Genre Awareness
Original Audience
Context
Scripture Interprets Scripture
All About Jesus
Original Language
Two Seeds Two Cities
Phenomenological Language
Hebrew Idioms
Three Creeds
Word Study
Theophany
Timeline
Various Versions
Mighty Maps
Typology
Anthropomorphism
Chiasm
Verbal Aspects
Hendiadys
Personification
Synecdoche
Metonymy
Metaphor
Irony
Hyperbole
Understatement
Exodus and Exile
From/Unto
Infinite Series
Head Crush
Bride & Groom
Total Greater than Sum of Parts
What's In a Name
Five Solas
Couples Dance
Chunky Chunks
Normative Norms
Leaky Lists
Seven Covenants
Continuity
Quest/War/Romance
Creation/Fall/Redemption/Glory
Presuppositions
Sphere Sovereignty
Memorization
Meditation
Repetition
Skimming
Major on Majors
Logic
Whole Counsel
Case Laws
General Equity
Moral Ceremonial
Active and Passive
Cross-Textual Consistency
FAT
Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics
Authorial Intent
Bias Awareness
—Rich Coffeen
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Rules for Interpreting Genealogies
Biblical infallibility does not imply that interpreters of the Bible will never stumble. An easy place to do this is in its genealogies, by assuming they meet modern standards. Below I attempt to list some rules for Biblical genealogies, derived solely from internal evidence:
I.1. An individual in the Bible might have two or more names, nicknames, or spellings, just as is the case today. (Example: John 1:41-42 states and explains three names for one person.)
2. Some translations attempt to standardize these names, but this often leads only to more inconsistencies. (Example: compare translations of 2 Peter 1:1.)
3. Sometimes these differences in names are significant or add meaning, while other times there is no apparent reason. (Example: Peter means Rock; Simon and Simeon both come from the word for hearing.)
4. In the days when writing was less common and spelling was less significant, similarly-spelled alternate names were common. But sometimes they led to errors or confusions, especially when the alternate spelling was the same as another name.(Example: 2 Samuel 8:12, 13, where Aram refers to the nation of Edom, not Aram. Evidence: 2 Samuel 8:14 and 1 Chronicles 18:11-13.)
5. This tendency to differences in spelling was exacerbated by two idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew language:
a) it was originally written without vowels, with the vowels being added in 1-4 thousand years later, upon no evidence except tradition (Evidence: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar), and
b) several pairs of consonants are almost identical, only being distinguished by the presence or absence of a serif. The English equivalent would be if a and a were different letters. (Examples: bet ב and kaf כ, gimel ג and nun נ, dalet ד and resh ר.)
Confusion due to this last pair is especially common, as they are the most similar. (Examples: Riphath Genesis 10:3 vs. Diphath 1 Chronicles 1:6; Dodanim Genesis 10:4 vs. Rodanim 1 Chronicles 1:7.) For further study of this point, see the appendix.
II.1. Often a genealogy was not researched by the author of the book in question, but is quoted or summarized from an earlier source, who perhaps had done the same thing. This allows differences in scope, style, or intent to appear in what is apparently the same genealogy. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-38 vs. 1 Chronicles 9:35-44; 1 Chronicles 6:16-30 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:33-38).
2. This tendency goes furthest in 1 Chronicles, whose author, in describing the history of the twelve tribes, seems to have cobbled together any relevant genealogy he could lay his hands on. (Example: 1 Chronicles 4 begins with these unconnected fragments: 1-2, 3, 4, 5-7, 8, 9-10, 11-12. Evidence: 1 Chronicles 4:22; 5:17).
3. Alternatively, the author may select or restructure a genealogy with a particular purpose, thereby spotlighting one part of a tree and hiding another. (Examples: Matthew 1:1-16 goes down from Abraham to Jesus; Luke 3:23-38 goes up from Jesus to God; 1 Chronicles 2 goes down from Israel to an apparent nobody.)
III.1. The Jewish scribes copying the Biblical manuscripts were fallible and prone to error, especially in such difficult passages as genealogies. The result is a multitude of differing manuscripts which must be analyzed by textual critics in preparation of any edition or translation of the Bible. With the number of manuscripts available, almost all of these errors can be and have been caught, but (debatably), some of them remain. (Examples: misplaced serifs as mentioned above; missing names in lists—compare 1 Chronicles 8:30 with 1 Chronicles 9:36, or skipping entire lines.)
2. Furthermore, the scribes might make intentional changes for their own purposes, which results in a different genealogy. Again, these are changes in presentation which only change the meaning when read from a modern point of view. (Possible examples: Judges 18:30 reads Manasseh with a raised n, but the Torah (Bava Batra 109b., the editors of the Masoretic Text) suggests the original reading was Moses; Matthew 1:8 omits three names from 1 Chronicles 3; Luke 3:33, 36 adds Admin and Cainan.)
IV. 1. Sometimes the Hebrew word ben (son) is used where the offspring was not directly begotten, in the same way that cousin has been used in some places to signify some relative. How far this word was permitted to be stretched is debated, but it certainly included grandsons. (Evidence: Genesis 46:18, 22, 25; 1 Chronicles 2:51 vs. 1 Chronicles 4:4; Exodus 6:24 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:22-23 vs 1 Chronicles 6:37.)
2. Sometimes a man is said to have fathered someone with the name of a well-known town. It is not clear whether he merely founded that town, or whether he had a son with that name, and whether the son founded that town. (Examples: Bethlehem 1 Chronicles 2:51; 2:54; 4:4; Kiriath-jearim 1 Chronicles 2:52; Tekoa 1 Chronicles 4:5.) One could also be the firstborn of a town name (Example: Ephrathah 1 Chronicles 2:50; 4:4.)
3. We know from Luke 1:59 that it was normal for sons to be named after their fathers (compare Jubilees 11:15, Josephus' Antiquities 14.1.3 [10] and 20.9.1 [197]). But I cannot find a single instance of this in any Biblical genealogy. Sons with the same names as their grandfathers, uncles, and even brothers, but not fathers. I take this as circumstantial evidence that when a son was named after his father a genealogy might combine them.
4. Sometimes a verse listing a guy's sons is followed by a verse talking about another guy with no apparent connection to anybody. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-32; 1 Chronicles 5:4)
a) In this case the subject of the latter verse may be another son of the subject of the former verse. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 9:35-38.)
b) However, especially when attributing men to certain tribes, this signifies a gap in records, where the forefather was remembered where the intervening fathers were forgotten. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 5:3, 6, and 10 are datable and are hundreds of years apart.)
5. The number of the word son does not always match expectations: the Hebrew may say the son of Hanahiah were Pelatiah and Jeshaiah (1 Chronicles 3:21) and go on in the next verse to say that the sons of Shecaniah were Shemaiah (1 Chronicles 3:22). I don't know what this signifies, if anything.
6. Sometimes 'sons' describes a list of multiple generations, not of brothers (1 Chronicles 4:1), and sometimes brothers are grouped together without clarification in a list of multiple generations (1 Chronicles 1:1-4). The author assumes you will recognize the names and their corresponding pattern, but modern readers may not.
7. In addition to the words 'father' and 'son', the Hebrew word 'brother' can also have a broader significance than it does in English. (Example: 2 Samuel 20:9.)
8. A father could take a later-born son and give him the rights and title of the firstborn. (Example: 1 Chronicles 26:10.)
9. If a father had no sons, his daughters' children could be counted under his name. (Examples: Numbers 36; 1 Chronicles 23:22.)
10. If one branch of a family had few sons, they could be grouped with their uncle's family. (Example 1 Chronicles 23:10-11.)
V. Other Issues
1. Gender: There does not seem to be any inherent difference between boys and girls names in Hebrew. If the text does not say, it is usually safe to assume the person is male. But some cases are ambiguous. (Example: Asriel 1 Chronicles 7:14.)
2. For the Hebrew, the total number was often more important than the individual members, leading to confusion in counting. This did not imply contradiction to its authors. (Examples: lists of the twelve tribes of Israel must choose between fourteen possible individuals, because Joseph's two sons are often included; the seventy elders in Genesis 10 and in Genesis 46.)
Appendix: Variations in Biblical Names (in progress)
I.1. An individual in the Bible might have two or more names, nicknames, or spellings, just as is the case today. (Example: John 1:41-42 states and explains three names for one person.)
2. Some translations attempt to standardize these names, but this often leads only to more inconsistencies. (Example: compare translations of 2 Peter 1:1.)
3. Sometimes these differences in names are significant or add meaning, while other times there is no apparent reason. (Example: Peter means Rock; Simon and Simeon both come from the word for hearing.)
4. In the days when writing was less common and spelling was less significant, similarly-spelled alternate names were common. But sometimes they led to errors or confusions, especially when the alternate spelling was the same as another name.(Example: 2 Samuel 8:12, 13, where Aram refers to the nation of Edom, not Aram. Evidence: 2 Samuel 8:14 and 1 Chronicles 18:11-13.)
5. This tendency to differences in spelling was exacerbated by two idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew language:
a) it was originally written without vowels, with the vowels being added in 1-4 thousand years later, upon no evidence except tradition (Evidence: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar), and
b) several pairs of consonants are almost identical, only being distinguished by the presence or absence of a serif. The English equivalent would be if a and a were different letters. (Examples: bet ב and kaf כ, gimel ג and nun נ, dalet ד and resh ר.)
Confusion due to this last pair is especially common, as they are the most similar. (Examples: Riphath Genesis 10:3 vs. Diphath 1 Chronicles 1:6; Dodanim Genesis 10:4 vs. Rodanim 1 Chronicles 1:7.) For further study of this point, see the appendix.
II.1. Often a genealogy was not researched by the author of the book in question, but is quoted or summarized from an earlier source, who perhaps had done the same thing. This allows differences in scope, style, or intent to appear in what is apparently the same genealogy. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-38 vs. 1 Chronicles 9:35-44; 1 Chronicles 6:16-30 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:33-38).
2. This tendency goes furthest in 1 Chronicles, whose author, in describing the history of the twelve tribes, seems to have cobbled together any relevant genealogy he could lay his hands on. (Example: 1 Chronicles 4 begins with these unconnected fragments: 1-2, 3, 4, 5-7, 8, 9-10, 11-12. Evidence: 1 Chronicles 4:22; 5:17).
3. Alternatively, the author may select or restructure a genealogy with a particular purpose, thereby spotlighting one part of a tree and hiding another. (Examples: Matthew 1:1-16 goes down from Abraham to Jesus; Luke 3:23-38 goes up from Jesus to God; 1 Chronicles 2 goes down from Israel to an apparent nobody.)
III.1. The Jewish scribes copying the Biblical manuscripts were fallible and prone to error, especially in such difficult passages as genealogies. The result is a multitude of differing manuscripts which must be analyzed by textual critics in preparation of any edition or translation of the Bible. With the number of manuscripts available, almost all of these errors can be and have been caught, but (debatably), some of them remain. (Examples: misplaced serifs as mentioned above; missing names in lists—compare 1 Chronicles 8:30 with 1 Chronicles 9:36, or skipping entire lines.)
2. Furthermore, the scribes might make intentional changes for their own purposes, which results in a different genealogy. Again, these are changes in presentation which only change the meaning when read from a modern point of view. (Possible examples: Judges 18:30 reads Manasseh with a raised n, but the Torah (Bava Batra 109b., the editors of the Masoretic Text) suggests the original reading was Moses; Matthew 1:8 omits three names from 1 Chronicles 3; Luke 3:33, 36 adds Admin and Cainan.)
IV. 1. Sometimes the Hebrew word ben (son) is used where the offspring was not directly begotten, in the same way that cousin has been used in some places to signify some relative. How far this word was permitted to be stretched is debated, but it certainly included grandsons. (Evidence: Genesis 46:18, 22, 25; 1 Chronicles 2:51 vs. 1 Chronicles 4:4; Exodus 6:24 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:22-23 vs 1 Chronicles 6:37.)
2. Sometimes a man is said to have fathered someone with the name of a well-known town. It is not clear whether he merely founded that town, or whether he had a son with that name, and whether the son founded that town. (Examples: Bethlehem 1 Chronicles 2:51; 2:54; 4:4; Kiriath-jearim 1 Chronicles 2:52; Tekoa 1 Chronicles 4:5.) One could also be the firstborn of a town name (Example: Ephrathah 1 Chronicles 2:50; 4:4.)
3. We know from Luke 1:59 that it was normal for sons to be named after their fathers (compare Jubilees 11:15, Josephus' Antiquities 14.1.3 [10] and 20.9.1 [197]). But I cannot find a single instance of this in any Biblical genealogy. Sons with the same names as their grandfathers, uncles, and even brothers, but not fathers. I take this as circumstantial evidence that when a son was named after his father a genealogy might combine them.
4. Sometimes a verse listing a guy's sons is followed by a verse talking about another guy with no apparent connection to anybody. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-32; 1 Chronicles 5:4)
a) In this case the subject of the latter verse may be another son of the subject of the former verse. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 9:35-38.)
b) However, especially when attributing men to certain tribes, this signifies a gap in records, where the forefather was remembered where the intervening fathers were forgotten. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 5:3, 6, and 10 are datable and are hundreds of years apart.)
5. The number of the word son does not always match expectations: the Hebrew may say the son of Hanahiah were Pelatiah and Jeshaiah (1 Chronicles 3:21) and go on in the next verse to say that the sons of Shecaniah were Shemaiah (1 Chronicles 3:22). I don't know what this signifies, if anything.
6. Sometimes 'sons' describes a list of multiple generations, not of brothers (1 Chronicles 4:1), and sometimes brothers are grouped together without clarification in a list of multiple generations (1 Chronicles 1:1-4). The author assumes you will recognize the names and their corresponding pattern, but modern readers may not.
7. In addition to the words 'father' and 'son', the Hebrew word 'brother' can also have a broader significance than it does in English. (Example: 2 Samuel 20:9.)
8. A father could take a later-born son and give him the rights and title of the firstborn. (Example: 1 Chronicles 26:10.)
9. If a father had no sons, his daughters' children could be counted under his name. (Examples: Numbers 36; 1 Chronicles 23:22.)
10. If one branch of a family had few sons, they could be grouped with their uncle's family. (Example 1 Chronicles 23:10-11.)
V. Other Issues
1. Gender: There does not seem to be any inherent difference between boys and girls names in Hebrew. If the text does not say, it is usually safe to assume the person is male. But some cases are ambiguous. (Example: Asriel 1 Chronicles 7:14.)
2. For the Hebrew, the total number was often more important than the individual members, leading to confusion in counting. This did not imply contradiction to its authors. (Examples: lists of the twelve tribes of Israel must choose between fourteen possible individuals, because Joseph's two sons are often included; the seventy elders in Genesis 10 and in Genesis 46.)
Appendix: Variations in Biblical Names (in progress)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
