Geoscience Research Institute

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)
— 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
— 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
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
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 AB), 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, 319mg, 509 and Sa. MSS which omit him are 82, 376, 53', 319txt (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 LaI. MSS which omit him are p833, p9l 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 ), 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 Syp.h. MSS which omit him are D and p75 (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, Wl, 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


1985

All contents copyright Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
Send comments and questions to webmaster@grisda.org

| Home | News |
| About Us | Contact Us |