This multipart series summarizes my previous articles and videos on the numerical readings for Methuselah (Genesis 5:25–27) in the Septuagint, other extant texts, and external witnesses. It includes additions, corrections, and improvements to my previous research on the subject.
At the top of page 106 of the Göttingen critical edition of the Greek Genesis published in 1974,1 editor John W. Wevers presented the following text as the original, Old Greek (OG). This included the combination of 167/802/969 for Methuselah, placing his death 14 years beyond the Flood.
The manuscripts which primarily preserve the proposed original text appear immediately beneath the verses. These Wevers referred to as the “Kopfleiste,” or Source List. They are: A, (D), M, (911), O’, C’’, b, d, f, n, s, t, y, z, verss Sa Syh. Variant readings are then listed in the apparatus below on the same page, of which there are many. These will be shown below.
In part one, we examined four of the manuscripts: A = Codex Alexandrinus, (D) = Cotton Genesis, M = Codex Coislinianus, and (911) = the Berlin Genesis. The parentheses around D and 911 indicate portions of 5:24–27 are missing. As we saw, D had been severely burned in a fire and 911 is mutilated with extensive lacunae.
O‘ represents a group of manuscripts influenced by materials from Origen’s Hexapla. More on this below.
C’’ represents a group of manuscripts which preserve catenae (singular-catena). Catena is Latin for ‘chain’ and refers to a collection “of exegetical comments from ancient Christian writers. Because these collections include numerous quotations of biblical passages, they are of great value for textual criticism.”2 These are minuscules and generally date to the 10th century AD and later (Wevers, p. 13–21).
The designations b, d, f, n, s, t, y, z represent groups of manuscripts which have been identified as being closely related. Wevers provides a summary of these groupings in the critical edition (p. 56–59). Like the C’’ group, these are minuscules and mostly date to the 10th century AD and later (p. 13–21). A much more extensive rationale for these groupings is provided in Wevers’ Text History of the Greek Genesis, available online for free.
The designation verss introduces “versions” or translations. “Sa” is Sahidic, a literary dialect of Coptic (Egyptian) translated from a Greek text. “Syh” represents the Syro-Hexapla, a Syriac translation of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla/Tetrapla by Paul of Tella between AD 613 and 617. It contains substantial material from Origen’s Hexapla, hence the designation. I will discuss the Syro-Hexapla in part three.
Genesis 5:25
Let’s look at some of the most important variants in the apparatus to get a feel for how it works. The catalogue of Septuagint manuscripts can be found online at the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Lower Saxony.
The variants for Genesis 5:25
1. ἔτη — ἑπτά 911] ἔτη ἑκατὸν ἑξήκοντα ἑπτά
The left notation from the apparatus indicates that papyrus 911 contains the range of words (signified by —) presented in the proposed original (right). It reads woodenly: “years 100, 60, 7.” Strictly speaking, this is slightly incorrect. We saw in part one how several letters from this sequence of words are not visible in the U. Michigan facsimile. Thus, Wevers appears to have published the reconstruction presented by Schmidt and Sanders. My analysis confirmed that this is most likely the original reading, suggesting that Wevers was correct in his reconstruction.
2. εκ. κ. εξηκ. ἑπτά ἔτη A* 318 = Ra;
Our next variant, ἑκατὸν καὶ ἑξήκοντα ἑπτά ἔτη (100 and 60, 7 years), reads close to Wevers’ proposed original. In this case, years (ἔτη) appears at the end of the phrase instead of the beginning. Also, καὶ (and) is placed between the hundred and sixty digits. The different word order does not change the meaning. The asterisk next to Codex A signifies “original reading” since a corrector made a subsequent change to the number (167 to 187). Minuscule 318 dates to the 10/11th century. Ra indicates that Rahlfs’s printed editions contain the same reading. (Rahlfs’s was fully updated in 2006 by Robert Hanhart).
3. ετη εκ. ογδοηκοντα επτα Chr VII 181 Aeth–M;
Next, we have our first variant listed for the 187-year begetting age. Here, it reads ἔτη ἑκατὸν ὀγδοήκοντα ἑπτὰ (years 100, 80, 7). The witnesses to this reading include the late fourth-century church father John Chrysostom (Chr VII 181)3 in his Genesis homilies, along with the Ethiopic (Aeth–M), translated from a Greek text. Manuscript “M” within that textual tradition lacks the reading, hence the minus M superscript.4
4. εκ. και (> 71) ογδοηκοντα επτα ετη Ac 458 71 Arab;
Our next 187-year variant reads ἑκατὸν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἑπτὰ ἔτη (100 and 80, 7 years). The witnesses here are the Codex Ac corrector (discussed in part one), 12th century minuscule 458, and the Arabic translation from a Hebrew text. The 13th century minuscule 71 omits ἑκατὸν καὶ (> 71), but includes ὀγδοήκοντα ἑπτὰ ἔτη (80, 7 years). The loss of the hundreds digit is probably due to a slip of the eye and is likely not the result of deliberate emendation.
5. επτα κ. εξηκ. (+ ※annos Syh) κ. εκ. ετη 17′-135′ C’’–16 313c
346 319 730 Syh = Sam;
This variant reads 167 years: επτα καὶ εξηκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη (7 and 60 and 100 years). The reading appears in minuscules 17 (10th c.) and 400 (11th c.; 17 and 400 are designated by the prime sign = 17′) and 135 (10th c.) and 376 (15th c.; 135’=135 and 376), Catenae (except for 16 and 313, the latter corrected to 187), and minuscules 346 (17th c.), 319 (AD 1021), and 730 (12th c.).
Note an asterisk sign of Origen for the Syro-Hexapla (+ ※annos Syh), along with an additional notation near the end (Syh). The plus sign (+) indicates the Syh adds the word “year” after 60 and there is an asterisk present. Wevers’ edition translates the Syriac word for “year” into Latin, annos.
SAM is the designation for the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). However, the SP preserves 67 years for Methuselah’s begetting age, not 167. Thus, its reading represents a substantially different chronological tradition from both the 167 and 187 readings discussed here [see my extensive discussion on the SP in: “MT, SP, or LXX? Deciphering a Textual and Chronological Conundrum in Genesis 5,” Bible and Spade 31, no. 1 (Winter 2018): 18–27].
The Hexapla, the Syro-Hexapla, and SP discrepancy require more extended discussion. My research reveals that some corrections are needed as well, so we will examine these in more detail in part three of our series.
Genesis 5:25-27 from the 10th century minuscule 55, with 187/782. The manuscript is also known as the “Leo Bible,” produced around AD 940. It was previously owned by Christina, Queen of Sweden (1626–1689). It has been traced back to the Monastery of Saint Nicholas, Constantinople. Image source: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
6. επτα κ. ογδοηκ. κ. εκ. ετη (> 31′) D M 15-64-707 16-313c
s–127* 121-392-424 z 55 59 509 = 𝔐 Tar.
This reading, ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἔτη (7 and 80 and 100 years), is found in 5th century Cotton Genesis and the 7/8th century Codex Coislinianus (part one). Minuscules 15 (pictured below), 64 (10th c.), and 707 are considered similar (indicated by the hyphens), as are 121, 392 (10th c.), and 424 (15th c.), and 16 and 313c (11th c.). Note how the reading in 313 is a correction (noted in #5 above).
The z and s (except for 127) manuscript groups also contain this reading, as do minuscules 55 (10th c.), 59 (15th c.), and 509 (9/10th c.). The Masoretic text (𝔐) word order reads (שׁבע ושׁמנים שׁנה ומאת שׁנה) “7 and 80 years, and 100 years,” which this Greek rendering mirrors rather closely. The Aramaic Targums (Tar) also read 187 (3rd and 4th centuries and later), and almost invariably agree with the (proto)–MT.5
Above: Genesis 5:25-26A from folio 003B (v) of the Leningrad Codex (AD 1009), preserving the Medieval form of the Masoretic Text used in most modern translations. Below is folio 004A (r), preserving Gen. 5:26B-27. Image Source: Leningrad Codex TEI contributors. Leningrad Codex TEI (v0.2.3). 2026.
Genesis 5:26
We now turn our attention to verse 26, which records the years Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech. This verse is especially important because it provides the second number needed to determine whether the 167-year and 187-year readings form internally coherent chronological combinations.
The variants for Genesis 5:26
1. ἔτη ὀκτ. δύο 911] tr ἔτη post δύο A*(vid) 318 = Ra;
This variant reads: ἔτη ὀκτακοσια δύο (years 800, 2). As we discovered in part one, line 8 of this section of Greek text is barely visible, so Wevers must have taken this reading from the reconstruction by Schmidt and Sanders. However, we determined in our previous analysis that 782 could not fit in the lacuna in 911, and therefore 802 is most likely the original reading of this witness.
Next, tr ἔτη post δύο A*(vid) indicates that the word “year” (ἔτη) is transposed (TR) and appears after δύο (2) in Codex Alexandrinus = ὀκτακοσια δύο ἔτη. The asterisk next to Codex A signifies “original reading,” and vid is short for the Latin videtur, meaning ‘it appears’ or ‘apparently.’ Wevers may have considered this figure harder to read than 167, which he did not mark with vid. Minuscule 318 (10/11th c.) and Rahlfs’s printed editions contain 802 as well. Both correlate with the 167 year begetting age, noted above under variant 2 for Genesis 5:25.
2. δυο κ. οκτακ. ετη 17′-135′ 408c 346 319 = Sixt;
Two and 800 years (δυο καὶ ὀκτακοσια ετη) appears in minuscules 17 (10th c.) and 400 (11th c.; 17 and 400 are designated by the prime sign = 17′) and 135 (10th c.) and 376 (15th c.; 135′ = 135 and 376). Minuscules 346 (17th c.), 319 (AD 1021), and a correction in 408 (12/13th c.) also agree here. Sixt refers to the 16th century printed edition known as Sixtine or Sixtina, published by the Roman Catholic Church in 1587. Its text is derived directly from Codex Vaticanus. Because the text of Vaticanus for most of Genesis is copied from a 12th-century AD minuscule, the Sixtine edition has limited evidential value for reconstructing an earlier text.
Genesis 5:25-26 in Folio 3v of the 9/10th century manuscript 509 (MS. Auct. T. inf. 2. 1). It contains 187/782. This majuscule came from the Sinai where it was purchased by Constantine Tischendorf in 1853. Image Source: © Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford. Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC 4.0.
3. δυο κ. ογδοηκ. (+ ※ annos Syh) κ. επτακοσια ετη DG M
C’’–408c s 121-392-424 z 55 59 509 730 Syh;
Our next variant reads: δυο καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ επτακοσια ετη (2 and 80 and 700 years). The Cotton Genesis (Dg) and Codex Coislinianus (M) were examined in Part One. Catenae texts (C’’) agree (minus a corrected 408). Both the s and z manuscript groups record 187, as do manuscripts 121, 392 (10th c.), 424 (15th c.), 55 (10th c.), 59 (15th c.), 509 (9/10th c.) and 730 (12th c.).
This is where the evidence becomes particularly significant. Above in variant #5 for Gen. 5:25, we noted that according to Wevers, the Syro-Hexapla contained “167.” If the Syh preserves 167 for Methuselah’s begetting age, the corresponding remaining years should be 802. Instead, Syh is noted here as reading 782, which would produce a lifespan of 949 rather than 969. According to Wevers’s apparatus, however, Syh correctly records 969 in verse 27. Thus, the readings as reported in the apparatus do not cohere. In part three, we will analyze Wevers’ information about the Syh more closely.
4. επτακοσια κ. ογδοηκοντα (-κον 458) δυο ετη Ac 458 Aeth–P Arab Armte;
Another Greek formulation of 782, επτακοσια καὶ ογδοηκοντα δυο ετη (700 and 80, 2 years) is found in the Codex A correction and minuscule 458 (12th c.). The Arabic text is taken from the Hebrew. The Ethiopic translation is a daughter text derived not from Hebrew but from a Greek text of Genesis. The Ethiopic Genesis may have originated in the 4th century AD, so it is significant to note the presence of 782 in this tradition (minus manuscript p).6 The Armenian version of the OT was translated from Greek beginning in ca. AD 406.7 This would suggest that a Greek text containing 782 was available to an Armenian translator by the fifth century. Wevers does not record the begetting age from 5:25, but a consultation of an Armenian diplomatic text likewise yields 187 for the begetting age.8
Above: Genesis 5:25–27 from folio 7v of the 10th century minuscule 15. This minuscule contains 187 for Methuselah’s begetting age. While the remaining years of 782 is documented in Wevers’ edition, the abbreviated numeral with omega/beta and a line above it signifies 802 instead (left). Wevers may have consulted a secondary source instead of having direct access to the manuscript. This provides another example of the complexities involved in reconstructing the textual transmission of the Methuselah readings and raises the possibility that scribes sometimes intervened in the transmission of the text. Image source: Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
5. ετη επτακ. ογδοηκ. δυο 15-64-707 246 71
Years 700, 80, 2 (ετη επτακοσια ογδοηκοντα δυο) can be found in the minuscules listed, with the exception of 15 (see picture caption above). Manuscripts 15-64-707 and 71 all date to the 10th century and later, and all four are listed as preserving 187 for the begetting age. Minuscule 246 (AD 1195) is listed as a palimpsest and apparently only preserves the remaining years of 782. A low resolution scan of 246 is in the Vatican Digital Library, but is difficult to decipher.
Summary
We have seen how the earliest and best manuscript evidence for the readings are fairly balanced, with perhaps a slight nod going to 167/802 since they appeared in the oldest text, the Berlin Genesis (911). The later manuscript evidence is also fairly balanced. A mere counting of these variants on each side or appealing to the fallacy of “oldest equals original” will be inadequate to the task of adjudicating this textual difficulty. More analysis is required.
The evidence examined in this installment demonstrates that the 167/802 and 187/782 readings cannot be evaluated by considering either number in isolation. Both combinations produce a lifespan of 969 years, but the manuscript evidence reveals a complex pattern of transmission, correction, and variation. Particularly significant is the apparent discrepancy in the Syro-Hexapla, where Wevers’s apparatus appears to preserve 167 in Genesis 5:25, 782 in Genesis 5:26, and 969 in Genesis 5:27. This internal inconsistency warrants closer examination of the underlying Syriac evidence, which will be the focus of Part Three. We will also give attention to the Hexapla and Samaritan Pentateuch.
A discussion of external witnesses will eventually follow. Stay tuned!
ENDNOTES
- Although now over fifty years old, this critical edition is still indispensable for this task. A list of additional fragments/manuscripts of Genesis not recorded in Wevers’ edition is outlined in: Philip Suciadi Chia, “A Critical Edition of the Hexaplaric Fragments of Genesis” (PhD Dissertation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021), 25–36. Chia’s updated list includes manuscripts known to Wevers that were considered to have little or no evidential value in determining the original text. The edition was also constrained by space limitations and was produced before the availability of modern electronic tools. A few new fragments have been discovered since 1974, but none preserve Genesis 5:24–27. Since Chia’s dissertation focuses on the Hexapla, he does not examine these in detail. ↩︎
- Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2015), 370. ↩︎
- Confirmed more recently in: Robert C. Hill, trans., Saint John Chrysostom: Homilies on Genesis (18–45), The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 82 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 61. ↩︎
- For more ongoing research on the Ethiopic text, see: George Fox et al., “The Textual History of the Ethiopic Old Testament Project (THEOT): Goals and Initial Findings,” Textus 29 (2020): 80–110. ↩︎
- Peter J. Gentry, “The Text of the Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1 (2009): 26. Deviations from the MT in the Aramaic Targums are usually due to exegetical expansions and not a different Hebrew text. ↩︎
- Fox et al., “Textual History,” 81–82. ↩︎
- Claude Cox, “The Septuagint and the Secondary Versions,” in The T&T Clark Handbook of Septuagint Research, ed. William A. Ross and W. Edward Glenny (T&T Clark, 2021), 205. ↩︎
- https://juniperbible.org/bible/armeastern/gen/5/. The critical edition of Armenian Genesis is not available in English. Andranik Zeitounian, ed., Girk‘ Tsnndots‘ K‘nnakan Bnagir [The Book of Genesis: Critical Text], Hay Hnaguyn T‘argmanakan Houshardzakanner 1 [Ancient Armenian Translated Works 1] (Yerevan: Academy of Sciences, 1985). ↩︎
Leave a Reply