To the Reader:

Herewith is chapter 2 of a book tentatively entitled The Date of Creation. There are only a couple of footnotes in this chapter, and they are not emailable. If you want a printout, send $5.00 to Biblical Horizons, Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.

James B. Jordan

* * * * *

2

 

THE EMBARRASSMENT OF BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY

And Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah . . . And Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber . . . and Eber lived thirty-four years and became the father of Peleg . . . and Peleg lived thirty years, and became the father of Reu. . . (Genesis 11:12ff.).

The fact that the Bible contains chronological information cannot be disputed. What can be disputed, and often has been of late, is whether or not that chronological information has any real value, either theologically or historically. Before the mid-19th century, Christians believed that Biblical chronology is extremely important, both theologically and historically.

Chronology is the backbone of history. This is rather obvious and no one would question it. When we look into the matter, however, we are confronted with the question: What in fact is the chronology of events in the ancient near east? What is the chronology that forms the backbone for our understanding of the events we know happened during the millennia before Christ?

This is where the "rubber meets the road" as far as Biblical chronology is concerned, because the Bible seems to provide a chronology from creation to the cross, but it is not the same as the chronology of the ancient world that is in use today both in secular and in evangelical Christian circles. The conventional consensus chronology is a speculative composite of various pieces of data, loosely hinged on a chronology of Egypt compiled by Manetho (flourished 300 BC). As we saw in chapter 1, the foundations of the CCC are quite shaky.

Biblical chronology is regarded as an unacceptable alternative, however, because it is too short. If there was a global flood (or even a local near eastern flood) around 2350 BC, as the Bible maintains, then the Egyptian civilization could not have arisen around 4000 BC, or even 3000 BC. Egypt would have arisen shortly before 2000 BC, and this is regarded as too late by twentieth century secularist scholars. Though the conventional consensus chronology shifts from time to time, and indeed has become shorter in the twentieth century, it never becomes anywhere near short enough to accommodate the chronology of the Bible.

The secularists maintain a veritable army of state-university-sponsored archaeologists, translators of ancient writings, and historians, all maintaining the standard consensus line in the area of ancient near east chronology. Against this formidable array of scholarship and speculation, the pitiable forces of evangelical, traditionalist, and modernist Christianity long ago capitulated. The CCC is taken for granted in all history books, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, ranging from those produced by communists on the left to those produced by Christian fundamentalists on the right. For the modernist, who discounts the accuracy of the Bible, the CCC is no problem. For the traditionalist (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Eastern Orthodox), with his vague commitment to Biblical authority, the CCC is not much of a problem. For the evangelical (and for strict Biblicists among the traditionalistic groups), the CCC is a major, if largely unrecognized, problem.

AN INERRANT CHRONOLOGY

The problem arises from the fact that if the Bible is inerrant, then its chronology is inerrant. Inerrancy is the Christian doctrine that the Spirit of God superintended the writers of the Bible so that their writings do not contain factual errors. That is, in terms of a correspondence conception of truth, every statement of, e.g., historical or geographical fact in the Bible corresponds to historical or geographical reality. Inerrancy has been the universal and unquestioned doctrine of Christendom since the days of the "Church Fathers," through the middle ages, the Reformers, and to the evangelicals of today.

The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that there are no symbolic, ironic, or poetic statements in the Bible. The doctrine means that rightly understood, the Bible does not contradict historical reality. Thus, King Saul's son is named Ishbosheth in the book of Samuel, but Ishbaal in the book of Chronicles. Ishbosheth means "Man of Shame," and clearly was not the name he was called in life (to his face, anyway); while Ishbaal means "Man of the Lord," and doubtless was his real name. For theological reasons, the writer of Samuel has made an ironic pun on Ishbaal's name. The Bible itself makes this clear, so understanding this irony does not modify the doctrine of inerrancy. It would be a mistake to think, however, that because the writer of Samuel has altered Ishbaal's name, therefore no such person as Ishbaal ever existed!

Similarly, there are some chronological statements in the Bible the meanings of which are not immediately obvious. Let us take an example here, to show how the Christian doctrine of inerrancy interacts with the text.

There is a curious problem with the reign of Asa. 2 Chronicles 16:1 states that "in the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah." The problem with this verse is that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa.

Traditional Biblical chronologers suggest that 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16:1 should be translated as follows: "And there was no more war until the 35th year of Asa's kingdom. In the 36th year of Asa's kingdom, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah." (The Hebrew noun can mean either reign or kingdom.) They propose that these events are dated from the split between the northern and southern kingdoms, which would be the beginning of Asa's kingdom. That is, the kingdom of Judah would date from that event, and at the present time it was Asa's kingdom. Moreover, since Rehoboam and Abijam were bad kings, the kingdom of Judah did not really come into its own until Asa's reign. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Asa had just led the nation in a covenant renewal, reestablishing it. Thus, Judah was in a special way Asa's kingdom at this time. The 35th and 36th years of Judah would be the 15th and 16th years of Asa's personal reign.

The criticism of this interpretation is that it involves special pleading. Nowhere else do we translate the Hebrew noun as "kingdom" instead of "reign." The chronicler nowhere else dates from the beginning of the kingdom of Judah. Why do so here?

In reply, traditional chronologers point to 2 Chronicles 22:2, which says that Ahaziah was a "son of 42 years when he began to reign," contradicting 2 Kings 8:26, which says he was only 22 years old. They point out that Ahaziah came to the throne 42 years after his grandfather Omri, and so the chronicler at this point seems to be dating this event from the beginning of Omri's line.

C. F. Keil in his remarks on these two passages (in the Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament commentary series) maintains in both cases that the discrepancies are to be accounted for as scribal errors; i.e., errors in the transmission of the text of Chronicles. The 42 years of Ahaziah should be 22 years, because the Hebrew numbers 40 and 20 look somewhat alike. Similarly, the 35th and 36th years of Asa should really be the 15th and 16th, because the Hebrew numbers 10 and 30 look somewhat alike. This is of course a possible explanation, and we should not discount it completely. If, however, we can explain the text without resorting to charges of scribal error, we should do so.

I submit that the traditional Biblical chronologists are probably correct. The chronicler wrote with a particular theological purpose, and he wrote for people who already had the book of Kings in their possession. Thus, when he takes seeming liberties, he does so with a reason.

It is not hard to figure out that Ahaziah's 42 years carry us back to the first year of Omri's kingdom, and there are indications in the text that the chronicler intends for us to do so. Ahaziah was king of Judah, but fully sympathetic to the line of Omri and Ahab. The text of 2 Chronicles 22 emphasizes that he was Omri's great-grandson through Athaliah. Three times the text states that he took counsel only from the house of Ahab, an expansion of the information about him in 2 Kings 8. Martin Anstey points out that Ahaziah is dropped from the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1. Thus, the chronicler wants to position Ahaziah not so much as a legitimate king of Judah but primarily as an extension of Omri's evil reign into Judah, and as a precursor of Athaliah.

And neither is it hard to believe that 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16:1 refer to the 35th and 36th years of the kingdom of Judah as years of Asa's kingdom. The chronicler has just finished a long account (two chapters) of Asa's goodness and reforms. Now, however, Asa falls into sin and idolatry. He brings the kingdom into distress as a result, and receives the judgment of God. From this point on, his kingdom suffers wars (2 Chronicles 16:9).

The book of Kings tells us that in the latter half of Solomon's reign, the united kingdom suffered wars because of Solomon's sin. His fall came shortly after he completed and dedicated the Temple. Similarly, right after Asa finished restoring the Temple and the people had renewed their covenant with the Lord (2 Chronicles 15), Asa fell into sin and brought tribulation upon the nation of Judah. Thus, it is not strange that the chronicler should date these events not in terms of Asa's personal reign but in terms of the kingdom over which Asa presided.

Here, then, are the options regarding 2 Chronicles 16:1 and 22:2.

1. The writer of Chronicles was sloppy and stupid. But since he only makes "mistakes" in a few places, this is not likely; and of course it is not acceptable, given the divine super-intendence of the Biblical writers.
    
2. The writer of Chronicles did not have the book of Kings before him, and made errors as a result or using other historical source material. This is a bizarre suggestion. We would have to think that a highly trained Israelite scribe was not even aware of one of the most important books in his own tiny culture.
    
3. The numbers in these passages have changed as a result of scribal errors in the copying of the original texts. This suggestion seems to solve the problem until we notice that the "new" numbers correspond to important chronological periods, which would be a striking coincidence.
    
4. The chronicler, knowing that his readers already had the book of Kings, modified the numbers in an obvious and significant way in order to make theological points relevant to the overall theology of his work. This is the position we have argued above.

Note that the modified numbers in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and 22:2, rightly understood, are not in fact historically erroneous. These are not "merely symbolic" numbers. They denote real historical spans of time. The superficial difficulty they present is that the historical spans of time are not immediately obvious to the rapid reader.

Thus, the doctrine of inerrancy does not mean that the Bible is to be read simplistically. It is not a license to read the Bible with 20th century eyes. The reader must acquire new eyes, eyes provided by the Bible itself, and read the Bible on its own terms. But, read on its own terms, the Bible is without error in its historical and geographical, etc., claims.

AN EMBARRASSING CHRONOLOGY

If the Bible's chronology is inerrant, then a great deal of current speculation about the ancient near east is almost certainly in error. If this is true, the Bible-believing community is confronted with a massive revisionist project. The entire history of the ancient near east will have to be reassessed. This will not be acceptable to the secularists, and Christianity will lose even more academic respectability. Six-day creationism is bad enough; Biblical chronology is impossible — such is the attitude pervasive in Bible-believing circles.

To explain the true faith in such a way as to offset the ridicule of our cultured despisers is in itself a laudable objective. It has been part of the goal of Christian apologetics since the beginning. If, however, there is no way to avoid confrontation over an issue, then we must be faithful to Christ and to the Scriptures, even if we lose credibility.

The evangelical world has lost credibility on this point anyway. For nearly a century, the evangelical world has maintained that there are "gaps" in the Biblical chronology, and that therefore we cannot say the world was created around 4000 BC. This belief makes possible an accommodation to the proposals coming from the world of secularist speculation and scholarship. (In chapter 3 we take up the origin of this "gap" theory.)

Far from making orthodox Christianity more acceptable, this accommodation has made it seem silly. Secularists and modernists can read Genesis 5 and 11, and they can see clearly that these chapters both intend to provide a chronology and in fact do provide a chronology. They don't believe this chronology is accurate, but they can see that it is present. As a result, they regard the modern evangelical position as stupid and ridiculous. "If you really believe the Bible is inerrant," they say, "then you have to take this chronology seriously. You're just making fools of yourselves by trying to evade the information contained in these chapters."

There can be little question but that the reason for evangelical reassessments of the chronology was the rise of evolutionary geology and archaeology. In order to protect the Bible from the charge of error in its detailing of the creation, evangelicals frequently turned to the "gap theory," to the "day-age theory," or to the "framework hypothesis" in order to reconcile Genesis 1 with the assured results of modern scientific inquiry. The chronology of the Bible also proved an embarrassment, in that scholars were confident that archeological remains from civilizations dating from before 4000 BC had been unearthed. Evangelicals were forced either to reconcile the Bible to these hypotheses or else to eschew scholarly respectability while advocating their own peculiar interpretative schema for geology and archaeology. A few "creationist" scholars maintained the traditional Christian view of geology, but until very recently there has been no similar movement in the realm of archaeology. For the most part, the chronological data of Genesis 5 and 11 have been put aside. Beegle's summary serves to highlight the embarrassing aspect of the matter:

Until geological information disproved the 4004 date, most Jews and Christians (including many alert, even brilliant, persons) thought the genealogy in Genesis 5 was intended to show the consecutive history of man. Inasmuch as some evangelicals in the nineteenth century felt the force of the new geological information, they were inclined to stretch the genealogy enough to provide gaps for the scientific data. But how did this relate to the intent of the author? If the geological and other scientific data known today had not been made available to us, would we have doubted that Genesis 5 was intended to be chronological? Not likely. The Biblical evidence is too explicit at this point. It is our scientific knowledge that causes us to ignore the clear meaning of the passage. Obviously, then, the intent of the Biblical writer can hardly be accommodated to the scientific facts made available from generation to generation.

Is Beegle correct in what he implies? Have evangelical scholars simply drummed up some artificial and nugatory arguments against Biblical chronology in order to retain academic respectability, or are there in fact aspects of the problem that did not come to light until recent years, aspects of which earlier expositors were unaware?

Now of course, if in fact the Bible shows that the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11 have gaps, and therefore cannot be taken rigorously, then that's another matter. We must not let ourselves be brow-beaten by the secularists and modernists, and forced by their ridicule to adopt an unsound position.

Let me provide an analogy. A few years ago a family was on trial for sending their children to an unregistered Christian school. The attorneys came up with a list of questions that they would ask to find out of these people were really serious Christians or not. The purpose was to see if this was really a "matter of conscience." Among the questions asked were things like this: "Do you have a television in your home? Do you drink alcohol? Do you smoke?" Now, as a matter of fact, there is nothing in the Bible and the Christian religion against having a television or drinking and smoking in moderation. These attorneys were totally out of line in imposing their definition of "conscientious Christianity" on these parents.

Just so, we cannot permit the James Barrs, Dewey Beegles, and Stephen Davises of this world to bludgeon us into accepting Biblical chronology just on their say-so. The ultimate question remains whether or not the Bible in fact gives a chronology. The point I am making here, however, is that the evangelical capitulation on this point has not gained intellectual credibility for the faith. Quite the contrary. Capitulation on the question of chronology has made evangelical Christianity look ridiculous.

In conclusion, there is no way to evade the embarrassment of Biblical chronology. If we try to pretend that Genesis 5 and 11 do not provide a chronology, we shall be ridiculed by intelligent unbelievers, who can plainly see that there is a Biblical chronology. If we accept the Biblical chronology and enter into the task of rethinking the conventional consensus chronology of the ancient near east, we shall be regarded as foolish and quixotic. Either way, we shall lose "respectability." This being the case, let us not worry about what others may think, and ask the question: What say the Scriptures?

END

---

To unsubscribe from this list, send a message containing "unsubscribe" to:

chronology-request@cliffslanding.com

To obtain back issues:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/ice/