Stephen C. Meyers
Stephen C. Meyers, Th.M., is Vice-President/Treasurer of The Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies, Philadelphia PA.
The following article is a response to “Biblical Chronologies Compared” by Curt Sewell, which appeared in our Winter 1995 issue, pp. 20–31, in which Sewell referred to the work of Harold Camping. — Ed.
Camping’s chronology has amazingly pinpointed the exact day of Creation to 11,013 BC in his book 1994? (p. 245), which usurps Ussher’s date of 4,004 BC. The genealogies in the Bible have gaps and additions in them so we cannot assume there is a direct link back to Creation. For example, in Luke 3:36 the name Cainan is added to Christ’s genealogy, while this name is omitted in Genesis 11:12. Which is right, Genesis or Luke? They both are. One is more complete than the other. The word “begat” can mean descendant, not just a direct father-son relationship as Camping points out (p. 274). Luke followed the Septuagint which reads that Arphaxad begot Cainan who lived 330 years after he begot Sala. This would make Camping off by more than 330 years if he follows the Septuagint reading as Luke did.
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 75
Camping, by ignoring Jewish customs, assumes that the genealogies are calendrical and sequential. A better explanation of the large numbers in the genealogies of Genesis is put forth by Cassuto. He believes that the numbers are based on a sexagesimal system rather than a decimal system (1964; cf. Walton 1981; 1989: 127–31). The major purposes of the genealogies in the Bible, as well as the ancient world, were not chronological, but domestic, legal-political, or religious (Wilson 1977: 57–135; NIV Study Bible: 581). Omission of names is common, as seen in Matthew 1 where several names are left out so there are three groups of 14 names. Jews would arrange genealogies to be symmetrical and not chronological. Unimportant names were left out. So one cannot assume a direct chronology back to Creation.
The major reason Camping interprets the genealogies of Genesis as calendrical is based on Exodus 6 (p. 279). When one adds up the numbers in Exodus 6, it comes out to about 430 years. But this does not prove that the Jews used a calendar system based on someone’s age. According to Camping, one individual was chosen to be a calendar and when he died another descendent who was born in that same year took his place as a calendar (pp. 278, 288). This is far-fetched. What are the odds of your son or grandson or great-grandson being born the same year you die? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews ever did this.
There is evidence, however, from Genesis 46:8–11 that clearly shows that Kohath was born before Levi died and before they went down into Egypt. There is an overlap of years here as in the books of Chronicles, Kings, Judges, and Genesis (Cassuto 1967: 85–87; cf. Thiele 1983). Kohath was not born the same year Levi died. So Genesis 46 clearly indicates that the Jews were not using a calendar system as Camping says. What this does indicate is the way the Jews added numbers to show the fulfillment of Genesis 15 of four generations. In other genealogies there are six to ten generations during the same time period (1 Chr 2). To misinterpret the genealogy from Exodus 6 and then apply it to Genesis 5 is a mistake. These chapters demonstrate that there are large gaps in the genealogical records. This illustrates Camping’s lack of understanding of Jewish culture and customs, for it was the eldest son who usually took over as head of the patriarchal family when the father died. There was no calendar system as Camping claims.
Another problem with Camping’s view of the genealogies is his statement that “called his name” always refers to a direct father-son relationship (p. 268). This is not true. In Ruth 4:17 Obed is called the son of Naomi, but he is really her grandson. So one cannot assume a direct relationship by the phrase “called his name.” In Chapter 10 of Are You Ready? Camping makes a major chronological blunder by saying that Israel went into captivity in 709 BC. The Bible clearly indicates that in the fourth year of Hezekiah and the seventh year of Hoshea, Shalmaneser king of Assyria came against Samaria and besieged it for three years before it was conquered (2 Kgs 18:9–10). Shalmaneser died in 722 BC, so most Bible scholars conclude that Samaria fell about 722 BC. Camping assumes a gap in time that is not there and claims Sargon II took Samaria at a later time. He takes a quote out of
BSP 8:3 (Summer 1995) p. 76
context from Thiele’s The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Thiele writes a whole chapter proving that Camping’s date for the fall of Samaria is wrong.
On the surface it looks like Camping has a lot of evidence for his theory. After careful study, however, all his evidence evaporates away and we are left with nothing but glaring inconsistencies. Camping’s chronology predicted the end of the world in September 1994 (Alnor 1989:54–59; Camping 1992: 531). If Camping’s chronology was right, the world would already have ended.
Bibliography
Alnor, W.
1989 Soothsayers of the Second Advent. Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H. Revell.
Camping, H.
1992 1994? New York: Vantage.
1993 Are You Ready? New York: Vantage.
Cassuto, U.
1964 A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Jerusalem: Magnes.
1967 A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes.
The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
Thiele, E.
1983 The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Walton, J.
1981 The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5. Biblical Archaeologist 44:207–208.
1989 Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Wilson, R.
1977 Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale University Press.