by truthlover 12 Replies latest jw friends
While reading some excerpts from his writings, I noticed that he gave the year when Seth was born at 230 years vs the 130 years mentioned in the Bible.. does anyone know why this difference? This is repeated many times when dealing with births in his Antiquities.. I will not be on the board today but if anyone feels free to answer, I will be checking in later
Watching for some time and appreciate all your info
Josephus writes in Greek and is dependent on the Greek version (Septuagint = LXX) of Genesis, which has different figures: LXX Genesis 5:3 reads 230.
Does that mean the 6000 years ended in 1875?
I think Russell thought so. Isn't that where the 1874 date came from?
Earnest,
The difference is much more than 100 years: by LXX reckoning the creation-flood period is 2,242 years instead of 1,656 years in the MT...
Then by LXX reckoning 6000 years ended sometime in the late fourteenth century. Hmmm...I wonder what with the Black Death and the Hundred Years War there weren't any millenarians prophesying the time of the end back then.
slim, Russel did think the 6000 years ended a hundred years earlier but this was not because of a difference between LXX and MT but due to a different understanding of Acts 13:20 which added an extra hundred years to the period of the Judges. This extra hundred years was already understood in 1943 where it was discussed in the book "The Truth Shall Make You Free". In retrospect it is surprising that it was only in 1966 that this became a matter of keen anticipation. Perhaps in the 1940s the end was expected long before 1975 would roll around.
It is technically possible that the Palestinian Hebrew text had numbers similar to the LXX and that Josephus followed the Hebrew (he seems to more often follow a non-LXX text than otherwise). Unfortunately, the DSS copies of Genesis do not have ch. 5 extant (other than the sole name "Kenan"), so we don't know if the numbers in the MT are representative of the Palestinian text as it existed in the first century AD. The one Palestinian source that is extant, Jubilees (dating to the middle of the second century BC), on the other hand has numbers that agree with the Samaritan Pentateuch. So it may be that the SP preserves the older Palestinian tradition.
The inflated numbers of the LXX, particularly concerning the period after the Flood, may possibly reflect Hellenistic synchronistic chronology -- aimed at harmonizing the length of time related in the Pentateuch with the Egyptian self-claim of the antiquity of their civilization. Pushing the date of the Flood further back than allowed by the MT gives more time for the dynasties (1,070 years between the births of Arphachshad and Abram in the LXX as opposed to only 290 years in the MT).
Interesting online articles, old and new:
http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Antediluvian%20Patriarchs
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18761646
The charts of the Wikipedia article can be helpful too:
Thank u all so much for your info -- you must have all understood I left Adams name out when I indicated wrongly, that 230 years vs the 130 years were mentioned after Seth's name...I dont remember hearing of why this year discrepancy happened but with all the info given, I will have a better understanding thanks to you guys and gals
Bottom line is -- we really dont know where we are in the stream of time vs the Bible timeline - as Narkissos pointed out there is a 586 year difference using the LXX vs the MT - has those years been accounted for in any publication that the WTBTS put out? and Leolaia mentioned a difference of
290 years so now the questions is "Where the ..... are we in the stream of time to the end of the system?" Any guesses?
truthlover....The Insight book quotes Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures in order to dismiss the LXX figures; Lange discusses in detail the artificiality of these numbers in comparison to the MT. Lange is certainly correct and most scholars I have read agree that the LXX numbers are not original. However the Insight book and the quote from Lange does not discuss the SP figures, nor do they critically examine the artificality in the MT figures. It is instead probable that the LXX, SP, and MT have each modified the figures in their own way, neither of which preserves the "original" figures in their entirety. It is quite clear however when one critically examines the evidence that the SP is most conservative, the LXX is most innovative, and the MT is somewhere in the middle.
There have been many attempts to reconstruct the original figures of ch. 5 of Genesis; the one I find most persuasive is that of Jacques Ruiten (I have made a few modifications of my own to his theory below). The SP is only slightly modified from the original, with the only figures changed being "rest of life" and "total age" for Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech:
Possible original form of the chronological data in Genesis 5
| age at first child | rest of life | total age | |
| Adam | 130 | 800 | 930 |
| Seth | 105 | 807 | 912 |
| Enosh | 90 | 815 | 905 |
| Kenan | 70 | 840 | 910 |
| Mahalalel | 65 | 830 | 895 |
| Jared | 62 | 900 | 962 |
| Enoch | 65 | 300 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 67 | 902 | 969 |
| Lamech | 53 | 700 | 753 |
| Noah | 500 | 450 | 950 |
| The Flood | 1,307 TOTAL |
Samaritan Pentateuch chronological data in Genesis 5
| age at first child | rest of life | total age | |
| Adam | 130 | 800 | 930 |
| Seth | 105 | 807 | 912 |
| Enosh | 90 | 815 | 905 |
| Kenan | 70 | 840 | 910 |
| Mahalalel | 65 | 830 | 895 |
| Jared | 62 | 785 | 847 |
| Enoch | 65 | 300 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 67 | 653 | 720 |
| Lamech | 53 | 600 | 653 |
| Noah | 500 | 450 | 950 |
| The Flood | 1,307 TOTAL |
The SP retains the original "age at first child" data and so the Flood occurs 1,307 years after the creation of Adam. But in these original data, Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech each outlive the Flood. So the SP artificially makes all three die in the same year -- the year of the Flood. The total of 1,307 years to the Flood is the basis for the ages in the "total age" column for three three patriarchs, and the figures in the middle column rest from the subtraction of the "age at first child". The derivation of the figures in the SP are thus pretty simple and straightforward.
LXX chronological data in Genesis 5
| age at first child | rest of life | total age | |
| Adam | 230 | 700 | 930 |
| Seth | 205 | 707 | 912 |
| Enosh | 190 | 715 | 905 |
| Kenan | 170 | 740 | 910 |
| Mahalalel | 165 | 730 | 895 |
| Jared | 162 | 800 | 962 |
| Enoch | 165 | 200 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 167 | 802 | 969 |
| Lamech | 188 | 565 | 753 |
| Noah | 500 | 450 | 950 |
| The Flood | 2,242 TOTAL |
The LXX figures are also rather straightforward. With the exception of Noah (whose figures are retained without change) and Lamech, the LXX adds 100 years to "age at first child" and subtracts 100 years from the "rest of life" figures. The "total age" figures are the same as the putative "original" figures. Lamech is the main exception. Instead of adding 100 years, 135 years are added to Lamech's "age at first child" and the same amount is subtracted from "rest of life". The extra 35 years resolves a different contradiction in the "original" figures. If Lamech was 153 years old at the birth of Noah, then Noah would have had his first son when Lamech was 653. Lamech died at age 753, which was 100 years later. That puts his death the year of the Flood, as Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came. But the "original" figures have Lamech die 1,407 years after the creation of Adam whereas if you total the "age at first son" figures, the Flood came 100 years earlier. But if you add 35 years to the age when Lamech became father to Noah, then he was 188 years old at Noah's birth and Noah had his first son when Lamech was 688 years old. Since Lamech died at age 753, he would have died 35 years before the Flood (i.e. 2,207 years after the creation of Adam) and 65 years after Noah became a father, and the contradiction is thereby avoided. The addition of the 35 years mirrors the 35 years spanning between the death of Lamech and the Flood. However because the "total age" for Methuselah is retained, Methuselah survives the Flood in the LXX.
The figures in the MT are the most complex:
MT chronological data in Genesis 5
| age at first child | rest of life | total age | |
| Adam | 130 | 800 | 930 |
| Seth | 105 | 807 | 912 |
| Enosh | 90 | 815 | 905 |
| Kenan | 70 | 840 | 910 |
| Mahalalel | 65 | 830 | 895 |
| Jared | 162 | 800 | 962 |
| Enoch | 65 | 300 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 187 | 782 | 969 |
| Lamech | 182 | 595 | 777 |
| Noah | 500 | 450 | 950 |
| The Flood | 1,656 TOTAL |
Notice first of all that the MT has exactly the same artificiality as the LXX in the case of Jared: the MT adds 100 years to "age at first child" and subtracts 100 years from "rest of life". The same is the case with Methuselah, except here the MT adds 120 years in the first column and subtracts 120 years in the second column. This addition of 20 years makes Methuselah die in the same year as the Flood. Finally, 129 years are added to Lamech's "age at first child" and 105 years are subtracted from the "rest of life" figure. The extra 29 years in the first column, when combined with the 20 years for Methuselah, yields a date for the Flood that matches the age of Methuselah at his death. Then 105 years are added to the second column to make Lamech die at the age of 777 -- an artificial number with possibly symbolic significance. This "total age" yields a date of death that is 5 years before the Flood -- the same 5 years that are added to 100 years subtracted from the age in the second column.
This analysis is attractive because it seems to account for most of the variances between the different versions.
