Pre-Flood ages based upon different calendar?

by Inquisitor 86 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  I found a few other references that presuppose the generation of "Cainan".

  (1) In addition to the legendary discussion of Cainan in ch. 8, Jubilees elsewhere states that "there were twenty-two chief men from Adam until Jacob" (2:23), and this is the case only if Cainan is included as the twelfth generation from Adam.

  (2) Jubilees is otherwise dependent on Enochic traditions (see especially Jubilees 4:16-26), and the Apocalypse of Weeks (from the mid-second century BC) designates Enoch as the "seventh" generation in the first week (1 Enoch 93:3), such that each "week" consists of seven generations. Thus, 1 Enoch 93:4 dates the Flood "within the second week" (i.e. the generation of Shem, the 4th generation of the second week), v. 5 dates the generation of Abraham to the conclusion of the third week (i.e. the 7th generation of the third week), v. 6 dates the giving of the Law to the conclusion of the fourth week (i.e. the 7th generation of the fourth week), and v. 7 dates the building of the Temple to the completion of the fifth week. This scheme also presupposes the generation of Cainan, as its insertion would make Abraham the 21st generation, i.e. the 7th generation of the third week. Without Cainan, Abraham would be the penultimate generation of the third week -- not the last generation. It is the same situation with the timing of the giving of the Law to Moses. 1 Chronicles 6:1-3 indicates that Moses, Miriam, and Aaron were the great-grandchildren of Levi (i.e. Levi > Kohath > Amram > Moses), and by the time the Law was given, Moses already had children of his own (Exodus 2:22). So that would mean that the Law was given in the 4th generation from Levi. If we count the generations with Cainan included, Levi would be the 24th generation, and four more generations would bring us to the 28th, the last generation of the "fourth week" (4 x 7 = 28). Without Cainan, this scheme wouldn't work. This apocalyptic orientation of the scheme is that there would be a total of 10 weeks, or 70 generations until Judgment Day (at the conclusion of the 70th week, cf. 91:15). This is related to the notion in the Book of Watchers that the fallen angels would be bound for 70 generations until Judgment Day (1 Enoch 10:12), although this reckons the start of the 70 generations from the time of Enoch, rather than creation. This amounts to a total of 77 generations until judgement is concluded.

  (3) The Enochic generation scheme is separately used by the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions in its survey of history from creation to the coming of Jesus, and the Pseudo-Clementine use of 1 Enoch is elsewhere well-attested (cf. especially Rec. 1.29, Hom. 8.10-20). In Rec. 1.29, the fallen angels marry women in the 8th generation, and this corresponds to the generation of Methuselah, i.e. the lifetime of Enoch after he fathered Methuselah and when he interceded with the fallen angels. Then, we read that the sons of men "began to multiply in the twelfth generation" (1.30), and this matches with the generation of Arpachshad. Abraham then was born in the 21st generation: "In the twenty-first generation there was a certain wise man, of the race of those who were expelled, of the family of Noah's eldest son, by the name of Abraham, from whom our Hebrew nation is derived" (1.32). This conforms exactly with the scheme in the Apocalypse of Weeks.

  (4) This raises the question of whether the genealogy in Luke follows a similar scheme, and in fact it does indeed appear to do so. If we included the "Cainan" generation, it makes Jesus the 77th generation from the first member of the genealogy, God (Luke 3:38). Counting from Adam, the 77th generation would then be the generation AFTER Jesus, and this fits very well with the first-century apocalyptic expectation that Judgment Day would occur within the lifetime of those who saw Jesus (cf. Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:30, 14:62). Not only is there a coincidental correspondence between the 77 generations of Luke and the 77 generations of 1 Enoch, but the internal structure of the list reflects the use of 7 and 11 (the base denominators of 77) as structuring elements. Thus, Noah is the 11th generation, Abraham is the 22nd generation (11 x 2), Moses (= contemporary of Ram) is the 28th generation (7 x 4), David is the 35th generation (7 x 5), the first Joseph is the 42nd generation (7 x 5), the second Joseph is the 70th generation (7 x 10), and the third Joseph of course begets the 77th generation (7 x 11). And reckoning from Adam, there are also 7 x 3 generations from Adam to Abraham, 7 x 3 generations from Isaac to David, 7 x 2 generations from Nathan to Shelathiel (the exilic generation), and then 7 x 3 generations for the post-exilic era from Zerubabbel to Jesus. So this may support the view that "Cainan" is original to Luke. However the variant textual tradition of the Lukan genealogy (see below) as a whole leaves the question somewhat open.

  That leaves the question of P 75 , and from what I have found, this is somewhat uncertain because the relevant portion of Luke 3:36 falls right into a lacuna in the text:

  TOU[RAGA]UTOUF[ALEK]TOU[EBER]
  T]OU[SALATOUA]RFA[XADTO]U[SHM]
  TOUNWETOU]LAMECTOUMA[QOUSA]

  So it is possible that "Shelah" dropped out instead of "Cainan", although this seems less likely. More important is the early evidence of variant text tradition of Luke 3:23-28 in Irenaeus who wrote around the same time this fragment is paleographically dated (i.e. the late second to early third century AD). He wrote that "Luke shows that the genealogy which is from the generation of our Lord all the way to Adam contains 72 generations, connecting the end with the beginning" (Adversus Haereses, 3.22.3). This means that more names than "Cainan" were missing in his copy of Luke, and indeed we find many places in the genealogy where names are eventually added (such as another "Jacob" in D at 3:23, or "Admin" in other MSS. at v. 33) or removed (such as in some Latin MSS, which have 72 generations) in the textual tradition.

  So this suggests that a missing Cainan or Shelah in P 75 is not unexpected for a late second century date. The presence of "Cainan" in P 4 (third century AD), i.e. TOUFAL[EKTO]UEBER TOUSAL[ATO]UKA[I]N[AM], also shows that this variant was nearly as early in the extant texts. The accuracy argument is problematic because tedious "begat" lists are especially prone to errors, as the textual tradition of the Lukan genealogy itself attests, so it is not implausible that even a careful copyist could have erred (as every other word in the list was TOU, so a scribe copying letter-by-letter could have still settled on the wrong TOU between strokes). More likely in this case, the omission occurred in the parent manuscript that the scribe was copying. No matter how careful, a scribe would not be able to copy something that was already deleted.
• 

  Leolaia

  The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that "Scholars generally agree the book was written (135-105 B.C.). However there is some dispute as to the time of its writing. ... Dr. Headlam suggests that the author was a fervent opponent of the Christian Faith. (see Hastings, "Dictionary of the Bible" "Jubilees, Book of" ) "

  And that was written in 1917.

  That was before fifteen copies of Jubilees in the original Hebrew were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the first century BC (the earliest c. 100 BC), along with one rewritten version (4Q225-227) and another text quoting it as scripture (4Q228). Also the Damascus Document (written in the late second century BC) uses it in 16:2-4.

  Expert opinion is now virtually unanimous that Jubilees dates to between 165 and 145 BC.
• 

  a Christian

  Nark, You asked: What is "correct"? By "correct" I refer to the contents of the book of Genesis as originally written. You wrote: Translating from the (pre-)Masoretic Hebrew text is simply the dominant practice of the Western church since Jerome (hebraica veritas), which was carried over through the Reformers into the modern age. You seem to imply that there is no inherent value in translating the Old Testament from the MT as opposed to doing so from the LXX. You seem to say that the only reason translators now prefer to translate the Old Testament into English and other languages while viewing the MT rather than the LXX is due to some sort of tradition. Certainly you must know better. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The LXX is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The MT is not a translation of the Hebrew text. It is a carefully preserved copy of the Hebrew text. When the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek some things were certainly "lost in translation." Some things are always "lost in translation." (Many Bible scholars and translators believe the original text of scripture to have been supernaturally inspired by God. But few if any of them believe the translators of the LXX were so inspired.) So why would any translator seeking to clearly understand the original meaning of a Bible writer's words want to read them in any language other than that which he wrote them? Why would any translator want to translate from a translation? If someone who reads only German wants to read "A Tale of Two Cities" by the English author Dickens wouldn't he be better off reading a German translation that had been translated from Dickens' original English into German rather than reading a German translation of a Spanish translation of Dickens' English work? Of course he would. It is for this reason that Bible scholars and Bible translators generally prefer the MT to the LXX.
• 

  a Christian

  Leolaia,

  Thank you for all of the information. You have convinced me that if indeed this "second Cainan" did not appear in Genesis as it was originally written, he somehow improperly found his way into the LXX translation of Genesis long before Luke was written. And if that is the case then his illegitimate appearance in the LXX is what must have inspired the author of the Book of Jubilees to refer to him. And it then may have been both his mention in the LXX translation of Genesis and his mention in the Book of Jubilees that inspired a copyist of Luke to improperly take it upon himself to "correct" Luke's genealogy of Christ to include this "second Cainan."
• 

  hillary_step

  AChristian,

  Thank you for all of the information. You have convinced me that if indeed this "second Cainan" did not appear in Genesis as it was originally written, he somehow improperly found his way into the LXX translation of Genesis long before Luke was written. And if that is the case then his illegitimate appearance in the LXX is what must have inspired the author of the Book of Jubilees to refer to him. And it then may have been both his mention in the LXX translation of Genesis and his mention in the Book of Jubilees that inspired a copyist of Luke to improperly take it upon himself to "correct" Luke's genealogy of Christ to include this "second Cainan."

  Which only goes to show that in the matter of detail the Bible cannot be relied on to be the final source. This was the thrust of my argument above.

  HS
• 

  a Christian

  Hillary,

  You wrote: Which only goes to show that in the matter of detail the Bible cannot be relied on to be the final source. This was the thrust of my argument above.

  I think it depends on what you call "the Bible."

  It is certainly true that in the many years since the Bible's writers completed their work, due to mistakes in its copying and in its translation, some of its 'details' have fallen into dispute. However, I believe this almost never poses a problem for the Bible student who is willing to use one common sense rule. When the meaning or content of a particular passage is in question, always rely on the oldest available manuscript written in the Bible's original language.

  In the matter which you raised, Luke's genealogy of Christ and the LXX's Genesis genealogies both apparently containing one more "Cainan" than is mentioned in the MT's Genesis genealogies, following this one common sense rule tells us to reject this second "Cainan" since he does not appear in either the oldest existing Greek copy of Luke or the oldest existing Hebrew copy of Genesis.

  This is not to say that the MT is absolutely free of errors. It is said to have been meticulously copied letter by letter as it was passed down to us over the years. However, at times, it appears that a word or two may have been lost. When this seems to possibly be the case, comparing its contents with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch often proves helpful in recovering that lost word or two.
• 

  Leolaia

  You seem to imply that there is no inherent value in translating the Old Testament from the MT as opposed to doing so from the LXX. You seem to say that the only reason translators now prefer to translate the Old Testament into English and other languages while viewing the MT rather than the LXX is due to some sort of tradition. Certainly you must know better.

  He does not imply that there is "no inherent value" in the MT, I think you have misunderstood him. He is saying that the LXX is a witness to the text that is older than the MT and attests a variant text type to the MT. As far as tradition is concerned, he is drawing attention to the fact that it was the LXX text type and not the MT that played a dominant role in the early church, even in the text of the NT itself (such as the issue involved here, the appearance of "Cainan" in Luke 3).
  

  The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. The LXX is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The MT is not a translation of the Hebrew text. It is a carefully preserved copy of the Hebrew text. When the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek some things were certainly "lost in translation." Some things are always "lost in translation." ... So why would any translator seeking to clearly understand the original meaning of a Bible writer's words want to read them in any language other than that which he wrote them? Why would any translator want to translate from a translation?

  Because the MT text type was NOT the text from which the LXX was translated from. Things are not just lost in translation, things were lost from the Hebrew text (or added) through over 1,000 years of copying (remember, the LXX was translated many centuries before the oldest exemplars of the MT). And even at the time when the LXX was produced, there were already variant editions of books of the OT. So there are countless examples in which LXX readings that depart from the MT are not translation errors, but indeed preserve features of the Hebrew Vorlage. How do we know this? Because these very same departures from the MT turn out to be in the Hebrew manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. And these Hebrew MSS predate the MT by a thousand years. So the LXX is a very important textual witness, older than the MT and more complete than the fragmentary Dead Sea Scrolls. That is how a translator "seeking to clearly understand the original meaning of a Bible writer's words want to read them in a language other than that which he wrote them." That is because, unlike the case with the Greek text of the NT, the OT was very poorly preserved in its first several centuries of existence. The MT is sort of like the Textus Receptus of the OT. What would we do if we had NONE of the early Greek MSS of the NT? Say, the oldest text is the TR of the 1500s, plus a few fragmentary MSS from AD 500. But, imagine there were many complete MSS of the NT in another language, say Latin, dating to AD 300. It has translation errors (even many of them), but it also is a witness to the text far superior to the TR. In no case do we have the "original" text as the authors originally wrote them. But the early translation is in some ways closer to the original text than the TR in the original language a thousand years later.
  

  If someone who reads only German wants to read "A Tale of Two Cities" by the English author Dickens wouldn't he be better off reading a German translation that had been translated from Dickens' original English into German rather than reading a German translation of a Spanish translation of Dickens' English work? Of course he would. It is for this reason that Bible scholars and Bible translators generally prefer the MT to the LXX.

  This is not a valid analogy. We have the original English text of Dickens' novel that can be reproduced today. That is most definitely not the case with the OT.

  And this is not to question the preference of basing a translation on the MT instead of the LXX. I agree that this is the better option. But, as Narkissos said, you should always be aware that what you are reading is a translation of one particular version of the text. It is only one version of the text that is out there. You should be aware that there are other older versions out there, including an ancient translation in Greek, that witness a more ancient Hebrew text, which (on a case by case basis) may represent either a variant that may be equally valid as the MT, or which is probably more original than what is found in the Hebrew. The LXX has its own importance and validity, even if it as a whole is inferior to the MT. And none of these varying versions represent an "original text".
• 

  hillary_step

  Leo,

  And none of these varying versions represent an "original text".

  Exactly, and that is why Biblical religionists who try to offer a defence for a literalist approach to an interpretation of the Bible must by definition fall back on the open-ended claim of Divine Preservation.

  This is of course accepting for the sake of argument that the original text was reliable as anything apart from a testament of faith to begin with.

  HS
• 

  a Christian

  Leolaia,

  Thank you very much for so thoroughly and patiently explaining all of that to me. Though I was aware of some of the benefits which you pointed out of comparing other texts to the MT when translating the Bible. As I acknowledged earlier, "This is not to say that the MT is absolutely free of errors. .... comparing its contents with the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch often proves helpful."

  I also acknowledge Nark's point, that as I read the OT, which has been translated from the MT, I should always be aware of the fact that I am reading a translation of only one version of the text, and almost certainly not a perfect one. At the time Hebrew manuscripts were being chosen by the Masorites some ten to fourteen hundred years ago to form the basis of their text they no doubt had many MSS to choose from. And certainly at that time all those MSS contained slight differences when compared to others which were then available to them. So even if the Masorites never made a single error over the years in copying the MSS they selected to form the basis of their text, the possibility remains that their original choice of MSS may not have been the best choice. And of course the possibility exists that no MSS then in existence contained a fully accurate reproduction of the Bible writers' original written words.

  However, all that being said, I continue to believe that since the MT represents a very carefully preserved copy of fairly ancient Hebrew MSS it is entirely possible that it does in fact represent a very close facsimile to the OT writers' original documents. This of course cannot be said of any other OT text. That being the case, and since we know that the men who translated the LXX often showed no great respect for the work they were hired by "heathens" to do, when the MT differs from the LXX - with very rare exception - I will assume that the MT is the text to be trusted.
• 

  hamsterbait

  We see a similar inflation in Chinese mythology.

  Sages and mythical kings living for hundreds of years. According to Chinese ideas this is because they had more "virtue" or positive life energies so they lived longer.

  We see a similar idea in the assertion that the pre-deluge patriarchs were "nearer to perfection".

  Others have claimed that increased ultra-violet shortened life, once the alleged "water-canopy" no longer protected humans from cosmic rays.

  What is obvious is that humans the world over have a similar mythic imagination. Especially in ages where most people were dead by 25, advanced age was reverenced, then exaggerated in the heoes of the stories.

  HB