Genesis 11:26 - Exposition

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram . First named on account of his spiritual pre-eminence. If Abram was Terah's eldest son, then, as Abram was seventy-five years of age when Terah died ( Genesis 12:4 ), Terah's whole life could only have been 145 years. But Terah lived to the age of 205 years ( Genesis 11:32 ); therefore Abram was born in Terah's 130th year. This, however, makes it surprising that Abraham should have reckoned it impossible for him to have a son at 100 years ( Genesis 17:17 ); only, after having lived so long in childless wedlock, it was not strange that he should feel somewhat doubtful of any issue by Sarai. Kalisch believes that Stephen ( Acts 7:4 ) made a mistake in saying Terah died before his son's migration from Charran, and that he really survived that event by sixty years; while the Samaritan text escapes the difficulty by shortening the life of Terah to 145 years. And Nahor , who must have been younger than Haran, since he married Haran's daughter. And Haran , who, as the eldest, must have been born in Terah's seventieth year. Thus the second family register, like the flint, concludes after ten generations with the birth of three sons, who, like Noah's, are mentioned not in the order of their ages, but of their spiritual pre-eminence.

Chronological Table

HEBREW TEXT

SAMARITAN

SEPTUAGINT

NAMES OF PATRIARCHS

AGE AT SON'S BIRTH

REST OF LIFE

TOTAL NO. OF YEARS

AGE AT SON'S BIRTH

REST OF LIFE

TOTAL NO. OF YEARS

AGE AT SON'S BIRTH

REST OF LIFE

TOTAL NO. OF YEARS

SHEM

100

500

600

100

500

600

100

500

600

ARPHXAD

35

403

438

135

303

438

135

400

535

και ̈́ να ͂ ν

130

330

460

SALAH

30

403

433

130

303

433

130

330

460

EBER

34

430

464

134

270

404

134

270

404

PELEG

30

209

239

130

109

239

130

209

339

REU

32

207

239

132

107

239

132

207

339

SERUG

30

200

230

130

100

230

130

200

330

NAHOR

29

119

148

79

96

148

179

125

304

TERAH

70

135

205

70

75

145

70

135

205

From this table it appears that 292 years, according to the Hebrew text, passed away between the Flood and the birth, or 292 +75 == 367 between the Flood and the call of Abraham. Reckoning, however, the age of Torah at Abram's birth as 130 ( vide Exposition), the full period between the Deluge and the patriarch's departure from Haran will be 367 + 60 == 427 years, which, allowing five pairs to each family, Murphy computes, would in the course of ten generations yield a population of 15,625,000 souls; or, supposing a rate of increase equal to that of Abraham's posterity in Egypt during the 400 years that elapsed from the call to the exodus, the inhabitants of the world in the time of Abraham would be between seven and eight millions. It must, however, be remembered that an element of uncertainty enters into all computations based upon even the Hebrew text. The age of Terah at the birth (apparently) of Abram is put down at seventy. But it admits of demonstration that Abram was born in the 130th year of Terah. What guarantee then do we possess that in every instance the registered son was the firstborn? In the case of Arphaxad this is almost implied in the statement that he was born two years after the Flood. But if the case of Eber were parallel with that of Terah, and Joktan were the son that he begat in his thirty-fourth year, then obviously the birth of Peleg, like that of Abram, may have happened sixty years later; in which case it is apparent that any reckoning which proceeded on the minute verbal accuracy of the registered numbers would be entirely at fault. This consideration might have gone far to explain the wide divergence between the numbers of the Samaritan and Septuagint as compared with the Hebrew text, had it not been that they both agree with it in setting down seventy as the age of Terah at the date of Abram's birth. The palpable artificiality also of these later tables renders them even less worthy of credit than the Hebrew. The introduction by the LXX . of Cainan as the son of Arphaxad, though seemingly confirmed by Luke ( Luke 3:35 , Luke 3:36 ), is clearly an interpolation. It does not occur in the LXX . version of 1 Chronicles 1:24 , and is not found in either the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Targums or the ancient versions, in Josephus or Philo, or in the Codex Beza of the Gospel of Luke. Its appearance in Luke (and probably also in the LXX .) can only be explained as an interpolation. Wordsworth is inclined to regard it as authentic in Luke, and to suppose that Cainaan was excluded from the Mosaic table either to render it symmetrical, as Luke's table is rendered symmetrical by its insertion, or because of some moral offence, which, though necessitating his expulsion from a Hebrew register, would not prevent his reappearance in his proper place under the gospel.