Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Theoretic Demography Limits · Holy Koolaid Pretended Flood to Sodom Chronology Excludes a Sodom or Gomorrah of Half a Million People · Barnes and Haydock Have a Thing or Two in Common

Barnes was unfortunately presbyterian, so didn't have apostolic succession, unlike George Leo Haydock, a real priest, but here is from his — Barnes' — view on Genesis 11.

The age of puberty in the Hebrew affords more scope for the increase of population than that in the other texts. For if a man begin to have a family at thirty, it is likely to be larger than if he began a hundred years later and only lived the same number of years altogether. Now the Hebrew and Samaritan agree generally, against the Septuagint, in the total years of life; and in two instances, Heber and Terah, the Samaritan has even a less number than the Hebrew. It is to be remembered, also, that the number of generations is the same in every case. Hence, in all human probability the Hebrew age of paternity will give the greater number of inhabitants to the world in the age of Abram. If we take the moderate average of five pairs for each family, we shall have for the estimated population 4 X 5(to the 9th power) pairs, or 15,625,000 souls. This number is amply sufficient for all the kingdoms that were in existence in the time of Abram. If we defer the time of becoming a father for a whole century, we shall certainly diminish, rather than increase, the chance of his having so large a family, and thereby the probability of such a population on the earth in the tenth generation from Noah.

If I want to defend the LXX, how about saying ... Heber was not the oldest son of Shelah, Shelah not the oldest son of Arphachsad (or Kenan II as son of Arphachsad), but more like "the seventh son of a seventh son" ... or, Shelah and Heber, if not Arphachsad, were delayed in marriage, precisely as it is inconceivable Noah reached puberty only at age 500. Or both.

But the point is not whether Barnes is right or wrong in his conclusion.

The point is, the reasoning clearly supposes that the data about generations and ages is accurately portrayed in one of the text versions, and therefore in the autograph text.

Here is Haydock on Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

Again, the point is not that Haydock is right on the specific number of minimal overlaps between Adam and Moses, again, as a defender of LXX chronology, I disagree.

But the point is, his reasoning also presupposes that the data about ages and generations is accurately portrayed in one of the text versions, and therefore in the first autograph of the hagiographer (unless he made a correction before sharing or as soon as getting corrected when sharing).

Barnes gives a list of years from creation in which the call of Abraham occurred, taken from Genesis 5 and 11. They vary from Anno Mundi 2078 to Anno Mundi 3564. But he, like Haydock, would have felt it as totally absurd to try to multiply either the total or one of the two chapters with ten to account for "unmentioned intermediates" ... to Haydock this would have been betraying the historic credibility of Genesis 3. To Barnes, it would have made the calculation about demographics totally superfluous.

As Barnes touches on post-Flood demographics, I will link back to two earlier posts here that include or concentrate on the issue — would there have been enough people for Babel or for the Kingdom's in Abraham's time?

Yes, there would.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2023