of-descent” interpretation would not allow for the construction of a chronology since it places an anonymous descendant as the one who is born in year 162 of Jared’s life instead of Enoch. Enoch’s actual birth would occur later, perhaps even centuries later.
The “line-of-descent” interpretation has been deployed in various ways. For example, in 1873 Gardiner established his chronological gaps argument not on the sure foundation of rigorous exegesis, but on the quicksand of paraphrase: “Seth lived 105 years, and begat children, among whom was Enos; and Seth lived after his beginning to begat children 807 years.…”[16] Collins opines: “… when we read that X begat Y, this need only mean that X became the ancestor of Y… ”[17] Schaeffer claims: “it can mean, fathered someone who led to…” Dyke and Henry use paraphrases such as “the age of the patriarch when he apparently began reproducing,” “Noah began a family line which included …,” “Shelah lived thirty years and began a family line which included Eber,” and “Terah lived seventy years, and began a family line which included …”[18]
Line-of-descent proponents must also insert another unnamed son into the genealogy each time the infinitive of yālad is employed. Thus, Gen. 5:19 might read: “Jared lived 800 years after beginning to father an unnamed son in a line of descendants eventually leading to Enoch.”[19] To maintain this exegesis consistently, a minimum of twenty-six unnamed, hypothetical descendants must be interpolated into the sacred text from Enosh to Lamech and from Shem to Nahor. Even worse, the above italicized words are merely loose paraphrases injected into the text which then serve as controlling exegetical and hermeneutical grids for the entirety of Gen. 5/11.
But the problems go beyond even this. Its proponents usually argue that vast, unknown periods of time passed between many of the names in Gen. 5/11. For example, Hugh Ross once argued that the Flood happened “twenty or thirty thousand years ago.” [20] Millam claims that Gen. 5/11 might be stretched to 60,000 years.[21] Incredibly, B. B. Warfield asserted that the chronological gaps in Gen. 5/11 could be on the order of 200,000 years,[22] a view more recently championed by Ross and Rana.[23]
Said interpretations require not just the insertion of two unnamed descendants per progenitor, but dozens and, in some cases, hundreds of them. Borland highlights the absurd results: “It would take a gap of one hundred generations (ten omissions for every listed man) in the Genesis 5 account to move man’s history back a mere 16,850 years.”[24]
Even further, if genealogical gaps in unrelated biblical genealogies somehow allow us to claim there are analogous gaps in Gen. 5/11, then the primeval history cannot have the kind of massive chronological gaps promoted above. Even if we grant the premise unrelated genealogies should govern our exegesis of Gen. 5/11, the analogies place strict limits on the length of ostensible chronological gaps. Borland notes:
…the gap from Kohath to Amram [Exodus 6:18–20] is a mere three hundred years, not three thousand or thirty thousand. Matthew’s gap [1:8, 11] is limited to just three kingly generations comprising of a total of only seventy years, not seven hundred or seven thousand.[25]
It is difficult to overstate how far and deep this interpretive methodology extends into the evangelical literature, so it is important that I document at least a few more examples. Collins begins to analyze the hiphil infinitive construct of yālad in Gen. 5:7, but instead of continuing with a careful and thorough exegetical examination, he swiftly jumps to Matthew 1:8 and Exodus 6:16–20 to argue for genealogical, and therefore, chronological gaps.[26] Dyke and Henry deploy the same method,[27] as do Millam[28] and many others.[29]
Bernard White’s rather simple but correct solution to this problem is incisive:
“The proper understanding of the purpose of the numerical data in these two chapters must therefore arise primarily from a consideration of the material in situ rather than from the imposition of principles gleaned from markedly dissimilar genealogies.”[30]
Like Exodus 6 and Matthew 1, Ruth 4:18–22 is “markedly dissimilar” but that does not prevent evangelicals from appealing to it. These verses utilize the hiphil perfect of yālad with explicitly named descendants designated as direct objects:
Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David (ESV).
Taken alone, the genealogy provides no evidence of either immediate sonship or remote descendancy. Once other directly relevant passages are examined (Gen. 38:27–30; Num. 14:35, 32:13; I Chr. 6:33–37), it becomes clear Ruth’s genealogy has genealogical gaps (missing names).
This observation is then extrapolated onto Gen. 5/11, but there are no grounds for doing so. Ruth 4 makes no mention of the pre–Abrahamic patriarchs, and the existence of genealogical gaps there has nothing to do with possible genealogical gaps in Gen. 5/11, much less chronological gaps. In fact, aside from the use of yālad in the hiphil stem (and even then, the tense is the perfect, not the imperfect), Ruth 4 bears no similarity to Gen. 5/11, as follows:
1. Genesis 1–11 is tightly integrated with Gen. 12–50 by the use of a toledot macrostructure[31] and other literary features (see especially Genesis 11:26 through 12:5). The genealogies are also carefully woven into the entire primeval history, particularly the chronology of the Flood. Conversely, the toledot of Ruth 4:18–22 is appended to the end of the chapter and book and is not essential to its macrostructure or storyline.
2. Ruth 4 contains no literary inclusios that augment and affirm a chronological interpretation.[32]
3. Ruth 4 yields no numerical data.
4. Ruth 4 has no repetition of both the subject and the direct object with the infinitive of yālad.
5. Unlike Gen. 5/11, Ruth 4 is entirely dependent on passages outside of its immediate literary context for ascertaining the nature of its genealogical relationships and for determining if a chronology can be constructed.
6. Instead of supporting a non-chronological interpretation in Gen. 5/11, Ruth 4:18–22 affirms the fact that the hiphil of yālad cannot semantically point to an unnamed descendant as its direct object.
The Pervasive Abuse of Genesis 5:32
Proponents of the line-of-descent interpretation also persistently draw on Gen. 5:32 and then utilize it as a controlling hermeneutic to override the syntax in Gen. 5:3–31 and 11:10–25. McFall’s assertion serves as a salient example:
when Noah was 500 years old he begat the common ancestor of these descendants. So that Noah carried in his loins Shem, Ham and Japheth, up until he was 500 years old and then they passed out of his physical body in that year. [33]
Most of these words are absent from the Hebrew text. In reality, Genesis 5:32 differs radically from the systematic syntactical pattern found throughout verses 3–31 in the following ways:
- The introductory phrase changes from the formulaic “When Patriarch A had lived X years” to “Noah was 500 years old.”[34]
- Three sons are mentioned instead of one.
- The remaining years of life are lacking.
- The infinitive of yālad and the single descendant reiterated as the direct object of the patriarch’s fathering action is absent.
- The “[other] sons and daughters” refrain is absent.
- The formulaic lifespan and epitaph are absent.
- Noah’s remaining years are chronologically tethered to the onset of the Flood (see more below), not the year in which the single, named descendant is born.[35]
- Genesis 5:32 is not part of the linear genealogy of 5:3–31. Instead, it is a segmented genealogy consisting of one generation of three sons,[36] similar to Gen. 6:10.[37]
Beyond these obvious differences, careful engagement with the interpretive possibilities and nuances represented by the Hebrew text of 5:32 is largely lacking in the literature. Here are a number of translation possibilities:
- And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth (KJV).
- And Noe was five hundred years of age, and Noe became the father of three sons: Sem, Cham, Iapheth (LXX).[38]
- After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth (ESV).
- Noah was 500 years old, and he fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth (HCSB).
- When Noah was five hundred years old he fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth (NJB).
- Now after Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth (NASB; my translation).
The KJV and the Alexandrian translators chose the conjunction “and/καὶ” to connect the two main segments of Gen. 5:32.[39] “And” is grammatically accurate and consistent with other directly relevant verses, but it is a conservative translation choice.[40] Verse 32 begins with a waw consecutive (ו + a verb), “And Noah was…” (וַיְהִי־נֹחַ). The next phrase begins with another waw consecutive, “And Noah fathered…” (וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ). These are known as consecutive wayyiqtol, described here by Putnam:
Wayyiqtol (imperfect plus waw-consecutive…) is the main verb of narrative, used to list a series of events. Events described by consecutive wayyiqtol tend to be logically or temporally consecutive.… The ו [waw] of wayyiqtol represents a wide variety of syntactic relationships between clauses; its translation depends on the content of the clauses which it joins.[41]
While “when” is grammatically possible,[42] the rendering would make Noah’s sons triplets[43] or place all their births in Noah’s 500th year.[44] “When” is eliminated as a viable choice by other directly relevant passages (Gen. 7:11, 8:13, 9:24, 28–29, 10:21, and 11:10) which bring added clarity to our understanding of 5:32.
In Genesis 9:24, Ham is designated as the youngest (qāṬān) son of Noah (ESV, NIV).[45] Williams uses qāṬān in 9:24 as an example of the superlative, “youngest.”[46] Cassuto notes qāṬān “…is certainly the least in years…”[47] The author of Jubilees (ca. 160 BC) viewed Ham as the youngest (Jub. 7:10),[48] as did the writer of 4Q252 at Qumran.[49]
The KJV and LXX render qāṬān as “younger,” [50] but younger than whom? In this instance, since Ham seeing his father’s nakedness (9:22) is being starkly contrasted with Shem and Japheth together covering Noah in a cooperative act of faithfulness (9:23), one might argue Ham is being compared to a single entity, Shem/Japheth. “Younger” still results in Ham being the youngest son of Noah.
Commentators and translators are somewhat divided on the question of whether Shem is the “older brother of Japheth” or the “brother of Japheth the elder” (Gen. 10:21). The KJV and NIV designate Japheth as the older son,[51] while the ESV, ASV, NET, and the Vulgate designate Shem as the elder.[52] The Greek recensions of two Jewish translators are split—Aquila viewed Shem as the oldest, while Symmachus rendered Japheth as the elder.[53] Concerning the Old Greek (or LXX),[54] Wevers writes the “… genitive τοῦ μείζονος makes Japheth the elder brother of Shem. This is also the Masoretes’ understanding of the Hebrew, as the accentuation shows…”[55]
Since “elder/older” (haggädôl) appears as the last word in the verse and immediately follows Japheth’s name, it is more likely that it is intended to modify Japheth since Shem appears at the beginning (see more in the video below). Of this, Cassuto is certain: “The Hebrew does not mean: the eldest brother of Japheth, but the brother of Japheth, who was the eldest, the firstborn.”[56]
Since Ham is the youngest son but is listed second, and Japheth is the oldest but is listed last, Gen. 5:32 cannot be communicating birth order. So why is Shem listed first if he is not the oldest? Ozanne offers one of three viable answers:
“The order in Genesis 5.32 is logical rather than chronological, and the names form a chiastic structure, or introversion, in which the first and last names correspond. Hence both Shem and Japheth (Shem above Japheth) were blessed … while Ham, in the person of Canaan his fourth son, was cursed …”[57]
Second, Sexton observes that younger sons in Genesis are often chosen over older sons.[58] Lastly, Shem is not the oldest son but like Abram in Gen. 11:26 he is listed first because his line-of-descent would eventually lead to the Messiah (Lk. 3:36–39).
The AMP, NIV, NET, and ESV begin 5:32 with “after.”[59] The standard Hebrew temporal conjunction for “after” (אַחַר) is absent, but that does not preclude its use in translation if the context merits it. Cryer explains:
…. Gen 5:32 does not require the translation ‘when Noah was …’ A sentence begun with a waw-consecutive, an indication of time, and a continuation in waw consecutive merely implies a loose temporal or logical connexion; accordingly, it would also be correct to translate ‘after Noah was 500 years old.…’[60]
Thus, after Noah turned 500 years of age, he fathered three sons, the most significant of whom was Shem.
Genesis 5:32 communicates a temporal progression flowing between 32a, “After Noah was 500 years old,” and 32b, “Noah fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth.” [61] (The KJV is adequate but less precise, “And Noah was… and Noah begat…”).[62] The 500-year referent serves as a chronological signpost in the life of Noah, after which time his three sons were born.[63] Shem’s birth year in Noah’s life is the only one that can be definitively derived from other verses (cf. Gen. 11:26).[64]
In summary, the claim that the chronological imprecision of Gen. 5:32 proves there are chronological gaps in Gen. 5/11 is demonstrably flawed and exegetically indefensible. Given its significant syntactical divergence from the previous 29 verses, Gen. 5:32 ought not, and indeed cannot exert hermeneutical control over 5:3–31.
In this 30-minute video presentation, I examine Genesis 5:32, 9:24 and 10:21.
Bridging the Epochs
Several other verses produce the chronological bridge which extends across the threshold of the two epochs. Genesis 11:10 reads: “When Shem was a hundred years old, he caused Arpachshad to be born (hiphil of yālad), two years after the Flood.”[65] Since the Deluge lasted approximately one year, we must determine if the phrase “after the Flood” [66] is meant to be reckoned from the start or end of it. Other verses bring clarification. Noah died “350 years after the Flood” at the age of 950 (9:28–29). Thus, the time referent which correlates with the phrase “after the Flood” is Noah’s 600th year (950 minus 350 = 600). Genesis 7:6[67] and 7:11 indicate the Flood began in Noah’s 600th year, and it ended in his 601st year (8:13). Since Gen. 9:28–29 and 7:11 mathematically cohere with Noah’s 600th year, the phrase “after the Flood” is to be reckoned from the onset of the Flood, not its end.
As such, Shem was 98 years old when the Flood began (100 minus 2). Since Noah was 600 at the start of the Flood and Shem was 98, Noah was 502 years old when Shem was born (600 minus 98). [68] These verses augment and support the argument above that Gen. 5:32 does not syntactically require that Shem be born in Noah’s 500th year, or that he is the oldest son. As the oldest son, Japheth was born in Noah’s 500th or 501st year, Shem was born in his 502nd, and Ham (the youngest) was born in an unknown year after Shem.[69]
Turning back to 11:10, Arpachshad was born two years after the start of the Flood, or one year after its end. A normal nine-month gestation period requires Arpachshad’s conception to have occurred approximately 3 months after the end of the Flood. Shem brought no descendants on the Ark, so no one else can be Arpachshad’s biological father other than Shem. Noah–Shem–Arpachshad are definitively the direct sons of the preceding progenitor, further verifying the validity of chronological computation in Gen. 5:3–31, through the Flood year, and into Gen. 11:10–25. The 435-year Adam–Seth–Enosh chronology is bookended by the 971-year five-generation chronology of Methuselah–Lamech–Noah–Shem–Arpachshad.[70]
Conclusions
For 2,000 years, the church and the Judaism that preceded it almost universally interpreted Gen. 5/11 chronologically. The radical shift away from this perspective over the last 150 years has largely been driven by external worldview claims and not rigorous exegesis. The chronological notices in Genesis 5 and 11 should be interpreted according to their own syntactical features and in their literary context rather than through loose analogies drawn from unrelated genealogies, recently manufactured and dubious semantics of causation, or extrapolated paraphrases of Genesis 5:32 or 11:26.*
*My analysis of Gen. 11:26 can be found here: “Abram’s Call and the Death of His Father Terah: A Closer Look at Genesis 11:26 to 12:5“.
Endnotes
[1] With modifications, material in this post is taken from: Henry B. Smith Jr., “Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Three): The Patriarchal Lifespans.” Bible and Spade 35, no. 3/4 (Summer/Fall 2022): 42–44, 46–48.
[2] Jeremy Sexton, “Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?: A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green’s Chronological Gaps,” The Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (September 2015): 195.
[3] Ibid., 196.
[4] Ibid., 195–96; Jeremy Sexton and Henry B. Smith Jr., “Primeval Chronology Restored: Revisiting the Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11,” Bible and Spade 29, no. 2–3 (Spring/Summer 2016): 43.
[5] Putnam notes that when a verb does not occur in the qal stem, the hiphil can function as a simple transitive verb. When a verb occurs in the qal and niphal stems, the hiphil form of the same verb is most often causative. Such is the case here with yālad. See: Frederic Clarke Putnam, A New Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 176.
[6] Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 1999), 86.
[7] Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 435.
[8] Waltke and O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 435. Emphasis added.
[9] Jeremy Sexton, “Andrew E. Steinmann’s Search for Chronological Gaps in Genesis 5 and 11: A Rejoinder,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 1 (2018): 39. Steinmann would assert that an unspecified triggering action of causation occurs in year 162 of Jared’s life instead of the actual birth of Enoch. Enoch was then born at some later, unknown time (perhaps centuries or even millennia later). This ad hoc exegesis allows for chronological gaps in Gen. 5/11 (Andrew E. Steinmann, “Gaps in the Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11?” BSac 174 [2017]: 145–48). Sexton explains further: “Steinmann assumes that the semantic focus of ילד in the hiphil and hophal (i.e. in the H-stem) is on the progenitor’s causing action rather than the progeny’s birth. Consider the impossibility of reconciling this assumption with Gen 40:20; Ezek. 16:4, 5. In each of these three verses, the H-stem of ילד focuses on “the day” of birth. Ezekiel 16:4, 5 refer to “the day on which you were brought forth [H-stem of “ילד”]. The temporal qualifier “the day on which” refers to the time of the progeny’s birth, not the time of the progenitor’s causing action” (“Steinmann’s Search,” 40, n. 2). The same applies to Gen. 5/11, where two temporal qualifiers (begetting age and remaining years) limit the birth of the named descendant to one precise year in the life of the progenitor. For a decisive refutation of Steinmann’s eisegesis, see: Jeremy Sexton, “Evangelicalism’s Search for Chronological Gaps in Genesis 5 and 11: A Historical, Hermeneutical, and Linguistic Critique,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 1 (2018): 5–25; Sexton, “Andrew E. Steinmann’s Search,” 39–45; Sexton, “Who Was Born?,” 195–209. Steinmann’s case for chronological gaps in Gen. 5/11 is ultimately driven by flawed hermeneutics. He openly admits that human interpretations of ANE evidence can exert magisterial control over the sacred text of Scripture. Gen. 5/11 must contain time gaps because ancient Near Eastern archaeologists assign dates to archaeological remains which conflict with the primeval chronology (Steinmann, “Gaps,” 141, 154). For more on this pervasive problem in evangelicalism, see my “Wild West Hermeneutics” series.
[10] Sexton, “Who Was Born?,” 197, n. 37.
[11] Sexton, “Who Was Born?,” 197–201; “Evangelicalism’s Search”; “Steinmann’s Search.”
[12] Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, ed. John C. Beckman, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 133, 179.
[13] Genesis 5:7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30 and 11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25.
[14] Just a few examples include: Gleason L. Archer Jr., “The Chronology of the Old Testament,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: With the New International Version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 1 of 12, Introductory Articles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 361; C. John Collins, “How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1–2:3,” Presbyterion 20, no. 2 (September 1994): 115–16; Frederic Gardiner, “The Chronological Value of the Genealogy in Genesis V,” Bibliotheca Sacra 30 (April 1873): 323–33; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17, ed. R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 254; Derek Kidner, Genesis, ed. Donald J. Wiseman, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Chicago: Intervarsity Press, 1967), 82–83; Kenneth Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1966), 39; K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 440–41; Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, 2nd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: Nav Press, 2001), 109; Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1951), 194; Francis A. Schaeffer, No Final Conflict (London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 1975), 37–38. Many more could be cited.
[15] J. Paul Tanner, “The Genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11: Reasons for Understanding These as Gapless Chronologies,” (Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, TX, 2016), 17.
[16] Gardiner, “Chronological Value,” 325.
[17] Collins, “How Old Is the Earth?,” 115–16 (emphasis original).
[18] Daniel J. Dyke and Hugh Henry, “Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies in the Context of the Biblical Mindset” (Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Antonio, TX, 2016), 25, 31, 42, 34 (emphases added).
[19] Using the abbreviation “PN” to designate unstated personal names inserted between the named patriarchs in Gen. 5/11, Tanner explains further: “… if indeed PN2 really means “the line that resulted in PN2,” it still must be true that “PN1 lived X (number of) years” after “the line that resulted in PN2.” Using … the example of Mahalalel and Jared, if one wishes to argue that Gen 5:15 means “Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of the line that resulted in Jared,” then he must also be consistent and say that Gen 5:16 means “Then Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years after he became the father [infinitive of yālad] of the line that resulted in Jared.” One cannot limit Mahalalel’s 830 years to the first link in the chain; it is the whole chain including Jared (“Gapless Chronologies,” 18).
[20] Ross, The Genesis Question, 177. Ross’ views on this subject have changed over time.
[21] John Millam, “The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?,” Evidence for God from Science (blog), September 3, 2010, http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html, 21, n. 10. (Link is no longer available).
[22] B. B. Warfield, “The Manner and Time of Man’s Origin,” in Evolution, Science, and Scripture: Selected Writings, ed. David N. Livingstone and Mark A. Noll (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 222.
[23] Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana, Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, rev. ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 376.
[24] James A. Borland and Duane L. Christensen, “Did People Live to Be Hundreds of Years Old Before the Flood?,” in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 178, 182, n. 22.
[25] Ibid., 177.
[26] C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005), 204–6.
[27] “Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies,” 26–29, 52–53.
[28] “The Genesis Genealogies: Are They Complete?”
[29] See footnote 14.
[30] Bernard White, “Revisiting Genesis 5 and 11: A Closer Look at the Chronogenealogies,” AUSS 53, no. 2 (2015): 257 (emphasis added).
[31] Jason S. DeRouchie, “The Blessing-Commission, the Promised Offspring, and the Toledot Structure of Genesis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, no. 2 (2013): 219–47.
[32] For more, see: “Patriarchal Lifespans.”
[33] Leslie McFall, “The Chronology of the Book of Jubilees” (unpublished manuscript, December 31, 2013), Microsoft Word file, 32. Online at: https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/chronology-of-jubilees.pdf
[34] The Hebrew literally reads: “Noah was a son of 500 years.”
[35] “After the Flood, Noah lived 350 years. All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died” (ESV). The (re)appearance of the epitaph conveys its structural and chronological significance in the broader context of the primeval history. The death notices for Adam and Noah also serve as a literary inclusio within the larger framework of Genesis 1–11. Noah’s epitaph creates a precise and interlocking chronological peg between the end of his life and the year of the Flood.
[36] DeRouchie, “Blessing-Commission,” 237, n. 60. “Linear genealogies take the form: A gave birth to B, who gave birth to C, who gave birth to D. In contrast, segmented genealogies take the form: A gave birth to B, C, and D; B gave birth to E, F, and G; C gave birth to H, I, and J; D gave birth to K, L, and M” (238, n. 61).
[37] “And Noah caused three sons to be born: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”
[38] Robert J. V. Hiebert, “Genesis,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, trans. Robert J. V. Hiebert (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 9. The translator of the Greek Genesis has added “three sons,” an exegetical expansion absent from the Masoretic Text.
[39] “And” also appears in the 1599 Geneva Bible and the Darby translation. Also, Barry L. Bandstra, Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008), 330.
[40] The CSB, CJB, EHV, HCSB, NASB 1995, and the Living Bible leave the waw untranslated. The NASB renders it “Now after Noah…”
[41] Frederic Clarke Putnam, Hebrew Bible Insert: A Student’s Guide to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Ridley Park, PA: Stylus Publishing, 2002), 31.
[42] “When” is used by the CEB, The Message, and Wycliffe’s translation. Sarna uses “when,” but provides no analysis (Genesis, 44). Similarly, Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 346.
[43] Thus: Robert Davidson, Genesis 1–11, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer, Cambridge Bible Commentary: New English Bible (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 60, 63. Davidson provides no rationale for choosing “when.” Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, ed. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. W. Watts, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 250; James J. Scofield Johnson and Thomas D. Ice, “Using Scriptural Data to Calculate a Range-Qualified Chronology from Adam to Abraham” (Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Criswell College, Dallas, TX, 2002), 17–19.
[44] The other scenario would involve twins being born immediately in Noah’s 500th year, with the third son’s birth just prior to Noah’s 501st birthday. This would be theoretically possible if “when” were an accurate translation.
[45] In an almost bizarre polemic, Johnson and Ice (“Using Scriptural Data”) claim that Gen. 9:24 is not referring to Ham at all since he is not referenced in verses 24 to 27. They omit the explicit mention of his name in 9:22 (“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside”). They also insist the order of names in 5:32 must necessarily be the birth order (Shem, Ham, Japheth). Thus, the “youngest” son cannot be Ham, but is Japheth instead. In reading their material, one comes away with the impression that anyone who believes otherwise does not believe what God has said. They should take their argument up with Moses, who first orders the sons in the Table of Nations—Shem, Ham, Japheth (10:1)—and then as Japheth, Ham, Shem (10:2, 6, 21). The inspired author of I Chronicles also orders them both ways. First, Shem, Ham, Japheth (1:4), then Japheth, Ham, Shem (1:5, 8, 17). Shem’s appearance in the third slot is for literary purposes—to connect the post-Flood genealogy to Abraham’s genealogy.
[46] Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 33–34. See also: Cryer, “Interrelationships,” 247; Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 319. See also Genesis 42:13, 15, 20, 34.
[47] Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Part Two): From Noah to Abraham, trans. Israel Abrahams, vol. 2, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Varda Books, 2012), 163–65. Emphasis original.
[48] James C. VanderKam, Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1-21, ed. Sidnie White Crawford, vol. 1, 2 vols., Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018), 330, 338–39.
[49] Timothy Lim, “The Chronology of the Flood Story (4Q252),” Journal of Jewish Studies 43, no. 2 (1992): 291. In agreement is Genesis Rabbah 26:7 (H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, trans. H. Freedman, vol. 1–2, 10 vols. [London: Soncino Press, 1939], 292).
[50] The LXX uses the comparative, “younger” (νεώτερος). See: Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 124.
[51] John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison (Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company, 1998), 107; Sexton, “Who Was Born?,” 209, n. 90; Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, 458; Genesis Rabbah 27:7 (Freedman and Simon, Midrash Rabbah, 299).
[52] Cryer, “Interrelationships,” 247.
[53] Wevers, Notes, 140, n. 40. The Hebrew (הַגָּדוֹל) was rendered by Aquila in the dative case as τῷ μεγαλῷ (lit. great), likely modifying Shem. Symmachus rendered it as τοῦ πρεσβυτερου (lit. elder), likely modifying Japheth.
[54] Merrill claims the LXX translators altered Gen. 10:21 but provides no evidence for the claim (Eugene H. Merrill, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002], 116).
[55] Wevers, Notes, 140. Since Shem’s name in Greek appears in the dative case and not the genitive, “elder” is modifying Japheth.
[56] Cassuto, Book of Genesis, 2:218.
[57] C. G. Ozanne, The First 7000 Years: A Study in Bible Chronology (New York: Exposition Press, 1970), 16.
[58] “That [Shem] 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.” “Who Was Born?,” 209. Also, Sexton, “Evangelicalism’s Search,” 6, n. 8.
[59] “After” also appears in the CEV, ERV, GNT, ISV, NLT, NRSV, and RSV. See also: Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11, International Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 81; John Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, vol. 1 of 13, Genesis ~ Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 108–9.
[60] Frederick H. Cryer, “The Interrelationships of Gen 5:32, 11:10–11 and the Chronology of the Flood (Gen 6-9),” Biblica 66, no. 2 (1985): 247–48. Robert R. Wilson adds: “The temporal clause is formed by simple juxtaposition and so contains no explicit indication of the temporal sequence involved. The translation ‘after Noah was 500 years old’ would also be possible” (Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, Yale Near Eastern Researches 7 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977], 160, n. 60).
[61] This is quite common with consecutive wayyiqtol. See: van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 165–66.
[62] Book of Genesis, 1:290. Cassuto asserts that Japheth was born in Noah’s 500th year since he is the oldest son, but 5:32 does not require this strict interpretation. If one insists that a son be born in Noah’s 500th year, that son can only be Japheth. In my thinking, Japheth could have been born when Noah was 501 years old. If one insists that Shem is the eldest son of Noah, then Japheth could have been born in Noah’s 503rd year, or thereafter. Each option remains reasonably faithful to the text and does not negate a chronological interpretation of Gen. 5/11.
[63] The Flood narrative and other texts restrict Noah’s begetting age for both Japheth and Ham. Since Shem is born when Noah is 502 years old, Japheth was born sometime after Noah’s 500th birthday but at least nine months prior to Shem’s birth (with Japheth as the eldest). Ham was born after Shem, but he was old enough to be married on the day he and his wife entered the Ark (Gen. 7:13)—the 600th year, 2nd month, and 17th day of Noah’s life (Gen. 7:11). While it is possible Ham is several decades younger than his brothers (born, say, when Noah was 550 years old), the three sons likely are clustered closer together in age.
[64] In case of Gen. 11:26, only Terah’s age (130) at Abram’s birth can be determined. Since Haran dies in Ur (11:28) and Nahor marries Haran’s daughter Milcah (11:29), Haran was most likely the oldest son of the three, possibly born during 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). For more, see: Henry B. Smith Jr., “Abram’s Call and the Death of His Father Terah: A Closer Look at Genesis 11:26 to 12:5,” From Adam to Abraham, June 5, 2026.
[65] The Hebrew literally reads “Shem [was] a son of 100 years.”
[66] The exact same phrase, “after the Flood” (אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל), also appears in Genesis 9:28, 10:1 and 10:32. The LXX reads μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν.
[67] “Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth” (ESV).
[68] Dyke and Henry establish the precision of the biblical texts placing Shem’s birth in Noah’s 502nd year, and then in the very same context deny the validity of chronological computation. They claim “the numerical data surrounding Noah and Shem do not refer to the time of the birth of Shem” (“Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies,” 34). They further posit that Shem may not be Noah’s son, contra Gen. 7:7, 13; 9:18; 10:1–2, 32; and II Pet. 2:5. To my knowledge, no credible author in the history of the church or ancient Judaism has ever doubted that Shem, Ham, and Japheth were the immediate sons of Noah (“Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies,” 30–31). The authors also truncate Ham and Japheth from their discussion of Gen. 5:32 (pp. 30–31) and argue that since yālad is not pointing to Shem’s birth in Noah’s 500th year (which is correct), when yālad is used in other instances in Gen. 5/11, it may also not be referring to the direct object, but an unknown, unstated descendant. As I have carefully shown, the 500-year referent in 5:32 is not pointing to anyone’s birth in that year, and 5:32 differs markedly from the rest of Gen. 5/11.
[69] Many writers claim that 11:10 does not reconcile with Gen. 5/11 and the Flood narrative. For example, Mathews translates 5:32, “After Noah was 500 years old …,” but later contradicts his own analysis of Gen. 11:10, stating that 5:32 better reads “When Noah…” or “Noah was 500 years old when he fathered…” By doing so, he unnecessarily puts 5:32 and 11:10 in conflict with each other (Genesis 1–11:26, 319, 492). Jeremy Hughes claims Genesis 11:10 is a “secondary addition” (Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, JSOT Supplement Series 66 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, Sheffield Academic Press, 1990], 18). Gerhard Larsson calls it a “puzzling inconsistency” (“The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102, no. 3 [September 1983]: 405). Similarly, Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 561–62. Many similar statements appear in the literature.
[70] Starting with Lamech’s birth when Methuselah is 187 years old, we then add 182 (Noah’s birth), 502 (Shem’s birth), and 100 (Arpachshad’s birth) to get 971 years. For more on why Methuselah is included here, see: “Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Three): The Patriarchal Lifespans.”
Leave a Reply