¹ Cf. Shenkel, James Donald, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Wifall, Walter R. Jr, The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 80 (1968), 319–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² In addition to Shenkel and Wifall, special attention should be given to a series of articles by Miller, J. Maxwell: The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars, Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966), 441–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Fall of the House of Abab, Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967), 307–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided Monarchy, Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967), 276–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ The most recent attempt to account for the data is by Barnouin, M., Recherches Numériques sur la Généalogie de Gen. V, Revue Biblique 77 (1970), 347–65.Google Scholar While this article provides some interesting correlations with the sexagesimal system and with the synodic movements of the planets, much remains unresolved. Too often the Biblical and Babylonian numbers are not exactly the same — he compares 777 with 776, 962 with 970, 896 to 895, 7,625 with 7,600 × 60. A number like 762 is said to represent the sum of the revolutions of Venus and Saturn. But why are these two connected, or why the interest in planets at all? Finally, the author assumes the originality of MT.

⁴ See especially Frank M. Cross, The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts, 1972 Proceedings of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 108–26.

⁵ 1st born = age of the patriarch at the birth of his first born son; YAF = our calculation of the year after the flood. For the purposes of this table, the two problematical years of Gen. 11:10 are ignored (hence the ? in the YAF column). Remainder = the time from the birth of first born to the patriarch's death. The “total” column occurs only in the SP. Josephus agrees with LXX in most cases for the date of the 1st born, but he follows MT in having Abram born 292 years after the flood. Pseudo-Philo seems to follow MT, although he switches the 1st born dates for Serug and Nahor. Such switching may explain the following “remainder” dates: Reu 119; Serug 67 (cf. Nahor's 69 in SP); Nahor 200. Variant readings of 179 and 125 for Nahor's 1st born and remainder figures appear in LXX's manuscript b⁺. The widely divergent 1st born numbers in Jubilees are unexplained.

⁶ Cf. Apocalypse of Abraham 8.

⁷ This number is predictable, since the 1st born figure had been raised by 50 from 29 to 79.

⁸ A.M. = anno mundi. The 1st born number for Methuselah is 167 in A* cej₂ Chr Theop.; other manuscripts have 187. The latter seem to represent a correction to MT. Jubilees already follows the chronology represented in SP; Pseudo-Philo is mixed, although the basic chronology is much like LXX. While the 1st born figures for the individual patriarchs in Pseudo-Philo would suggest 2,506 as the date of the flood, the number 1652 ( = ? 1656) is recorded at 3:6. This is apparently a correction from MT. Josephus also follows LXX, except for Methuselah, and even here he follows the Lucianic LXX.

⁹ Gottfried Kuhn demonstrated some striking multiples of 7 in the figures for most of the patriarchs preceding Lamech, thus lending some support to the number 777 in MT, but the scheme does not account for Methuselah, father of Lamech. The implied connection with the Sabbath seems doubtful, and he is unable to account for LXX and SP. See his Die Lebenszahl Lamechs (Gen. 5:31), Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 54 (1936), 309–10.Google Scholar