The genealogies of Genesis provide the framework around which the Book of Genesis is structured.[1] Beginning with Adam, genealogical material in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 22, 25, 29–30, 35–36, and 46 moves the narrative forward from the creation to the beginnings of the Israelites' existence as a people.[citation needed]
Adam's lineage in Genesis contains two branches: Chapter 4 giving the descendants of Cain, and Chapter 5 that for Seth that is then continued in later chapters. Chapter 10 gives the Generations of Noah (also called the Table of Nations) that records the populating of the Earth by Noah's descendants, and is not strictly a genealogy but an ethnography.[citation needed]
Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 include the age at which each patriarch had the progeny named as well as the number of years he lived thereafter. Many of the ages given in the text are long, but could have been considered modest in comparison to the ages given in other works (for instance, the Sumerian King List).[2]
The ages include patterns surrounding the numbers five and seven, for instance the 365 year life of Enoch (the same as the number of full calendar days in a solar year) and the 777 year life of Lamech (repetitional emphasis of the number seven).[3] Overall, the ages display clear mathematical patterns, leading some people to conclude that number symbolism was used to construct them.[4] Nevertheless, since Genesis 5 and 11 provide the age of each patriarch at the birth of his named descendant, it also appears to present a gapless chronology from Adam to Abraham, even if the named descendant is not always a first-generation son.[5]
Genesis names three children of Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth. A genealogy tracing the descendants of Cain is given in Genesis 4, while the line from Seth down to Noah appears in Genesis 5. Scholars have noted similarities between these descents: most of the names in each are variants of those in the other, though their order differs, with the names of Enoch and Mahalalel/Mehujael switching places in the two pedigrees.[8][9] It is "as if they were different versions of the same underlying tradition."[10] This has led to speculation that a single original genealogical descent had diverged during independent transmission, only to be brought back together and put to different uses when the Book of Genesis was compiled from its Jahwist and Priestly sources.[11][12]
Comparison of descents from Adam given in Genesis (Generations aligned as per Hooke.[12])
Following the Genesis flood narrative, a large multi-branched genealogy presents the descendants of the sons of Noah. (Genesis 10:9) The 70 names given represent biblical geography, consisting of local ethnonyms and toponyms presented in the form of eponymous ancestors (names in origin-myth genealogies that are to be understood as ancestors and embodiments of the peoples whose names they bear). This is a symbolic presentation of the peopling of the world and indicates a view of the unity of the human race.[13] The peoples and places are not organised by geography, language family or ethnic groups,[14] and probably do not represent the geography of a particular point in history, instead deriving from an old nucleus of geographical knowledge to which additional names/peoples were subsequently added.[15]
The following is a family tree[dubious – discuss] for the descendants of the line of Noah's son Shem, through Abraham to Jacob and his sons. Dashed lines are marriage connections.
The numbers given in the text are usually similar but do vary between versions. The numbers in the Masoretic, Samaritan, and Lucianic Septuagint versions of Genesis are shown in this table:[21]
The following table lists the patriarchs that appear in the Vulgate and the Septuagint, but their names are spelled as they appear in the King James Version of the Bible. Their year of birth differs according to the Vulgate or the Septuagint. Also given is each patriarch's age at the birth of his named son and the age of the patriarch's death. Cainan, born after the flood, is mentioned in the Septuagint but not the Vulgate.[22] Methuselah survived the flood according to the Septuagint (but not the Vulgate), even though he was not on Noah's Ark.[23]
The genealogies of Genesis contain a difficulty with regards to the birth of Arphaxad. One method of calculating places the birth of Arphaxad 600 years after the birth of Noah, while another places Arphaxad's birth 602 years after Noah.[24] The table below uses the 602-year method; the 600 year method would decrease the date for Arphaxad and all the following figures by two years.[citation needed]
This chart counts year totals only. Anno Mundi (AM, or 'in the year of the world') can be calculated by adding 2 to any given value in either the "Birth" or "Death" columns. The result will give a corresponding date in AM.[25][26][27] The epoch for this calendar system is 3761 BC.[28][29]
(Note: the numbers in green are consistent across all versions, while the numbers in yellow are contradicted in one other version and the numbers in red are contradicted by more than one of the other versions.)
2On this chart Noah is listed as having lived 502 years when he begat Shem and this calculation is based on the birth year of Arphaxad.[45][non-primary source needed] The extra-biblical Book of Jasher also mentions that Noah was 502 years old when his wife Naamah bore Shem.[46][non-primary source needed]
Number symbolism
The following table lists all the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Moses in the Masoretic Text, which add up to 12,600.[47]
Patriarchs
Age
Patriarchs
Age
1. Adam
930
14. Eber
464
2. Seth
912
15. Peleg
239
3. Enosh
905
16. Reu
239
4. Kenon
910
17. Serug
230
5. Mehalalel
895
18. Nahor
148
6. Jared
962
19. Terah
205
7. Enoch
365
20. Abraham
175
8. Methuselah
969
21. Isaac
180
9. Lamech
777
22. Jacob
147
10. Noah
950
23. Levi
137
11. Shem
600
24. Kohath
133
12. Arpachshad
438
25. Amram
137
13. Shelah
433
26. Moses
120
TOTAL
12,600
The value of 12,600 is a variant of the symbolic value of 1,260 later used in the Book of Revelation (e.g. Rev. 11:2–11; 12:4–6, 11; 13:5[non-primary source needed]), although may derive from earlier traditions.[citation needed] Another example of the numerical schema of 12,600 can be found in the War Scroll discovered at Qumran, where "the Sons of Light shall fight against the Sons of Darkness in the final days for a period of 35 years. Employing the Jewish luni-solar calendar of the 360-day year, 35 years equals 12,600 days."[47] The patriarchal ages were individually selected to achieve this total.[citation needed]
Usage of Anno Mundi
The current formal usage of the Anno Mundicalendar era is implemented based on the calculations of Maimonides in Mishneh Torah (completed in AD 1178).[48][non-primary source needed] It is the official method of calculating years for the Hebrew calendar currently in use. Based on a calculation using the Masoretic Text recorded in the Seder Olam Rabbah (c 160 AD) of Rabbi Jose ben Halafta, the first five days of creation in Genesis were in Anno Mundi 1,[29] and the creation of Adam was on 1 Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah) in Anno Mundi 2[26][27] which corresponds to 3760 BC.[25][49] The official Anno Mundi epoch is Anno Mundi 1. This first year begins almost a full year before creation and is commonly referred to as The Year Of Emptiness or The Ascension Year in Jewish tradition and coincides with the years 3761/3760 BC.[50][51][52]
Counting years
Counting a number of years based on an annual fixed calendar date yields a different result from a rolling year count based on dates such as birthdays which have the possibility of being at any time of the year and change depending on the individual. Using this method has led some chronologists to add or subtract a 0.5 year margin to/from the birth year of each patriarch to account for unknown birth dates.[citation needed]
The first mention in Genesis of the use of a fixed method to reckon years is made in Genesis 1 referring to the "lights in the firmament".[53][non-primary source needed] A fixed calendar system is usually determined by an annual epoch such as New Year's Day (1 January) which is fixed by the alignment of astronomical objects; the reckoning of the year occurs on its epoch. Years represented in Anno Mundi dates could be interpreted to be in alignment with Rosh Hashanah and are counted according to its annual occurrence.[54]
Birth years of Shem and Arphaxad
There are several different interpretations as to the exact birth year of Shem and his son Arphaxad. Based on Noah being at least 500 years old when he began to beget children[55][non-primary source needed] and Noah's sons each having an age difference,[56][57][non-primary source needed] it is not uncommon to encounter chronologies that list Shem as being 98 years old when the flood began. Shem begat Arphaxad two years after the flood when he was 100 years old.[45]
In the Masoretic, Vulgate and the Samaritan Pentateuch the method of starting from the birth of Noah and adding exactly 500 years until Shem, and adding another 100 years until the birth of Arphaxad (Born 2 years after the flood) would be the same year as the death of Methuselah following the above chart.[58][non-primary source needed] Since Methuselah was not mentioned in Genesis among those who were aboard the ark,[59][60][non-primary source needed] it is possible that his death came in the same year of the flood.[citation needed]
Based on the Masoretic Text, counting 1656 years on the above chart will result in being the 600th year of Noah's life, the year of the death of Methuselah and year that the flood began.[61][62][non-primary source needed] The two-year discrepancy is commonly resolved by rendering the birth year of Shem in the same year that Noah was 502 years old, and rendering Arphaxad as having been born two years after the death of Methuselah and the flood.[citation needed]
Differences in the numbers
A comparison of the Genesis 5 numbers (Adam through Noah) in the above table shows that the ages when the sons were born plus the remainders equal the totals given in each version, but each version uses different numbers to arrive at these totals. The three versions agree on some of the total ages at death, but many of the other numbers differ by exactly 100 years. The Septuagint ages of the fathers at the birth of their sons are in many instances 100 years greater than the corresponding ages in the other two versions; in Genesis 11 some of the Samaritan Pentateuch ages agree with the Septuagint ages and are also 100 years beyond that of the Masoretic and Vulgate versions.[63][64]
The Samaritan chronology has Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech dying in Noah's 600th year, the year of the flood. The Masoretic chronology also has Methuselah dying in Noah's 600th year, but the Masoretic version uses a different chronology than the Samaritan version, with about 350 extra years between creation and flood. The Lucianic text of the Septuagint has Methuselah surviving the flood and therefore the 100 year differences were not an attempt by the Septuagint editors to have Jared, Methuselah, or Lamech die during or prior to the flood.[65] Some scholars[66] argue that the differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint chronologies in Genesis 5 can be explained as alterations designed to rationalize a primary Masoretic system of chronology to a later Septuagint system. According to another scholar,[67] to assume that the Masoretic Text is primary "is a mere convention for the scholarly world" and "it should not be postulated in advance that MT reflects the original text of the biblical books better than the other texts." The present-day Greek Orthodox Septuagint text still offers the Lucianic numbers for Methuselah,[68] which undoubtedly are the numbers as found in the original Septuagint text, most likely based on the Hebrew original that was used for the translation. This opens the possibility that these were the original numbers in the Hebrew tradition also, that only later, after discovering the chronological discrepancy, have been changed by adapting the Methuselah numbers to 167+782=969 (in some Septuagint manuscripts) or to 187+782=969 (in some other Septuagint manuscripts as well as in the present-day Masoretic text). The scholarly Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek at Alexandria, Egypt, in about 280 BC worked from a Hebrew text that was edited in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.[69] This would be centuries older than the proto–Masoretic Text selected as the official text by the Masoretes.[67]
The Genesis 5 ages were presumably intended to be read at face value, as years and not months.[70] Attempts to rationalize the ages by translating "years" as "months" results in some of the Genesis 5 people fathering children when they were five years old (if the Masoretic chronology is assumed to be primary).[71]
There is one discrepancy between the antediluvian chronologies of different texts of the Septuagint - the age at which Methuselah gave birth to Lamech: 167 or 187 years. Because of this, the date of the Flood is shifted by 20 years. This difference is probably due to the different lists of the Septuagint from which the translation was made. For example, according to Lucianic version of the Septuagint (end of the 3rd century), the Flood was in 2242, and according to the Code of Alexandria of the Septuagint the Flood was in 2262 from cm. (as in the printed editions of the Septuagint, for example, the Frankfurt Bible or the reconstruction of G. B. Sweet; as well as in the Church Slavonic translation of the Elizabethan Bible).[citation needed]
Priestly source
The Priestly source illustrates history in Genesis by compiling the genealogy beginning with the "generations of the heavens and the earth" and continuing through Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac to the descendants of Jacob and Esau. Jacob's descendants are listed in Genesis 46:8-27, beginning with the phrase "these are the names."[72]
Similar Mesopotamian traditions
The genealogies of Genesis have been likened to the Sumerian King List.[73] Some versions of the latter (not including the oldest known version, where no flood is mentioned)[74] consist of a list of implausibly long-lived figures, followed by a flood, followed by a list of figures with long but gradually shortening lifespans that move into normal historical lengths. Attempts at finding a correlation between the ages presented in the two lists have been made.[75]
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. p. 264. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. Although the ages in our section may appear high compared with the normal human life-span, yet if we bear in mind the notions prevailing in the environment in which the Torah was written, and the impression that the reading of this section must have left on its ancient readers, they will seem, on the contrary, low and modest.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. pp. 261–262. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. {...}the numbers five and seven are specially stressed in the text, in a way calculated to attract the reader's attention.{...}In the enumeration of Lamech's years-seven and seventy years, and seven hundred years (v.31)- the emphasis given to the number seven is even more manifest.{...} Possibly the number 365 in v.23 is intended by Scripture to provide us with the key to the understanding of our subject, as though to say: Pray do not forget that every year has 365 days.
^Anderson, Robert T.; Giles, Terry (2012). The Samaritan Pentateuch: an introduction to its origin, history, and significance for biblical studies. Society of biblical literature resources for biblical study. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN978-1-58983-699-0.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. p. 266. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. The names of the founding fathers of the world in our chapter, beginning with Enosh, bear a remarkable resemblance to the names that appear in the family-tree of the sons of Cain.{...}the series Mahalalel-Jared-Enoch parallels, in reverse order, the series Enoch-Irad-Meḥujael{...}the similarity is striking, and cannot be regarded as fortuitous.
^Genesis 22:21–22: Uz, Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, and Jidlaph
^John Skinner (1930) [1910]. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. T&T Clark, Edinburgh. p. 134.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1974). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part II From Noah to Abraham. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. p. 251. ISBN978-965-223-540-4. Also here, just as in chapter x (and in agreement with the Book of Jubilees), the Septuagint adds Kenan between Arpachshad and Shelah. Certain scholars suppose that this was the original form of the text{...}the mention of Kenan is not part of the original text, but a later interpolation of no value.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. pp. 264–5. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. In the case of Methuselah there is a deviation only in a few MSS, which give his age at the birth of Lamech as 167 years (twenty years less than the Masoretic figure), but apparently this is a mistake, for according to this reckoning Methuselah would have survived the flood. The number 187 found in the other MSS is not a later correction to make it accord with the Masoretic text, but the original reading of the Septuagint. The error may derive from the number 67 in the Samaritan text.
^Hebrew calendar#Anno Mundi
The Jewish calendar's epoch (reference date), 1 Tishrei AM 1, is equivalent to Monday, 7 October 3761 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar, the equivalent tabular date (same daylight period) and is about one year before the traditional Jewish date of Creation on 25 Elul AM 1, based upon the Seder Olam Rabbah.
^ abRobert D. Bergen (2015). "Genesis". In E. Ray Clendenen; Jeremy Royal Howard (eds.). The Holman Illustrated Bible Commentary. B&H Publishing Group. p. 14. ISBN978-0-8054-9930-8.
^For the proposed etymologies "man of the dart" or "his death shall bring judgement," see Cornwall and Stelman Smith, The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names
^Jasher 5:18 And Noah was five hundred and two years old when Naamah bore Shem, and the boys grew up and went in the ways of the Lord, in all that Methuselah and Noah their father taught them.
^ abJeremy Northcote (2007). "The Lifespans of the Patriarchs: Schematic Orderings in the Chrono-Genealogy". Vetus Testamentum. pp. 243–257, esp. 245, 247.
^Mishneh Torah. pp. Section: Sanctification of the Moon 11.16.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. p. 264. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. In the Septuagint,{...}the figures for the years prior to the birth of the first son show divergences in most instances,{...}For Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Enoch, the number is higher than that of the Masorah by a century
^Cassuto, Umberto (1974). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part II From Noah to Abraham. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. p. 258. ISBN978-965-223-540-4. In the Samaritan Pentateuch, the ages of the patriarchs at the time of birth of the first son, from Arpachshad to Serug, exceed those of the Masoretic text by a hundred years;{...}In the Septuagint{...}In most cases, the father's age at the birth of his first-born is identical with that of the Samaritan recension (in some MSS the age of Nahor exceeds that given in the Samaritan Pentateuch by a hundred years),{...}
^Gerhard Larsson (1983). "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX". Journal of Biblical Literature. 102 (3): 401–409. doi:10.2307/3261014. JSTOR3261014.
^ abEmanuel Tov (1992). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. pp. 11, 352.
^Charles M. Laymon, ed. (1971). The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon Press. p. 1227.
^Cassuto, Umberto (1972). A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Part I From Adam to Noah. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. p. 253. ISBN978-965-223-480-3. Every one who reads our section is amazed at the great ages attained by the patriarchs of the world, which far exceed the normal bounds of human life. Apologists have, indeed, attempted in various ways to lend credibility to the figures, but these attempts cannot be regarded seriously. To this category, for instance, belongs the hypothesis that the years mentioned here are not years of twelve months each, but much shorter periods of time. It cannot be questioned that words like nine hundred years mean, quite literally, what they state.
^Joseph Blenkinsopp (1992). The Pentateuch. Doubleday. p. 74. ISBN0-385-41207-X.
^Coogan, Michael David. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. THIRD ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014, p. 78
^Jöran Friberg (October 2007). A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts. Springer. pp. 241–2. ISBN9780387489773. The list of kings and the years of their reigns in the antediluvian part of the Sumerian king list has often been likened to the list of biblical partiarchs in Genesis V.{...}As mentioned already, unrealistically huge numbers are used in the king list for the "legendary reigns" of the antediluvial kings, of the kings of the three first dynasties in Kish, and of kings of the first dynasty in Uruk, while more realistic numbers seem to be used for the "historical reigns" of the remaining dynasties. (Similarly, as was shown above, unrealistically large numbers are used in the list of patriarchs in Genesis V.){...}It is difficult to see any mathematical pattern behind the numbers in any one of the antediluvian king lists, just as behind the numbers in the list of patriarchs in Genesis V.
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise (1996). How Writing Came About. University of Texas Press. ISBN0-292-77704-3.
External links
Sexton, Jeremy. "Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90? A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps," Westminster Theological Journal 77 (2015): 193-218 (pastorsexton.com/articles)
