For this period we have the genealogy given in Genesis 5, from which we copy the ages of each when he had the son named, as they stand in the Hebrew, the Hebrew-Samaritan, and the LXX. texts:
HEBREW SAMARITAN SEPTUAGENT
NAMES.
Age at birth of son.
Rest of life
Whole life
Age at birth of son.
Rest of life
Whole life
Age at birth of son.
Rest of life
Whole life
Adam——
130
800
930
130
800
930
230
700
930
Seth——
105
807
912
105
807
912
205
707
912
Enos——
90
815
905
90
815
905
190
715
905
Cainan—-
70
840
910
70
840
910
170
740
910
Mahalaleel -
65
830
895
65
830
895
165
730
895
Jared——
162
800
962
62
785
847
162
800
962
Enoch—-
65
300
365
65
300
365
165
200
365
Methuselah -
187
782
969
67
653
720
167
802
969
Methuselah -
187*
782*
Lamech—-
182
595
777
53
600
653
188
565
753
Noah——
500
450
950
500
450
950
500
450
950
To the Flood
100
100
100
Total -
1656
1307
2242
(* These are from the Alexandrian copy of the LXX.; the rest are from the Vatican copy.)
To persons who have not considered the subject, it may be right to explain what are the Hebrew-Samaritan and Septuagint texts.
The Hebrew-Samaritan text is supposed to date from the time when the ten tribes revolted. As Jeroboam was anxious that his people should not go up to Jerusalem, he doubtless would obtain for them a copy of the law. It is not a translation, but an Hebrew copy in Samaritan characters. It is called the Samaritan Pentateuch, for it contains the first five books of the Old Testament only. If this text originated so early (though this is doubted by some) it is of importance, as showing what was then in their copy; allowance, of course, being made for any alterations, either willful or accidental.
The Septuagint text is the whole of the Old Testament translated into the Greek language. The common account is, that it was nearly all translated in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, about the year B.C. 283. It is said to have been made by seventy or seventy-two persons, and this is why it is called the Septuagint or LXX. This account is doubted by some; but it is clear that it was made before the time of Christ. And what gives it increased importance is, that this translation is often quoted, instead of the Hebrew, in the New Testament. As to why this was done we shall have to consider as we proceed.
It will be observed that from this table we get an accurate measure of time from the creation of Adam to the flood, by adding up the ages of each when he had the son named.
But the three copies do not agree, the difference in the total being considerable, and forms a part of what is called “the long chronology” and “the short chronology,” according as you take the longer or shorter period.
In the table it will be seen that in the LXX. Adam was 230 years of age when Seth was born, but in the Hebrew it is 130, the difference being 100 years; and so of five others there are 100 years’ difference in each. The time after the birth also varies 100 years, so that the length of life is the same; but as the whole period is arrived at by adding the ages of each at the birth of his son, the difference in the two copies is 586 years from the birth of Adam to the flood.
As to which of these copies is correct has been sharply contested, but it is not our intention to enter into the discussion. It must suffice to make a few remarks.
1. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and this, therefore, must have the first claim, and which we must never abandon without sufficient reason.
2. The uniform alteration of 100 years could not have been accidental; it must have been designed; but by whom altered, and for what purpose, is not known.
3. The examination of various Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament, while it bears proof that mistakes were made by the copyists, does not establish the assertion that they willfully altered the text, except where they admit that it has been altered. The assertion that the Jews altered this genealogical list to make the nativity of Christ to appear to be in the fifth millenary instead of the sixth (there being a tradition, it is said, that the Messiah would come in the sixth) is entirely without proof. Besides, is it reasonable that they should do this, and leave untouched the much plainer prophecies that were literally fulfilled by Christ? Such as, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech. 9:99Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. (Zechariah 9:9)).
4. The Vatican copy of the LXX (one of the oldest) is not consistent in itself, for it makes Methuselah to live 802 years after the birth of Lamech: thus outliving the flood by fourteen years! for from the birth of Lamech to the flood was only 788 years, according to the same copy; and 782 years, according to the Hebrew.
5. The Hebrew agrees mostly with the Samaritan copy, which could not be the case if the Hebrew had since been altered, unless it be supposed that the Samaritan had also been altered.
6. But if some of the Hebrew copies had been altered, might we not expect to find that one or more had escaped; but none are known to agree with the Septuagint.
165 years by 2 copies.
167 years by the Vatican and 18 others.
177 years by 1 copy.
187 years by the Alexandrian and 16 others.
And it has been supposed that the various hundred years were added to make the Scripture the better agree with what was then supposed to be demanded by Egyptian chronology.
Hebrew Confirmed by
Age of Jared when Enoch was born——
162
LXX and Josephus.
Age of Methuselah when Lamech was born -
187
LXX Alex. and Josephus.
Age of Lamech when Noah was born—-
182 -
Josephus.
For these reasons, then — but more especially because the Hebrew is the original, and we ought to keep to that, unless we have good proof that it is incorrect — we feel bound to prefer the Hebrew reckoning, and to conclude that from the birth of Adam to the flood was 1656 years, according to the authorized version of the Bible.
It has sometimes been asserted that the History by Josephus is a proof that it is the Hebrew that has been altered, because he says that he copied from the Hebrew, and yet his history is said to agree best with the LXX. But this will not bear investigation, because, 1. His books, as we now have them, are not consistent in themselves; differing so much that some think that he sanctions the long chronology, and others that he sanctions the short. 2. They have doubtless been altered by others; as it is not usual for a writer to state such opposite things. 3. Those who corrupted the Scriptures would not hesitate also to alter Josephus, to make it agree with their alterations.
It may be well, however, to consider an objection that has often been urged why the LXX should be taken in preference to the Hebrew; namely, that the LXX, being so often quoted in the New Testament, is stamped with Divine sanction; and in some places where it differs from the Hebrew, it seems to be preferred to the Hebrew; if so, why not prefer its dates?
The question of quotations from the Old Testament into the New cannot be fully discussed here. It must suffice to notice a few points.
1. That the Greek empire had had general sway for more than 100 years before the rise of the Roman empire, and this caused the Greek language to be commonly spoken.
2. That after the Roman empire was established the Greek language still continued to be commonly spoken in Palestine.
3. That at the time our Savior was on the earth the Greek language was the language commonly spoken in Palestine by the Jews — except perhaps in Jerusalem; though even in Jerusalem, in one case (Acts 21:40; 22:240And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, (Acts 21:40)
2(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) (Acts 22:2)), they were evidently prepared to hear some other language (and what language could that be but the Greek?) rather than the Hebrew; for we read that they gave greater silence because Paul spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue..
There are recorded three interesting instances in which our Lord spoke in the Hebrew tongue: Mark 5.41, when He said to the damsel, “Talitha cumi.” But note that here it was with a ruler of the synagogue, and was in private. Mark 7:3434And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. (Mark 7:34), when He said to the deaf man, “Ephphatha.” But here also it was “aside from the multitude.” Mark 15:3434And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34): “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani.” Here He is addressing God. These cases in no way refute the assertion that the Greek language was commonly spoken.
4. That the Jews sanctioned the use of the Greek language. The Mishna says, “The Jews are not permitted to compose books in all languages; it shall only be permitted them to write books in the Greek. This is a declaration of Rabbi Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, which was acknowledged as a statute. A bill of divorce might be written in Greek or Hebrew, or, if it were wished, in both languages, and might also be signed by the witnesses in Greek or Hebrew; in either language, and with either subscription, it was valid.”
5. From all this it would follow, that those whom our Lord addressed outside of Jerusalem (and it must be remembered that Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us very little of what took place at Jerusalem) commonly spoke the Greek language, and were doubtless more familiar with the Old Testament in Greek than in Hebrew, the doctors, of course, excepted; and our Lord would naturally quote from the Scripture the people were most familiar with.
Take an illustration. Suppose our Lord were again to visit this earth, and to come to England, and address the Christians here, can there be a doubt that in quoting Scripture He would use the English authorized version? Granted that in some cases it may not be a strictly accurate translation of the original, still, if it gives the sense of the original, and thus answered our Lord’s purpose, He would doubtless quote from it. It would at once be recognized by all Christians as Scripture, which would not be the case if some strictly accurate but unknown translation were to be quoted.
And suppose, further, that after this had taken place, some nation, who up to that time had not had the New Testament in their vernacular tongue, determined to translate it; and in doing so they should say, “As our Lord was on earth, and used mostly the authorized English version, that must be correct, and we shall translate from that in preference to the original in Greek,” would they not manifestly make a great mistake?
And yet they would not be more inconsistent than those are who say, “Because our Lord when on earth quoted mostly from the LXX., therefore we shall prefer this to the original.”
An interesting illustration of how, in the New Testament, the LXX. was quoted instead of the Hebrew, where it gave the same sense, though not a strictly accurate translation, may be seen in Heb. 10:55Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Hebrews 10:5):—
LXX
Hebrew
New Testament
Here at first sight appears a wide difference between “mine ears hast thou opened,” and “a body hast thou prepared me.” But it was usual for the Jews to speak of opening or uncovering the ear to signify “a listening to a command, followed by obedience;” and “a body hast thou prepared me” was the means adopted that Christ might give willing obedience to the will of God. Therefore, the sense in both is the same, though the words differ materially, and therefore God could quote either.
Again, then, we are driven to the conclusion, that as the Hebrew is the original, we are bound to adhere to it, until it can be proved to be in error.
From Adam to the Flood, then, were 1656 years. Sixteen centuries: and their history is told in seven short chapters in the book of Genesis! The steps are, the creation, the fall, man driven from Paradise, man multiplies greatly, man sins universally, the ark is prepared, Noah is a preacher, Noah and his family shut in the ark, all else perish; and thus ends the first era of the earth.