The significance of Farrell Till's response to my explanation of the discrepancy between the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus 6 chronology in the Aaronic genealogy should not be underestimated. He did his homework well, conducted an excellent analysis, and reached what, I believe, were logical conclusions. After all that, is it possible that Mr. Till could have missed something?
To investigate this, we need to look at the points on which Mr. Till and I agree. We agree that the Bible clearly states that Israel sojourned in Egypt for some 430 years. This is shown in three scriptures:
We also agree that the genealogy in Exodus 6, repeated in 1 Chronicles 6, lists the descendants of Levi in the following order: Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron. We agree that Levi entered Egypt at the beginning of Israel's sojourn and that Aaron left Egypt at the end of the sojourn.
We both agree that Genesis 15:16 speaks of Israel's coming out of Egypt in the fourth generation.
Finally, I think we both agree that there are problems inherent in any effort to reconcile the genealogy in Exodus 6 with the 430 years in Exodus 12. Till described these problems in his analysis.
The real issue is not what Mr. Till or I think about these scriptures but what the writer(s) of Exodus meant to convey to the reader. If the writer considered both Exodus 6 and 12 to be accurate and consistent, then Till's analysis has failed to discover what the writer was saying. If the writer knew that an inconsistency existed, then Till's analysis is correct, and either the writer of Exodus was lazy in not correcting the information or he deliberately sought to mislead the reader. Another possibility is that the writer did not proofread well and missed the inconsistency altogether. So what was the writer of Exodus seeking to tell us when he wrote Exodus?
The writer(s) of Exodus stated clearly that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt. That number is repeated twice and emphasized by the language "even the selfsame day it came to pass...." Was he lying? Stephen certainly believed the statement was accurate because he referred to the "four hundred year" sojourn in Acts 7. We have good reason to assume that the writer of Exodus believed that Israel sojourned 430 years in Egypt, and that he sought to convey that information in as clear and direct manner as possible so that it would not be misunderstood. The writer succeeded. I understand it. Till understands it. Everyone understands it. Of course, not everyone believes it, and that has led to the current discussion.
The writer(s) of Exodus also went into great detail to describe the Aaronic genealogy. Exod us 6 gives such detail that, again, there is no room to misunderstand what is said. The writer of Chronicles certainly believed that this was the correct genealogy, because it is repeated there. Were these people confused? Given the importance of genealogies in the Bible, it seems plausible to assume that very careful records were kept and that this was one of those records. Not only do we understand the basic genealogy presented, but there seems to be no reason to think that the information recorded in Exod us 6 would be wrong. Both Till and I accept this genealogy and incorporated it into our arguments.
Considering the above, I see only two scenarios that rate serious consideration. Either the writer(s) of Exodus understood Exodus 6 and 12 to be accurate and consistent, or the writer(s) deliberately perpetrated a hoax by introducing false information. I do not see any support for the position that the writer purposely set out to deceive the reader or sought to provide information that was not true. On the contrary, if the writer had sought to enhance the reputation of God, as promise keeper or whatever, then he would have been careful to make sure that everything he said was consistent. After all, if Mr. Till can look at these scriptures and see a problem, how much more would people in that day have seen the same problem? There seems to be nothing that the writer would have gained by doing so. Considering the reaction by Mr. Till and others, introducing an inconsistency would have proven disastrous long before now.
What are we to make of this? If Till's analysis is correct, then we must conclude that it was impossible for Israel to have spent 430 years in Egypt. If Israel did indeed spend 430 years in Egypt, then we must conclude that Till's analysis has missed something. Where could Till's analysis have gone wrong? One point on which his analysis could be wrong is in his conclusion that the key Hebrew words he analyzed are too narrow in meaning to allow for a reconciliation of Exodus 6 and 12. Here, Till has merely looked at how the same word is used elsewhere in the Bible and drawn conclusions based on that use. Till's methodology certainly cannot be faulted. At the same time, there are occasions where the key Hebrew words are used in a broader sense. For example, when Till says that "anyone with common sense knows that more than just four generations will live and die over a period of 400 years," he is defining generation as the average span of time between the birth of parents and their offspring. Thus, Till defines four generations to encompass a father/son/ grandson/ great-grandson span that would cover about 100 years. However, if we define one generation to encompass one complete father/son/grandson span or more, then it becomes possible to conclude that four generations could span 430 years. We have one example of this broader sense in Nu mbers 32:
And the LORD's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed v:13). The "generation that had done evil" would include all those above twenty years old (Num. 14:29). Within this number would have been a son, his father, and conceivably even a grandfather. Generation as used here includes all those people sharing a common characteristic.
Another example is the following: And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.... Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph (Ex. 1:6-8). Here, the term generation can refer to all those who knew Joseph personally or by reputation. Today, we have a generation of people who experienced the holocaust. So long as those people live, and to the extent that they are able to convey the horror of that experience to their children and grandchildren, their influence spreads beyond their generation and encompasses a broader generation. It is only after all those have died who have some personal connection to those days that we could say that their generation had ended. The point here is that it is possible for the word *generation* to have a greater range in meaning than that which Till concluded from his analysis to be the norm.
It is curious that the Exodus writer(s) provided us with the ages of Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Aaron but no one else. The ages of these men must have been important to the writer. If we fail to discover the significance of these ages, don't we risk misunderstanding what the writer has sought to convey to us? Is it coincidence that we can add up the individual ages of Kohath, Amram, and Aaron, subtract from 430, and get a result that says that Levi lived in Egypt for 77 years, which is entirely plausible? Is it possible that the writer of Exodus was providing specific information that would have been readily understood by the historians of that day? Since the ages of people are rarely given in the scriptures, isn't it altogether possible that those ages that are given are there to give us an accurate chronology of events dating from the creation of the universe? The point is that we may err by not understanding all the information available that would allow us to interpret correctly the contested passages.
The Till analysis contains one particular point for which there are no ready explanations. It is the apparent equivocation that occurs when the writer shifts from a father-descendant list to a father-son list, all within a few verses. It is possible for there to have been something within the Hebrew language to distinguish one situation from the other that is not readily apparent to present scholars who attempt to translate these verses. For example, by expressing the years in the life of the person, as the writer did for Levi, Kohath, and Amram, he may have been indicating that the children born were actually descendants so that the writer is providing a chronology rather than a true father-son genealogy. Because of the vagaries of translation from one language to another and the relatively few words in the Hebrew language, there is room for translators to miss key distinctions.
The central issue in this discussion is whether the writer(s) of Exodus is credible. The writer clearly stated that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt and then provided a genealogy to cover that period of time. If the writer is credible, then the two scriptures must be accurate. If they are accurate, then they must be consistent. If they are consistent, then Till's analysis must err by failing to take into account some information that is not brought out in the available translations or is otherwise hidden from view.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver
Spring, MD 20902.)
