CHAPTER V.

_The Ante-Diluvian Patriarchs_ (Priestly-Code).

In the Priestly Code the interval between the Creation (1¹‒2⁴ᵃ) and the Flood (6⁹ ᶠᶠᐧ) is bridged by this list of ten patriarchs, with its chronological scheme fixing the duration of the period (in Massoretic Text) at 1656 years. The _names_ are traditional, as is shown by a comparison of the first three with 4²⁵ ᶠᐧ, and of numbers 4‒9 with 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ. It has, indeed, been held that the names of the Cainite genealogy were intentionally modified by the author of Priestly-Code, in order to suggest certain views as to the character of the patriarchs. But that is at best a doubtful hypothesis, and could only apply to three or four of the number. It is quite probable that if we had the continuation of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy, its names would be found to correspond closely with those of chapter 5.――The _chronology_, on the other hand, is based on an artificial system, the invention of which may be assigned either to Priestly-Code or to some later chronologist (see page 136 below).――What is thoroughly characteristic of Priestly-Code is the _framework_ in which the details are set. It consists of (a) the age of each patriarch at the birth of his first-born, (b) the length of his remaining life (with the statement that he begat other children), and (c) his age at death.¹ The stiff precision and severity of the style, the strict adherence to set formulæ, and the monotonous iteration of them, constitute a somewhat pronounced example of the literary tendencies of the Priestly school of writers.

¹ Only in the cases of Adam (verse ³), Enoch (²²ᐧ ²⁴) and Lamech (²⁸ᐧ ²⁹) are slight and easily explicable deviations from the stereotyped form admitted. The section on Noah is, of course, incomplete.

The distinctive phraseology of Priestly-Code (אֱלֹהִים‎, בָּרָא‎, דְּמוּת‎, זָכָר ‎ וּנְקֵבָה‎) is seen most clearly in verse ¹ᵇᐧ ², which, however, may be partly composed of glosses based on 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ (see on the verses). Note also תּוֹלְדֹת‎ (¹ᵃ), צֶלֶם‎, דְּמוּת‎ (³), הוֹלִיד‎ (throughout), הִתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים‎ (²²ᐧ ²⁴,, compare 6⁹); the syntax of the numerals (which, though not peculiar to Priestly-Code, is a mark of late style: see Gesenius-Kautzsch, § 134 _i_; Davidson § 37, _R._ 3); the naming of the child by the father (³).――The one verse which stands out in marked contrast to its environment is ²⁹, which is shown by the occurrence of the name יהוה‎ and the allusion to 3¹⁷ to be an extract from Yahwist, and in all probability a fragment of the genealogy whose first links are preserved in 4²⁵ᐧ ²⁶.

“The aim of the writer is by means of these particulars to give a picture of the increasing population of the earth, as also of the duration of the first period of its history, as conceived by him, and of the longevity which was a current element in the Hebrew conception of primitive times” (Driver _The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ page 75). With regard to the extreme longevity attributed to the early patriarchs, it must be frankly recognised that the statements are meant to be understood literally, and that the author had in his view actual individuals. The attempts to save the historicity of the record by supposing (a) that the names are those of peoples or dynasties, or (b) that many links of the genealogy have been omitted, or (c) that the word שָׁנָה‎ denotes a space of time much shorter than twelve months (see Dillmann 107), are now universally discredited. The text admits of no such interpretation. It is true that “the study of science precludes the possibility of such figures being literally correct”; but “the comparative study of literature leads us to expect exaggerated statements in any work incorporating the primitive traditions of a people” (Ryle, quoted by Driver page 75).

The author of Priestly-Code knows nothing of the Fall, and offers no explanation of the ‘violence’ and ‘corruption’ with which the earth is filled when the narrative is resumed (6¹²). It is doubtful whether he assumes a progressive deterioration of the race, or a sudden outbreak of wickedness on the eve of the Flood; in either case he thinks it unnecessary to propound any theory to account for it. The fact reminds us how little _dogmatic_ importance was attached to the story of the Fall in Old Testament times. The Priestly writers may have been repelled by the anthropomorphism, and indifferent to the human pathos and profound moral psychology, of Genesis 3; they may also have thought that the presence of sin needs no explanation, being sufficiently accounted for by the known tendencies of human nature.

Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 93‒103) has endeavoured to show that the genealogy itself contains a cryptic theory of degeneration, according to which the first five generations were righteous, and the last five (commencing with Jered [= ‘descent’], but excepting Enoch and Noah) were wicked. His chief arguments are (a) that the names have been manipulated by Priestly-Code in the interest of such a theory, and (b) that the Samaritan chronology (which Budde takes to be the original: see below, page 135 f.) admits of the conclusion that Jered, Methuselah, and Lamech perished in the Flood.¹ Budde supports his thesis with close and acute reasoning; but the facts are susceptible of different interpretations, and it is not probable that a writer with so definite a theory to inculcate should have been at such pains to conceal it. At all events it remains true that no explanation is given of the introduction of evil into the world.

¹ The more rapid decrease of life (in _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) after Mahalalel ought not to be counted as an additional argument; because it is a necessary corollary from the date fixed for the Flood.

1, 2. Introduction.

Consisting of a superscription (²⁵ᐧ ²⁶), followed by an account of the creation and naming of Adam (¹ᵇᐧ ²).――=1a.= _This is the book of the generations of Adam_] See the critical note below; and on the meaning of תּוֹלְדֹת‎, see on 2⁴ᵃ.――=1b.= _When God created Man_ (or _Adam_) _he made him in the likeness of God_] a statement introduced in view of the transmission of the divine image from Adam to Seth (verse ³). On this and the following clauses see, further, 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ.――=2.= _And called their name Adam_] _v.i._

The verses show signs of editorial manipulation. In ¹ᵃ אָדָם‎ is presumably a proper name (as in ³ ᶠᶠᐧ), in ² it is certainly generic (note the plural suffix), while in ¹ᵇ it is impossible to say which sense is intended. The confusion seems due to an attempt to describe the creation of the first man in terms borrowed almost literally from 1²⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ, where אדם‎ is generic. Since the only new statement is _and he called their name Adam_, we may suppose the writer’s aim to have been to explain how אדם‎, from being a generic term, came to be a proper name. But he has no clear perception of the relation; and so, instead of starting with the generic sense and leading up to the individual, he resolves the individual into the generic, and awkwardly resumes the proper name in verse ³. An original author would hardly have expressed himself so clumsily. Holzinger observes that the heading זה ספר תולדת אדם‎ reads like the title of a _book_, suggesting that the chapter is the opening section of an older genealogical work used by Priestly-Code as the skeleton of his history; and the fuller formula, as compared with the usual אלה תולדת‎, at least justifies the assumption that this is the first occurrence of the heading. Dillmann’s opinion, that it is a combination of the superscription of Yahwist’s Sethite genealogy with that of Priestly-Code, is utterly improbable. On the whole, the facts point to an amalgamation of two sources, the first using אדם‎ as a designation of the race, and the other as the name of the first man.

* * * * *

=1.= For אדם‎ LXX has 1º ἀνθρώπων, 2º Ἀδάμ; Vulgate conversely 1º _Adam_, 2º _hominem_.――=2.= שְׁמָם‎] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ שְׁמוֹ‎.

* * * * *

3‒5. Adam.

Adam _begat [a son] in his likeness, etc._] (see on 1²⁶): implying, no doubt, a transmission of the divine image (verse ¹) from Adam to all his posterity.

* * * * *

‎ =3.= וַיּוֹלֶד‎] inserted בֵּן‎ as object (Olshausen al.). הוֹלִיד‎ confined to Priestly-Code in Pentateuch; Yahwist, and older writers generally, using יָלַד‎ both for ‘beget’ and ‘bear.’――בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ‎] LXX κατὰ τὴν εἰδέαν αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴ νεἰκόνα αὐτοῦ.――avoiding ὁμοίωσις (see the note on 1²⁶).――=4.= ויהיו ימי אדם‎] LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ inserted ἃς ἔζησε, as in verse ⁵. Peshiṭtå reads וַיְחִי אדם‎ (but see Ball’s note) as in verses ⁷ᐧ ¹⁰ etc. But verses ³⁻⁵ contain several deviations from the regular formula: note אשר חי‎ in verse ⁵, and the order of numerals (hundreds before tens). The reverse order is observed elsewhere in the chapter.

* * * * *

6‒20. Seth to Jered.

The sections on =Seth=, =Enoš=, =Ḳenan=, =Mahalalel,= and =Yered= rigidly observe the prescribed form, and call for no detailed comment, except as regards the names.

=6‒8.= _Šēth_: compare 4²⁵. For the Jewish, Gnostic, and Mohammedan legends about this patriarch, see Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² 217‒220, and Charles, _Book of Jubilees_, 33 ff.――=9‒11.= _’Ĕnôš_: see on 4²⁶.――=12‒14.= _Ḳênān_ is obviously a fuller form of _Ḳáyin_ in the parallel genealogy of 4¹⁷ ᶠᶠᐧ; and possibly, like it, means ‘smith’ or ‘artificer’ (compare Syrian (‡ Syriac word): see on 4¹). Whether the longer or the shorter form is the more ancient, we have no means of judging. It is important to note that קינן‎ or קנן‎ is the name of a Sabæan deity, occurring several times in inscriptions: see Mordtmann, _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxxi. 86; Baethgen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte Cölestins_ 127 f., 152.――=15‒17.= _Mahălal’ēl_ (= ‘Praise of God’) is a compound with the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον מַֽהֲלָל‎ (Proverbs 27²¹). But there the versions read the participle; and so LXX must have done here: Μαλελεηλ = מְהַלֶּלְאֵל‎, _i.e._ ‘Praising God.’ Proper names compounded with a participle are rare and late in Old Testament (see Driver _Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel_ 14²; Gray, _Studies in Hebrew Proper Names_, 201), but are common in Assyrian. Nestle’s inference that the genealogy must be late (_Marginalien und Materialien_, 7 f.) is not certain, because the word might have been borrowed, or first borrowed and then hebraized: Hommel conjectures (not very plausibly) that it is a corruption of _Amil-Arûru_ in the list of Berossus (see _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_, 29). מ׳‎ is found as a personal or family name in Nehemiah 11⁴.――=18‒20.= _Yéred_ (1 Chronicles 4¹⁸) would signify in Hebrew ‘Descent’; hence the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to the earth (_The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes_ 6²): compare _Jubilees_ iv. 15; _Enoch_ vi. 6, cvi. 13. On Budde’s interpretation, see page 129 above. The question whether עִירָד‎ or ‎ יֶרֶד‎ be the older form must be left open. Hommel (30) traces both to an original Babylonian _‛I-yarad_ = ‘descent of fire.’

21‒24. Enoch.

The account of =Enoch= contains three extraordinary features: (a) The twice repeated וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים‎. In the Old Testament such an expression (used also of Noah, 6⁹) signifies intimate companionship (1 Samuel 25¹⁵), and here denotes a fellowship with God morally and religiously perfect (compare Micah 6⁸, Malachi 2⁶ [הָלַךְ‎]), hardly differing from the commoner ‘walk _before_ God’ (17¹ 24⁴⁰) or ‘_after_ God’ (Deuteronomy 13⁵, 1 Kings 14⁸). We shall see, however, that originally it included the idea of initiation into divine mysteries. (b) Instead of the usual וֵיָּמֹת‎ we read וְאֵינֶנּוּ כּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים‎; _i.e._ he was mysteriously translated ‘so as not to see death’ (Hebrews 11⁵). Though the influence of this narrative on the idea of immortality in later ages is not to be denied (compare Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴), it is hardly correct to speak of it as containing a presentiment of that idea. The immortality of exceptional men of God like Enoch and Elijah suggested no inference as to the destiny of ordinary mortals, any more than did similar beliefs among other nations (Gunkel). (c) His life is much the shortest of the ante-diluvian patriarchs. It has long been surmised that the duration of his life (365 years) is connected with the number of days in the solar year; and the conjecture has been remarkably verified by the Babylonian parallel mentioned below.

The extraordinary developments of the Enoch-legend in later Judaism (see below) could never have grown out of this passage alone; everything goes to show that the record has a mythological basis, which must have continued to be a living tradition in Jewish circles in the time of the Apocalyptic writers. A clue to the mystery that invests the figure of Enoch has been discovered in Babylonian literature. The 7th name in the list of Berossus is Evedoranchus (see _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 532),――a corruption (it seems certain) of Enmeduranki, who is mentioned in a ritual tablet from the library of Asshurbanipal (K 2486 + K 4364: translated in _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 533 f.) as king of Sippar (city of Šamaš, the sun-god), and founder of a hereditary guild of priestly diviners. This mythical personage is described as a ‘favourite of Anu, Bel [and Ea],’ and is said to have been received into the fellowship of Šamaš and Ramman, to have been initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth, and instructed in certain arts of divination which he handed down to his son. The points of contact with the notice in Genesis are (1) the special relation of Enmeduranki to the sun-god (compare the 365 of verse ²³); and (2) his peculiar intimacy with the gods (‘walked with God’): there is, however, no mention of a translation. His initiation into the secrets of heaven and earth is the germ of the later view of Enoch as the patron of esoteric knowledge, and the author of Apocalyptic books. In Sirach 44¹⁶ he is already spoken of as אות דעת לדור ודור‎. Compare _Jubilees_ iv. 17 ff. (with Charles’s note _ad loc._); and see Lenormant _Les Origines de l’histoire_² 223; Charles, _Book of Enoch_ (1893), _passim_.

* * * * *

‎ =22.= ויתהלך――את־האלהים‎] LXX εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ (LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ adds καὶ ἔζησεν Ἐνωχ), Symmachus ἀνεστρέφετο, Peshiṭtå (‡ Syriac phrase), Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ הליך בדחלתא דיי‎: Aquila and Vulgate render literally. The article before א׳‎ is unusual in Priestly-Code (see 6⁹ᐧ ¹¹). The phrase must have been taken from a traditional source, and may retain an unobserved trace of the original polytheism (‘with the gods’).――=23.= ויהי‎] Read ויהיו‎ (MSS, _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX, etc.).――=24.= ואיננו‎] indicating mysterious disappearance (37²⁹ ᶠᐧ 42¹³ᐧ ³²ᐧ ³⁹ [Elohist] 1 Kings 20⁴⁰); see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 152 _m_.――לקח‎] LXX μετέθηκεν, Vulgate _tulit_, but Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ אמית‎. The verb became, as Duhm (on Psalms 49¹⁶) thinks, a technical expression for translation to a higher existence; compare 2 Kings 2¹⁰, Psalms 49¹⁶ 73²⁴. The Rabbinical exegesis (Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, _Bereshith Rabba_, Rashi) understood it of removal by death, implying an unfavourable judgment on Enoch which may be due in part to the reaction of legalism against the Apocalyptic influence.

* * * * *

25‒32. Methuselah to Noah.

=25‒27.= _Methuselah._――מְתוּשֶׁלַח‎ commonly explained as ‘man of the dart (or weapon),’ hence tropically ‘man of violence,’ which Budde (99) regards as a deliberate variation of מתושאל‎ (4¹⁸) intended to suggest the wickedness of the later generations before the Flood (see above, page 129). Lenormant (247) took it as a designation of Saggitarius, the 9th sign of the Zodiac; according to Hommel, it means ‘sein Mann ist das Geschoss’ (!), and is connected with the planet Mars.¹ If the 8th name in the list of Berossus be rightly rendered ‘man of Sin (the moon-god),’² a more probable view would be that שֶׁלַח‎ is a divine proper name. Hommel, indeed, at one time regarded it as a corruption of _šarraḫu_, said to be an ancient name of the moon-god³ (compare Cheyne, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 625, 4412).

¹ _Die altorientalischen Denkmäler und das Alte Testament_ [1902], 29. Here _Amemphsinus_ is resolved into _Amel-Nisin_: formerly (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, xv. [1892‒3] 245) Hommel propounded the view now advocated by Zimmern (see next note).

² Zimmern, _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 532.

³ _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_ ii. [1900] 222. Cheyne (_l.c._) relies on the fact that _šarḫu_ (‘all-powerful’) is an epithet of various gods (Delitzsch _Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums_ 690 a).

* * * * *

=27.= After מתושלח‎ LXX inserts ἃς ἔζησεν (compare verse ⁵).

* * * * *

=29.= An extract from Yahwist, preserving an oracle uttered by Lamech on the birth of Noah.――_This_ (זֶה‎; compare זֹאת‎ in 2²³) _shall bring us comfort from our labour, and from the toil of our hands_ [proceeding] _from the ground, etc._] The utterance seems to breathe the same melancholy and sombre view of life which we recognise in the Paradise narrative; and Dillmann rightly calls attention to the contrast in character between the Lamech of this verse and the truculent bravo of 4²³ ᶠᐧ.

There is an obvious reference backwards to 3¹⁷ (compare עִצְּבוֹן‎, ‎ הָאֲדָמָה――אֵֽרֲרָהּ‎). The forward reference cannot be to the Flood (which certainly brought no comfort to the generation for whom Lamech spoke), but to Noah’s discovery of vine-culture: 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ (Budde 306 ff. al.). This is true even if the hero of the Flood and the discoverer of wine were traditionally one person; but the connexion becomes doubly significant in view of the evidence that the two figures were distinct, and belong to different strata of the Yahwist document. Dillmann’s objection, that a biblical writer would not speak of wine as a comfort under the divine curse, has little force: see Judges 9¹³, Psalms 104¹⁵.――In virtue of its threefold connexion with the story of the Fall, the Sethite genealogy of Yahwist, and the incident of 9²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ, the verse has considerable critical importance. It furnishes a clue to the disentanglement of a strand of Yahwistic narrative in which these sections formed successive stages.――The fragment is undoubtedly rhythmic, and has assonances which suggest rhyme; but nothing definite can be said of its metrical structure (perhaps 3 short lines of 3 pulses each).

=28‒31.= _Lamech._――The scheme is here interrupted by the insertion of verse.

* * * * *

‎ =29.= יְנַֽחֲמֵנוּ‎] LXX διαναπαύσει ἡμᾶς: hence Ball, Kittel יְנִיהֵנוּ‎. The emendation is attractive on two grounds: (a) it yields an easier construction with the following מן‎; and (b) a more correct etymology of the name נֹח‎. The harshness of the etymology was felt by Jewish authorities (_Bereshith Rabba_ § 25; compare Rashi); and Wellhausen (_De gentibus et familiis Judæis quæ 1 Chronicles 2. 4 enumerantur_ 38³) boldly suggested that נֹח‎ in this verse is a contracted writing of נֹחָם‎ = ‘comforter.’――Whether נֹחַ‎ (always written defectively) be really connected with נוּחַ‎ = ‘rest’ is very uncertain. If a Hebrew name, it will naturally signify ‘rest,’ but we cannot assume that a name presumably so ancient is to be explained from the Hebrew lexicon. The views mentioned by Dillmann (page 116) are very questionable. Goldziher (_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xxiv. 207 ff.) shows that in mediæval times it was explained by Arab writers from Arabic _nāḥa_, ‘to wail’; but that is utterly improbable.――מַֽעֲשֶׁנוּ‎] Some MSS and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ have מַֽעֲשֵׂינוּ‎ (plural); so LXX, etc.

* * * * *

=32.= The abnormal age of Noah at the birth of his first-born is explained by the consideration that his age at the Flood was a fixed datum (7⁶ᐧ ¹¹), as was also the fact that no grandchildren of Noah were saved in the ark. The chronologist, therefore, had to assign an excessive lateness _either_ to the birth of Shem, _or_ to the birth of Shem’s first-born.

I. _The Chronology of Chapter 5._――In this chapter we have the first instance of systematic divergence between the three chief recensions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the LXX. The differences are best exhibited in tabular form as follows (after Holzinger):

FB = Age at birth of first-born Ad = Years lived after birth of first-born Tot = Total age

Samaritan Year (A.M.) Massoretic. (Jubilees). LXX. of Death. ───────────── ───────────── ───────────── ──────────────── FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot FB Ad Tot MT. Sam. LXX.

1. Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930 930 930 930 2. Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912 1042 1042 1142 3. Enos 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905 1140 1140 1340 4. Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910 1235 1235 1535 5. Mahalalel 65 830 895 65 830 895 165 730 895 1290 1290 1690 6. Jered 162 800 962 62 785 847 162 800 962 1422 1307 1922 7. Enoch 65 300 365 65 300 365 165 200 365 987 887 1487 8. Methuselah 187 782 969 67 653 720 167¹ 802¹ 969 1656 1307 2256 9. Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753 1651 1307 2207 10. Noah 500 500 500 Till Flood 100 100 100

Year of Flood 1656 1307 2242

¹ So LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ. LXXᴬ and other MSS have 187:782; but this is a later correction.

These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code. That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of investigation along which the solution has been sought.

1. Commencing with the Massoretic Text, we may notice (a) the remarkable relation discovered by Oppert¹ between the figures of the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to the Flood 432,000 years, the Massoretic Text 1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of 365¼ days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Hebrew chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and to have reduced it by treating each _lustrum_ (5 years) as the equivalent of a Hebrew week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say. (b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid,² who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years:³ _i.e._ 26⅔ generations of 100 years, or ⅔ of a world-cycle of 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been propounded by Bousset (_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xx. 136‒147). Working on lines marked out by Kuenen (_Abhandlungen_, translated by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esdra 9³⁸ ᶠᶠᐧ 10⁴⁵ ᶠᐧ, Josephus _Antiquities of the Jews_ viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and _Assumption of Moses_, 1² 10¹², that a chronological computation current in Jewish circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in A.M. 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071; and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4 : 1 (1656 : 414 years). Further, that this system differed from Massoretic Text only in the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Genesis 11²⁴) it substituted (with LXX and _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Exodus 12⁴⁰); and, finally, it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Kings 6¹ LXX). For the details of the scheme, see the article cited above.

¹ _Nachrichten der königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen._, 1877, 201‒223; also his article in _Jewish Encyclopædia_ iv. 66 f.

² See Nöldeke _Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alte Testament_ 111 ff.; Wellhausen _Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels_⁶ 308.

³ Made up as follows:――1656 + 290 (Flood to birth of Abraham: see the Table on page 233) + 100 (birth of Isaac: Genesis 21⁵) + 60 (birth of Jacob: 25²⁶) + 130 (age of Jacob at Descent to Egypt: 47⁹ᐧ ²⁸) + 430 (sojourn in Egypt: Exodus 12⁴⁰) = 2666.――The number of generations from Adam to Aaron is actually 26, the odd ⅔ stands for Eleazar, who was of mature age at the time of the Exodus.

These results, impressive as they are, really settle nothing as to the priority of the Massoretic Text. It would obviously be illegitimate to conclude that of b and c one must be right and the other wrong, or that that which is preferred must be the original system of Priestly-Code. The natural inference is that both were actually in use in the first century A.D., and that consequently the text was in a fluid condition at that time. A presumption in favour of Massoretic Text would be established only if it could be shown that the numbers of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ and LXX are either dependent on Massoretic Text, or involve no chronological scheme at all.

2. The Samaritan version has 1307 years from the Creation to the Flood. It has been pointed out that if we add the 2 years of Genesis 11¹⁰, we obtain from the Creation to the birth of Arpachshad 187 × 7 years; and it is pretty obvious that this reckoning by year-weeks was in the mind of the writer of _Jubilees_ (see page 233 f.). It is worth noting also that if we assume Massoretic Text of Exodus 12⁴⁰ to be the original reading (as the form of the sentence renders almost certain), we find that _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ counts from the Creation to the entrance into Canaan 3007 years.¹ The odd 7 is embarrassing; but if we neglect it (see Bousset, 146) we obtain a series of round numbers whose relations can hardly be accidental. The entire period was to be divided into three decreasing parts (1300 + 940 + 760 = 3000) by the Flood and the birth of Abraham; and of these the second exceeds the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by (2 × 180 =) 360. Shem was born in 1200 A.M., and Jacob in 2400. Since the work of Priestly-Code closed with the settlement in Canaan, is it not possible that this was his original chronological period; and that the systems of Massoretic Text (as explained by von Gutschmid and Bousset) are due to redactional changes intended to adapt the figures to a wider historical survey? A somewhat important objection to the originality of _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ is, however, the disparity between