Dating the Noahic Flood: Issues Faced by Those Who Argue for a Strict Dating

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

Conservative biblical scholars use the genealogical records found in Genesis 11 to determine the timing of the Noahic Flood. Since the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) have slight differences, the resulting date, arrived at by adding the years of patriarchal maturity, falls into either the third or fourth millennium B.C., respectively. These computations, however, do not align well with the pervasive archaeological evidence from the Near East, which provides a fairly compelling witness of continuous human activity dating to at least the fifth millennium B.C. To resolve this apparent disagreement, either one must dispense with the supposed archeological evidence, or one must reexamine Scripture for further evidence to arrive at a date that syncs with the physical evidence. To this end, this article will carefully consider various reasons why the development of overly strict genealogies from Genesis 11 based upon the years of patriarchal maturity should be avoided.

First, the genealogical record of the post-Flood period in Genesis 11 appears to have been given for non-chronological purposes. In Genesis 5, the author (Moses) gives the reader sufficient information to compute the timing of Flood after one adds an additional one hundred years to adjust for the advent of the Flood in the life of Noah. Depending on whether one favors the MT, LXX, or Samaritan Pentateuch, the timing of the Flood from the time of Adam’s creation can be determined to be 1656, 2242, or 1307 years respectively.[1] Unfortunately, Moses fails to give the same amount of numerical detail for the genealogical records in Genesis 11 concerning the period between Noah and Abraham. Specifically, he saw no reason to total the numbers as he had done in Genesis 5 and later in Exodus 12:40. This suggests that Moses was not so interested in offering an exact chronology for the period following the Flood.

Second, difficulty in determining an exact date of the Flood from this point in history is further complicated by the absence of Cainan in the MT. “Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech” is mentioned in Luke’s genealogy (3:36), and this accords with the LXX version of Genesis 11.[2] Any attempt to arrive at a workable resolution of this problem is fraught with peril. One could argue that the manuscript evidence supporting the Luke passage are corrupt, or one could say that the MT is corrupt. Either way, contemporary translations constructed from the MT and the Greek manuscripts would have to be altered to resolve this conundrum if a proper solution could be found with certainty.

Third, an inclusion of Cainan into the genealogy of Genesis 11 allows this record to be symmetrical with the antediluvian genealogy of Genesis 5. This being done, both lists would have ten primary names from Adam to Noah and Shem to Terah (the father of Abraham). Both Noah and Terah would each have three sons.

Fourth, Moses chooses to give information in the Genesis 11 genealogy (see footnote on Genesis 5) that is wholly unnecessary if his purpose was to offer his readers an exacting chronological timeline.[3] Recognizing this, John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris, and John C. McCampbell believe that “the major purpose” for both the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies “was to show [the posterity] how faithfully God guarded the Messianic line (Gen. 3:15; 9 :26) even in ages of universal apostasy (Gen. 6:1-12; 11:1-9).”[4] They also discuss how sin ultimately reduced human vigor as an accompanying purpose for the accounts.

Fifth, those who force a strict chronological record from Genesis 11 end up arguing that Noah must have lived in the time of Abraham. Along with this, Shem, Shelah, and Eber would have remained alive even after Abraham’s death. Correspondingly, Eber would even still be alive in the time when Jacob went to work for Laban. If one still chooses to accepts these correlations, another problem occurs as one encounters Joshua speaking to the Israelites concerning the idol-worshipping ancestors (including Terah, the father of Abraham) who existed in Abraham’s earlier years (Josh 24:2, 14-15). Based upon a strict chronological dating of Genesis 11, one would be forced to conclude that Noah and Shem had given themselves over to idolatry as they would have been living during this period.

Sixth, a strict method of developing a chronology from Genesis 11 leads to the Tower of Babel occurring within a few hundred years of Abraham’s birth, even though biblical evidence suggests that this event took place much earlier. By the time of Abraham, complex civilizations and large cities were already on the scene, and these are portrayed as being ancient even at that time. Upon reading carefully about the journey of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to the land of Canaan, one finds an amazing diversity of cultures that seem to have been far removed from the initial disturbance at the Tower of Babel when the people were dispersed and their languages were altered.

Seventh, the order of children’s names in Genesis 11 is not necessary chronologically determined. For instance, Genesis 11:26 states, “Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.” A cursory interpretation of this verse would lead one to conclude that Abraham was the firstborn. This, however, is not the case. To demonstrate this, one must first observe that Stephen confirms that Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran (Acts 7:4). In Genesis 12:4, Moses reveals that Abraham was 75 years old when he departed from Haran. Given that Terah lived a total of 205 years based upon Genesis 11:32, Abraham must have been born when Terah was 130 years old. This being the case, one of Terah’s other three sons must have been born to him at the age of 70.

Finally, the Hebrew usage of father-son language, as found in Genesis 11:10-26, is not limited to a direct father to son relationship. Matthew 1:8, for example, states that Joram was the father of Uzziah when Scripture reveals that three generations existed between them. In Chronicles 26:24, Shebuel is said to be the son of Gershom when there were 400 years between them. Exodus 6:20, if one takes it at first glance, declares that Moses and Aaron were sons of Amram and Jochebed. This, however, cannot be the case because the direct descendants of Amram and his three brothers numbered 8,500 living males during the time of Moses (cf. Nu 3:17-19, 27-28). Given this amount of descendants, Whitcomb, Morris, and McCampbell submit that “a span of 300 years” was necessary to account for this; and therefore, Amram and Jochebed must have been ancestors of Moses and Aaron.

In conclusion, those who desire the development of a strict chronology so as to date the Noahic Flood will be frustrated at least to a degree by the biblical evidence that is extant. Even so, no one should hurry to use this determination to develop a timing of the Flood that is hundreds or even thousands of millennia before the date proposed by those upholding the strict chronological dating constructed from Genesis 11. This is confirmed by the relatively short periods (of a few years) in the biblical genealogical references that have been proved to skip generations as has been argued above. Along with this, the patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 11 could hardly cover a period that would allow for a more extreme chronology.[5] With this in mind, it is best that Christians keep an open mind as to the exact dating of the Flood even while realizing that it occurs relatively close to the timing set by the strict chronological dating method.

[1]1Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 30-31.

[2]All Scripture references are taken from NASB1995.

[3]This argument could be used to argue for a less strict approach to developing a chronology for the period before the Flood from the genealogy in Genesis 5.

[4]John C. Whitcomb, Henry M. Morris, and John C. McCampbell, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 477.

[5]Ibid., 486-87. This is covered in more detail here.