The Two-Amrams "Solution"

The Two-Amrams "Solution"

 to the 430-Year Problem

by Farrell Till

In "The 210-Year Solution," I showed that the attempt by Jewish and some Christian apologists to limit the Israelite sojourn in Egypt to just 210 years instead of the 430 years claimed in Exodus 12:40 will not work because it creates serious inconsistencies with other biblical texts. The 210-year "solution," however, is not the only "explanation" that biblical inerrantists have proposed in their attempts to remove this discrepancy. The really dyed-in-the-wool inerrantists will usually stick to the "skipped-generations" explanation, because it takes Exodus 12:40 to mean what it says and avoids the inconsistencies with Yahweh's prophecy in Genesis 15:13-16, where he plainly said that Abraham's seed would be enslaved and oppressed for 400 years in a land that wasn't theirs. It also avoids the problem of having to explain how the "children of Israel" could have sojourned in Canaan for 220 years prior to their entry into Egypt if there were no children of Israel until about 50 years before they went into Egypt. Accepting the face-value meaning of Exodus 12:40, however, requires these inerrantists to explain how only three generations of Levites would have been born in Egypt during those 430 years, so about the only alternative left to them is to argue that the Exodus-6genealogy skipped some generations. My first article on this subject gave very clear evidence that this was a complete genealogy that skipped no generations, but those who confront biblical inerrantists need to be familiar with the arguments they will use to support their "skipped-generations" claim.

I don't know what the new fundamentalists like Robert Turkel might say to explain this discrepancy. Perhaps they would argue that a "paper shortage" kept the Exodus writer from listing all of the generations in the genealogy or that the ma besay-il (it doesn't matter) principle kept this from being a discrepancy, because the people of that time would have been interested in the central idea of Aaron's descent from Levi and not in the slavish correctness of a generation-by-generation genealogy. Reasonable people, however, will understand that an error is an error, so they need to be familiar with the arguments that old-school fundamentalists will use to try to prove that there is no error in this genealogy because the writer intentionally skipped generations in it.

As I mentioned in my first article in this series, the first two issues of The Skeptical Reviewfeatured a debate on this very discrepancy. My opponent, Jerry Moffitt, took the position that generations were skipped in the Exodus-6 genealogy. Although I showed in my first article (linked to above) that this position is clearly incompatible with the obvious intention of the Exodus writer, a review of the arguments used by Moffitt and others who espouse the skipped-generations theory will show that this position is untenable. In support of his view, Moffitt said in "The Inerrancy Doctrine Is Found to Be Impregnable" that "the Bible often gives genealogies by listing the main characters in the genealogies according to the general purpose of the writer." He apparently thought that "the general purpose" of the Exodus writer allowed him to skip some generations in the disputed genealogy. Moffitt quoted none other than Gleason Archer in support of his view.

Archer further points out that Numbers 3:27-28 says the combined total of Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites came to 8,600. If Amram claimed one fourth of those and if that same Amram fathered Moses and Aaron, as Till argues, Moses and Aaron (by Till's argumentation) would have had around 2,150 brothers. That should be hard for even a dedicated skeptic like Farrell Till to swallow. No, these figures indicate the genealogy of Exodus 6:16-20 is listing only the main links just as Matthew does in Matthew 1:1. The first Amram is a kind of clan head of a person's family tree.

According to Moffitt, there were two Amrams, one of whom was the eponymous ancestor of the Amramite clan and the other the father of Aaron and Moses, and the two had been separated in time long enough for the clan of the original Amram to number around 2,000 at the time of the exodus. I will repeat again that my first article in this series (linked to above) showed beyond all reasonable doubt that both biblical and extrabiblical Jewish writers, such as Josephus and Philo Judaeus, understood that the genealogy in Exodus 6 was complete and therefore skipped no generations. If Moffitt is right, then Josephus and Philo Judaeus were both wrong when they said that Moses was a seventh-generation descendant in successionfrom Abraham. Nevertheless, Moffitt made the argument, so let's examine it to see if it can stand.

A basic flaw in Moffitt's argument was that it tried to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming biblical inerrancy. He argued, in effect, that the Exodus-6 genealogy could not have been a generation-by-generation listing, because if it is, then there is an obvious error in the Kohathite census figures in Numbers 3:27-28. In other words, Moffitt assumed that both Exodus 6 and Numbers 3 were inerrant, so Exodus 6 must not have meant what it seemed to be saying. Hence, the Exodus writer must have intentionally skipped some generations in the genealogy. In so arguing, Moffitt excluded even the possibility that at least one of the passages was errant. In my original reply to Moffitt, I addressed in detail this problem in Moffitt's argument, so to save time, I will quote that part of my article.

The crux of Moffitt's argument hinges on Numbers 3:27-28 where a census of the male Kohathites (so named because they had descended through Levi's son Kohath) put their number at 8,600. These were in turn divided into Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites, because Kohath, as indicated in Exodus 6:18, had had four sons named Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. The argument of Mr. Moffitt and the sources he quoted is that the Amram who was the father of Aaron and Moses could not have been the Amram who was Kohath's son; otherwise, this would suggest (on the basis of an equal division of the 8,600 Kohathite males into their four clans) that Aaron and Moses had had "around 2,150 brothers," (p. 8). "That should be hard," Moffitt said, "for even a dedicated skeptic like Farrell Till to swallow." For this reason, Moffitt concludes that there had to have been at least two Amrams, one who was Kohath's son and head of the Amramites and another who fathered Aaron and Moses by Jochebed, (Ex. 6:20). The writer of the Exodus-6 genealogy had simply "skipped" some generations between the two Amrams, so the theory goes, and this has caused some people to wrongly conclude that the Amram who was Moses' father was the same Amram who was Kohath's son.

It all comes out sounding very pat, but it's a theory with more holes in it than a sieve. For one thing, unless Moffitt has been living on another planet, he has to know that a major argument against the Bible inerrancy doctrine is based on the outrageous exaggeration of census figures in the books of Exodus and Numbers. Exodus 12:37 states that when the Israelites left Egypt the number of men on foot (not counting women and children) was 600 thousand! When a census was taken in the wilderness (Num. 1:46), it claimed the men of military age (20 years old and up) numbered 603,550! If we assume an equal number of women in this age group--and I guess I can do this if Moffitt can assume an equal division of the Kohathites within their four clans--this would mean the adult population older than 20 numbered around 1,200,000. Then with the children of both sexes under 20 added on, there would have been a total population of two and a half to three million! (Since the Israelites had been breeding like flies in Egypt, we could reasonably assume that the younger, under-the-age-of-twenty group would have surely represented an equal, if not larger, proportion of the total population.) Regardless, the fact is that there were an awful lot of people in the exodus, according to the Bible. There were so many, in fact, that one wonders why, given the relatively small size of the Sinai peninsula, a few of them at least didn't accidentally stumble onto the promised land before the end of the forty-year period of wandering, especially since they must have also driven along with them herds of sheep and cattle numbering in the millions in order to have had enough lambs to meet the requirements of forty Passover commemorations and to feed the tabernacle altar the perpetual sacrifices (for three million people) described in Leviticus and Numbers....

But I'm not going to swap far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been scenarios with Mr. Moffitt. That's a game inerrancy believers have to play. I'm going to return Moffitt's favor and say that I agree with him. If he can establish the reliability of the census figures in Numbers 3:27-28, then I will agree that the Amram who was Moses' father was not the same Amram for whom the Amramites were named. Until he can do that, however, he shouldn't expect us to be too impressed with an argument that relies on one probable Bible discrepancy to explain another one. The exodus census numbers have long been suspect in scholarly circles, and, quite frankly, I would find it much easier to swallow the possibility that Moses and Aaron had had 2,150 brothers than that two to three million Israelites had wandered around for forty years in the Sinai desert with immense herds of sheep and cattle.

Moffitt's primary argument for his skipped-generations theory is based on a text (Num. 3:27-28) that is right in the middle of a section where census figures were obviously inflated, but the two-Amrams theory has another major weakness. If Moffitt's argument proves that there were two Amrams, it would also prove that there were two Izhars and two Uzziels. This can be seen by juxtaposing verses in the Exodus-6 genealogy with significant verses in Numbers and Leviticus. We will first look at the references to Izhar.

Exodus 6:18 The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, and the length of Kohath's life was one hundred thirty-three years.

Exodus 6:21 And the sons of Izhar: Korah, Nepheg and Zichri....

Numbers 16:1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi,with Dathan and Abiram... took men and they rose up before Moses...."

In my first article in this series, I showed how these verses establish that Izhar, listed inExodus 6:18 as a brother of Amram, had a son named Korah, who lived in the time of the exodus and led a rebellion against Moses.

At face value, the Bible says that Levi had a son named Kohath, who had a son named Amram, who had a brother named Izhar, who had a son named Korah, and the Bible, at face value, says that a rebellion against the leadership of Moses was led by a man named Korah, who was the son of Izhar, who was the son of Kohath,who was the son of Levi. Earlier in this article, I presented both biblical and extrabiblical evidence to show to any reasonable person that both Jewish and biblical writers understood that Levi was the literal father of Kohath, who was the literal father of Amram, who was the literal father of Aaron and Moses. Now the information just presented above shows very clearly that biblical writers understood that the Amram, who was the son of Kohath, had a brother named Izhar, who had a son named Korah, who led a rebellion against Moses in the wilderness, so the evidence that the genealogy in Exodus 6 was a literal father/son listing continues to mount.

I compared these verses in my first article to show that the Exodus-6 genealogy did not skip any generations; however, if inerrantists are going to reject this evidence and cling to their two-Amrams theory, they will have to say that there were also two Izhars, one who was the brother of the first Amram alleged to be the eponymous father of the Amramite clan, and another who was a contemporary of the second Amram and father of Korah, who led the rebellion against Moses. Proponents of the two-Amram theories would also have to say that there were two Uzziels for reasons that I showed in my first article.

There are, however, still more nails to drive into the coffin of this "skipped-generations" quibble, which makes the unreasonable claim that the word sons in Exodus 6 meant only descendants. The next nail that I will be driving finally brings us to the relationship of Uzziel to Aaron. To introduce this argument, let's notice that Exodus 6:18 says, "And the sons of Kohath [were] Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel." Now if I am right in claiming that Exodus 6 is a literal father/son genealogy, it is obvious that Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel were brothers. Furthermore, if they were brothers and if the Amram in this verse was the literal father of Aaron, then Uzziel would have been Aaron's uncle. That conclusion is so obvious that nothing further needs to be said about it.

Let's notice again that verse 20 says, "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife, and she bore him Aaron and Moses," so certainly the "face-value" meaning of the text gives us every reason to conclude that a man named Amram was the literal father of Aaron. Therefore, if this Amram is the same Amram of verse 18, then by necessity, Uzziel was Aaron's uncle.

With that in mind, let's now look at verse 22: "And the sons of Uzziel [were] Mishael, Elzaphan, and Sithri." That seems clear enough, doesn't it? Uzziel--and who could this be but the Uzziel of verse 18, who was listed as a brother of a man named Amram?--had sons who were named Mishael and Elzaphan.

Now let's compare this passage to Leviticus 10:1-4, where we are told the strange story of Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu (both of them priests like Aaron), who offered "strange fire" to Yahweh, and so Yahweh did what any self-respecting tribal deity of that time would have done. He sent forth fire to devour them, "and they died before Yahweh" (v:2). So after Yahweh had had his petty vengeance for a petty offense, Moses, the top man on the Hebrew totem pole... well, let's look at exactly what the inspired, inerrant word of God says.

And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, "Draw near and carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp" (v:4).

Please notice that these two men, Mishael and Elzaphan, whom Moses called before him at this time were said to be "the sons of Uzziel." Now keep in mind that the Exodus-6 genealogy said that Amram and Uzziel were the "sons of Kohath" (v: 18) and that verse 22 said that Uzziel had sons who were named Mishael and Elzaphan. It kind of sounds as if the Uzziel of Exodus 6 and the Uzziel of Leviticus 10:4 were the same person, doesn't it? Now bear in mind that if these two were the same person and if Exodus 6 is a literal father/son genealogy, then Uzziel of Exodus 6 would have been Aaron's uncle.

So notice what Leviticus 10:4 says in identifying who Mishael and Elzaphan were. It clearly says that they were "the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron." Now I know from previous exchanges with inerrantists on this subject that some will argue that the word uncle simply meant a "relative." I intend to do follow-up articles on this issue in which I will reply to the various attempts that inerrantists have made to resolve the chronological problem in Exodus 6, so at that time, I will show that the uncle=relative quibble just won't work.

In my next article in this series, I will be addressing the quibble that uncle in Leviticus 10:4meant only that Uzziel was a "relative" of Aaron, but for now all I want to notice is that there was an Uzziel living when Aaron was high priest of the Israelites. To stick to their two-Amrams theory, the proponents of this "solution" to the Exodus-6 discrepancy would have to say that the original Amram had brothers named Izhar and Uzziel and that generations later, the Amram who was the father of Aaron and Moses also had brothers named Izhar and Uzziel. That is just a little too coincidental to be credible.

Finally, let's notice that the claim that there were two Amrams and that the Exodus writer simply skipped from one Amram to the other without informing his readers that he was omitting generations is inconsistent with this writer's style. I explained this in my original reply to Moffitt (linked to above).

The writer's hand was further tipped as he continued his conclusion of the genealogy: "These are that Aaron and Moses, to whom Jehovah (Yahweh) said, Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt according to their hosts. These are they that spake to Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt: these are that Moses and Aaron" (vv:26-27). Somehow, the writer felt compelled to drive home the fact that the Aaron and Moses in this genealogy were the very Aaron and Moses famous for having led the Hebrews out of Egypt. From cover to cover, the Bible mentions no other Aaron and Moses except these, so why did the writer go to such extremes to make it clear what Aaron and Moses he meant? Clearly, he wanted it understood that the first Levitical priests to serve Yahweh's people were descended from Levi through the same Aaron who was Moses' brother. He had a vested interest in selling that point to his readers.

This writer's extreme care, however, raises another question. Is it reasonable to believe that someone as redundant as this writer was in identifying which Moses and Aaron he meant would list one Amram in a genealogy, skip a generation or two (or three), and then resume listing the generations with a second Amram and not tell his readers the two weren't the same person! It stretches credibility too far to imagine it. Besides, we have another case where Mr. Moffitt loses even if he is right. Anyone who knows anything at all about effective writing will agree that if there really were two different Amrams, then whoever wrote this genealogy used extremely poor transition, for in the short space of just two verses, he went from one Amram to another person of the same name without letting his readers know the change was being made. Thus, if Moffitt could actually prove this is not a case of factual error, it would still be a serious compositional error. Shouldn't an omniscient God know how to direct his inspired writers to use sound writing practices? But in this case he didn't--if Moffitt is right.

One can hardly imagine that a writer who would labor the point that the Moses and Aaron listed in the genealogy were the same Moses and Aaron who appeared before Pharaoh to demand the release of the Israelites would have just a few verses before this skipped from Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel to another set of men with the same names living generations later without informing his readers that the second Amram, Izhar, and Uzziel were not the same as the ones who were the direct sons of Kohath. It taxes imagination to think that this was the case; hence, the two-Amrams, skipped-generations theories must be rejected for lack of textual evidence to support them. The only sensible conclusion to reach in this matter is that either the Exodus writer erred in saying that there had been only four generations from Levi to Aaron and Moses, or else the writer of Numbers 3:27-28 erred by inflating the census count of the Amramites, Izharites, and Uzzielites at the time of the exodus. When claims are at odds, as they are in this case, the simpler explanation of the inconsistency is usually the safer one, so I would say that the error most likely was made by the writer of Numbers, because that would limit the discrepancy to just the one passage that exaggerated the number of Kohathites, whereas saying that the Exodus writer erred would require one to say that the passages in Numbers and Leviticus that mentioned men named Izhar and Uzziel living at the same time as Aaron and Moses were also a part of the discrepancy. One thing is sure: there is a chronological discrepancy in Exodus 6 and Exodus 12:40, and biblicists can't lean over backwards far enough to solve the problem.

In a third follow-up article, I will rebut the attempts of some inerrantists to make uncle, in reference to Uzziel's relationship to Aaron, mean that he was only a "relative" of Aaron.