New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-14
SELECTIONS FROM THE NAIL.
PRE-ABRAHAMIc CHRONOLOGY.

PRE-ABRAHAMIC CHRONOLOGY.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: In The Tribune Of February "a your CORE.
spondent. A E g." referring my article on
Evolutionary and Biblical Anthropology" in The
Tribune OF January 10, says: "Dr. Duffield starts
with the assumption that Adam was an historical
parsonage and refers TO the Incidents IN the early
chapters Of Genesis as historical events. This
necessarily implies his acceptance OF the Biblical
chronology which puts tho creation OF man at
1904 B. c. or thereabouts." He adds: IT Is surely
unnecessary 10 show by the best authorities how
thoroughly geology has undermined. exploded and
demolished beyond resurrection this univer-
sally accepted theory" Whether or not the re-
cent excavations Nippur indicate that a state
Of comparative civilization existed In ba,
nearly ten thousand years ago. there no longer
remain any room for doubt that the early chapters
OF Genesis based Babyonlan and Assyrian
legends" A. E. G. calls attention to DR.. Monro's
prehistoric Man" and the Polychrome transla-
ton OF the Bible shortly 20 be issued by the Johns
Hopkins University in which the very late date
Of It's oldest passages will be revealed with startling
dstinctness."
The article would seem to Indicate that the writer
more familiar with assaults on the divine
authority of the Scriptures than with the defence
More than thirty years ago, In his "Pentateuch
INDICATED from the Aspersions Of Bishop Cclenso,"
Professor Green gave an unansverable reply to the
chronological objection the authenticity and
credlbity Of the early chapters Of Genesis The
argument, In a more extended and exhaustive form.
is presented in the Bibiotheca Sacra. April 1880
The commonly accepted Biblical chronology OF
Usher is based on the assumption that there are
omissions in the genealogical lists OF the NTH
and eleventh chapters OF Genesis consequently
that the numerical data give q complete chronology
OF the period from Adam to Abraham. This I'M
doubtedly Is the primR facie impression made by
the record. II may. nevertheless. be incorrect; II
60 the chronology OF Usher may be incorrect ana
yet the record in Genesis authentic.
In interpreting the pre-Abrahamic gcneaogies In
question two important facts should be borne in
mind-irst. that in the genealogical phraseoogy OF
Scripture the expressions Ito beget," Ito bear
and son restricted to immediate OFF,
spring but are used with reference TO any direct.
It may be remote. descendant; second. that post
Abrahamic genealogiss are frequently incomplete
without any indication OF omissions.
or the numerous instances Of the facts mentioned
TO which attention is called by DR.. Green the fol-
lowing for purpose will suffice:
Flrst-The forty-sixth chapter OF Genesis con-
tains the names OF the Children Of Israel which
came into Egypt" After mentioning the sons.
grandsons and great-grandsons OF Zilpah. It Is
added ". 1s): These the sons Of Zilpah which
she bare unto Jacob"
Second-The genealogy Of Moses IL given in Eek.
vi, 6. IS 20; Mum. XVI. $780, Chron. vi. 49, also
xiii. G. r. 70. In each case but four generations
are mentioned from Jacob 10 Moses namely, Jacob,
Levi Kohath. Amram. Moses. while l Chron. VII.
1921 gives eleven generations between Jacob and
Joshua. Moreover. Kohath. apparently the grand
father OF Moses. Is mentioned in Gen. XVII H. as one
OF the seventy who with Jacob into Egypt.
Now the entire age Of Kohath 1873 years, OF
Amram 1884, and at the time OF the Exodus Moses
was eighty years OF age. Without any reduction
for the Of Kohath when ne came into Egypt
and for the periods when father and would be
contemporary the aggregate OF the figures just men-
toned Is but $50. whereas the sojourning Of the
children Of Israel in Egypt was 40 years" Gen
xii. 4O) 1t is evident that the repeated genealogy
OF the most conspicuous character In Cd Testament
history Is not complete at the same time there Is
no intimation In the record OF any omission. 49,.
IhaAccSTd5 IL, 10 GhT0n 5 5s SON G KoSh
who came down with his father Levi and grand
chron Sxy 81 that }eah jerah the
are identicap was chief among he Hebrontes
G5r 81 M xxi & "a: s ssS s
me 5p.' e in the reign Of David Now Ger
shom was born when Moses was still in indian (Ex
ii. 22) and was an adult at the time Of the Exodus
Exodus to the fourth year OF the reign OF Solomon
FIfth-The genealogy OF Ezra in Chron. vi. s-i4
mentions twenty-five generations between Aaron
and Ezra. His genealogy as given In the Book OF
Further Illustrations from the Old Testament are
unnecessary We call attention 10 the following in
+ First-M1tt' T. l. Jesus Christ, the son OF David
the =on OF Abraham.
Second-NIatt v S "Joram begst Ozias (Uzzlah)."
The complete fact IS. Uzz.ah was the son Of ANA
zian who was the son OF Ahaziah. who was the son
az Joram-that Is. Joram "begat his great-grand-
. r,
Third-Matt V, II. "Jos.as begat Jechon.as| The
complete fact IS Jechonas was the son of Jehoi
AKIN who was the son OF JosAh-that is. Josias
"begat" his grandson. 80
In view OF the above and other similar Illus ra-
lions OF post-Abrahamlc genealogical phraseoosy
Dr. Green asks whether the genealogies OF Cen
y and XII are necessarily 10 be considered as com
pete and embracing all the links in the line or de-
scent from Adam 10 Noah and from 5hein 10
Abraham" His answer is: THE analogy OF Scrip
turs 9erealog!cs Is decidedly against such suppo-
si,ion'' "NhAn II IA said Enosh livsd ninety years
and begat *. an the wet.- sstSo. he'd usage OF IN
word bezat makes this statement equally true
whether keenan, was An immediate or remote de.
sceuds ~ OF Enosh" III rscent.y discovered lnd-
cations OF the antiquity Of man shall. when care
fuzzy Inspected and thoroughly weighed demonstrate
All mar any have imagined they might demon
strate they vii Simply show that the popular
chronology Is based wrong interpretation, ana
that select and partial register OF ante Abrshamie
names has been mistaken Tor a compete one
''rhe Scriptures furnish no data for chronological
COMPUTATION Irios 10 the life az Abraham -,
II NAV be added. the pre-Abrahamc geneaiogies
IN question occupy a place IN the O:d Testament
analogous to that OF the seneaogies OF Jesus IN tne
New and 10 the careful student OF the former tere
are indications OF artificial grouping scarcely lees