Every quotation in the article, verbatim, with the route by which it was verified. "Library" means the text was read from the file named under its key in sources/; "downloaded" means the bytes were fetched with curl in this session and saved to the library. No quotation was established or checked through WebFetch. research/verify-quotes.ts re-greps each of these against the library texts; where it reports a miss, the reason is given here.

Green, "Primeval Chronology," BSac 47 (1890)

Library green-1890_primeval-chronology.md, in-house tesseract OCR of Archive item sim_the-bibliotheca-sacra_1890-04_47_186, folios read off the page images.

p. 285-286 (reprinting the 1863 footnote): "..... Our current chronology is based upon the prima facie impression of these genealogies. .... . But if these recently discovered indications of the antiquity of man, over which scientific circles are now so excited, shall, when carefully inspected and thoroughly weighed, demonstrate all that any have imagined they might demonstrate, what then?" The ellipses are Green's; the 1863 sentence "This we shall adhere to, until we see good reason for giving it up" stood where the second run of dots is.
p. 286: "In verse 8 three names are dropped between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), viz., Ahaziah (2 Kings viii. 25), Joash (2 Kings xii. 1), and Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 1); and in verse 11 Jehoiakim is omitted after Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 34; 1 Chron. iii. 16)". The article stops the quotation at "Josiah."
pp. 286-287: "it is absurd to suppose that the author of Chronicles was so grossly ignorant as to suppose that the grandson of Moses could be living in the reign of David".
p. 287: "The genealogy of Ezra is recorded in the book which bears his name; but we learn from another passage, in which the same line of descent is given, that it has been abridged by the omission of six consecutive names."
p. 291: "Now it is scarcely conceivable that there should be eleven links in the line of descent from Jacob to Joshua, and only four from Jacob to Moses."
p. 291: "if no abridgment has taken place in the genealogy, the grandfather of Moses had, in the lifetime of the latter, 8,600 descendants of the male sex alone, 2,750 of them being between the ages of thirty and fifty (Num. iv. 36)."
p. 291: Moses "must have been born more than 350 years after Kohath, who consequently could not have been his own grandfather."
p. 292: "Moses' father surely could not have been the ancestor of one-fourth of this number in Moses' own days."
p. 294: "Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that, in the usage of the Bible, 'to bear' and 'to beget' are used in a wide sense to indicate descent, without restriction to the immediate offspring." Verifier miss: OCR reads "used ina wide sense."
p. 296: "Why should the author be so particular to state, in every case, with unfailing regularity, the age of each patriarch at the birth of his son, unless it was his design thus to construct a chronology of this entire period, and to afford his readers the necessary elements for a computation of the interval from the creation to the deluge and from the deluge to Abraham? And if this was his design, he must of course have aimed to make his list complete. The omission of even a single name would create an error."
p. 297: "He nowhere sums these numbers, nor suggests their summation. No chronological statement is deduced from these genealogies, either by him or by any inspired writer."
p. 297: "They merely afford us a conspectus of individual lives. And for this reason doubtless they are recorded. They exhibit in these selected examples the original term of human life. They show what it was in the ages before the Flood. They show how it was afterwards gradually narrowed down."
pp. 297-298: "When it is said, for example, that 'Enosh lived ninety years and begat Kenan,' the well-established usage of the word 'begat' makes this statement equally true and equally accordant with analogy, whether Kenan was an immediate or a remote descendant of Enosh; whether Kenan was himself born, when Enosh was ninety years of age or one was born from whom Kenan sprang." "wheth-" ends p. 297.
p. 298: "These genealogies may yield us the minimum length of time that it is possible to accept for the period that they cover; but they can make no account of the duration represented by the names that have been dropped from the register, as needless for the author's particular purpose."
p. 298: "as they proceeded from the same pen, we may fairly infer from the similarity of construction a similarity of design."
p. 299: "If, then, Egyptian antiquity contradicts the current chronology, it simply shows that this chronology is based upon an unfounded assumption."
p. 300: "the interval between the Flood and the birth of Abraham was 292 (Hebrew), 942 (Samaritan), or 1172 years (Septuagint). Some have been disposed in this state of the case to adopt the chronology drawn from the Septuagint, as affording here the needed relief. But the superior accuracy of the Hebrew text in this instance, as well as generally elsewhere, can be incontrovertibly established. This resource, then, is a broken reed." Verifier miss: "Septua- / . gint" line break with a stray OCR period.
p. 302: "Each genealogy includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah. And each ends with a father having three sons, as is likewise the case with the Cainite genealogy (iv. 17-22). The Sethite genealogy (chap. v.) culminates in its seventh member, Enoch". And: "it seems in the highest degree probable that the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is artificial rather than natural."
p. 303: "Noah was for fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years, provided xi. 26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that Abraham was born in Terah's seventieth year. This conclusion is well-nigh incredible."
p. 303: "we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world."

Green, The Pentateuch Vindicated (1863)

Downloaded, Archive pentateuchvindic01gree, djvu OCR; running head "128 THE SOJOURNING OF THE ISRAELITES IN EGYPT."

p. 128 n.: "if scientific research should ever demonstrate what it cannot be said to have done as yet, that the race of man has existed upon the earth for a longer period than the ordinary Hebrew Chronology will allow, we would be disposed to seek the solution in this frequent, if not pervading, characteristic of the Scriptural genealogies." And: "Our current chronology is based upon the prima facie impression of these genealogies. This we shall adhere to, until we see good reason for giving it up." OCR reads "primd facie."

Warfield, "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race" (1911)

Library warfield-1911_antiquity-and-unity-of-the-human-race.md, [[p.N]] markers.

p. 3: "For aught we know they may have been of immense length." (Not quoted in the article; recorded.)
p. 4: "There is no reason inherent in the nature of the Scriptural genealogies why a genealogy of ten recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v and xi is, may not represent an actual descent of a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand links." Verifier miss: "na- |" line break with an OCR pipe.
p. 5: "It is due to a peculiarity of these special genealogies by which they are differentiated from all other genealogies in Scripture. We refer to the regular attachment to each name in the lists, of the age of the father at the birth of his son."
pp. 5-6: "It certainly looks, at first sight, as if we needed only to add these one hundred and thirty, one hundred and five, and ninety years together in order to obtain the whole time which elapsed from the creation of Adam to the birth of Kenan". Page header interrupts after "ob-".
p. 10: "It is quite true that, when brought together in sequence, name after name, these notes assume the appearance of a concatenated chronological scheme. But this is pure illusion, due wholly to the nature of the parenthetical insertions which are made."
p. 11 (epigraph, opening bracket ours): "for aught we know instead of twenty generations and some two thousand years measuring the interval between the creation and the birth of Abraham, two hundred generations, and something like twenty thousand years, or even two thousand generations and something like two hundred thousand years may have intervened."

Goodenow, Bible Chronology Carefully Unfolded (1896)

Downloaded, Archive biblechronologyc00goodrich, djvu OCR; running heads "322 PERIOD A, B" and "DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 323."

p. 322 (section 52): "There is no getting round this fundamental defect of the theory. The 'begat' indicates the birth of the person named after it; and the date of that birth being given, it matters not how many un-named generations intervene. The chronology is fixed and unchanged. No such anomaly is known in Scripture, or in reason, as a dating given to an un-named ancestor's birth. The chronology here added to the genealogy forbids any such fast-and-loose play upon omissions." OCR reads "tJic" for "the" and "ancest07-'s"; italics in the original.
p. 322 (section 53): "This theory takes away all purpose on the part of the sacred writer in giving the birth-dates he has so carefully arranged." OCR "puj-pose."
p. 323: "no mode of speech could be contrived to give successive dates to Bible generations if those tables in Genesis be denied as such."

Hasel, Origins 7 (1980)

Library hasel-1980_genesis-5-11-chronogenealogies.md and hasel-1980b_meaning-chronogenealogies.md, [[p.N]] markers.

7(1):25-26: "We suggest a designation that more accurately reflects the nature of the features of Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 by the choice of the name of chronogenealogy. This compound term reflects both the repeated time elements by means of the word chrono- and the linear succession of generations by means of the term genealogy." Journal footer sits between "both the" and "repeated."
7(2):67: "The repeated phrase 'and he fathered PN' (wayyôled 'et-PN) appears fifteen times in the OT -- all of them in Genesis 5 and 11. In two additional instances the names of three sons are provided (Gen 5:32; 11:26). The same verbal form as in this phrase (i.e., wayyôled) is employed another sixteen times in the phrase 'and he fathered (other) sons and daughters'". And: "the expression 'and he fathered' (wayyôled) is used in the sense of a direct physical offspring (Gen 5:3; 6:10). A direct physical offspring is evident in each of the remaining usages of the Hiphil of wayyôled, 'and he fathered,' in the OT (Judg 11:1; 1 Chron 8:9; 14:3; 2 Chron 11:21; 13:21; 24:3)." And: "Thus the phrase 'and he fathered PN' in Genesis 5 and 11 cannot mean Adam 'begat an ancestor of Seth.'" The source prints the aleph of 'et on its own line.

Hasel, AUSS 16 (1978)

Library hasel-1978_genealogies-alleged-babylonian-background.md.

p. 367: "the major recension of the Sumerian King List (WB 444) contains only eight and not ten kings. One text contains only seven kings (W) and another (UCBC 9-1819) either seven or eight, whereas a bilingual fragment from Ashurbanipal's library has but nine kings. Berossos and only one ancient tablet (WB 62), i.e. only two texts (of which only one is a cuneiform document), give a total of ten antediluvian kings. On the basis of the cuneiform data it can no longer be suggested that the Sumerian King List contained originally ten antediluvian kings after which the biblical genealogies were patterned." Footnote numerals interleave in the OCR.

Sexton, WTJ 77 (2015)

Downloaded from biblearchaeology.org, pdftotext -layout, running heads carry the folios.

p. 197: "Who was born when Enosh was 90? The untranslatable particle אֶת marks קֵינָן ('Kenan') as the direct-object accusative of וַיּוֹלֶד ('he had'). A 'direct-object accusative is the recipient of a transitive verb's action.' The transitive verb וַיּוֹלֶד describes birth. Therefore Gen 5:9 refers to Kenan's birth when Enosh was 90." The article transliterates the Hebrew and says so.
p. 198: "Premise 1: Gen 5 and 11 may contain genealogical gaps (that is, B may be a remote descendant of A in some cases). Premise 2: Where B is a remote descendant of A, the formula 'When A had lived X years, he had B' means 'When A had lived X years, he had [the son from whom sprang] B.' Conclusion: Gen 5 and 11 may contain chronological gaps." And: "We grant P1. However, we find several problems with P2."
p. 203: "if the author of the genealogies had wanted to supply life spans, but not chronology, he could have accomplished this more efficiently without begetting ages. The genealogy in Exod 6:16-20 gives the fathers' life spans without using begetting ages." And the rewritten verses: "9Enosh had Kenan. 10And Enosh had other sons and daughters. 11And all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died." The article drops the verse numerals.
p. 203: "Genesis 11 does not total the length of the fathers' lives, but Green determines that we can know the life span of each postdiluvian patriarch by adding his begetting age to the number of years he lived after his son's birth."
p. 204: "it is worth noting that MT Gen 11 comprises only nine names. To arrive at ten names in each genealogy, Green includes Noah in both genealogies, even though Noah does not appear in the second one. In a later publication, Green acknowledges that the two genealogies have 'nearly the same number of links (one ten, the other nine).'" And: "According to Green, we cannot know when Methuselah died in relation to the flood, because we cannot know how big the chronological gap was between him and Noah. Methuselah could have died thousands of years before the flood. According to the chronological interpretation, however, Methuselah died in the very year of the deluge".
p. 206: Collins 1994, "this need only mean that X became the ancestor of Y (as in the NIV margin)," and 2003, "fathered an ancestor of."
pp. 217-218 n. 141 (Hendel): "according to rabbinic midrash, Isaac studied Torah at the academy of Shem (Genesis Rabbah 56.11)."
p. 218: "We may question where the original chronology exists text-critically, but not whether it exists lexico-grammatically."

Sexton, JETS 61 (2018)

Library sexton-2018_evangelicalisms-search-for-chronological-gaps.md.

p. 8: Green in 1849, monuments "reaching back for millions of years or even for ten thousand years" would be "in flat contradiction to the Mosaic record" (relaying Numbers pp. 264-265).
p. 7: Gardiner: "Thus Seth, e.g., might have begun to be a father at 105, but might have actually begotten Enos[h] at any reasonable time during the 807 years which he afterwards lived." And: "Scripture thus bears a twofold witness to the year of each named son's birth."
p. 9: Hodge, "I can well remember my father walking up and down in his study when he heard (about it) and saying, 'What a relief it is to me that he should have said that'" (relaying Numbers p. 266); Macloskie, "the most important biblical discovery of our time" (Numbers p. 257).
p. 10: "Green left no trace of his earlier commitment to the chronological interpretation." And: "All of this is true, and yet none of it implies the possibility of chronological gaps in Genesis 5 and 11, a logical leap that Green made but failed to defend or even acknowledge." And: "Missing time does not follow from missing generations. In fact, chronological gaps are semantically impossible, because the text specifies the year in which A 'brought forth [וַיּוֹלֶד]' B." The article omits the bracketed Hebrew.
p. 11: "This assumption is the linchpin of Green's case. It inserts B's anonymous ancestor into the formula, creating a gap of unknown length between the birth of this unnamed ancestor and the birth of B himself. Green only mentioned this crucial premise once, almost in passing, in a comment on Gen 5:9."
p. 12: Wright to Goodenow, 29 June 1893: "The two Mss. which I have in hand ought to be published in the Bibliotheca, and I can say to you positively, that if you will let them remain in my hands, I will work them into the January and April numbers."
p. 15: a Hiphil "always expresses an event that corresponds to the meaning of its root"; "specifies the time of the caused event, not the time of the causing action."
p. 16: Steinmann, "onset of virility," and that the purpose "has been irretrievably lost over time" (Steinmann pp. 148-149).
pp. 17-18: Steinmann 2014, "These genealogies list the age of each ancestor [A] at the birth of his descendant [B]"; Sexton, "apparently altered his interpretation after becoming aware recently that his earlier formulation created missing generations but not the desired missing time."

Freeman, AUSS 42 (2004)

Library freeman-2004_new-look-genesis-5-11-fluidity.md, wording checked against freeman-2007_do-genesis-genealogies-contain-gaps.html.

p. 285: "The most telling evidence on this issue is the fact that the latter interpretation was virtually unknown by Jews or Christians prior to A.D. 1800." And: "Green and Warfield, the source of the new interpretation, admitted their purpose was to save the credibility of the OT in the face of the new science."

Barr, BJRL 67 (1985)

Library barr-1985_why-world-created-4004bc.md, running heads.

p. 578: "Firstly, there was a long tradition, going back into the Middle Ages, and thus long before Ussher, that there were four thousand years between creation and the coming of the Christ." And: "he succeeded in making it work out, and as a precise figure; and that without any tampering - at least as he thought - with the biblical text itself." And: "By Ussher's time, and especially since the work of the great scholar Scaliger (1583), it was clearly known and accepted that Herod the Great had died in 4 B.C. Since it was clear from St. Matthew that he was alive when Jesus was born ... the birth of Jesus must go back to 5-4 B.C. Hence, the date of 4004 B.C. for creation gave a more or less exact period of four thousand years from creation to Christ."
pp. 590-591: "Knowing that it was 4004 B.C., he looked in the astronomical tables for the Sunday which came first after the Autumnal equinox in that year ... He found that Sunday to be 23 October 4004 B.C." And Petavius, "Monday, 26 October 3983 B.C."
p. 604: "the chronology can be obtained by simple addition of the ages at which the first son was born, in the genealogies of Gen. v and xi. By the standard Hebrew ('Masoretic') text, the flood began in the year 1656 A.M."

Barr, Biblical Chronology: Legend or Science? (1987)

Library barr-1987_biblical-chronology-legend-or-science.md, [p.N] markers. research/verify-quotes.ts reports all three p. 5 passages as misses for a reason not identified; each was re-checked by a direct grep of the library file (lines 284, 293, 298) and matches verbatim.

p. 5: "All discussion of this matter has been bedevilled by the assertion that the chronological data of the Bible, and especially those of the earlier chapters of Genesis, are 'not to be taken literally'. According to this argument, when we read that Methuselah lived to the high age of 969 years, we are to suppose that the writer did not mean 969 years but something different. Now I submit that this is obviously false. The biblical writers worked seriously on these figures, and they meant 969 years for Methuselah".
p. 5: "We have to distinguish between literal intention and historical, factual truth. The figures are not, to us, historically, scientifically or factually true, but they were literally intended. A year to them was the same period as it still is to us." And: "When, in modern times, people began to say that these passages were 'not to be taken literally', this was really a cowardly expedient which enabled them to avoid saying that, though they were literally intended, they were not literally true."
p. 15: "But this is only a hidden way of saying that the biblical chronology is not true." And: "These statements, coming from 'Bible-believers', are straightforward falsities: because they no longer believe the chronology of the Bible, the editors assure their readers that the Bible tells them nothing about it."

Ussher, The Annals of the World (1658)

Library ussher-1658_annals-of-the-world.txt. The OCR of this black-letter printing is poor ("Ofeb" for "Octob.", "Aquinox"); the article normalises spelling and its footnote says so. The sibling article had already confirmed the wording of p. 1.

Epistle to the Reader: "from thence I gathered the Creation of the World did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in Autumn: but for as much as the first day of the World began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid, came nearest the Autumnal Aequinox, by Astronomical Tables ... happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October".
p. 1: "Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob. in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710."

Lightfoot, Works ed. Pitman (1822)

Vol. 2 downloaded, Archive 10785928bsb; vol. 4 library lightfoot-1822_whole-works-vol4.txt.

vol. 2 p. 335 (on Gen 1:26): "Man created by the Trinity about the third hour of the day, or nine of the clock in the morning."
vol. 4 p. 112: "he that desireth to know the year of the world, which is now passing over us,—this year, 1644,—will find it to be 5572 years just now finished since the creation; and the year 5573 of the world's age, now newly begun, this September, at the equinox."

White, Warfare of Science with Theology (1896)

Library white-1896_warfare-of-science-with-theology-vol1.txt.

p. 9: "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B. C., at nine o'clock in the morning." p. 256 repeats it with "the twenty-third of October" and footnotes Lightfoot's Works vol. iv, pp. 64, 112.

Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003)

Library kitchen-2003_reliability-of-the-old-testament.txt (OCR). Pages per Sexton 2015 nn. 74-75.

pp. 440-441: "the formal, representative genealogies of Gen. 4, 5, 11, 'A fathered B' can be literal; or it may equally stand for 'A fathered [P, who fathered Q, who fathered R, who fathered S, who fathered T, who fathered ...] B.' Or in short for 'A fathered (the line culminating in) B.'" OCR "fa thered," "tor" for "for."
p. 441: "we can neither date the flood before Abraham nor the creation before Noah merely by counting the Genesis figures continuously as did the worthy Archbishop Ussher in the carefree days when no evidence from outside the Bible was even imagined"; "So an Ussherite solution is ruled out".

Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (1987)

Library wenham-1987_genesis-1-15-wbc.txt.

p. 133: "Another suggestion (W. H. Green, BSac [1890] 285-303) is that the genealogy is not intended to be complete, that generations have been omitted, and therefore it should not be used for chronological purposes. However, the Hebrew gives no hint that there were large gaps between father and son in this genealogy. 4:25 makes it clear that Seth was Adam and Eve's third son. At the other end of the genealogy, Lamek comments on Noah's birth, and Ham, Shem, and Japhet were contemporaries of their father. It therefore requires special pleading to postulate long gaps elsewhere in the genealogy."

Cassuto, Genesis Part I (1961)

Library cassuto-1961_commentary-genesis-part1.txt; page numbers are running heads.

p. 249: the list "consists of ten paragraphs, one for each of the ten generations."
pp. 261-262: "It is correct—the Bible comes to tell us—that there lived before the Flood ten generations of notable personages; but they were only ordinary mortals, not gods, or demi-gods, or even men transformed into divinities".

Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (1969)

Library johnson-1969_purpose-of-biblical-genealogies.txt; running heads are headers.

p. 26 n. 1 (Lev. R. 29:11): "All sevenths are favourites in the world ... Thus: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, and of him it is said, 'And Enoch walked with God' (Gen. 5:22). Among the patriarchs the seventh was the favourite. Thus: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses".
p. 28: Enmeduranki "is regarded as possessing special wisdom concerning the gods"; "there is no borrowing of actual names or even translation of names involved."

Sarfati, J. Creation 17(3) (2003)

Library sarfati-2003_biblical-chronogenealogies.md (print PDF, two-column).

p. 17: "Jude 14 says Enoch was seventh from Adam, which indicates straightforward father-son relationships from Adam to Enoch." Verifier miss: the two columns interleave in the text extraction; read by eye.

Charles, The Book of Enoch (1912)

Downloaded, Archive cu31924067146773.

p. 116 (60:8): "where my grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created."
p. 229 (93:3): "I was born the seventh in the first week".

Scripture

Jude 14, SBLGNT via MorphGNT 86-Jud-morphgnt.txt: Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ.
Gen 5:9 Hebrew, Sefaria API v3 Miqra according to the Masorah: וַיְחִי אֱנוֹשׁ תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת־קֵינָן.
Num 3:28, Exod 6:20 Hebrew: same route.
All English verses: NET Bible, labs.bible.org API, fetched with curl. These are not in the library corpus and the verifier lists them as misses.