Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Roger Hutchinson <rhutchin AT macol.net>]

John Ronning wrote--
>>If one "begets" not only the son but also his descendents
>>when that son is born (again, by idiomatic usage, not
>>literally), then one could read Gen 11:16-17 (just for an
>>example) "Eber lived thirty-four years, and became the
>>father of [an ancestor of] Peleg; and Eber lived four
>>hundred and thirty years after he became the father of [an
>>ancestor of] Peleg," etc.
>>
>Rolf Furuli replied--
>You are correct whan you say that "an appeal to literalism don't answer the
>question as to whether there might be gaps in the genealogies". But your
>demonstration that "beget" and "bear can refer to something other than
>physical bearing or begetting neither answer the question whather there are
>gaps in the genealogy from Noah to Abraham, which has been my point of
>concern in connection with the flood.

Another take on genealogies--
I remember reading a theory about the genealogies which took the position 
that John Ronning explained.  The basic thesis was that the men 
identified in the Bible served as "calendars" in their day.  The only 
example I know is Gen 7:11 which dates the flood as the 600th year of 
Noah's life, second month, 17th day. However, the basic idea that 
calendars were used and based on certain individuals seems plausible to 
me.

Following Ronning, the theory suggests that the genealogies identify the 
patriarch who served as the calendar reference and his successor who 
became the calendar reference at the patriarch's death. Exceptions to 
this were determined by context where the son was seen to be the actual 
physical son (as with Adam-Seth and Noah-Shem).

Consequently, we would read Gen 5:15- to say that Mahalalel lived 895 
years and was the calendar reference.  Upon his death, people looked for 
another person within his family to be the new calendar.  Jared was born 
the next year, became the calendar reference, and lived 962 years.  He 
died and Enoch was born and lived 365 years.  The time spanned by these 
three men would be 895+962+365 years or 2222 years.   

This method would date the flood at 4990 BC.  Has anyone seen this before 
and are you aware of any reaction to it?

Roger Hutchinson
RHutchin AT AOL.com