I have read the same in commentaries. However, by stating this isn't a literal genealogy but more of an ellipse wouldn't that cast doubt on the entire Gen narrative being literal?
Perhaps it was my use of the word, "viable" that made my comment confusing? "Viable" describes abilities or capabilities; it is not a synonym for "living," as in a "living contemporary." American Heritage Dictionary (ed. 1997) explains the term using words such as "favorable conditions" and "success or continuing effectiveness," which thoughts injected into my sentence in place of "viable" render the sense of my expression thus:
the mere existence of an overlap of any length in lifespans doesn't necessitate the assumption of favorable conditions for, or success/effectiveness in contemporary interactions between individuals. We can point to numerous other factors (including religion) capable of disrupting real and potential converse.
My post makes the (main) point it does
entirely on the basis that what Genesis offers IS a "literal genealogy," even as I acknowledge one treatment of the data has Shem outliving Abraham; and another treatment--which doubts the genealogy is "strict" while granting it is accurate for its purpose--would hardly find the two contemporary at all. I don't agree with either of those alternatives; however, both are "literal," nor does the second subvert the literal narrative in my opinion.
My presentation--which is alternative to either of the above, and to any view that is truly dismissive of the text details--seems to me uses
more of the data in Genesis
11 & 12, than the view that only considers Gen.11:26 in the analysis used to establish a true timeline. My presentation assumes the genealogy is unbroken.
In Act.7:4, by the interpretation of the data he accepts, Stephen states that Abraham only left Haran (the place) after his father was dead, and Abram is not more than 75yrs old at the time of his departure from there (Gen.12:4) and Terah died at 205yrs. If Abram was born 60yrs after his elder brother Haran, and Haran died before his father but after having a child, Lot, that would make Lot (Abram's nephew) not that much younger than his uncle, if he was any younger--it's conceivable he was older!
Predicating Haran was the oldest son: that fact made him Terah's primary heir, and with his death Lot now first in line to absorb his grandfather's estate. But once Abram is born to Terah, he becomes the primary heir of his father when Haran is dead, and Lot is once again
second in line to the childless Abram to absorb his grandfather's and his uncle's combined estate, assuming he remains in connection with his uncle, and that his uncle never has a son of his own
.
It is only in Gen.22:20 (late in the narrative) that any mention is made of Nahor, Terah's third son having children. One could infer that Abram (with Lot in tow) left Haran carrying the bulk of his now-deceased father's estate, before Nahor had any children, however that is very doubtful. This branch of Terah's descendants stayed in that area when Abram left. Bethuel, father of Rebekah and Laban, was certainly not Nahor's firstborn, and may have been his last/least. He might not have been so much older than Isaac. He could have easily been born after Abram left Haran.
