I am indebted to Richard Davidson, Libbie Freed, Spencer Fluhman, and Craig McConnell for their research assistance; to William O. Harris and Wesley W. Smith, Office of Archives and Special Collections, Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries, for providing needed sources; to Marc Rothenberg, editor of the Joseph Henry Papers, Smithsonian Institution, for supplying copies of Green's correspondence with Henry; to Mark A. Noll for early advice; and to Jon H. Roberts and the editors of Church History for critically reading the manuscript.

1. Ussher, James, Annales Veteris Testamenti (London, 1650), 1;Google Scholartrans, as The Annals of the World (London, 1658), 1; George Macloskie to G. F. Wright, 23 November 1904, G. F. Wright Papers, Oberlin College Archives.Google ScholarAs Brice, William R. points out in “Bishop Ussher, John Lightfoot, and the Age of Creation,” Journal of Geological Education 30 (1982): 18–24, John Lightfoot, writing eight years before Ussher, had claimed that the creation had begun at 9 a.m.—in 3928 B.C.E.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also Knox, R. Buick, James Ussher: Archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 105–7.Google Scholar

2. Briggs, Charles Augustus, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899), 284–85.Google ScholarSee Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray, 1859);Google ScholarRecent Inquiries in Theology, by Eminent English Churchmen; Being “Essays and Reviews” (Boston: Walker, Wise, 1860);Google ScholarColenso, John William, The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critically Examined, part 1, The Pentateuch Examined As an Historical Narrative (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1862).Google Scholar

3. Colenso, , Pentateuch, vii–viii.Google Scholar

4. Colenso, , Pentateuch, 10 (self-contradictions), xiv (unhistorical), 34 (Lev. 8:14), 37 (Deut. 1: 1), 46 (EX. 16: 16).Google Scholar

5. Green's marginalia, found in his personal copy of Colenso's book in the Speer Library at Princeton Theological Seminary, are quoted in Taylor, Marion Ann, The Old Testament in the Old Princeton School, 1812–1929 (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992), 218.Google ScholarAmerican editions of Colenso included The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined (New York: D. Appleton, 1863);Google ScholarAbstract of Colenso on the Pentateuch: Showing Who Wrote the Five Books of Moses, and When They Were Written (New York: American News, [1871]);Google Scholarand The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, new ed. (New York: Longmans, Green, 1888).Google Scholar

6. Green, William Henry, The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso (New York: John Wiley, 1863), 69 (childish), 15 (arithmetic), 11 (superficial), 32 (caviller), 193 (brain), 194 (incapacity), 24 (astronomical error), 29 (confession), 33 (punctilious), 104 (dishonest), 111 (absurd), 174 (clumsy), 137 (pedantry), 161 (misrepresentation), 193 (sophisms), 194 (epithets).Google Scholar

7. Green, , Pentateuch Vindicated, 193 (infallible), 19 (want of confidence), 195 (life or death).Google Scholar

8. Green, , Pentateuch Vindicated, 122–24.Google Scholar

9. Green, , Pentateuch Vindicated, 128.Google Scholar

10. “The Antiquity of Man,” Westminster Review 79 (1863): 518,Google Scholarquoted in Grayson, Donald K., The Establishment of Human Antiquity (New York: Academic, 1983), 202;Google ScholarTrautmann, Thomas R., Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 32;Google ScholarNott, J. C. and Gliddon, Geo. R., Types of Mankind (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1854), 60, from a section written by Nott. On the midcentury debates over human antiquity, see especially Grayson, Establishment, 179–86;Google Scholarand Van Riper, A. Bowdoin, Man among the Mammoths: Victorian Science and the Discovery of Human Prehistory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).Google ScholarOn Genesis and geology in America, see Stiling, Rodney L., “Scriptural Geology in America,” in Livingstone, David N., Hart, D. G., and Noll, Mark A., eds., Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 177–92;Google Scholarand Stiling, “The Genesis Flood in Nineteenth-Century American Thought” (Ph.D. diss, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991).Google Scholar

11. Noll, Mark A., ed., The Princeton Theology, 1812–1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1983), 291;Google Scholaridem, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), 24.Google ScholarThe most extensive treatment of Green in print, Taylor's The Old Testament in the Old Princeton School, 167–251, neither mentions Green's primeval chronology nor cites his article on that subject in her extensive bibliography of his writings.Google ScholarThe same is true of Dwayne Cox's unpublished manuscript, “William Henry Green: Princeton Theologian” (M.A. thesis, University of Louisville, 1976).Google ScholarWallace, Peter J., “The Foundations of Reformed Biblical Theology: The Development of Old Testament Theology at Old Princeton, 1812–1932,” Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997): 41–69, also discusses Green at length without mentioning his chronological work.Google Scholar

12. Schaeffer, Francis A., Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1972), 122, refers to “Professor William Greene.”Google ScholarIn his introduction to the reprint of Green's Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978), v, Ronald F. Youngblood places Green's death in 1896, four years too early.Google ScholarRoss, Hugh, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, Col.: NavPress, 1994), 151, erroneously claims that Green possessed an advanced degree and implies that Green was writing in the 1970s.Google ScholarPun, Pattle P. T., Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1982), 256, identifies Green as a contributor to The Fundamentals, which began appearing a decade after Green's death.Google ScholarNicholson, Ernest, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), says nothing about Green's influence.Google Scholar

13. This biographical sketch is based on the documents in Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Appointment of Professor William Henry Green as an Instructor in Princeton Theology Seminary, May 5,1896 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), 69 (Greek and Hebrew), 82 (Rabbi), et passim.Google ScholarGreen describes his visit to Berlin in a letter to Charles Hodge, 17 August 1858, in the Charles Hodge Collection, Firestone Library, Box 16, Folder 19, copy courtesy of Harris, William O.. Bailey, Warner M., “William Robertson Smith and American Biblical Studies,” Journal of Presbyterian History 51 (1973): 303–4, describes Green as “a protégé of Hengstenberg”;Google ScholarCox, , “William Henry Green,” 15, claims that Green “traveled to Germany to study under the Old Testament exegete Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg.”Google Scholar

14. Green, W. H., MS sermon on Genesis 1:1, delivered at Central Church, 20 May 1849, William Henry Green Papers, Box 1, File 2, Office of Archives and Special Collections, Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries; William Henry Green, An Inaugural Discourse, 39, 66, 67, an undated booklet based on a 30 September 1851 lecture, copy in the Brown University Library. Regarding Green's early willingness to accept the nebular hypothesis and geological ages, see also W. H. Green, MS sermon on Gen. 12:1, at the Central Church, 9 February 1851, Green Papers, Box 1, File 3.Google Scholar

15. Green, W. Henry, The Value of Physical Science in the Work of Education (Easton, Pa.: Lafayette College, 1865), 27.Google ScholarRegarding the two accounts of creation, see Green, William Henry, review of An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, by Driver, S. R., Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3 (1892): 340;Google Scholar and idem, The Unity of the Book of Genesis (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895), 17 (successive periods), 22, 25 (days), 29, 33.Google ScholarOn Guyot's and Dawson's interpretation of Genesis 1, see Numbers, Ronald L., Creation by Natural Law: Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis in American Thought (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977), 91–94, 100.Google ScholarOn Green's relationship withDawson, see Sheets-Pyenson, Susan, John William Dawson: Faith, Hope, and Science (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996), 87–88.Google Scholar

16. Review of The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, by Green, William Henry, Methodist Quarterly Review 23 (1863): 518–19.Google ScholarOn Green's use of ridicule and humor, see, respectively, “Prof. Green on Colenso,” New-York Observer, 26 March 1863;Google Scholarand review of The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, by Green, William Henry, Christian Advocate and Journal, 9 04 1863, 119.Google ScholarOn Colenso, see Cox, George W., The Life of John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, 2 vols. (London: W. Ridgway, 1888);Google ScholarHinchliff, Peter, John William Colenso: Bishop of Natal (London: Nelson, 1964);Google Scholarand Guy, Jeff, The Heretic: A Study of the Life of John William Colenso, 1814–1883 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1983).Google ScholarFor a positive assessment of Colenso's Pentateuch, which appeared in seven parts between 1862 and 1879, see Rogerson, John, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1984), 220–37. According to Rogerson, 220, “Colenso's Pentateuch was one of the most original British contributions to biblical criticism in the nineteenth century.”Google Scholar

17. Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribner, 1871–1873), 2: 40–41.Google ScholarAlexander Hodge's recollection is quoted in Arthur Custance, C., Two Men Called Adam (Brockville, Ont.: Doorway Publications, 1983), 5.Google ScholarOn Charles Hodge's attitudes toward science, see Numbers, Ronald L., “Charles Hodge and the Beauties and Deformities of Science,” in Moorhead, James H. and Stewart, John W., eds., Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, in press).Google Scholar

18. Green, W. H., The Hebrew Feasts: In Their Relation to Recent Critical Hypotheses Concerning the Pentateuch (New York: Robert Carter, 1885), 13 (compilation);Google Scholaridem, “Prof. Robertson Smith on the Pentateuch,” Presbyterian Review 3 (1882): 109 (fancy);Google Scholaridem, “The Perpetual Authority of the Old Testament,” Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, n.s. 6 (1877): 221 (no errors);Google Scholaridem, to C. A. Briggs, 8 July 1881, Letter 1535, Transcripts of C. A. Briggs's Correspondence, Union Theological Seminary Archives (locked up);Google Scholaridem, Moses and the Prophets (New York: Robert Carter, 1883), 9–10 (unbelievers, radicals, and cowards).Google ScholarRegarding Wellhausen, see also Green, W. H., “Pentateuchal Analysis a Failure,” Independent, 3 05 1894, 1. On Smith, see Bailey, “William Robertson Smith,” 285–308. Wellhausen's Geschichte Israels was published at Berlin in 1879.Google Scholar

19. Hoeveler, David Jr, James McCosh and the Scottish Intellectual Tradition: From Glasgow to Princeton (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 227 (presidency);Google ScholarW. R. Smith to C. A. Briggs, 8 February 1883, Letter 2089, Briggs's Correspondence; Sunday School Times, 18 June 1887, 385. Green's “Critical Notes” appeared in the Sunday School Times from 1 January 1887 through 11 June 1887.Google ScholarThe Harper-Green exchange, titled “The Pentateuchal Question,” appeared in Hebraica between 1888 and 1892.Google ScholarFor a critical appraisal of Harper's role in this exchange, see Carter, Robert Lee, “The ‘Message of the Higher Criticism’: The Bible Renaissance and Popular Education in America, 1880–1925” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995), 204.Google ScholarOn Harper, see Wind, James P., The Bible and the University: The Messianic Vision of William Rainey Harper (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), which mentions Green only in passing.Google ScholarOn Green and the American Bible Revision Committee, see Thuesen, Peter J., In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 43–44, 49, 58–59.Google ScholarIn the mid-1860s Joseph Henry, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, consulted Green about a manuscript on “Systems of Consaguinity and Affinity of the Human Family,” submitted by the anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan for publication to the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. Henry could think of no one “better qualified to judge” the work;Google ScholarJoseph Henry to W. H. Green 6 December 1865, Record Unit 33, Outgoing Correspondence, Office of the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution Archives, a copy of which was provided by Marc Rothenberg. For Green's assessment of this landmark study, see W. H. Green to Joseph Henry, 14 March 1866, Record Unit 26, Incoming Correspondence, Office of the Secretary, Smithsonian Institution Archives.Google Scholar

20. Review of The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, by Green, W. H., Expository Times 7 (1895–1896): 227 (battle-flag);Google ScholarGreen, W. H., “Heresy Hunters,” Presbyterian, 15 02 1893, 12;Google ScholarBriggs, Charles Augustus, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899), 289 (Hengstenberg);Google Scholaridem, The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893), 143;Google ScholarCurtis, Edward L., review of General Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon, by Green, W. H., Biblical World 14 (1899): 459.Google ScholarRegarding the Briggs affair, see Massa, Mark Stephen, Charles Augustus Briggs and the Critics of Historical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990).Google ScholarFor British and German criticism of Green, see Selbie, J. A., “Critics and Apologists,” Expository Times 10 (1898–1899): 221–23;Google Scholarand Steuernagel, C., “Dr. W. H. Green of Princeton: A Reply to Dr. Dunlop Moore,” Expository Times 10 (1898–1899): 476–80.Google ScholarFor criticism of Green's critics, see Moore, Dunlop, “Critics and Apologists,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review 10 (1899): 533–42.Google Scholar

21. Wright, G. Frederick, The Ice Age in North America: And Its Bearings upon the Antiquity of Man, 5th ed. (Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1911);CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, Studies in Science and Religion (Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1882), 376–79;Google Scholaridem, “How Old Is Mankind?” Sunday School Times, 25 January 1913, 52 (visit with Green).Google ScholarFor a second account of Wright's visit with Green, see Wright, , “The Flood and Genesis,” Independent, 8 08 1901, 1858–59.Google ScholarOn Wright, see Numbers, Ronald L., “George Frederick Wright: From Christian Darwinist to Fundamentalist,” Isis 79 (1988): 624–45;CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), 20–36.Google Scholar

22. Green, W. H., “Primeval Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 47 (1890): 285–303, quotations on 300 (needed relief), and 303 (precise date);Google Scholaridem, “Pre-Abrahamic Chronology,” Independent, 18 June 1891, 1–2;Google ScholarDraper, John William, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: Appleton, 1874).Google Scholar

23. Cramer, Frank, “The Theological and Scientific Theories of the Origin of Man,” Bibliotheca Sacra 48 (1891): 511 (margin);Google ScholarWright, G. Frederick, “The Harmony of Science and Revelation,” Homiletic Monthly 33 (1897): 210;Google Scholaridem, Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History (Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1906), 190–97;Google Scholaridem, Origin and Antiquity of Man (Oberlin, Ohio: Bibliotheca Sacra, 1912), 443–44.Google ScholarFor additional tributes to Green by Wright, see, for instance, Wright, “Recent Discoveries Bearing on the Antiquity of Man,” Bibliotheca Sacra 48 (1891): 298–309;Google Scholaridem, “Adjustments between the Bible and Science,” Bibliotheca Sacra 49 (1992): 153–56;Google Scholar and idem, “Present Aspects of the Questions Concerning the Origin and Antiquity of the Human Race,” Protestant Episcopal Review 11 (1989): 301–3.Google Scholar

24. See Celebration of the Fiftieth Anniversary;Google ScholarMacloskie to Wright, 23 11 1904; MacLoskie to Wright, 4 November 1911, G. F. Wright Papers (theologians).Google ScholarCharles Hodge's famous quip appears in Hodge, Alexander A., The Life of Charles Hodge, D.D., LL.D. (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1881), 521. A number of obituaries can be found in the William Henry Green Papers.Google ScholarMacloskie drew attention to Green's discovery in “The Outlook of Science and Faith,” Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903): 603;Google Scholarand “Monism and Darwinism,” Princeton Theological Review 2 (1904): 434–35.Google ScholarThe fullest account of Macloskie appears in Livingstone, David N. and Wells, Ronald A., Ulster-American Religion: Episodes in the History of a Cultural Connection (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 40–48.Google Scholar

25. W[arfield], B. B., Editorial Notes, Bible Student, n.s., 8 (1903): 241–52.Google ScholarWarfield expressed similar sentiments in “On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race” Princeton Theological Review 9 (1911): 1–25.Google ScholarOn Warfield and science, see Livingstone, David N. and Noll, Mark A., “B. B. Warfield (1851–1921): A Biblical Inerrantist as Evolutionist,” Isis 91 (2000): in press.Google Scholar

26. Hague, Dyson, “The History of Higher Criticism,” The Fundamentals (Chicago: Testimony Publishing, [1910–1915]), 1: 120;Google ScholarKyle, M. G., “The Antiquity of Man According to the Genesis Account,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 57 (1925): 134–35.Google ScholarThe Scottish theologian James Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament: Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1923),Google Scholarand the American Old Testament scholar Allis, Oswald T., The Five Books of Moses (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1943), mentioned Green repeatedly.Google ScholarSee also Hardie, Alexander, Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific or Scriptural? (Los Angeles: Times-Mirror, 1924), 185, 198;Google Scholarand Short, A. Rendle, Modern Discovery and the Bible (Chicago: Inter-Varsity, 1955; first published in 1942), 97–98.Google Scholar

27. For an example of scholars struggling over Green's authority, see Schrader, Stephen R. and Young, Davis A., “Was the Earth Created a Few Thousand Years Ago?” in Youngblood, Ronald, ed., The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 56–85.Google Scholar

28. Nelson, Paul, introduction to The Creationist Writings of Byron C. Nelson, vol. 5 of Numbers, Ronald L., ed., Creationism in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Garland, 1995), xiv (late 1930s);Google ScholarNumbers, The Creationists, 105–16;Google ScholarNelson, Byron C., Before Abraham: Prehistoric Man in Biblical Light (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1948), 1, 5–6, 16.Google Scholar

29. Ramm, Bernard, The Christian view of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954), 313–14;Google ScholarWilson, Donald L., “How Early Is Man?” Christianity Today, 14 09 1962, 1175–76.Google Scholar

30. [Henry, Carl F. H.], “American Evangelicals and Theological Dialogue,” Christianity Today, 15 01 1965, 395–97;Google ScholarBuswell, James O. III, letter to the editor, Christianity Today, 12 03 1965, 618;Google Scholaridem, “Homo Habilis: Implications for the Creationist,” journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 17 (1965): 74–78.Google ScholarFor later invocations of Green, see, for instance, Kornfield, William J., “The Early-Date Genesis Man,” Christianity Today, 8 06 1973, 931–34;Google Scholarand Buswell, , “Creationist Views on Human Origin,” Christianity Today, 8 08 1975, 1046–48.Google ScholarIn “A Creationist Interpretation of Prehistoric Man,” in Mixter, Russell L., ed., Evolution and Christian Thought Today (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1959), 165–89, Buswell mentioned Green in a note (168), but not in connection with his chronology.Google ScholarBoth Buswell and Kornfield, who also taught anthropology at Wheaton, cited Wheaton's Schultz, Samuel J., who in The Old Testament Speaks, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 12–13, rejected Ussher in favor of Green.Google ScholarBrow, Robert, “The Late-Date Genesis Man,” Christianity Today, 15 09 1972, 1128–29, argued that Adam was created about 3900 B.C.E.Google Scholar

31. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr, ed., Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1972), unpaginated introduction;Google ScholarNewman, Robert C. and Eckelmann, Herman J. Jr, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1977), 59–60, 105–23;Google ScholarSchaeffer, , Genesis in Space and Time, 122, 134;Google ScholarYoungblood, Ronald, How It All Began: A Biblical Commentary for Laymen: Genesis 1–11 (Ventura, Cal.: Regal Books, 1980), 89–91;Google ScholarYoungblood, , introduction to The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, vi (quotation);Google ScholarYoung, Davis A., Christianity and the Age of the Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1982), 59, 152. Buswell had anointed Green's “Primeval Chronology” a “classic” as early as 1965; Buswell, letter to the editor, 22.Google Scholar

32. Whitcomb, John C. Jr and Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1961), 476;Google ScholarMorris, , The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1976), 45–46, 285, 309 (modified);Google ScholarWhitcomb, , The Early Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1972), 107–10 (absurdity);Google ScholarMorris, , Many Infallible Proofs: Practical and Useful Evidences of Christianity (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), 290 (much-maligned).Google ScholarSee also Morris, , Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Nutley, N.J.: Craig, 1970), 66–67.Google ScholarOn Whitcomb and Morris, see Numbers, The Creationists, 184–213.Google ScholarOn the “impropriety” and “absurdity” of using Green to justify a great antiquity for humans, see Ludenow, Marvin L., Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1992), 227–29.Google Scholar

33. Custance, Arthur C., Hidden Things of God's Revelation, vol. 7 of The Doorway Papers (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1977), 222 (no gaps, small details), from an essay “The Genealogies of the Bible: A Neglected Subject,” first published in 1967;Google Scholaridem, Two Men Called Adam, 4–6 (thin edge). On Custance, see Numbers, The Creationists, 170–71, 175–76, 255–56, 271–72.Google Scholar