{"id":12312,"date":"2003-01-01T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-01T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/reasons.org\/publications\/the-genesis-genealogies\/"},"modified":"2003-01-01T11:00:00","modified_gmt":"2003-01-01T11:00:00","slug":"the-genesis-genealogies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/christianity\/beliefs-values\/the-genesis-genealogies","title":{"rendered":"The Genesis Genealogies"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n

By Dr. John Millam<\/b><\/p>\n

For the updated version of this article, please download the PDF here.<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

In 1650, James Ussher, the archbishop of Ireland came up with a detailed timeline for all the events in the Bible, going all the way back to the creation of man and the universe.  According to Ussher\u2019s chronology, Adam and Eve were created in the year 4,004 BC.  In order to date backwards from Abraham to Adam and Eve, he made use of the genealogies given in Genesis 5 and 11.  A critical assumption that he made in his interpretation was that these two genealogies were complete (that is, that they contained no gaps or missing names).2<\/sup> Are these genealogies indeed complete as Ussher assumed?<\/p>\n

Biblical genealogies are numerous and yet they are probably the most often ignored and least studied portions of the Bible. 
\nMost people find genealogies to be uninteresting and difficult to apply to current circumstances.  The nature and function
\nof Biblical genealogies is also very different from modern genealogies, which can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. 
\nFor example, telescoping (leaving out some names for the sake of brevity) is common in Biblical genealogies but is rare
\nin modern genealogies.  Similarly, the key genealogical terms (such as \u201cson\u201d and \u201cfather\u201d)
\nhave much broader meanings then their corresponding English words.  An accurate understanding of Biblical genealogies
\nis difficult, yet it is important for understanding of scripture.3<\/sup> Having a proper understanding of Biblical genealogies is prerequisite to attempting to address the Genesis
\ngenealogies.\n<\/p>\n

The Nature of Biblical Genealogies<\/b><\/h3>\n

In modern times, genealogies are for the purpose of communicating detailed information about history and family relations. 
\nOur modern conception of genealogies is very different from how genealogies were used and understood in Biblical times. 
\nSome background information on genealogies is helpful in order to properly understand and interpret them.  Biblical
\ngenealogies fall into three main categories according to their purpose:  familial, legal-political, and religious.4<\/sup> Familial (or domestic) genealogies were primarily concerned about inheritance and privileges of firstborn
\nsons.  Legal-political genealogies are primarily centered on claims to a hereditary office, but other examples include
\nestablishing ancestry for land organization, territorial groupings, and military service.  Religious genealogies were
\nprimarily used to establish membership in the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods.  The function of a genealogy largely
\ndetermines its structure and organization.  In each of these cases, there is little reason or need to give a complete
\nlisting of names since it is ancestry, not the actual number of generations that is important.<\/p>\n

Very short genealogies are typically for the purpose of identifying a person\u2019s tribal or genealogical grouping. 
\nThe clearest example of this is the division of Israel into tribes according to which of the 12 patriarchs they were descended
\nfrom.  This tribal division was important for determining traveling arrangements (Numbers 2; 10) and allocation of
\nland (Joshua 13-21).  Each tribe was subdivided into divisions and further subdivided into clans according to which
\nson and grandson of the patriarchs they were descendent from.  For example, the Levites were assigned different duties
\naccording to which Levitical division they belonged to.  So, it was usually sufficient to list only a person\u2019s
\ntribe, division, and clan to identify someone.  This interest in genealogical identification is also seen in the time
\nof King David and again in the time of return from exile.  At these later times, genealogies often were given in terms
\nof other key historical figures (Aaron, Moses, David, etc.) rather than going all the way back to the patriarchs. 
\nFor example, Matthew starts his Gospel with \u201cJesus, son of David, son of Abraham\u201d (Matthew 1:1).  This
\nvery terse genealogy is a prelude to Matthew\u2019s longer genealogy (Matthew 1:3-17).  Some examples include:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n Moses and Aaron – Exodus 6:16-20, Numbers 26:57-59; and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6, 12-13<\/b>
    \n With the Moses and Aaron playing such central roles in the exodus, it is not surprising that their genealogy is given
    \n four different times in the Old Testament.  This genealogy serves as a striking example of telescoping a genealogy
    \n to include only the tribe, division, and clan.  The genealogies defining the divisions and clans of the Levites are
    \n given in Numbers 3:17-37; 26:57-59 and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6-23.  We see from these passages that Moses and
    \n Aaron were of the tribe of Levi (the Levites), the division of Kohath (the Kohathites), and the clan of Amram (the Amramites). 
    \n These genealogies were telescoped to only include the three generations needed to establish this.  A more detailed
    \n study of these genealogies is given later.<\/li>\n
  2. \n Korah \u2013 Numbers 16:1<\/b>
    \n In the second census during Israel\u2019s desert wanderings, a few noteworthy individuals are listed along with
    \n each tribe\u2019s genealogy.  Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, the son of Levi led a rebellion against Moses during
    \n the desert wandering and was engulfed by the earth along with his followers.  This genealogy specifies his clan (Izhar),
    \n division (Kohath), and tribe (Levi) and telescopes out the remaining generations between Korah and Izhar.<\/li>\n
  3. \n Dathan and Abiram \u2013 Numbers 16:1; 26:5-9<\/b>
    \n >Along with Korah, Dathan and Abiram participated in the rebellion against Moses and died with him.  Because
    \n of this notoriety, Dathan and Abiram are listed among the Reubenites in the second Israelite census.  In this genealogy,
    \n we are given only their clan (Eliab), division (Pallu), and tribe (Reuben).<\/li>\n
  4. \n Zelophehads\u2019 daughters – Numbers 26:28-32; 27:1<\/b>
    \n Zelophehad and his daughters are listed as noteworthy among the Manassehites in the second census of Israel.  Because
    \n he had 5 daughters and no sons, they came to Moses about the issue of inheritance.  As a result, it became law that
    \n daughters would receive the inheritance if there were no sons (Numbers 27).  This genealogy, Zelophehad, son of Hepher,
    \n son of Gilead, son of Machir, son of Manasseh, son of Joseph is analogous to the preceding examples except that one more
    \n name is included beyond the tribe (Manasseh), division (Machir), and clan (Gilead).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Word Meaning<\/b><\/h3>\n

    Another important difference between ancient and modern genealogies is vocabulary.  In modern English, we have a whole
    \nhost of words to describe precise familial relationships.  For example, we have son, grandson, uncle, father, cousin,
    \nbrother, and ancestor.  Hebrew has a very small vocabulary, so only a few Hebrew words to carry all of these modern
    \nmeanings.  For example, the Hebrew words for \u201cson\u201d (
    \nben<\/i>, 1121) means son, grandson, great grandson, and descendent.  Similarly, \u201cfather\u201d (
    \nab<\/i>, 1)5<\/sup> means father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and ancestor.  We find in Genesis 28:13 that God tells Jacob,
    \n\u201cI am the LORD, the God of your
    \nfather<\/i> (
    \nab<\/i>) Abraham and the God of Isaac,\u201d but Abraham was the
    \ngrandfather<\/i> of Jacob.  Similarly, father (
    \nab<\/i>) can refer to multiple ancestors as in when Elijah cried, \u201cTake my life, I am no better than my ancestors (
    \nab<\/i>)\u201d (1 Kings 19:4).  According to
    \nVine\u2019s<\/i>,
    \nab<\/i> \u201cmay refer to the first man, a \u2018forefather,\u2019 a clan (Jeremiah 35:6), a tribe (Joshua 19:47), a
    \ngroup with a special calling (1 Chronicles 24:19), a dynasty (1 Kings 15:3), or a nation (Joshua 24:3).  Thus
    \n\u2018father\u2019 does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual\u201d (
    \nVine\u2019s<\/i> \u201cfather,\u201d but see also HGKSB, p. 1574).  Similar word usage also applies to the New Testament
    \nin Greek, such as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.<\/p>\n

    The word \u201cbegat\u201d (
    \nyalad<\/i>, 3205) is another word that is commonly used in Biblical genealogies.  (The NIV translates
    \nyalad<\/i> as \u201cbecame the father of\u201d or \u201cgave birth to.\u201d)  Like father (
    \nab<\/i>) and son (
    \nben<\/i>), this word has a much broader meaning than the corresponding English usage (Vine\u2019s, \u201cto bear\u201d). 
    \nAn example of this broader usage is found in Deuteronomy 32:18, where God reminds Israel that He \u201cbegat\u201d them. 
    \nAnd similarly in Numbers 11:12, where Moses declares that he hadn\u2019t \u201cbegotten\u201d Israel and hence was not
    \nresponsible for them.<\/p>\n

    Numerous examples of the broad use of genealogical terms can be given from scripture but a few clear examples are given here.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n Daniel 5<\/b>
      \n
      \n Belshazzar is described as the \u201cson\u201d of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:22) and likewise Nebuchadnezzar is called
      \n his \u201cfather\u201d (Daniel 5:2, 11, 18).  However, Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and hence not even biologically
      \n related to Nebuchadnezzar.  So, Belshazzar was \u201cson\u201d in the sense of legal heir of Nebuchadnezzar.<\/li>\n
    2. \n Ruth 4:17
      \n
      \n <\/b>At the end of the book of Ruth, Boaz and Ruth have their first son, Obed (Ruth 4:13, 17).  In verse 4:17, the
      \n people declare, \u201cthere is a son born to Naomi.\u201d  Clearly, Naomi was not the actual mother of Obed but
      \n is the mother-in-law of Ruth who is the actual mother of Obed.  Naomi\u2019s husband, Elimelech, and her two sons
      \n died leaving Elimelech and Naomi without heirs.  Boaz married Ruth in fulfillment of the Levirate law, which was enacted
      \n to ensure sons to continue the family line (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).  The first son of a Levirate marriage was legally
      \n the son of the dead husband.  In this case, since Ruth\u2019s father-in-law, Elimelech, was also dead, Obed was also
      \n legally the son of Elimelech and Naomi.  So, Obed was the legal son of Naomi but the biological son of Ruth.<\/li>\n
    3. \n Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27
      \n
      \n <\/b>In both Matthew and Luke, Zerubbabel is listed as the son of Shealtiel.  (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai
      \n 1:1, 12; 2:2 also say the same thing.)  In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19 we find that Zerubbabel was actually the son of Shealtiel\u2019s
      \n brother, Pedaiah.  While it is not stated in the Bible, it is reasonable to assume that Pedaiah died early and that
      \n his uncle, Shealtiel, adopted Zerubbabel.  So, Pedaiah was the biological father of Zerubbabel but Shealtiel was his
      \n legal (adoptive) father.6<\/sup><\/li>\n
    4. \n 1 Chronicles 1:36
      \n
      \n <\/b>This verse lists the sons of Eliphaz, the son of Esau.  In the Hebrew text, seven names are listed without comment
      \n or connecting words, so it would be easy to assume that all seven people are the male children of Eliphaz.  By comparing
      \n these names with Genesis 36:11-12, we see that the sixth name, Timna, was actually the concubine of Eliphaz and the seventh
      \n name, Amalek, was the son of Eliphaz by Timna.  The Chronicler omitted this distinction for brevity since the readers
      \n would have been familiar with the listing in Genesis.  The NIV inserts the word \u201cby\u201d in front of Timna
      \n and sets it apart from the preceding five names to make this clear to modern readers.<\/li>\n
    5. \n Genesis 48:1-6
      \n
      \n <\/b>Shortly before Jacob (Israel) died, he adopted both of Joseph\u2019s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, as his own sons. 
      \n Jacob told Joseph, \u201cyour two sons \u2026 will be reckoned as mine\u201d (Genesis 48:5 NIV).  So both Manasseh
      \n and Ephraim were the biological sons of Joseph but were legally considered sons of Jacob.  (This becomes significant
      \n later, when the Levites are set apart from the other tribes for priestly service.  Joseph\u2019s tribe was then split
      \n into two tribes, one for each son, to make up for the absence of the Levites and bringing the number of tribes back to
      \n 12.)\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      \nTelescoping of Genealogies<\/b>
      \n<\/h3>\n

      When names are intentionally left out of a genealogy, it is referred to as \u201ctelescoping.\u201d  In a telescoped
      \ngenealogy only the highlights are given, usually the names of the most important and relevant people.  As an example,
      \nif we were to telescope \u201cAbraham was the father of Isaac, who was the father of Jacob,\u201d it might read in Hebrew,
      \n\u201cAbraham was the father (
      \nab<\/i>) of Jacob\u201d (e.g. Genesis 28:13).  In English, this telescoped genealogy would be considered erroneous
      \nand should read \u201cgrandfather\u201d instead.  In Hebrew (and similarly for Greek), this telescoped genealogy
      \nwould be perfectly true and acceptable because there is no separate word for grandfather in Hebrew and the word \u201cfather\u201d
      \n(
      \nab<\/i>) includes the meaning grandfather.<\/p>\n

      Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number, usually a multiple
      \nof either 7 or 10 and less important names are omitted until that number is reached.  For example, the genealogy of
      \nGenesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names.  The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names
      \neach.  The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names.  Matthew arranged
      \nhis genealogy (Matthew 1:2-17) into 3 groups of 14 names each.  There are 14 names from Abraham to David, 14 from David
      \nto the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus Christ.  To get the groups of 14, Matthew omitted at least 4 names (see
      \nbelow) and counted Jeconiah\u2019s name twice.  (See
      \nMatthew\u2019s Genealogy<\/b> on page 16.)  Matthew clearly indicates in his gospel that that arrangement was intentional
      \n(Matthew 1:17).  Whereas Matthew\u2019s genealogy is broken into sections, Luke\u2019s genealogy (Luke 3:23-28) is
      \ngiven as a single list.  Luke has 14 names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to the exile, and 21 from the exile
      \nto Jesus Christ (in contrast to Matthew\u2019s 14 names each).  Luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham
      \nback to Adam.  (See
      \nLuke\u2019s Genealogy<\/b> on page 17.)7<\/sup><\/p>\n

      While modern genealogies are generally intended to be complete, most Biblical genealogies are telescoped.  So, while
      \nBiblical genealogies are generally not complete, they are still historically accurate.  They correctly communicate
      \neverything that we need to know (ancestry) but not necessarily everything we want to know (absolute genealogical relationships). 
      \nIt is often very difficult or even impossible to know with certainty whether or not a given genealogy is telescoped. 
      \nThe genealogies themselves give little or no indication of whether or not they are telescoped.  So the only way to
      \nestablish the completeness of a genealogy is to compare it with other Biblical genealogies or against history.  Such
      \nstudy is difficult, painstaking, and is often inconclusive.  Below are listed a few well-known examples where one can
      \ndefinitively say that they are telescoped.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n Matthew 1:8 compared to 2 Chronicles 21:4-26:23
        \n
        \n <\/b>Matthew 1:8 has Jehoram listed as the father of Uzziah but there were several generations between these men. 
        \n The names Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 22:1), Joash (2 Chronicles 22:11), and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 24:27) come between Jehoram
        \n and Uzziah.  (See
        \n Matthew\u2019s Genealogy<\/b> on page 16.)<\/li>\n
      2. \n Matthew 1:11 compared to 2 Chronicles 36:1-9
        \n
        \n <\/b>In Matthew 1:11 we read that Josiah is the father of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin).  In 2 Chronicles, we see that Josiah
        \n is the father of Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:4) and grandfather of Jehoiachin (2 Chronicles 36:8).  (See
        \n Matthew\u2019s Genealogy<\/b> on page 16.)<\/li>\n
      3. \n Luke 3:35-36 compared to Genesis 10:24, 11:12; 1 Chronicles 1:24
        \n
        \n <\/b>Luke contains the name Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad that is missing in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12 and 1 Chronicles
        \n 1:24.8<\/sup> Since all of the genealogies are true and Luke is the one with more names, then Luke must be more complete
        \n and the more rest telescoped.  (See
        \n Luke\u2019s Genealogy<\/b> on page 17.)  A more detailed discussion of these genealogies is given in the section on
        \n the Genesis genealogies.<\/li>\n
      4. \n Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chronicles 6:3-15
        \n
        \n <\/b>The genealogy of 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 lists the descendents of Aaron down to Jehozadak (Jozadak).  Ezra 7 lists
        \n Ezra\u2019s own genealogy going back to Aaron.  Where the two genealogies overlap, 1 Chronicles contains 22 names
        \n and Ezra contains 16 names, making Ezra\u2019s genealogy no more than 70% complete.9<\/sup> (See
        \n Priestly Lineage<\/b> on page 18.)  Both genealogies span a time period of about 860 years from the exodus to the fall
        \n of Jerusalem, which suggests that both genealogies are in fact highly telescoped.  A thorough search of the Old Testament
        \n reveals that there were many high priests during this time period who are not included in either of these two genealogies,
        \n which provides additional evidence that these genealogies are not complete.  The following high priests are known
        \n from the OT but are not included in these genealogies:  Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:2), Uriah (2 Kings 16:10-16), possibly
        \n two Azariahs (2 Chronicles 26:17, 20; 31:10-31), Eli (1 Samuel 1:9; 14:3) and Abiathar (2 Samuel 8:17).10<\/sup><\/li>\n
      5. \n 1 Samuel 16:10-13 compared to 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
        \n
        \n <\/b>In the 1 Samuel passage, the prophet Samuel goes to Jesse to anoint one of his sons as the new king of Israel. 
        \n Jesse has his seven eldest sons pass before Samuel but each is rejected.  Finally, David, the 8
        \n th<\/sup> son is brought in and is anointed by Samuel as king.  We find in 1 Chronicles, however, that David is listed
        \n as the 7
        \n th<\/sup> son of Jesse.  One of David\u2019s brothers is omitted from the list to allow David to occupy the favored
        \n 7
        \n th<\/sup> position.  This may seem a bit odd to modern readers but this was an accepted genealogical practice<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        \nEstimating the Degree of Telescoping<\/b>
        \n<\/h3>\n

        Based on the above discussion and Biblical examples, we can see that the telescoping of genealogies was a fairly common practice
        \nin ancient times.  Such telescoping is perfectly acceptable and literal (based on Hebrew word usage)\u2014even if
        \nit may be disconcerting to modern readers.  We can also see that it is usually impossible to tell from the genealogy
        \nitself whether or not it is complete.  For a few genealogies, we can establish specific names that have been omitted
        \nand where they belong in the list.  In general, however, the genealogy only establishes a minimum limit to the number
        \nof generations spanned.  We have to look at other portions of scripture or history to estimate the degree of telescoping
        \ninvolved.  While the degree of telescoping in a particular genealogy may be uncertain, it is certainly not arbitrary
        \nor unlimited.  Upper limits on how far a genealogy might be pushed can be reasonably estimated by looking at Biblical
        \nexamples for which we can establish the time span involved.  Conservative Bible scholars estimate that genealogies
        \nare generally not less than 10% complete (i.e. including only 1 name in 10) based on such analysis.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. \n Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:5-15; Matthew 1:3-6; and Luke 3:31-33
          \n
          \n <\/b>The genealogy of David given in the book of Ruth lists 10 names from Perez to David.  The remaining 3 genealogies
          \n repeat these 10 names but also include Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah as the ancestors of Perez to round out the genealogy
          \n to 14 names.  The time between Abraham and David spans more than 1,000 years.  This time span is too long for
          \n the genealogy to be complete.  One can estimate that the genealogy is about 20 to 50% complete.<\/li>\n
        2. \n Heman, Asaph, and Ethan – 1 Chronicles 6:33-47
          \n
          \n <\/b>At the time of David, there were three head temple musicians, one from each of the 3 divisions of the Levites. 
          \n There is Heman of the Kohathite division (verses 33-38), Asaph of the Gershonite division (verses 39-42), and Ethan of
          \n the Merarite division (verses 44-47).  In each case, the genealogies start with Levi, who was the father of Kohath,
          \n Gershon, and Merari and ancestor of these three men.  So, we have three genealogies side-by-side extending from Levi
          \n to the time of King David, yet the genealogies contain 21, 15, and 14 names respectively for exactly the same span of time. 
          \n This suggests that at least the latter two genealogies are highly telescoped.  (See
          \n Head Temple Musicians<\/b> on page 19.)<\/li>\n
        3. \n Jeriah (Jerijah) \u2013 1 Chronicles 23:6, 12, 19; 26:31<\/b>
          \n
          \n Jeriah (or Jerijah) was the head of the Hebronites (a Levitical clan) and put in charge of other men by King David. 
          \n His genealogy is telescoped to only mention his tribe (Levite), division (Kohathite), and clan (Hebronite).  This
          \n four name genealogy covers the same approximately 900-year of history as that of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan (see previous
          \n point and see
          \n Head Temple Musicians<\/b> on page 19).  Since the other three genealogies contain 14 to 21 generations for this same
          \n time span, we can only conclude that this genealogy is no more than 15% complete.<\/li>\n
        4. \n Shebuel (Shubael) \u2013 1 Chronicles 23:15-16; 26:24 <\/b>
          \n
          \n Shebuel (or Shubael) was put in charge of the treasury in the time of King David.  Both of these genealogies have
          \n Shebuel, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses.  Both Moses and Gershom lived during the time of the exodus while Shebuel
          \n lived in the time of King David, some 400 to 500 years later.  This is highly telescoped and was only for the purpose
          \n of identifying his ancestry from Moses and Gershom.<\/li>\n
        5. \n Ezra 8:1-2
          \n
          \n <\/b>In this verse, Ezra lists a number of leading men of his time period according to ancestry.  So Gershom was
          \n the son of Phinehas (who was the grandson of Aaron); Daniel was the son of Ithamar (who was the son of Aaron); and Hattush
          \n was the son of David.  The first two examples span approximately 1,000 years of time, and the third spans about 500
          \n years.  Clearly, these genealogies are highly telescoped!<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          \nA Detailed Example:  The Mosaic Genealogies<\/b>
          \n<\/h3>\n

          The genealogy of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam illustrates all of the points made above and helps provide a clearer understanding
          \nof Biblical genealogies.  Because of the central importance of these three figures, their genealogy is given four different
          \ntimes in scripture (Exodus 6:16-20; Numbers 26:57-59; and 1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:6, 12-13) and a lot of supporting information
          \ncan also be gleaned from other scripture references.<\/p>\n

          Each of the Mosaic genealogies lists the same four generations (Levi to Kohath to Amram to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam). 
          \nBy cross-referencing with other scripture verses, we can clearly establish that these genealogies are telescoped. 
          \nWe know that both Levi and his son, Kohath, entered Egypt (Genesis 46:5-27; Exodus 1:1-4), which was 430 years before the
          \nExodus (Exodus 12:40-41; Acts 7:6).  Since Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7), from Kohath
          \nto Amram to Moses spans at least 350 years!!!  A typical generation is 20 to 40 years, so one would expect that these
          \ngenealogies to span between 10 and 20 generations.  We find in 1 Chronicles 7:20-27 the genealogy of Ephraim,
          \nson of Joseph, which covers the same period of history as the Mosaic genealogies.  Joseph (brother of Levi) and his
          \nson Ephraim were alive when the Israelites settled in Egypt (Genesis 41:52; 46:27).  There are 12 generations listed
          \nfrom Joseph to Joshua.  Since Joshua was alive at the time of the exodus and was a contemporary of Moses, these 12
          \ngenerations span the 430-year stay in Egypt.  This would fit nicely with a generation being about 40 years.  Thus,
          \nthis genealogy gives (at least) 12 generations that correspond to the same time period as the 4 generations of the Mosaic
          \ngenealogies.  (See
          \nThe Genealogies of Moses and Joshua<\/b> on page 18.)  Yet, another evidence for telescoping is that Kohath\u2019s
          \ndescendents at the time of Moses numbered 8,600 men (Numbers 3:27, 28) of whom 2,750 were between the age of 30 and 50 (Numbers
          \n4:36).  This number of descendents is inexplicable if this genealogy is not telescoped and Kohath was Moses\u2019
          \nwas grandfather.  Based on these arguments, we can conclude that the Mosaic genealogies are perhaps only 20 to 40%
          \ncomplete.\n<\/p>\n

          Was Amram the immediate father of Moses and Aaron, or was he their ancestor? A number of evidences show there were quite
          \na few generations separating Amram and Moses.11<\/sup> (a) Kohath to Amram to Moses spans 350 years (as discussed above) and hence requires unnamed generations. 
          \n(b) Amram and his wife, Jochebed, are mentioned in Exodus 6 as giving rise to Moses.  Yet in the account of Exodus
          \n2, the names of Moses parents are conspicuously absent.  [They are instead referred to as \u201ca man of the house
          \nof Levi\u201d (vs. 2:1), \u201ca Levite woman\u201d (vs. 2:1), and \u201cthe baby\u2019s mother\u201d (vs. 2:8).] 
          \n(c) Descendents of Amram are given in 1 Chronicles 24:20 but don\u2019t mention Aaron, Moses, and Miriam neither does
          \nthe Exodus account mention additional brothers for Moses.  (d) Jochebed, Amram\u2019s wife, is referred to as the
          \ndaughter of Levi (Numbers 26:59) and Amram\u2019s father\u2019s sister (Exodus 6:20), which would place Jochebed at the
          \nentrance of the Israelites into Egypt.  Thus, she would have to be at least 350 years old when she gave birth to Moses
          \nif there were no gaps in the Mosaic genealogies!  Based on this evidence, we recognize that many generations separate
          \nAmram and Jochebed and their children, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam.  In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers 26:59, Jochebed is said
          \nto \u201cbear\u201d (\u201cbegat,\u201d
          \nyalad<\/i>) them while in 1 Chronicles 6:3 and 23:13 describes them as \u201csons\u201d (
          \nben<\/i>).  Thus, both son (
          \nben<\/i>) and \u201cbegat\u201d (
          \nyalad<\/i>) are used synonymously here to refer to a distant descendent in a genealogy.<\/p>\n

          In conclusion, we find that the Mosaic genealogies are highly telescoped (perhaps 20 to 40% complete).  Only the critical
          \nnames\u2014those corresponding to his tribe (Levi), division (Kohath), and clan (Amram)\u2014are given, and the remaining
          \nnames between Amram and Moses are ignored.  Both the term \u201cson\u201d (
          \nben<\/i>) and \u201cbegat\u201d (
          \nyalad<\/i>) are applied interchangeably to the relationship between Amram and Moses, yet at least 8 generations separate
          \nthe two men (i.e.
          \nben<\/i> and
          \nyalad<\/i> are being used to mean ancestor rather than the immediate son).  This genealogy is highly telescoped yet
          \nthe genealogy itself does not tell us if it is complete or where the gaps are.  Only by cross-referencing other Scripture
          \nverses or looking at historical sources were we able to determine whether or not it was telescoped.<\/p>\n

          \nThe Genesis Genealogies<\/b>
          \n<\/h3>\n

          That many or even most Biblical genealogies are telescoped is not very controversial.  However, the genealogies of Genesis
          \n5 and 11 differ in at least one respect.  We see the repeated formula, \u201cWhen X had lived Y years, he became the
          \nfather of (i.e. \u2018begat\u2019,
          \nyalad<\/i>) Z\u201d (NIV), rather than simply \u201cX was the father of Y\u201d or \u201cX the son of Y\u201d as we
          \nsee elsewhere in the Bible.  So, some argue that our conclusions about other Biblical genealogies may not apply to
          \nGenesis 5 and 11.  Those holding Ussher\u2019s chronology estimate that Adam and Eve were created around 6,000 years
          \nago on the assumption that the Genesis genealogies are complete (see
          \nGenesis Genealogies<\/b> on page 20).  Nothing in the text, however, requires that these genealogies be complete. 
          \nBiblical scholars who hold that the genealogies are telescoped would place the creation of Adam and Eve at around 10 to
          \n30,000 years ago but perhaps as late as 60,000 years ago.12<\/sup> Some have tried to push the genealogies so far back that they suggest that Adam and Eve might have been Neanderthals
          \n(or Homo erectus or australopithecines); however, this can not be supported and is rejected by the vast majority of Biblical
          \nscholars.  But who\u2019s right?  What should we conclude about these genealogies?<\/p>\n

          In the example of the Mosaic genealogies (above), it was possible to be very firm in our conclusions due to the abundance
          \nof Biblical and historical details surrounding these events.  The opposite is true for the Genesis genealogies. 
          \nFrom the time of Abraham on there is wide spread consensus regarding dates and chronology.  However, for the time period
          \nbefore Abraham, which is covered by the Genesis genealogies, there is very little Biblical or historical information on
          \nwhich to build solid chronological details.  Without such supporting information, we need to tread lightly and not
          \nbe dogmatic in our conclusions.  While we can\u2019t be conclusive in regards to the nature of the Genesis genealogies,
          \nthere are a number of points that can be made.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Examining Biblical genealogies show that ancient genealogies are generally telescoped rather than complete.  Ancient
            \n readers, unlike modern readers, were concerned with ancestry rather than number of generations and so would generally not
            \n assume that a given genealogy was complete.  Therefore, the burden of proof lies on those who hold that the Genesis
            \n genealogies are complete rather than the reverse.<\/li>\n
          2. Many, perhaps most, of the early church fathers held to a recent date for the creation of Adam, and hence held that the
            \n genealogies were complete (or nearly complete).  However, their basis for this conclusion had little to do with the
            \n genealogies themselves.  There was a wide spread belief that all of human history (from Adam to the return of Christ)
            \n would last exactly 6,000 years and could be used as a basis for predicting Christ\u2019s return.  This interpretation
            \n is no longer accepted today, yet it had a strong influence on how the early church fathers interpreted the Genesis genealogies. 
            \n Similarly, the dependence of the early church fathers on Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament, rather than
            \n the original Hebrew, also led to a faulty understanding of these genealogies.  (For more details see
            \n The Genesis Genealogies and the Early Church Fathers<\/b> on page 12.)<\/li>\n
          3. Henry Morris argues, \u201cThe record [of Genesis 5] is
            \n perfectly natural<\/i> and
            \n straightforward<\/i> and is
            \n obviously intended<\/i> to give both the necessary genealogical data to denote the promised lineage and also the only reliable
            \n chronological framework we have for the antediluvian period of history\u201d (emphasis mine).13<\/sup> As we have observed, Biblical genealogies are certainly not \u201cobvious\u201d or \u201cstraightforward\u201d
            \n in the way that Morris and others argue.  At the heart of Morris\u2019 argument is the presumption that the Genealogies
            \n should be interpreted through the lens of modern Western culture rather than based on careful exegetical analysis of Biblical
            \n and other ancient genealogies.  This is an easy trap to fall into, because we are so immersed in our own culture and
            \n a proper grasp of Biblical genealogies requires a lot of patience and investigation.
            \n
            \n If the author of Genesis 5 and 11 was attempting to give a precise genealogical framework as Morris argues, there should
            \n have been a summation of the years following the genealogy, but this doesn’t occur.  (Contrast this to the numbering
            \n of the Israelites in Numbers 1, where the individual numbers are summed in verse 46.)  Nowhere in Genesis 5, 11, or
            \n anywhere else in the entire Bible are these numbers even suggested to be for the purpose of establishing the time frame
            \n between Adam and Abraham.<\/li>\n
          4. If the presence of personal biographical information, specifically the age at fatherhood, is not for the purpose of establishing
            \n a chronological framework (as discussed in the previous point), what then is the purpose of this information?  Again,
            \n we have to develop our understanding based on a systematic study of Biblical genealogies.  A study on the inclusion
            \n of the age at death in genealogies reveals a distinct trend:  it is only included if it is exceptional, specifically
            \n if it is 100 years or more.  This trend is not surprising, since old age is a sign of blessedness.  Inclusion
            \n of age at fatherhood seems to follow the same trend, i.e. it is included if it is truly exceptional.  (A note of caution
            \n must be made here.  The age at fatherhood is consistent with the trend, but there are so few examples that we cannot
            \n be conclusive.)  Both the age at fatherhood and the age at death are certainly exceptional for all the individuals
            \n included in the Genesis genealogies.<\/li>\n
          5. Comparing the genealogy of Genesis 11 with Jesus\u2019 genealogy in Luke 3, we find that Luke contains the name Cainan
            \n between Shelah and Arphaxad (as noted earlier in this paper).  The inerrancy of scripture, therefore, demands that
            \n there is at least one name missing in Genesis 11, and so at least one of the two Genesis genealogies is telescoped. 
            \n Despite this direct Biblical evidence, some still hold to the belief that Genesis genealogies are complete, and hence that
            \n the inclusion of the name Cainan in Luke 3:36 is incorrect.  One scenario would be that Luke based his genealogies
            \n on late copies of the Septuagint containing Cainan and so mistakenly added it to his genealogy.14<\/sup> This scenario obviously contradicts Biblical inerrancy and so must be rejected.  Henry Morris argues
            \n for an alternative scenario, where the name Cainan is mistakenly added by those copying Luke\u2019s gospel rather than
            \n by Luke himself, thus avoiding problems with Biblical inerrancy.  He argues that those first copying Luke\u2019s
            \n gospel added the name Cainan because they were either influenced by their familiarity with the Septuagint or miscopied
            \n it from Luke 3:37.15<\/sup> There is, however, no Biblical, historical, or manuscript evidence to support this claim, and therefore
            \n we should take Luke to be correct and the Genesis genealogies as telescoped.<\/li>\n
          6. The Mosaic genealogies share a large number of similarities with the Genesis genealogies, yet they contain a large gap between
            \n Amram and Moses.  Points of similarity include:  a) the genealogy bridging a large span of time between important
            \n Biblical figures; b) using \u201cbegat\u201d (
            \n yalad<\/i>) to connect generations; and c) inclusion of personal details, such as age at death.  So none of these features
            \n of the Genesis genealogy can be used to argue for the genealogies being complete.<\/li>\n
          7. Both Genesis 5 and 11 use the verb \u201cbegat\u201d to connect one generation to the next.  In Exodus 6:20 and Numbers
            \n 26:59, this same verb connects Amram and his wife Jochebed to Moses even though there are many generations in between them. 
            \n These verses demonstrate that \u201cbegat\u201d can be genuinely used in precisely the way suggested for the Genesis
            \n genealogies.\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            \nConclusion<\/b>
            \n<\/h3>\n

            Understanding the Genesis genealogies requires a systematic understanding of the nature, style, and purpose of genealogies
            \nin the Bible.  Even a cursory study of Biblical genealogies shows that Biblical genealogies are very different from
            \ntheir modern counterparts.  Looking closer, we find that Biblical genealogies are commonly telescoped by leaving out
            \nless important names and that it is usually impossible to tell if a genealogy is complete simply by looking at it. 
            \nWhile genealogies are typically skimmed over or ignored by most people, the Genesis genealogies have generated controversy
            \nbecause of their supposed connection to the age of the universe and the creation of man.  The interpretation that the
            \nGenesis genealogies are telescoped and that Adam and Eve were created a few tens of thousands of years ago is no less a
            \nliteral interpretation of scripture than Ussher\u2019s interpretation.  Many prominent conservative theologians (see
            \nbelow) support this position.<\/p>\n

            Prominent Conservative Theologians Who Hold That The Genesis Genealogies Are Telescoped:<\/b><\/h3>\n