Genealogies of Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
The Bible
Biblical canon and books
Tanakh: Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim Old Testament · Hebrew Bible · New Testament · New Covenant · Deuterocanon · Antilegomena · Chapters & verses
Apocrypha: Jewish · OT · NT
Development and authorship
Panbabylonism · Jewish Canon · Old Testament canon · New Testament canon · Mosaic authorship · Pauline epistles · Johannine works
Translations and manuscripts
Septuagint · Samaritan Pentateuch · Dead Sea scrolls · Targums · Peshitta · Vetus Latina · Vulgate · Masoretic text · Gothic Bible · Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible · Biblical criticism · Higher criticism · Textual criticism · Novum Testamentum Graece · NT textual categories · Documentary hypothesis · Synoptic problem · The Bible and history‎ · Biblical archaeology
Interpretation
Hermeneutics · Pesher · Midrash · Pardes · Allegorical · Literalism · Prophecy
Views
Inerrancy · Infallibility ·
Criticism · Islamic · Qur'anic · Gnostic · Judaism and Christianity · Law in Christianity
This box: view • talk • edit

The genealogies of Genesis record the descendants of Adam and Eve as given in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. The enumerated genealogy in chapters 4, 5 and 11 reports the lineal male descent to Abraham, including the age at which each patriarch fathered his named son and the number of years he lived thereafter. The genealogy for Cain is given in Chapter 4 and the genealogy for Seth is in Chapter 5. The genealogy in chapter 10 recording the male descendants of Noah is known as the Table of Nations.

Contents

[edit] Enumerated genealogy

Two versions of the enumerated genealogy exist, one in the Latin Vulgate Bible and the other in the Greek Septuagint Bible. The Latin version is accepted by Western Christians, including Roman Catholics and Protestants, whereas the Greek version is accepted by Eastern Christians, including Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopic, Jacobite, and Armenian. The Vulgate was published by Jerome in 405 based on a Tanakh compiled near the end of the first century, whereas the Septuagint was reputedly written by seventy translators in Egypt near the middle of the third century BC based on an earlier version of the Tanakh. Both have been translated into numerous vernacular languages — a prominent example based upon the Vulgate is the King James Version of the Bible. This genealogy, along with other biblical and secular events, was used to fix the Creation of the world. But the patriarchs were often 100 years older at the birth of their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Vulgate, resulting in an Eastern Creation 1466 years earlier than the Western Creation. The calculation most famous in the English-speaking world is that of Archbishop James Ussher, 4004 BC, whereas the most famous Eastern calculations is the epoch of the Byzantine Era, 5509 BC.

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 (year of creation for Adam) is given in the world era appropriate to the Vulgate or the Septuagint (AM = Anno Mundi = in the year of the world). Also given is each patriarch's age at the birth of his named son and his age at death. The Septuagint has one more patriarch after the Flood, Cainan, than does the Vulgate. Methuselah survived the Flood according to the Septuagint (but not the Vulgate), even though he was not on Noah's Ark.

  Vulgate Septuagint  
Patriarch Birth Son Death Birth Son Death Wife/Wives/etc
Adam AM 1 130 930 AM 1 230 930 Eve
Seth 130 105 912 230 205 912 Azura¹
Enos or Enosh 235 90 905 435 190 905 Noam¹
Cainan or Kenan 325 70 910 625 170 910 Mualaleth¹
Mahalaleel 395 65 895 795 165 895 Dinah¹
Jared 460 162 962 960 162 962 Baraka¹
Enoch 622 65 365 1122 165 365 Edna¹
Methuselah 687 187 969 1287 167 969 Edna¹
Lamech 874 182 777 1454 188 753 Betenos¹
Noah 1056 500 950 1642 500 950 Emzara¹
Shem 1556 100 600 2142 100 600 Sedeqetelebab¹
Flood 1656 — — 2242 — —  
Arphaxad 1656 35 438 2242 135 535 Rasueja¹
Cainan — — — 2377 130 460 Melka¹
Salah 1691 30 433 2507 130 460 Muak¹
Eber 1721 34 464 2637 134 404 Azurad¹
Peleg 1755 30 239 2771 130 339 Lomna¹
Reu 1785 32 239 2901 132 339 Ora¹
Serug 1817 30 230 3033 130 330 Melka¹
Nahor 1847 29 148 3163 179 304 Ijaska¹
Terah 1876 70 205 3342 70 275+ Edna¹
Abraham 1946 100 175 3412 — — Sarai; (Hagar); Keturah
Isaac 2046 60 180 xxxx — — Rebekah
Jacob 2106 — — xxxx — — Rachel; Leah; (Bilhah); (Zilpah)

¹: The names of these wives are recorded in the Book of Jubilees, not Genesis. The names of the other wives are recorded in both.

[edit] Genealogies of Cain and Seth

Three of Adam and Eve's children are named. The main genealogy is via Seth, who was born after Cain, the firstborn son, slew his brother Abel. A genealogy for Cain is also given (in chapter 4), with some names similar to those for Seth's descendants. No years are provided, so the following table simply lines the descendants up by generation. Cain had a twin sister that became his wife; Luluwa. Another daughter of Adam and Eve is Aklia or Aklemia.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Adam
 
 Eve
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cain
 
 
 
 Abel
 
 
 
 Seth
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Enoch
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Enos(Enosh)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Irad
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cainan(Kenan)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mehujael
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mahalaleel
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Methushael
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jared
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adah
 
 Lamech
 
 
 
 Zillah
 
 
 
 Enoch
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jabal
 
 Jubal
 
 Tubal-Cain
 
 Naamah
 
 Methuselah
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lamech
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Noah
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Shem
 
 Ham
 
 Japheth

(for a continuation of this family tree through the line of Shem, see Abraham's Family Tree)

Although Cain's line is taken no further, one possible implication is that it continues beyond that by suggesting that the terminal sons were the ancestors of those who practice various trades. In Genesis 4, Cain's line also provides the names of Lamech's two wives, Adah and Zillah. Jabal and Jubal were the sons of Adah. Jabal was the father of nomads and Jubal of musicians. Tubal-Cain was the son of Zillah and the father of blacksmiths. A daughter of Zillah, Naamah, is also mentioned. An analysis of the relationship between the lines of descent, of Cain and of Seth, reveals that inter-marriage may have taken place between the descendants of Cain and Seth. For example, Lamech's daughter Naamah married her patrilineal parallel cousin Methuselah, and named her first-born son Lamech, after her father. A definite implication is that these various trades were flourishing prior to the Flood. Therefore, cultures of nomads, musicians and metal workers would have been destroyed by the Flood.

[edit] Table of Nations

Main article: Sons of Noah
v • d • e
Descendants of Noah in Genesis 10
Shem and Semitic
Elam · Ashur · Aram · Arpachshad · Lud
Ham and Hamitic
Cush · Mizraim · Phut · Canaan
Japheth and Japhetic
Gomer · Magog · Madai · Javan · Tubal · Meshech · Tiras

Noah is reported to have had three sons — Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Until the nineteenth century and today among Creationists, Europeans and South Asians were understood to be the descendants of Japheth and the Indo-European language family (and were thus called Japhethites). Some have argued that the ancient pagan god Jupiter is actually a deified Japheth, and that the pagan Greeks knew him as 'Iapetos', the Indian Sanskrit as 'Pra-Japati', and the Romans as 'Iu-Pater' or 'Father Jove', which became 'Jupiter'. They argue that Japheth would certainly have appeared to be a god given the extraordinarily long lifespans reported among his generation, and became deified as his descendants fell into ancestor-worship and paganism.

However, scholars of linguistics disagree vehemently. While they agree that there is a shared origin behind some Indo-European gods, they believe this to be due to a common origin in Dyeus, sometimes referred to as Dyeus Pater (sky father). Linguistically, Dyeus became Jupiter to the Romans, as well as the word Deus meaning simply God, Zeus to the Greeks, Dyaus Pita to the vedic religion, which preceded hinduism, Dia in slavic mythology, and Tiwaz in Germanic and Scandinavian mythology, who later became Tyr, and Tew, from which we get the name of Tuesday. The name Dyeus is generally agreed to be an extremely difficult name to derive from Japheth, and consequently most likely to have had independent origins. Furthermore, there is absolutely no linguistic connection whatsoever between 'Pra-Japati', which translates as Lord of Creatures, and either Iapetos, Iu-Pater, meaning father Iu, a corruption of Dyeus Pater, or with Japtheth, meaning beauty, and as such attempts to connect these deities with the semitic Japheth are regarded as exceptionally poor scholarship and folk etymology.

Similarly, Africans were anciently understood to be the sons of Ham (and particularly his descendant Cush, as the Cushites are referred to throughout scripture as being the inhabitants of Northeast Africa), and the Yoruba still trace their ancestry through Ham today. Such theories of Hamitic descent have since been thoroughly discredited, both by anthropologists and linguists, to the extent that they are now regarded in some circles as racist. In particular the theory proposed in the nineteenth century by Speke, that the Tutsi were Hamitic, and thus inherently superior, is widely regarded as having ultimately led to the Rwandan Genocide.

Jews and Arabs consider themselves to be sons of Shem (thus, Semites), although they dispute whether Isaac or Ishmael was the legitimate son of Abraham. Nevertheless, though the term Semitic has come to be attached to the language group both share, the opposite term anti-Semitic is generally regarded as referring solely to the Jews.

Most modern scholars reject the traditional view of historicity, and hold instead that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing socio-political alliances of the time and places of the oral traditions, perhaps re-edited at the time of the text's final composition in the 7th century BC. They argue that the genealogies instead reflect the attitudes of the ancient Hebrew authors of the Bible toward their neighbors; that those with whom the authors felt the closest affinity were grouped as descendants of Shem, those with whom there was the deepest animosity were grouped as sons of Ham (whose son Canaan was cursed by Noah), and the foreigners who were invading their shores from across the sea (Yavan) or from the East (Medes) were identified with Japheth. This latter identification is corroborated by Genesis 9:27, "God shall enlarge Japheth (literally: 'beautify Japheth'), and he shall dwell in the house of Shem." In Hebrew, this verse uses a pun on the name Japheth, which comes from the Semitic root Y-Ph-T and means beauty: the verse is apparently a reference to the cultural innovations that these newcomers brought to the region.

In contradiction to the biblical account, linguistically, and culturally,

  • the Canaanites were Semitic, rather than related to the Egyptians,
  • the Elamites were not Semitic (indeed, they were not Indo-European either),
  • and the Lydians were Indo-European (i.e. Japhetic) rather than Semitic

[edit] Disputed genealogies

While some of the eponymous ancestors of the peoples mentioned in these lists are easily identifiable, intended identities of others are subjects of dispute among scholars.

In some instances, similar names reappear in different contexts. Some scholars interpret this is merely being the use of the same name for different people. Other scholars assert that this reflects contradictory traditions among the Hebrew tribes compiled into the same text.

"Dodanim" (10:4) (another grammatical plural) is listed as a son of Javan (possibly identified with the Ionians) the son of Japheth, yet "Dodanim" is also the plural form of Dedan (Genesis 10:7), who appears as the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham. Similar replication of names occurs with Ashur, the legendary eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians, and the name also appears in the Ham narrative (10:11) and as a descendant of Shem (10:22). Also Aram the son of Shem is not to be confused with the Aramean descendants of Kemuel (22:21) line. It appears also that places were named for people, or shared names (e.g. Tarshish, or Tarsus), and personal names (e.g. Nimrod) also appear in the groupings.

[edit] Historicity

The importance of the genealogies (toledot. "generations") emphasized by Ezra's insistence on racial purity of the High Priest resulted in genealogical scrolls being kept in Jerusalem. They are mentioned by Josephus, and their loss in AD 70 was considered disastrous. A priest was required to demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of his prospective bride as far back as her great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother. In the case of marriage with a daughter of Levi or of Israel his scrutiny had to extend a degree further, perhaps a sign that more relaxed attitudes toward marrying non-Jews had prevailed in the northern kingdom. The Pharisees emphasized the nobility of learning as opposed to the priestly-caste nobility insisted upon by the Sadducees.

The genealogies as recorded in Genesis were assuredly intended not as myth, but as history. The matter-of-fact style of writing, the degree of detail, the fact that ages are given for when fathers had sons and when they died, are all presented as history by the writers of Genesis.[citation needed] The New Testament authors of Matthew (1:1–17) and Luke (3:23–38) also took the traditional genealogies as history and applied them in tracking Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham and Adam respectively.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, academic opinion regarding the historicity of the genealogies split. For example:

It is thus evident that the Table of Nations contains no scientific classification of the races of mankind. Not only this, however, it also offers no historically true account of the origin of the races of mankind." (Driver 114).

The so-called Table of Nations remains, according to all results of monumental explorations, an ethnographic original document of the first rank which nothing can replace." (Kautzsch 234).

In the early twentieth century, some anthropologists[who?] determined that ethnicity is a construct, as argued by Herodotus, and that the genealogies of Genesis were primitive efforts towards creating an ethnology that would express the degrees of alienness or relatedness the authors of such genealogies sensed among those neighboring peoples of whom they were aware. For instance:

The object of this Table is partly to show how the Hebrews supposed the principle nations known to them to be related to each other, partly to assign Israel, in particular, its place among them. The names are in no case to be taken as those of real individuals. The real origin of the nations enumerated here, belonging in many cases to entirely different racial types — Semites, Aryans, Hittites, Egyptians — must have reached back into remote prehistoric ages from which we may be sure not even the dimmest recollections could have been preserved at the time when the chapter was written. The nations and tribes existed: and imaginary ancestors were afterwards postulated for the purpose of exhibiting pictorially the relationship in which they were supposed to stand towards one another. An exactly parallel instance, though not so fully worked out, is afforded by the ancient Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes, the principle sub-divisions were the Dorians, the Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Achaeans; and accordingly the Greeks traced their descent from a supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who had three sons, Dorus and Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of the Dorians and Aeolians, and Xuthus, from whose two sons, Ion and Achaeus, the Ionians and Achaeans were respectively supposed to be descended. (Driver 112).

Anthropologists of this vein[who?] assert that some genealogies in the flood myth of Greek mythology are analogous to those in Genesis: in them, Hellen, the son of Deucalion, the Greek Noah, and eponym of the Hellenes had three sons, named Dorus and Æolus, the ancestors of the Dorians and Aeolians, and Xuthus, whose sons Achæus and Ion, were the progenitors of the Achæans and Ionians. In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Malkin 2001), the subject is shifting Hellenic perceptions of ethnicity, but the discourse throws light on motivations for the genealogies of Genesis.

Arguments are also made that comparisons may also be made with the Welsh folk genealogies that trace their king-lines back to Troy.

Other scholars[who?], however, continue to hold that the Table of Nations is the most historically accurate account of early human history available, and reject the above analysis, arguing that "Since, as we shall see, the Table certainly does not on its face bear any evidence of being written for propaganda purposes, Driver appears to be reading more into the record than is justified. It is rather like setting up a straw man in order to be able to demolish him with scholarly verbosity." They note that Genesis is unique among ancient genealogies in its historical and objective style. For instance:

Egyptians and Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians, even Indians and Persians, had a certain measure of geographical and ethnological knowledge, before more strictly scientific investigation had been begun among the classical peoples. From several of these, such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, surveys of enumerations of the peoples known to them and attempts at maps have come down to us in the written memorials they have left behind. But not much attention was paid, as a rule, to foreigners unless national and trade interests were at stake. Often enough they were despised as mere barbarians, and in no case were they included with the more cultured nations in a higher unity. It is otherwise in our text. Here many with whom the Israelites had no sort of actual relationship are taken into consideration." (Dillmann 314).

Scholars also note the text's remarkably neutral tone, arguing:

Had this Table been designed for propaganda purposes (to establish Israel's position as of equal dignity though not sharing some of the glories of the surrounding peoples) or had it been merely the work of some early historian creating his own data with a comparatively free hand, then almost certainly some device would have been adopted for deliberately setting forth not only the high status of his own ancestors, but the very low status of that of his enemies. With respect to the first tendency, one has only to read modern history books to discern how very easily individuals of little real significance can be presented to us in such a way as to make us take enormous pride in our heritage. There is, in fact, very little written history which is not in part propaganda, although the author himself is often unaware of it. The number of "firsts" claimed by some national historians for their countrymen is quite amazing, and it is usually clear what the nationality of the author himself is. In complete contrast, it would be difficult to prove with certainty of what nationality the author of Genesis 10 was. We assume he was a Hebrew, but if the amount of attention given to any particular line that is traced were used as a clue to his identity, he might have been a Japhethite, a Canaanite, or even an Arab. (Custance, Ch. 1)

The issue of the purpose of the historicity of the genealogies therefore remains a subject of dispute among biblical scholars.

[edit] Genesis 5 numbers

Nearly all modern translations of Genesis are derived from the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text, because it is generally the most reliable. But there are also two other versions of Genesis: the Samaritan (in an early Hebrew script) and the Septuagint (a Greek translation of an early Hebrew text). Although, scholars are aware that these three versions of Genesis 5 have different numbers, people who have seen only the commonly available translations are often unaware that other versions exist. The numbers in the Masoretic, Samaritan, and Lucianic Septuagint versions of Genesis 5 are shown in this table:[1]

  Masoretic Samaritan Septuagint
Patriarch Birth remain Death Birth remain Death Birth remain Death
Adam 130 800 930 130 800 930 230 700 930
Seth 105 807 912 105 807 912 205 707 912
Enosh 90 815 905 90 815 905 190 715 905
Kenan 70 840 910 70 840 910 170 740 910
Mahalalel 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
Lamech 182 595 777 53 600 653 188 565 753
Noah 500 — — 500 — — 500 — —
until flood 100 350 950 100 350 950 100 350 950

[edit] Number differences

A comparison of the numbers 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. The Septuagint numbers for the ages of the fathers at the birth of their sons, are in many instances 100 greater than the corresponding numbers in the other two versions.

The Samaritan chronology has Jared and Methuselah 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. The Lucianic Septuagint chronology 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.[2] Some scholars [3] 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, [4] 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."

Some scholars declare the Genesis 5 numbers to be "fictive" [5] because attempts to rationalize the numbers by translating "years" as "months" results in some of the Genesis 5 people fathering children when they were 5 years old if the Masoretic chronology is assumed to be primary. Commentators who take the Genesis 5 birth ages at face value, fail to explain how Methuselah could father a son at the age of 187 and why he waited so long to have children. Another commentator [6] noted that if the Septuagint numbers in the above table are divided by ten (because of an implied decimal point) the birth ages range between 16.2 and 23.0 and the death ages range between 36.5 and 96.9 which are possible for real people.

The scholarly translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek at Alexandria, Egypt in about 280 BC worked off a Hebrew text that was edited in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.[7] This would be centuries older than the proto–Masoretic Text selected as the official text by the Masoretes.[8] Based on the Septuagint numbers, each young man could have fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today.

If the Genesis 5 numbers represent hundreds of solar years, this creates three problems: how could these men live to be over nine hundred years, how could they have fathered children when they were over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children? All three of these problems disappear if two simple assumptions are made: the Lucianic Septuagint has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place.

[edit] Beyond Genesis

Notable sons of Jacob (aka Israel).

Name Birth Comments — Wife/Wives/etc
Joseph xxxx Counted among first 70 men of Jacob's lineage to be in Egypt. — Asenath
Judah xxxx Among 70 men to leave Canaan for Egypt with Jacob. Bloodline goes to Jesus (eg Perez). — daughter of Shea; (Tamar)

Following Judah's line

Name examples of children example references Comments — Wife/Wives/etc
Perez Hezron; Hamal Gen 46, Num 26.22 Among 70 men to leave Canaan for Egypt with Jacob — —
Hezron Ram Gen 46 Among 70 men to leave Canaan for Egypt with Jacob. Israel population = 70 men in three generations from Jacob, or many many more if inclusive of all descendants of Eber? — —
Ram Amminadab — Dead before end of 40 year Exodus. Contemporary of Moses? — —
Amminadab Nashon — Dead before end of 40 year Exodus. — —
Nahshon Salmon Num 1.7 At least 20 years old at beginning of 40 year Exodus. Died during 40 year Exodus. Israel's population is 603,550 men by Num 1.46? (see discussion in The Exodus for paradox encountered in three generation population growth) — —
Salmon Boaz — Born during 40 Year Exodus. Crossed Jordan. Moses dies at age 120 prior to crossing. Salmon is first in tribal lineage to cross? — Rahab of Jericho
Boaz Obed Josh, Ruth Born during 40 Year Exodus. — Ruth
Obed Jesse — — — —
Jesse David — Contemporary of King Saul? — —

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  • Hall, Jonathan, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity Cambridge U.Press, 1997.
  • Malkin, Irad, editor, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity in series Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia, 5. Harvard University Press, 2001. Reviewed by Margaret C. Miller in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2002
  • Driver, S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminster Commentaries, 3rd edition, London, UK, Methuen, 1904.
  • Kautzsch, E. F.: quoted by James Orr, "The Early Narratives of Genesis," in The Fundamentals, Vol. 1, Los Angeles, CA, Biola Press, 1917.
  • Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, UK, T. and T. Clark, 1897, 314.
  • Custance, Arthur C., The Roots of the Nations.[1]
  • Schmandt-Besserat, Denise, How Writing Came About, University of Texas Press, 1996, ISBN 0-292-77704-3.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, T&T Clark, Endinburgh (1930), p 134.
  2. ^ Ralph W. Klein, "Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament", Harvard Theol Review, 67 (1974), pages 255-263.
  3. ^ Gerhard Larsson, "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX", Journal of Biblical Literature, 102 (1983), pages 401-409
  4. ^ Emanual Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pages 11, 352
  5. ^ Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, Doubleday (1992), page 74, ISBN 0-385-41207-X
  6. ^ Robert Best, Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic (1999), pages 106-111.
  7. ^ Charles M. Laymon (editor), The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Abingdon Press, Nashville (1971), p. 1227
  8. ^ Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (1992), pages 11, 352

[edit] External links