AN EVALUATION OF THE NUMERICAL VARIANTS OF THE CHRONOGENEALOGIES OF GENESIS 5 AND 11

Paul J. Ray, Jr.
M.A. in Biblical Archaeology and in Old Testament
Berrien Springs, Michigan

Origins 12(1):26-37 (1985).
    Related pages — | IN A FEW WORDS | REACTION |

Is the chronology of the Septuagint text of Genesis 5 and 11 more reliable than other texts? The author examines the numerical variants for an answer.

PLEASE NOTE: Unfortunately, we are unable to reproduce all of the special characters that were present in our printed version. Our apologies for any inconvenience this might cause.

I. INTRODUCTION

    In a previous article on the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 (Hasel 1980, pp. 27-29, 34), our attention was directed to the fact that the numerical data of the Septuagint (LXX) and Samaritan Pentateuch are highly schematic, as opposed to the figures of the Masoretic text. I am in basic agreement with those conclusions, but in addition to the basic data which were pointed out (Hasel 1980, pp. 30-33) (1), I would like to focus more on the numerical variants in these texts (especially the LXX).

II. VARIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LXX

    Occasionally it has been argued that the LXX should have priority over the Masoretic text as far as the preservation of the original figures for a biblical chronology is concerned (Hales 1930, Shenkel 1968, Zurcher 1960). However, the adoption of the figures of the LXX has been found inadequate when applied to the chronology of the Hebrew Kings. There it was found that the variants of the LXX resulted because of a failure on the part of the translators to understand the data of the Hebrew text. They, therefore, tried to correct the supposed errors (Thiele 1983, pp. 62, 90-94, 99, 209-210). The figures of the Masoretic text of the Books of Kings were found to be both internally and externally consistent as opposed to those of the LXX.
    Unlike the chronology of the First Millennium B.C. which is relatively well known, there are no absolute dates or synchronisms whereby one can test which text preserves the original numbers for the period under discussion. This paucity of information makes it necessary to use such factors as schematization or its lack, and consistency or inconsistency of data as the primary indicators of priority (2). The former has been dealt with previously (Hasel 1980) and so for the most part does not need to be readdressed.
    As far as manuscript evidence concerning the numerical data are concerned, variants are absent in all of the known manuscripts (MSS) of the Masoretic text for both Genesis 5 and 11. Similarly there are no numerical variants for the Genesis 5 genealogy of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and only one for the genealogy of Genesis 11 in verse 15 (3). In contrast to the above, the Septuagint exhibits a wide variety of variation in the numerical data. While the most widely known manuscript (MS) of the Septuagint (the Vaticanus — MS B) is missing for Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, and therefore yields no data here, there are numerous other MSS which prove the point (cf. the following tables).
    Tables 1 and 3 give an overview of the numerical data for Genesis 5 and 11 respectively. The three major texts with the Alexandrinus (MS A) representing the Septuagint are compared. In addition the numerical variants which are found in the other Septuagint MSS are given. Because Josephus is sometimes viewed as a fourth line of evidence, he also has been included. Tables 2 and 4 list all of the Septuagint MSS where these numerical data may be found.

SIGLA

I.	Texts Aeth — Ethopic (Aeth CFGMPR - Editors of the Ethopic Text) Arab — Arabic Arm — Armenian (Arm et - Editors of the Armenian Text) Bo — Bohairic Co — Coptic La — Old Latin (LaAIX - Editors of the Old Latin Text) LXX — Septuagint MT — Masoretic Text Sa — Sahidic Sam — Samaritan Pentateuch Syp.h — Pishito and Harclensis (Syriac) Syh — Syro-hexapla Tar — Targum Vulg — Vulgate a' — Aquila oil' — The other translators (= Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion)
II.	Uncials (Manuscripts Written in Upper Case Letters) À — Codex Sinaiticus (4th Cent. A.D.) A — Codex Alexandrinus (5th Cent. A.D.) B — Codex Vaticanus (4th Cent. A.D.) D — Codex Cottonianus (5-6th Cent. A.D.) DG — Grabe collation of D (in H. Owen, 1778) D — (in the NT cf. n. l.) - Codex Bezae (5-6th Cent. A.D.) M — Codex Coislinianus (7th Cent. A.D.) N — Codex Basiliano - Vaticanus (8th Cent. A.D.) q — (NT) Codex koridethi (9th Cent. A.D.) y — (NT) Codex Athous Laurae (8-9th Cent. A.D.)
III.	Minuscules (Manuscripts Written in Lower Case Letters) in numerical order from 1-800 in Gottingen edition of the LXX a — e2 in alphabetical order in Cambridge edition of the LXX 17' (e.g.,) = 2 MSS  (17' = MSS 17 + 400)
IV.	Manuscript Families C´’ — Catena Group C´’ -18 (e.g.) — all MSS in this group except the following ƒ 13 (NT)=MSS 13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983 and 1689 O — O Recension (MSS based on Origen's Hexapla) other text families: - bdfnstyz
V.	Papyri in numerical order from 801-999 p75 (NT cf. n. 1.) - Bodmer Papyrus (early 3rd Cent. A.D.)
VI.	Other Manuscripts B — Dab - (cf. n. 3) - MSS of the Samaritan Pentateuch
VII.	Church Fathers Aug — Augustine (Quaestiones de Genesi) Chr — Chrysostom (I-VIII) Cyr — Cyril of Alexandria (Alexandrius II) Epiph — Epiphanius Latinus (De Mensuris) Eus — Eusebius (Caesariensis IV) lat — Latin Church Fathers Or — Origen (Selecta in Genesim) QIul Hil — Quintus Iulius Hilarianus (De Cursu Temporum)
VIII.	Other Ancient Witnesses Jos — Josephus
IX.	Symbols c — corrector c pr m — corrected by original writer mg — margin MS(S) — Manuscript(s) om — omit pr m — original writer rell — remaining MSS sic — an abnormality exactly reproduced from the original txt — text (vid) — it would seem * — original R — majority reading Ä — Hexaplaric asterisk ( ) — e.g., (D) - only a portion of the v(v). of the following MS(S)

TABLE 1
Textual Variations of the Numerical Data of Genesis 5

Figures are the years given in a particular verse (left column) for particular text (listed at the top). See Sigla table for symbols. Primary data as given by Ellinger and Rudolph (1977, pp. 7-8); Von Gall (1918, pp.7-9); Josephus Antiquities (i:3:4); and Wevers (1974, pp. 102-108).

Verse	MT	Sam.	Jos.	LXXA	Variants of LXX
3	130	130	230	230	130	330
4	800	800	—	700	200	705	800
5	930	930	930	930	230
6	105	105	205	205	105	135
7	807	807	—	707	700	807
8	912	912	912	912	902	910
9	90	90	190	90txt/190mg	90	95	110	140
10	815	815	—	715	15	705	815	915
11	905	905	905	905	825	915	925
12	70	70	170	170	70	180
13	840	840	—	740	840
14	910	910	910	910	710
15	65	65	165	165	65	160
16	830	830	—	730	700	704	830	1000
17	895	895	895	895	795	805	890	905
18	162	62	162	162	192
19	800	785	—	800	700	785
20	962	847	962/969	962	162	840	847	965
21	65	65	165	165	65	162
22	300	300	—	200	300
23	365	365	365	365
25	187	67	187	167*/187c	165	167	177
26	782	653	—	802*(vid)/782c	300	802
27	969	720	969	969	949	965
28	182	53	182/188	188	148	180	182
30	595	600	—	565	560
31	777	653	707/777	753	780	853	733	755
							553	953
						777	843	753
							773	747
32	500	500	500	500	700

TABLE 2
Septuagint Manuscripts of Genesis 5

Letters and numbers refer to different manuscripts with the variant given at the left. See Sigla table for symbols. Primary data as given by Wevers (1974, pp. 102-108).

Verse	Variant	Manuscript
3	230	A, D, M, 17', 135', C´’-18, 75, s, 121, 346, 392, 730, 318, z-31, 55*, 319, 509, 59, Cyr II 44, Eus IV 25
	130	344, Syh, oil', 135
	330	424, 31
4	700	A, DG, M, 911, 17', 376, C´’-18, 730, s, t, y-424', z-31, 55, 59, 319, 509
	200	129txt
	705	135
	800	344, oil'
5	930	A, D(vid), M, 911(vid), 17', 135, 376, C´’-18, 75, 730, s, t, y-527, 71, 318, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, a', Epiph De Mensuris, 159
	230	129*, 53
6	205	A, M, 17', 135', C´’-18, 75, 730, s, t, 318, y-527, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Cyr II 45
	105	135, Syh, oil'
	135	344', oil'
7	707	A, M, 911(vid), 17, 135, 16, C´’-18, 75, 346, 730, s, 318, 71, 121, 392, 424, z-31, 55, 59, 319, 509, Syh Ä
	700	31
	807	135, s-343, oil'
8	912	A, 911(vid), 426, 17', 135', d, 44, 127, t-799, 318, 319, 129, 54, Syh Ä
	910	M, 422, C´’-16,18, 408, 19', 730, 71, 392, 424, 121, z, 55, 59, 509, Cyr II 45, AethP
	902	18, 130*
9	190	Amg, 911(vid), C´’-16,18,79, 318, 509, 135
	95	s-343, oil'
	90	Atxt, 53, 135, latQIul HilCurs CLIX 5, Vulg, oil'
	110	426
	140	75
10	715	A, M, 911(vid), 376, 17', 16, 75, 130, s, t, 318, 346, 71, 121, 392, 424, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Syh
	915	14, 77', 128txt, 414*, 422, 500, 551, 739*, 73', 413, 550*
	705	135
	815	s-343, oil'
	15	53, 664
11	905	A, DG, M, 911(vid), 17', 135', 16, 75, s, t, 76*, 318, 392, 346, 71, 121, 424, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Cyr II 45, Syh
	915	73c, 550*, 54
	925	664*, 53'
	825	426
12	170	A, M, 911(vid), 901, 400, 17', 135', s, 16, 500, C´’-18, 75, 130, 730, 318, 346, 121, 424, 71, 392, 31', 120', 55, 59, 319, 509, Cyr II 45
	180	d, 527
	70	53'
13	740	A, M, 17', 135', 16, C´’-18, 75, 130, 730, s, 71, 392, 318, 121, 424, 346, 31', 120', 319, 55, 509, Syh
	840	s-343, oil'
14	910	A, M, 17', 135', 16, 422, C´’-18, 75, 130, 730, s, 76*, t, 121, 318, 346, 71, 392, 424, 31', 120mg, 55, 59, 319, 509, Cyr II 45
	710	120txt, 407
15	165	A, M, 911(vid), 400*, 17', 135', C´’-18, 75, 78, 730, 71, 318, 346, s, 121, 392, 424, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Cyr II 45, Syh
	160	707
	65	53, 664c, s-343, oil'
16	730	A, M, 911(vid), 135c, 17', 16, C´’-18, 52c, 56mg, s, 730, 318, y-527, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Syh
	704	72
	700	56txt
	1000	130*c pr m, 135*
	830	52*, s-343, oil'
17	895	A, M, 135, 17', 376, 16, 75, 343, s, 318, 424, 346, 121, 31, z, 55, 551, 319, 509, Cyr II 45, Syh
	795	C´’-16,18,313c,413,551',646,739, 392, 730, 79
	905	107
	805	125, 59*(c pr m)
	890	246
18	162	A, D, M, 17', 135, 376, 16, C´’-18, 550c, 75, 130, 730, s, 318, 346, 121, 392, 424, z, 55, 319, 509, Cyr II 45, Syh
	192	550*
19	800	A, M, 17', 135', C´’-16,18,500, n, 730, y-346', z, 55, 59, 319, 509
	785	130(vid), 344'
	700	53'
20	962	A, D, M, 911(vid), 135, 17', 376, 16, 25, C´’-18, 73, 75, 569, s, 130, 730, 392, 318, 79, 121, 346, 424, 31', 120, 55, 509, 319, Syh
	162	646*
	847	344', oil'
	840	130
	965	54
21	165	A, D, Mmg, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’-18, 53, 75, s, 730, t-799, 318, y-527, z, 55, 319, 509, Syh
	65	Mtxt, 54, 344, oil'
	162	664
22	200	A, M, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’-16,18, 413, n, 730, t-799, y-527, z, 55, 59, 319, 509
	300	344, oil'
23	365	A, D(vid), M, 17', 135', C´’-18, 75, 730, s, 71, 318, y-527, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Syh
25	167	A*, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’-16,313c, 370, 730, 318, 346, 319, Syh
	187	Ac, D, M, 15, 64, 707, 16, 458, 121, 392, 424, 71, 31', 55, 59, 509, 313c, s-127*, z, Chr VII 181, Syh, oil', Aeth-M, Arab, Tar
	165	d, 527, Sa
	177	75, 127*(vid)
26	802	A*(vid), 911(vid), 17', 135', 318, 346, 408c, 319
	782	Ac, DG, M, 15, 64, 707, C´’-408c, 246, 458, 75, s, 730, 71, 121, 392, 424, z, 55, 59, 509, Aeth-P, Arab, Armet, Syh
	300	130, oil'
27	969	A, M, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’-57c,646, 52, 458, n, s, 730, 71, 318, 121, 346, 392, 424, 120', 31', 55, 59, 319, 509, 130, oil', Syh
	965	82
	949	646, 57c
28	188	A, D, M, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’, s, 730, t, 121, 346, 392, 424, 318, 71, z, 55, 59, 319, 509, Or Sel 104, Chr VIII 629, Syh
	180	458, 75, Chr VII 181
	148	Sa
	182	AethG, Arab, Tar
30	565	A, M, 911(vid), 17', 135, C´’, 761, 314, 75, s-130, 730, 76', 134, 799, 346, 392, 318, 376, 424, 71, 121mg, 31', 120', 55, 59, 319, 509, Or Sel 104, Syh
	560	121txt
31	753	A, M, 376, 17', 135', C´’, n, 130(vid), s-344mg, 730, 799, t, 346, 392, 121, 424, 31', 120, 55, 59, 319, 509, Or Sel 104, Syh
	853	911(vid)
	780	72
	755	707, 19', d, 527
	953	318
	733	71
	553	54
	653	344
	777	Arab, Tar
	743	AethCR
	773	AethFG
	747	Aeth-P
32	500	A, 17', 135', 44*, 319
	700	108*

TABLE 3
Textual Variations of the Numerical Data of Genesis 11

Primary data as given by Ellinger and Rudolph (1977, pp. 15-17); Von Gall (1918, pp. 17-18); Josephus Antiquities (i:6:5); and Wevers (1974, pp. 143-149).

Verse	MT	Sam.	Jos.	LXXA	Variants of LXX
10	100	100	—	100
10	2	2	12	2
11	500	500	—	500	355
12	35	135	135	135	35
13	403	303	—	430	130	330
13	—	—	—	130	135	139
13	—	—	—	330	403	430
14	30	130	130	130	30
15	403	303/330	—	330	303	313	350	403	430	450
16	34	134	134	134	34	104	140	170
17	430	270	—	370	209	270	279	330	430	600
18	30	130	130	130	30	134	135	140	170
19	209	109	—	209	208	250	270	207
20	32	132	130	132	32
21	207	107	—	207	107	700
22	30	130	132	130	30	135
23	200	100	—	200	70	100
24	29	79	28/29/79/120	79	29	70	130	179	209
25	119	69	—	129	22	29	119	122	125	200	229
26	70	70	70	70	109	175	400
32	205	145	205	205	5	75	250

TABLE 4
Septuagint Manuscripts of Genesis 11

Primary data as given by Wevers (1974, pp. 143-149).

Verse	Variant	Manuscript
11	500	A, DG, M, 911, 961, O-15,72',426, C´’, n, t, 55, 59, 319, 509, 121*, 318, 392'
	335	619, z, 121c, 424
12	135	A, D, M, 911, 17, 376, 400, 82, 135, 14, C´’, 313, 18, 129, 246, n, 458, s-343, t, y, 346', 392, 31', 120, 833, 55, 319, 509mg
	35	53', 509txt, Tar
13a	430	A, 52, b, d, 343, 121*, 318, LaA, Aeth, Arabmg, Sa
	330	M, 135, 17', C´’-25*,52,551',569, 458, 75c pr m, 527, Arabtxt, Bo, latAug Quaest 23, rell
	130	569, 75*
13b	130	A, M, 911, 75, 130, 121, 392, 346', 120, 833, 31', 55, 59, 319mg, 509mg
	139	d, t, 15, 17', 135, 426, 54, 129, 246, 343, 318, Sa19
	135	458
13c	330	A, 911, 961, 833, 458, 130, 346
	403	319, 376, 53', 82
	430	M, 319c pr m, 17', 135, 426, d, n, 392, 54, 55, 527, LaX, Co, Aeth-P
14	130	A, M, 911, 961, 82, 135, 17', 376, C´’, 569, 129, 246, 458, n, s-343, t, 318, 424, 121, 392, 346', 31, 122, 120', 833, 55, 59, 509, 319c pr m
	30	53', Tar
15	330	A, DG, M, 17', 135, 75, 121, 424, 527, 31', 833
	313	911sic
	303	961, 458, 318, Sa
	350	707, 72, C´’, s-343, 730, 59, 346
	403	82, 376, 319, 53', Tar
	430	120', LaX, AethC
	450	509
16	134	A, M, 911, 961, 82, 135', C´’-25,408*, 78, 129, 17', 246, 75, 130, s-343, t, 121, 318, 424, 392, 31', 346', 407, 833, 509, 55, 59, 319c
	140	25
	170	408*, 120
	104	458
	34	319*, 53', Tar
17	370	A, 911, 31pr m
	270	M, 961, 72, C´’, 18, 129, 246, 458, n, 833, 346', 46, t, 318, 730, s-343, 59, 55, 509, Arm, Sa, Bo
	209	17, 135, 54, d, 15, 426
	279	392
	330	53, 664*, Arab
	430	82, 376, 664c, AethC, Tar, 319, 120'
	600	707
18	130	A, M, 911, 75, 121, 318, 122, 833, 319c, 376, 31, C´’, 313mg, y, s-343, 55, 59, 509
	134	961, 135, 17', b, d, t-46, 615', 52', 54, 569, 15, Arm, Sa
	30	82, 53', 319*, Tar, Sa20
	135	458, 120'
	140	46
	170	408
19	209	A, M, 911, 961, 17', n, 135', 122, 458, s-343, t, 121, 318, 346', 392, 424, z, 82, 833, 319, 55, 59, 509, 313mg
	208	C´’-422,551', 52
	250	422, 551'
	270	Bo
	207	246
	om	408*, 761
20	132	A, M, 911(vid), 17', 135', C´’, 79, 129, 246, 458, t, 75, s-343, 46, 121, 346', 424, 31, 122, 120', 833, 392, 319c, 55, 59, 509
	32	82, 53', 318, 319*, Tar
21	207	A, M, 911, 961, 135', 17', 82, C´’-18, n, s-343, t, 392', 424, 121, 318, 619, 31', 120', 833, 55, 59, 319, 509
	107	Arabtxt
	700	346
22	130	A, M, 911, 961, 135', C´’, 54, s-343, t, 121, 424, 346', 392, 31', 120', 833, 55, 59, 319c
	30	17', 82, 16, 53, 664(vid), 319*, Tar
	135	129, 246, Aeth-C
23	200	A, 17', 82, 135', C´’, 75, t, 392, 120', 55, 59, 319, 509
	70	707
	100	Arabtxt
24	79	A, M, 961, 17', 135', C´’, s-343, 46, t, 346', 392, 120', 509, 55, 319c, 911(vid)
	29	82, 376txt, 319*, Tar
	70	72'
	130	Sa19
	179	19', 343, Aeth
	209	376mg (vid)
25	129	A, M, 911, C´’-l8,414', 75, s-343, 346', 392, 120', 31, 833, 25, 55, 59c, 509, 77
	29	422txt (mg inc),414
	119	82, 376, 319, 53', Arab, Tar
	122	961, 15, 426, 17 ', 135, 54, d-44, 129, 343, Arm
	125	b
	229	458
	22	44
	200	59*
26	70	A, M, 911*c pr m, 961, 17', 82, 135', 414, C´’-422, 551*, 129, 246, t, y-346,619, z, 55, 59, 319, 509
	109	75
	175	458
	400	707*
32	205	A, M, 15', 376, 121, 53, 458, n, 344', t-134, C´’-569, 318, 424, 346, 392', 122, 120', 833, 55, 59, 319, 509, LaA
	5	135
	75	569, 44, 129
	250	134

III. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DATA

    As can be seen from Tables 1 and 3, there is at least one variation for each verse among the Septuagint MSS, with the two exceptions of Genesis 5:23 and 11:10a. It is interesting to note that with only these two exceptions there is total agreement among all of the authorities cited concerning the age of Enoch when he was translated and the age of Shem when he became the father of Arpachshad. There is not quite total agreement on the birth of Arpachshad occurring two years after the flood.
    It can be seen from the above that if the LXX chronology is chosen to have priority over the others, one must decide which LXX MS (or perhaps MS tradition) is to betaken as normative. Of the three major codices (MSS ÀAB), only the Alexandrinus (MS A) is extant for this part of Genesis, and even for it, there are three variations (Genesis 5:9, 25-26, cf. Tables 1 and 2). It has been suggested that the LXX chronology is confirmed by Josephus because his data are nearly the same (Zurcher 1960, p. 60). However, in addition to the arguments against that position (Hasel 1980, pp. 26-27), the question arises as to which MS it confirms. The Alexandrinus comes close, but even if that were the case, an agreement between two sources does not necessarily prove originality. The MSS of Josephus also contain several variants (cf. Tables 1 and 3) of their own.
    It has recently been suggested that the Samaritan Pentateuch preserves the oldest account of the figures, at least for the antediluvian period, because the flood date for it and the Book of Jubilees (4) is the same. Further, it is said that in their extant forms, all three ancient sources (MT, LXX and Sam) are schematized, thus leaving the question of priority open (Johns 1984, p. 14). However, the chronology before the flood in the Book of Jubilees has been demonstrated to be based largely on the Samaritan Pentateuch, although certain postflood figures are dependent upon the LXX (cf. Cassuto 1961 in Hasel 1980, pp. 27, 31). It also seems somewhat precarious to base such conclusions on a highly schematized source (the Book of Jubilees) to confirm the data of an earlier text (the Samaritan Pentateuch) to which it was dependent in the first place.
    In comparing the texts, it is interesting to note that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Masoretic text 19 out of 28 times for the antediluvian period (cf. Table 1). Only with Jared, Methuselah and Lamech are the data changed in order to make all three die in the year of the flood. That this was the case seems rather improbable, with the exception of the death of Methuselah whose name might indicate this. In contrast, there is only a 4 out of 19 agreement between the same two texts for the postdiluvian period (cf. Table 3). It is possible that the large difference reflects an attempt to make this genealogy more symmetrical with its counterpart in chapter 5, thus making the deaths of these patriarchs occur in the approximate order of their births, instead of Abraham being partly contemporary with most of his preceding postflood ancestors from Shem on, as in the Masoretic text.
    Given such a wide variation in the data of the LXX MSS, it is most instructive to make comparisons between texts while choosing one as representative. The Alexandrinus, the earliest extant MS (5), is usually chosen for this purpose; however, the earliest extant MSS are not always the best or most original. It is true that many times the majority of MSS follow the numerical data given by this early MS. However, this is by no means consistent (6). Schematization on the part of the LXX is thus multiplied, in that the scribes either misunderstood earlier MSS or, endeavoring to correct what was felt to be erroneous, developed their own. The reason for the original scheme remains unknown (7).

IV. CONCLUSION

    It would appear from the foregoing analysis that the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 in both the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch are inconsistent due to textual variants in the numerical data to one degree or another, as well as various forms of schematization. The wide variation in the LXX MSS, which may also point to a variety of views concerning scheme, appears to mitigate against it as the most popular alternative to the Masoretic chronology which in contrast has no variant readings of the numerical data in all of the known MSS, nor reveals any kind of scheme. It would therefore seem that at present the evidence points to the Masoretic text as preserving the figures closest to the original.

FOOTNOTES

1. The second Cainan of Genesis 11:12-13 (LXX) occurs in MSS A, (D), M, 833, (911,961), O^-58,82,376, C´’^-646, b, d, f^-53',56, n, s, t, y^-71, z (407), 55, 59, 319^mg, 509 and Sa. MSS which omit him are 82, 376, 53', 319^txt (c pr m) and Arm. In the Table of Nations in Genesis 10:24, MSS which include him are A, M, 72', C´’, 108, 121, s^-343, 55, 730, and La^I. MSS which omit him are p⁸³³, p^{9l l}, p⁹⁶¹, O^-72', 108, d, f, n, 343, t, y^-71, 619, z^-407, 59, 319 and 509. In 1 Chronicles 1:24 (18), MSS which include him are A, N, a-f, i, (sub Ä), j-z, e₂ and Arm. MSS which omit him are B, g, h, c₂ and Syh. In Luke 3:36, MSS which include him are A, q, y, 0102, ƒ ¹³ (565), R Sy^p.h. MSS which omit him are D and p^{75 (vid)}. (Wevers 1974, pp. 138, 144; Brooke et al. 1932, p. 392; and Nestle et al. 1979, p. 163).
2. The author is aware that the lack of variants in the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch may represent the repression of earlier MSS which deviate from them. This would indicate the possibility that we do not have the original numerical data in any of the extant texts. However, it is felt here that the Texts and MSS which we do possess are primary, and that these ought to be dealt with in their own right, rather than developing a hypothetical set of numbers which may or may not have been in their precursors.
3. The number 303 is found in MSS B, C, E², G¹, I, N, P, Q, W^l, X², B, D, E, G, FfDab. The variant 330 is found in MS  A (Von Gall 1918, p. 17); cf. Table 3.
4. The Book of Jubilees consists of a schematized chronology of 50 Jubilees (i.e., 49 year periods) from Creation to the Exodus which total 2,450 years. It is based on the solar calendar as opposed to the then prevalent lunar calendar.
5. MS p⁹¹¹ is earlier by a century and a half, but is incomplete and contains many lacunae.
6. The numbers given here for the LXX MSS in Tables 1-4 reflect only the numerical value, and do not differentiate between the order of elements (e.g., 188 in Genesis 5:28 appears in the various MSS as 100/80/8 years; 8 and 80 and 100 years; years 100/80/8; years 100 and 80 and 8). This variation in the order of the elements would further indicate their secondary character.
7. The suggestion that the LXX chronology resulted as a response to the Egyptian chronology of Manetho is inadequate. The modern scheme is dated to about 3000 B.C. However, Manetho's actual figures total 5471 years by dead reckoning, from the First Dynasty to the conquering of Egypt by Alexander the Great, a figure which was assumed as fairly accurate until recently (Gardiner 1961, p. 61).

REFERENCES

• Brooke, Alan E., Norman Mclean, and H. St. John Thackeray. 1932. The Old Testament in Greek: the later historical books, Part 3, 1 & 2 Chronicles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Cassuto, U. 1961. A commentary on the books of Genesis, Vol. 1. Magnes Press, Jerusalem.
• Ellinger, K. and W. Rudolph. 1967/77. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart.
• Gardiner, A. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Hales, William. 1930. A new analysis of chronology. C, J, G, & F Rivington, London.
• Hasel, G. F. 1980. Genesis 5 and 11: chronogenealogies in the biblical history of beginnings. Origins 7:23-27.
• Johns, Warren H. 1984. How accurate is biblical chronology? Ministry 57(3):11-15.
• Josephus, F. 1930. Antiquities. Trans. H. St. John Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Josephus, F. 1960. Complete works and dissertation V. Trans. William Whiston. Kregel, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
• Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren. 1979. Novum Testamenturn Graece. Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart.
• Shenkel, J. D. 1968. Chronology and recensional development of the Greek text of Kings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Thiele, Edwin R. 1983. The mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
• Von Gall, A. F. 1918. Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Vormals J. Ricker, Giesser.
• Wevers, J. 1974. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen.
• Zurcher, J. R. 1960. A new analysis of patriarchal chronology. Seminarie Adventiste, Collonges.