In archaeology we find “wonderful things” (to borrow from Howard Carter at the opening of King Tut’s tomb in 1923). Just from my own experience in the field, I have uncovered 17-foot wide city walls still standing 10 feet high, multiroomed city gate complexes and house walls all constructed with mudbrick superstructure on stone foundations, along with doorways and socketstones, cobble or dirt floors, streets and passageways. There’s also been altar stones and tombs, jewelry, weapons, tools, coins, figurines, pottery – complete vessels from large storage jars to “miniature” juglets – and even skeletal remains of the ancients, themselves. Wonderful things, indeed!

Yet, while much less exciting, the most important aspect of archaeological work is the ability to recognize the different levels of ancient occupation. As we dig down, differences in soil consistency, color, texture and contents suggest a lower (and older) layer that also once served as the ground surface where people lived and walked. Our ability to date the time of that layer’s period of occupation is based on the artifacts and features found in it.

The most useful artifacts archaeologists utilize to clarify a layer’s time period is pottery – whether whole or in pieces (sherds). Of course, while much rarer, any kind of inscription found in an occupational layer also becomes a valuable source to date a level. A certain type of inscription – coins – becomes common in later periods of Biblical history (from the 5^th century BC onward) and can provide at least an earliest date for an occupational layer (Latin terminus post quem; “boundary after which”).  

Ancient Seals

Almost complimentary to coins, another group of small inscriptions were available to help date occupational layers from earlier centuries. As early as the third millennium BC, people of means and influence began carrying them as amulets with the hope that their small specifically engraved image would help bring them safety, protection or prosperity. But by 2000 BC, across the ancient Near East, those images had popularly become seals (signets or stamps) with their imprinted image being transferred to wet clay – as an extension of the owner’s identify, status, influence, ownership and authority. Seals quickly became powerful symbols and tools in Egypt for administrative purposes.

Our English word “seal” is derived from the Latin word sigillum suggesting a “small image,” the perfect description of a seal. But the term also describes what a seal can produce – its own mirror-image stamped into wet clay (sometimes called a “sealing”).

Most ancient seals were carved from small stones with the most common being softer steatite. But harder stones, like carnelian, amethyst and green jasper were also used, along with ivory and horn. In addition, a small number of Egyptian scarab seals were molded from vitrified Egyptian faience. Ancient seals are known with a variety of shapes – knobs, pyramids, cones and cubes – but the most common are cylinder and scarab seals. Most seals have been found pierced to be worn on a necklace or ring.

 Mesopotamian Cylinder Seals

In Mesopotamia, seals were typically formed from semiprecious stones (marble, amethyst, lapis lazuli, obsidian) or metal (gold or silver) in the shape of small cylinders (also called “roll seals”) with an inscribed image on the outside and a hole drilled through the center. Typically, only 1-2 inches in length, their mirror-images were rolled out on clay (wax was really not used until after the Biblical period) also typically just 1-2 inches long. A cord of twisted wool or fibers would have passed through its central hole and was likely worn on a necklace. As such, the cylinder seal may have been worn “hidden” beneath a garment or to be seen as an ornament.

In the account of Judah’s inappropriate interaction with his daughter-in-law, Tamar seems to reference Judah’s own cylinder seal – asking for “your seal, your cord, and the staff that’s in your hand” (Genesis 38:18; see also 38;25). This probably signified his cylinder seal hanging on a cord and his staff (serving as both a tool and weapon). Included with his seal and staff, his “cord” may have been unusually ornate and valuable – like a true necklace.

Egyptian Scarab Seals  

During the second millennium BC, ancient Egyptians began carrying tiny (generally less than one inch long) amulets carved in the shape of Egypt’s common black dung beetles (remember the scary black beetles in The Mummy movie?).  Scarab is the Latin term for beetle, with kheper the Egyptian hieroglyphic term for the same.  

These beetles would lay their eggs in fresh balls of dung and move the balls across the ground to their burrows. When hatched inside these dung balls, the young beetles ate themselves out, suggesting a rather magical event to the Egyptians. Their term for beetles, kheper, translates to something like “coming into being.”

Consequently, ancient Egyptians saw in the beetle’s life cycle a connection to the sun’s daily cycle across the sky. Their sun god, Khepri-Re (depicted as a giant beetle), moved the sun east to west every day. When the sun rose again the next morning, it and Khepri brought light and life to Egypt. 

Ultimately, fingernail-sized scarab-shaped amulets became popular and were considered to have great symbolic power for Egyptians during the second millennium. Members of the royal household and administration, along with the wealthy, used these scarabs as their personal seals with images connected to their owners, sometimes even their names or titles.

Called “The Number One Biblical Archaeology Discovery in 2013” by Christianity Today Magazine, this tiny Egyptian stone scarab seal was found at the author’s excavation at Khirbet el-Maqatir, Israel. Picturing a falcon-headed sphinx accompanied by two heliographs, this seal dates to the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II (15^th century BC). It helped date the destruction of the site to the Late Bronze Age, bolstering the case for Maqatir being Ai – the second city defeated, captured and burned by the Israelites at the beginning of the Conquest of Canaan (Joshua 7-8).

With the top and sides of scarab seals having the appearance of a beetle, the flat bottom was where the seal was engraved. With a hole drilled horizontally from head to tail, Egyptians would have worn these seals on a cord as a necklace or on a ring. As a ring, the beetle top would have generally been displayed with the seal, itself, concealed. To use the seal, the scarab would have been swiveled on the ring to the top and then impressed into clay.

These Egyptian scarab seals also became the most popular form of seals across the eastern Mediterranean world. In some places they carried Egyptian scarabs, but elsewhere producing their own – either in Egyptian or their own local style. While not as common as coins in the later centuries, scarabs are frequently found in excavations across the ancient Near East. At the Associates for Biblical Research sponsored Shiloh Excavations in Israel nine Egyptian scarab seals have been found in contrast to over a thousand coins during the first three sessions.

Dated to Egypt’s Middle Kingdom (13th Dynasty) this stone scarab seal (bottom six views) and modern clay sealing imprint (bulla) top left was found in the author’s excavation at Tel Shiloh, Israel. It dates to the site’s foundational phase (around 1700 BC).
Photo by Michael Luddeni.

Consequently, the significant number of scarabs across the Levant has allowed archaeologists to recognize patterns and assign relative dates to most. Of course, scarabs including a written text (like a Pharaonic cartouche) help clarify dates – even connecting to the absolute dates of a ruler’s reign. In fact, this connection to a ruling Pharaoh kept the Egyptian practice of carrying scarab seals going until the end of the Pharaonic period (first century AD).

During Egypt’s Middle Kingdom, Genesis 41:42 noted the Pharaoh "removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph's hand.” This Pharaonic signet ring would no doubt have been a scarab seal.

The wet-sifting station at the Tel Shiloh excavation, Israel. Located on the grounds of the Jewish community of Shiloh, 28 miles north of Jerusalem, the excavation has been given access to their water supply. This system was patterned after the Temple Mount Sifting Project in Jerusalem where wet sifting with water was done on material that had already been dry sifted. Shiloh’s system has six stations where wet sifting in screen trays is done over a trough to collect (and recycle) water. Many small but important finds at Shiloh have come as a result of the wet sifting process – including scarabs, bullae, coins and beads. The colored bags in the foreground represent dry sifted material from different excavation squares, the color coordinated sifters just serendipitous!

An Egyptian stone scarab seal (bottom six views) from the Hyksos period (mid 18^th–mid 16^th century BC) with a modern clay bulla (sealing) top left. This seal was found during the wet sifting process in the Tel Shiloh Excavations, Israel.
Photo by Michael Luddeni.

Bullae

While a seal (signet or stamp) in the Biblical world was often appreciated as a walk-around-with-you amulet, it also became a symbol of ownership, rank and authority. But, by their very nature, seals were tools used to “seal” a deal by authority of the seal’s owner – generally by impressing the seal into a lump of wet clay on a document to produce the seals’ mirror image in relief.

Interestingly, in English, both the stone device containing the image (seal/signet/stamp) and the mirror-image created in clay (often called a “sealing”) are identified by the same term – “seal.” While the stone seals, themselves, are regularly found in occupation levels from the second and first millennia BC, the much more fragile dried clay sealings are seldom recognized. With the nine stone seals from Shiloh’s first three seasons, we have also found three of these sealings.

The sealings which are known, tend to be in a convex shape because they were regularly used to “close” the exposed outer edge of a papyrus scroll. The dried clump of clay “sealed” the end of the roll to the rest of the document finalizing and securing the deal or message inside.

One of three dry clay scarab impressions, called bullae (Latin plural for bulla), found in the wet sift process at Shiloh, Israel. While this bulla today has only a small bit of seal imprint at the top in the top right photo. The bottom left photo shows its profile as it would have appeared sealing the scroll.
Photo by Michael Luddeni.

In archaeology today, the term used for these sealings is bullae (Latin plural; singular bulla) meaning “bubble,” “round swelling” or “nob” – an appropriate description for the imprinted lump of clay affixed to a smooth papyrus roll. Yet, after 2,000+ years in the dirt, finding the fingernail-sized stone seals is hard enough, let alone the dried clay bullae. When they are found, they can still depict at least part of the seal from which its imprint came. Occasionally even a partial fingerprint of the seal’s user also gets imprinted, providing an amazingly close connection between us and the ancients we are so interested to know better.

Papal Bull

While the true meaning of “Papal Bull” could easily be misunderstood today, the phrase has a long history – referring to a document issued by the Vatican containing the highest authoritative edict issued by, or in the name of, the pope. In use for centuries, the term apparently comes from our same Latin term bulla (“bubble” or “round swelling;” plural bullae). Early papal bulls were issued on papyrus or parchment scrolls, long before the printing press. The imprint of the pope’s seal on a wax bulla was the ultimate symbol of his authority. By the 12^th century AD the sealing, itself, became a two-sided lead (gold for special occasions) disk which was impressed with the pope’s seal while the metal was still hot.

So, to finally tie this article about ancient seals to its title (The Pope, Beetles and Bullae). The Pope’s connection to beetles (scarab seals) comes by way of the bulla – which both the Pope and scarab seals produce.

Not technically a bulla, this scarab seal impression in this enlarged photo is at the upper end of the top side of a Middle Bronze Age storage jar handle from the Shiloh Excavations, Israel. The seal was impressed into the wet clay before the jar was fired in a kiln. To the sides of the impression can be seen fingerprints of the one who imprinted the seal.
Photo by Michael Luddeni.

Final Thoughts

Our English term ”seal” is used to describe both the implement with an engraved image and the mirror-image of its engraving that can be impressed onto another medium. The English word comes from the Latin term sigillum – with sigillography being the study of seals – both the implement which makes the impression, as well as the resultant mirror-image impression. The Greek term for seal is sphragis and sphragistics is synonymous term with sigillography for the study of seals. No surprise, sphragis is the Greek word in the New Testament for either the impression-making apparatus or its resultant mirror-image. Its Old Testament Hebrew counterpart, chatham has same meaning.

So, when we read about God’s seal on someone, it means God has marked them with His special mark, signifying His identity with and ownership of them as well as their authority to represent Him to others.

Addendum: Collection of Old and New Testament verses referencing seals

Job 38:14 …the earth takes shape like clay under a seal

High Priestly accoutrements engraved like a seal 

Exodus 28:11 on the ephod, two onyx stones engrave the way a gem cutter engraves a seal with the names of the 12 sons 

Exodus 28:36 on the breastplate of the ephod twelve stones engraved like a seal with the names of the twelve sons of Israel (also 39:14)

Exodus 39:30 on the plate of the turban, the sacred emblem was engraved out of pure gold, like an inscription on a seal

Written documents sealed with authorization, authority and responsibility 

I Kings 21:8 – Jezebel wrote and sealed letters with King Ahab’s seal

Nehemiah 9:38; 10:1 – agreement sealed with the seals of the Israelite leaders, Levites and priests 

Esther 3:12; 8:8, 10 – documents sealed by the ring of King Xerxes

Jeremiah 32:10, 11, 14, 44 – land deeds sealed as authorized finalized documents

Revelation 5:1, 5 – the seven-sealed scroll in the right hand of the one on the throne in Heaven

Revelation 5:5; 6:1 ,5, 7, 9 – Jesus, as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the Root of David, was worthy to and did open the seven seals of the sealed scroll

Written documents sealed to conceal a message by God’s authority 

Isaiah 8:16; 29:10-11 – twice God told Isaiah that his message was to be as a sealed scroll for that time and place by God’s own authority 

Daniel 8:26; 9:24; 12:4, 9 – four times God told Daniel that his vision was to be as a sealed scroll for that time and place by God’s own authority

Written document not sealed in order to reveal God’s message 

Revelation 22:10 – John was told to not seal up the words of his scroll because the time was near

Stone sealed to block an entrance

Daniel 6:17 – Daniel in the lion’s den was sealed by King Nebuchadnezzar’s ring

Matthew 27:66 – Jesus’ tomb sealed by Roman authorities 

God’s seal on…

Jeremiah 22:24 – to Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) king of Judah the LORD said even though you were the seal on my right hand I would pull you off (a scary thought!)

John 6:27 – the Son of Man has God the Father’s seal of approval

2 Corinthians 1:22 – God’s seal of ownership is on us and His Spirit is in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come

Ephesians 1:13 – God’s people are marked with His seal, the promised Holy Spirit

Ephesians 4:30 – God’s people are not to grieve the Holy Spirit by whom we were sealed for the day of redemption

2 Timothy 2:19 – God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” 

Revelation 7:2, 3, 4 – an angel coming up from the east having the seal of the living God…put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of the living God…144,000 from all the tribes of Israel

This article was first published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Steinmann needed to show that the chronogenealogical formula throughout Genesis 5 and 11 ("When A had lived X years, he brought forth B") indicates not when B was born but rather when A performed the causing action that initiated the process that culminated in B's birth. His reply, however, does not even attempt to establish this bedrock premise; he continues to treat it as self-evident. My rejoinder demonstrates that Steinmann has not successfully defended the semantics of causation that underlies his unique case for chronological gaps.

Read the rest of Jeremy's article in PDF Format: Sexton, Jeremy, “Andrew E. Steinmann’s Search for Chronological Gaps in Genesis 5 and 11: A Rejoinder,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 1 (2018): 39–45.

Sexton_JETS_61.1_Rejoinder.pdf

Henry B. Smith Jr. and Kris J. Udd, “On the Authenticity of Kainan, Son of Arpachshad,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 24 (2019): 119–54.

Kainan, the son of Arpachshad in Luke 3:36, is considered original to Luke’s messianic genealogy by the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece 28 (NA28) and UBS 5. A few scholars have argued instead that his name originated as a scribal error in an early manuscript of Luke’s Gospel. Then, Christian scribes across the Mediterranean world almost universally accepted his name as original to Luke, interpolating Kainam/n into the forty plus manuscripts of Luke presently extant. According to this theory, Christian scribes also added Kainan to all known Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts of Genesis 11:13b–14b dated prior to the 12th century AD. While doing so, they allegedly borrowed the begetting age (130) and remaining years of life (330) from Shelah in the next verse (LXX Gen 11:15–16) and falsely assigned them to Kainan. They also added Kainan to some manuscripts of LXX Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24. Additionally, Christian scribes also amended extant copies of the pseudepigraphical Book of Jubilees by fabricating a biography for Kainan in chapter eight and inserting it between the lives of Arpachshad and Shelah.

This article will examine several lines of textual and historical evidence and demonstrate that this explanation for Kainan’s origin cannot be sustained. Other untenable theories of Kainan’s origin will also be explored. Instead of being spurious, Kainan’s originality in LXX Genesis 10:24 and 11:13b–14b, the Book of Jubilees, and Luke 3:36 is virtually certain. Moreover, we will also propose that the most viable explanation for the known matrix of evidence is that Kainan appeared in the original Hebrew text of Genesis, but first disappeared from Genesis 11 by a combination of scribal and mental error in a very ancient archetypal Hebrew manuscript. This was followed by a complex sequence of events that occurred over the span of several centuries.

Read On The Authenticity of Kainan, Son of Arpachshad in PDF Format.

Editorial note: This article has been published in the Fall 2018 issue of Bible and Spade in electronic form only, and not in print. Download the complete PDF.

3. Liber Biblicarum Antiquitatum (LAB, or Pseudo-Philo)

When faced with evidence or careful scholarship that militates against their position, C&C repeatedly dismiss it out of hand. No place is this more evident than in their handling of LAB.

LAB is a pseudepigraphical work that selectively recapitulates biblical history from Adam to Saul. It consists of 65 chapters and is considered a “haggadic midrash.”⁸¹ Scholars who have examined LAB in detail argue that it was derived directly from Hebrew texts of the OT and was originally written in Hebrew in the 1^st century AD in Israel. It was then translated into Greek and eventually into Latin. It is incumbent upon C&C to carefully demonstrate why these scholars are wrong. Instead, they dismiss all of their painstaking analysis and arguments as “conjecture.” C&C interact with zero scholarship on LAB’s original language and biblical base text and completely ignore the most significant and in-depth studies published by Harrington and Jacobson.⁸²

Beyond the carefully reasoned scholarship on LAB, there is additional evidence that the author was following a Hebrew exemplar of Genesis. LAB 4.9 omits Kainan from its recitation of Genesis 10:24, indicating he was using a Hebrew text and not the LXX. Moreover, as I emphasized in my ICC article (p. 124), Lamech’s numbers in LAB only appear in the MT. His begetting age of 182 and (textually reconstructed) remaining years of 595 (adding up to the MT’s lifespan of 777 years), are not found in any manuscripts of the LXX, nor in any external witnesses to the LXX from antiquity. A scribe who deliberately revised the 11 numbers in LAB to reflect the LXX’s would have recorded 188 for Lamech’s begetting age, not 182. Indeed, the figures for Lamech in LAB must therefore have come directly from a Hebrew text of Genesis, not the Septuagint.

C&C then sweep away all of LAB’s higher begetting ages in Genesis 5 by baldly asserting that a Greek scribe may have changed all of the numbers (11 in all)⁸³ to reflect the figures found in the LXX. C&C admit that theirs is a “just-so-story.”⁸⁴ And it certainly is. There is no manuscript evidence to support their argument,⁸⁵ nor is there evidence that the LXX exerted undue influence upon LAB’s text,⁸⁶ nor does the internal evidence in LAB itself support it.

Then, C&C turn to LAB 3:6, which provides a chronological summation figure for the antediluvian era, presently extant as 1652 years (Greek χιλιων εξακοσιων πεντακοντα δυο; Latin MDCLII). This obviously is at odds with the internal addition of the nine begetting ages found in LAB 1:1–22, which should add up to 2256 instead (Greek δισχιλιων διακοσιων πεντακοντα εξ; Latin MMCCLVI).

In C&C’s “just-so-story”, the scribe who allegedly made the 11 changes to match LAB with the LXX somehow lacked the competence or wherewithal to add up the numbers required to easily change LAB 3:6 from 1652[6?] to 2256. Harrington notes that the 1652 figure could have arisen by means of an accidental scribal error from what would have been an original, internally cross-checked figure of 2256.⁸⁷ C&C dismiss Harrington’s explanation out of hand, arguing that deliberately changing the 11 other figures is as equally plausible as accidentally changing one. This assertion with no analysis or supporting manuscript evidence violates one of the most basic principles of textual criticism: the weighing of textual variants. Here, we have one possible pro–MT data point that can be explained by scribal error vs. 11 numbers reflecting the longer chronology in the extant manuscripts, Lamech’s Hebrew based figures, the absence of Kainan in LAB 4:9, and the voluminous and detailed scholarship concluding that LAB was written in Hebrew and derived directly from a Hebrew text of the OT in the 1^st century AD.

The reader can decide for himself which is the “just-so-story.”

4. Augustine’s Renegade Scribe Theory

In my ARJ article, “Methuselah’s Begetting Age,” I believe that it has been amply demonstrated that the 167 begetting age reading in Gen 5:25 found in some LXX manuscripts originated as an accidental scribal error. This was followed by another scribe’s attempt to “correct” the numbers. In my concluding statements, I pointed back to Augustine, who had suggested centuries ago that the 167 reading was “…nothing more than a scribal error. It is certainly not unreasonable to suspect such an error with regard to the question of Methuselah’s life…” (City of God [=DCD] XV.13)⁸⁹ Part of Augustine’s rationale in drawing this conclusion was his knowledge of 5 manuscripts (3 Greek, 1 Latin, 1 Syriac) which placed Methuselah’s death 6 years before the Flood, necessarily entailing his correct begetting age of 187.⁹⁰ He also briefly notes that accidental scribal error explains the relatively minor differences in the numbers between the LXX and the Hebrew for Lamech (DCD XV.13).⁹¹

C&C assert that in order for me to accept Augustine’s testimony about the five manuscripts, I “should likewise regard him as reliable about other things pertaining to the state of the manuscripts.” This statement refers to Augustine’s claim that Hebrew manuscripts were spread over a large geographic area and therefore the Hebrew text of Gen 5 could not have been deflated by the Jewish rabbis.

One can readily accept Augustine’s testimony about his knowledge of the five manuscripts with Methuselah’s correct begetting age without accepting his conjectures about the dissemination of Hebrew manuscripts in antiquity (or his explanation for the alleged inflations in LXX Gen 5). As it specifically relates to the Methuselah variant, Augustine’s knowledge of the five manuscripts is consistent with Jerome’s personal knowledge of copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch which also contained the 187 reading (ARJ p. 175). Both accounts are consistent with all of the other relevant evidence. There are no grounds to reject Augustine’s claim about the five manuscripts.

Conversely, I provided an argument and evidence above (§ II.1) that disproves Augustine’s claims about the Jewish dissemination of and control over Hebrew biblical texts after the destruction of the Temple. On this particular point Augustine was wrong, as all of the textual and historical evidence points decidedly in the opposite direction. Augustine’s knowledge of the five manuscripts is in no way dependent upon his claims about the Jewish dispersion of and control over Hebrew texts in antiquity. It is fallacious to demand that accepting the first requires accepting the second.⁹² (C&C also employ a similar fallacy with Bar Hebraeus, § I.1).

Additionally, Augustine’s explanation for the origin of the longer chronology in Genesis 5 of the LXX cannot withstand scrutiny.

The translation of the Pentateuch into Greek was a great intellectual achievement. The extensive work involved with the translation took place in one of the world’s supreme learning centers of antiquity.⁹³ Moreover, it was a thoroughly Jewish enterprise, where reverence for the sacred text was a major factor in the translation and subsequent copying work. In that religious and cultural context, Augustine would have us believe that the Jewish leaders who supervised and translated the Law of Moses into Greek assigned the task of making the first (and necessarily on Augustine’s view, only) copy of the original LXX to a renegade scribe who radically altered the chronology of Genesis 5 by inflating it by 600 years. This scribe, thinking that his Jewish audience would be unable to accept the long lifespans, utilized a division scheme that would have made the numbers more believable. Instead of simply reducing the numbers in the text to make them more palatable (such as reducing Adam’s lifespan from 930 to 93), the scribe assumed that the reader would know that the numbers should really be divided by 10 to yield the “real” begetting ages and lifespans.⁹⁴ In order to make this scheme work, this scribe inflated the begetting ages and reduced the remaining years by 100 years each in the LXX.⁹⁵ So, in the case of Seth, his original begetting age of 105, divided by 10, would have equaled 10.5. Seth fathering Enosh at the age of 10.5 would be too low a figure for a reader to accept, so the scribe inflated the original from 105 (Hebrew) to 205 (LXX). The reader would then be expected to divide the age of 205 by a factor of 10. Seth’s “real” begetting age would then be 20.5, a believable figure for the 3^rd century BC reader.

What follows here is a survey of 10 reasons why Augustine’s theory is illogical, self-contradictory, and not supported by the evidence.

1. How could anyone reading the LXX text in the 3rd century BC possibly know to divide the numbers in Gen 5 by a factor of 10 in order to ascertain the “real” ages of the antediluvians? Augustine properly counters such arguments from his own day (DCD XV.14), which come from “certain persons with no desire to weaken the credit of this sacred history” (DCD XV.12).⁹⁶ Presumably, these are professing Christians who wished to make the numbers in Genesis 5 more palatable to the unsaved mind (an unfortunate phenomenon still taking place in the church today). But those making such arguments during Augustine’s lifetime are living seven centuries after the LXX was originally translated. There is nothing in the text proper, nor in the works written during Second Temple Judaism that indicate Jewish readers would have known to divide the numbers by a factor of ten.

The evidence from this general period found in the writings of Demetrius (220 BC), Jubilees (160 BC),⁹⁷ Eupolemus (160 BC), LAB (1^st century AD), Josephus (ca. AD 90), and the author of DSS 4Q²⁵² (ca. 50 BC)⁹⁸ indicates that Jewish exegetes and historians understood the numbers as actual ages. There was no reason for the scribe to create a convoluted division scheme, for there is no evidence that contemporary Jews reading the text would have had a problem with the antediluvian lifespans or begetting ages!⁹⁹ Thus, Augustine anachronistically imposed a contemporary, 5^th century AD specious Christian attempt at apologetics seven centuries backward onto the mind of a 3^rd century BC professional Jewish scribe.

2. If this renegade scribe was willing to make these extensive falsifications to the sacred text and risk God’s wrath (Dt. 4:2), why not just reduce the numbers to more “believable” figures and remove any ambiguity? In other words, instead of using a veiled division scheme that Jewish readers would not have even been aware of, just reduce the actual numbers in the text by a factor of 10 and be done with it. Such changes to the sacred text would have been just as egregious as these alleged, veiled changes. The scribe was running the risk of being exposed anyway. If the believability of the lifespans and begetting ages was of such great apologetic importance to the scribe, why not make things crystal clear instead?

3. Augustine’s view requires that the Jewish leaders in Alexandria, who surely would have hired a professional scribe(s) to make the very first copy of the original LXX, never bothered to check his work to be sure he had accurately copied the text (cf. Dt. 17:18). Apparently, no one ever again looked at the original LXX copy in the Library at Alexandria, either. For if just one person had, the renegade scribe’s systematic alterations would have been exposed and then corrected in newer LXX copies. The Alexandrian leaders would not have let the fraud stand.

4. On Augustine’s view, the Jewish leaders also never bothered to make another copy of the original text, allowing the falsely inflated antediluvian chronology to be disseminated into Jewish communities in Egypt, Israel, and beyond. Given the great importance of the LXX translation and its subsequent and widespread use throughout the Mediterranean Diaspora, it strains credulity beyond limits to believe that only one direct copy from the original LXX was ever made. Just one additional copy with the shorter chronology made by a more faithful scribe would have exposed the first scribe’s inflation scheme to the light of day. The LXX manuscript tradition would then have revealed mixed evidence with both the higher and lower begetting ages appearing in different manuscripts of Genesis 5. Instead, only the higher numbers appear in the LXX manuscripts. Augustine himself admits that the Methuselah variant demonstrates that multiple copies of the original LXX were made.¹⁰⁰

5. Even though this falsely inflated chronology would have been at odds with every single known Hebrew manuscript of Gen 5, the Jewish community embraced and used the old LXX for about 350 years until the advent of the Church. Moreover, the original nature and acceptance of the higher Gen 5 begetting ages is affirmed in the Jewish chronologies of Demetrius (Egypt), Eupolemus (Jerusalem), LAB (Israel), and Josephus (Rome). Such reception of the longer chronology would have been impossible had the LXX’s antediluvian chronology been off by 600 years when compared to a much shorter version deposited in Hebrew texts. Moreover, reception of the LXX with corrupted and inflated numbers in Genesis 5 would only have been possible with an authoritative endorsement from the Alexandrian leadership. These erroneous inflations would not and could not have been authorized by the Jewish authorities in Alexandria, since, on Augustine’s view, the original LXX and its Hebrew Vorlage contained the lower Gen 5 begetting ages, and the scribe was acting on his own accord.

6. The scribe’s division scheme that dubiously explains the LXX’s numbers in Genesis 5 must also apply to Shem (Gn. 11:10–12). Surely his lifespan of 600 years would have been just as “implausible” as the antediluvian lifespans. If the numbers were of such paramount apologetic concern to the scribe, then Shem’s begetting age should have been inflated to 200, resulting in a begetting age of 20 (200/10), remaining years of 40 (400/10), and a (calculated) lifespan of 60 (600/10).¹⁰¹ At present, Shem’s 100 yields the absurd begetting age of 10 in the scribe’s division scheme, undermining an indispensable element of his apologetic objective.

7. The same logic can be applied to the patriarchs from Arpachshad through Nahor (Gn. 11:12–25). None of the lifespans for these men would have been “believable” to the scribe’s intended audience, with Methuselah being the oldest pre-Abrahamic patriarch, dying just short of the “real” age of 97 (969/10). Moreover, the LXX Gen 11 begetting ages range from 135 to 79. None of these would have been believable, either. Even worse, when they are divided by 10, they yield siring ages between 13.5 and 7.9. According to Augustine’s own theory, the lower limit for procreation was 16 years of age.¹⁰² The LXX begetting ages should all be at least 30 years higher so that they could subsequently be divided by ten to yield plausible begetting ages. Nahor’s begetting age should have been inflated by 80 years or more.¹⁰³ These problems are compounded even further by Augustine’s own acceptance of LXX Gen 11 (see § II.4.10).

8. Even the lifespan of Abraham (175) would be deemed unacceptable. Why was it not also altered in the LXX of Genesis 25:8? Moreover, why would the reader not be expected to divide Abraham’s begetting age of 86 when Ishmael was born (Gn 16:16), or Abraham’s age of 100 at the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5)? Abraham fathered Isaac three years later than Methuselah’s “real” lifespan of 97 years? And why does the division scheme also not apply to the lifespans of Isaac (180) and Jacob (147)?¹⁰⁴ These questions further expose the illogic of Augustine’s theory.

9. Augustine’s theory is also refuted by:

a. The longer antediluvian chronology in LAB, derived from a Hebrew text of Genesis five.

b. The longer primeval chronology of Josephus, which was based on a Hebrew text of Genesis (ICC, pp. 125–27).

c. The longer primeval chronology presented by the Jewish historian and Jerusalem official Eupolemus, who used both the LXX and Hebrew texts in his work (ICC, p. 123).

10. Augustine refutes his own theory by advocating the LXX’s timeline in Genesis 11: “Thus the years from the flood to Abraham come to a total of 1072…” (DCD XVI.10).¹⁰⁵ Augustine also accepts the authenticity of Kainan (DCD XVI.10), so his embrace of the LXX’s numbers in Gen 11 as representing the original, inspired text is irrefutable. This necessarily means that the Alexandrian translators possessed a Hebrew text of Genesis 11 with the higher begetting ages. Even more significantly, it inevitably follows that the post-Flood timeline has been deliberately deflated by 650 years in all surviving Hebrew manuscripts of Genesis 11 (sans the Samaritan Pentateuch).

But according to Augustine’s own theory, the Jewish nation was “scattered far and wide,” making it impossible for the Hebrew manuscripts to be universally deflated in this manner. Indeed, he says “it would be absurd for any sensible person to believe… that the Jews, no matter how great their malice or perversity, could have accomplished such a thing in so many texts scattered over such a wide area…” (DCD XV.13).¹⁰⁶ By accepting the LXX and its corresponding Hebrew Vorlage as original for the post-Flood epoch, Augustine must posit that the lower Gen 11 begetting ages were universally deflated in all known Hebrew manuscripts. Otherwise, how can their exact matching nature be explained? If it was not possible for the Gen 5 figures in Hebrew texts to have been universally reduced by the Jewish authorities, then Augustine cannot logically accept the LXX Gen 11 readings as authentic, for this would require the exact same kind of ubiquitous reductions in all Hebrew manuscripts of Gen 11 containing the lower begetting ages.

Perhaps aware of this contradiction, Augustine vaguely offers no explanation for the origin of the deliberately deflated Hebrew chronology of Genesis 11: “…the total is far less in the Hebrew texts, and for this difference there is either no explanation at all or one that is virtually impenetrable” (DCD XVI.10). Presumably, the “virtually impenetrable” (or “not very credible”)¹⁰⁷ argument Augustine refers to is the charge that the Jewish authorities had universally changed the Hebrew text. But again, if the LXX is correct in Gen 11, how did the shorter Hebrew chronology get deflated universally? Was someone else in control of the Hebrew textual tradition other than the Jewish rabbis? Surely not. Was the systematic reduction a phenomenon of pure accident? By Augustine’s own admission, surely not (DCD XV.13). Who else could have deflated the post-Flood chronology in all known Hebrew manuscripts, and, who could have disseminated the new manuscripts with the new, shortened chronology into their religious community, universally?

The fatal result is that Augustine destroys his own theory.

Augustine and anyone attempting to adopt his theory cannot have it both ways. And if one tries to accept his theory for Gen 5 but moves away from Augustine’s acceptance of LXX Gen 11 by embracing the MT’s post-Flood timeline, one is left without a coherent explanation for the alleged inflations in LXX Gen 11. The death knell to such a maneuver is the Hebrew text of the Samaritan Pentateuch of Genesis 11, where the begetting ages match the LXX (sans Kainan).

Like most Christians throughout history, I have the greatest admiration for Augustine’s monumental contributions to the Church historic and to western civilization. His intellectual and spiritual heritage is enormous. But on this particular issue, Augustine’s arguments cannot withstand the weight of scrutiny. The manuscript evidence, common sense, Jewish scribal practice, external witnesses, LXX Gen 11 and Augustine’s acceptance of it, Gen 11 SP, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s lifespans, and the importance and 350–year use of the old LXX translation all converge to negate Augustine’s theory.

5. The Anti-Conspiracy Stance

At the end of their article, C&C reject any theory of textual reconstruction that involves “conspiracy theorizing.” Such an arbitrary position immediately limits the large scale changes to only an individual, renegade scribe who systematically revised the chronology in the textual witness he was handling. Moreover, all by himself and without the aid of others, he was able to bypass his particular religious community’s authority structure and introduce the systematic changes without being detected. The preceding critical assessment of Augustine’s argument provides one template for how a renegade scribe theory cannot explain the numerical divergences in Genesis 5 and 11, nor can it explain how those systematic changes were inculcated into any particular religious community.

Large scale and systematic revisions such as those found in Gen 5 and 11, and the dissemination of those changes into any community, requires agreement amongst multiple individuals (perhaps led by a religious/community leader endowed with great authority and charisma, such as Rabbi Akiba). Otherwise, such changes would be quickly exposed and rejected as fraudulent. Systematic changes also require viable and significant motivation(s), for they all fundamentally believed they were handling sacred texts.

No matter what textual tradition one tries to defend as original, in no instance could such systematic revisions in the opposing textual traditions be implemented without multiple persons agreeing to them. So, a defense of the MT requires viable, testable and independent explanations for systematic inflations in the both the LXX (by the Alexandrian Jewish translators) and SP Gen 11 (by the Samaritan priesthood). These inflations could not have been the work of a single, renegade scribe, but must have inevitably involved authority figures who controlled the manuscripts. A defense of the MT also requires an explanation of how the leaders in Alexandria would have been able to maintain subsequent control over the falsely inflated numbers in LXX manuscripts once the first copies left the Alexandrian library. This is in stark contrast with the highly controlled state of affairs in rabbinic Judaism and/or the limited scope of the Samaritan community and priesthood. Conversely, a defense of the SP or LXX requires similar explanations.¹⁰⁸

A conspiracy is therefore required to explain the large-scale changes to Gen 5 and 11. The anti-conspiracy stance taken by C&C is both arbitrary and fallacious.

III. Conclusions

One of my colleagues had suggested that I interact solely with the academic arguments and the evidence. After some reflection, I soon realized that the problems I have critiqued above are so inextricably interwoven into C&C’s article that it is impossible to avoid having to deal with them directly. The only way to avoid these features was to not respond at all, which is a course of action I did consider for a brief time. I must admit to the reader that I had some difficulty writing this article, but I ultimately believed it was necessary to respond to the misrepresentations, dismissiveness, fallacies and ad hominems that pervade C&C’s article. I do hope they will abandon this kind of approach in the future. Most of all, I respectfully request that Lita and Rob discontinue their repeated denigration of my motives.

Moreover, C&C have presented little to no additional argumentation/evidence to advance their position that the MT preserves the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. I’ll summarize here the manifold problems that remain for pro–MT advocates, problems that still remain unaddressed. Those who favor the MT’s primeval chronology have not yet adequately accounted for:

• The fact that the unreliability and artificiality of Jubilees discredits all of the SP’s and six of the MT’s begetting ages and remaining years in Genesis 5. Jubilees is the only external witness to any element of the shorter primeval chronology before ca. AD 120–160, and the inauthenticity of its numbers is a devastating witness against the shorter chronology (see: MT, SP or LXX?).

• The fact that the MT’s complete primeval timeline lacks any external witness before ca. AD 120–160. This is the period when the complete, shorter primeval timeline first officially appeared on the scene, although I would argue that its ideological genesis is rooted in earlier messianic and chronological speculations from Second Temple Judaism, and with certain artificial chronological elements originating in the Book of Jubilees. All of the following witnesses were entirely influenced by Pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism and/or closely follow the rabbinic controlled MT: Seder Olam (AD 140–160), the Jewish recensions of the LXX (AD 140–200), the Syriac Peshitta (mid to late 2^nd century AD),¹⁰⁹ and perhaps Targum Onkelos (2^nd century AD, with final redactions in the late 3^rd century AD).¹¹⁰ All of this evidence is consistent with my argument that the rabbis deflated Gen 5 and 11 in their Hebrew texts shortly after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

• The fact that the Genesis Hebrew text used for Josephus, LAB, and the LXX of Genesis 5/11 all contained the higher begetting ages in ca. 90 AD and earlier.

• Five independent witnesses confirm the higher begetting ages in Genesis 11: the LXX’s Hebrew Vorlage (280 BC), the Samaritan Pentateuch (Hebrew, 2^nd century BC, perhaps even earlier), Demetrius (Greek, 220 BC), Eupolemus (Greek/Hebrew, 160 BC), and Josephus’ text of Genesis (Hebrew, AD 90).

• When combined with the five pre–100 AD witnesses to the higher begetting ages, the matching remaining years in Genesis 11 from the MT/LXX confirm the originality of the longer post-Flood chronology (§ II.2.4e; ICC, pp. 127–28, 130–31; “MT, SP or LXX?,” p. 26).

• MT advocates have provided no valid motive compatible with the complex matrix of evidence that can adequately explain why and how the LXX could have been deliberately inflated. Augustine’s theory fails, and Jerome and Bede provide no viable solutions either. Other LXX inflation hypotheses are also insufficient (ICC pp. 120–21).

• Abraham’s lifespan of 175 years and the description of his age at death given by Moses in Gen 25:8 cannot be internally reconciled with the MT’s post-Flood chronology, “for it yields genuine and irreconcilable errors within the sacred text” (ICC p. 123). Genesis 25:8 is only compatible with the SP/LXX. While Genesis 5 is more complicated and somewhat thorny (see: “MT, SP or LXX?”), the problems for the MT are insurmountable in Genesis 11.

I would like to add that I am grateful that C&C pointed out my error on Ephraem of Syria. Although I was already aware of it, this was obviously an appropriate critique. Let me apologize again to both C&C and the reader for my mistakes regarding Ephraem. In no way did I intend to deliberately mislead anyone. In God’s providence, my Ephraem error led me to discover Jacob of Edessa’s witness to Hebrew manuscripts that contained the longer chronology.

Lastly, I also appreciate the opportunity to further expand upon my present research and clarify important details. The article also prodded me to go back and look more carefully at Augustine’s work, something I’ve wanted to do for quite some time. His arguments in City of God have only served to add further credence to my contention that the Septuagint preserves most of the original chronology deposited in Genesis 5 and 11. Until an alternative theory and textual reconstruction is presented with weighty and persuasive arguments, the preponderance of evidence points to the originality of the longer primeval chronology, especially in Genesis 11.

Let the reader decide for himself which argument is more compelling.

Quick link: Setting the Record Straight on the Primeval Chronology of the Septuagint: Part 1 > Part 2 > Part 3 > Part 4

____________________________________
     ⁸¹James H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7S (Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1981), 170.
     ⁸²Daniel J. Harrington, “The Original Language of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” Harvard Theological Review 63, no. 4 (October 1970): 503–14; Idem., “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33, no. 1 (January 1971): 1–17; Idem., “Pseudo-Philo: A New Translation and Introduction,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2, 2 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1983), 297–377; Idem., “Pseudo-Philo,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background, ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter Jr. (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2000), 864–68; Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
     ⁸³This would have included: the remaining years for Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Enoch; the begetting ages for Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Enoch.
     ⁸⁴C&C equate their “just-so-story” with the careful arguments in the academic literature regarding the text critical reconstruction of LAB’s original numbers. I document these sources and briefly discuss them in my ICC paper (pp. 123, 131).
     ⁸⁵For a list and detailed discussion of the 20 or so extant manuscripts, see: Guido Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Publications in Mediaeval Studies 10 (Notre Dame, IN: The University of Notre Dame, 1949), 22–98; Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 257–73.
     ⁸⁶Harrington, “The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” 3–6. He writes: “These are but a few of the better examples illustrating our hypothesis that no known Greek version of the OT has been inserted into the biblical sections of LAB,” (p. 5).
     ⁸⁷In my view, this may have happened after LAB had been translated from the original Hebrew into Greek. Note the similarities in the Greek spellings.
     ⁸⁸This is similar to the data and internal calculations found in manuscripts of Josephus (ICC pp. 125-27).
     ⁸⁹Unless otherwise noted, quotes of Augustine in this article are found in: Boniface Ramsey, ed., The City of God (De Civitate Dei), trans. William Babcock, vol. 7: Books XI-XXII, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part I (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2013), 156.
     ⁹⁰Ibid., 157. Augustine revisits the Methuselah question in: Questions on the Heptateuch: Question 2 on Genesis 5:25. Boniface Ramsey, ed., Writings On The Old Testament: The Works of Saint Augustine, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard and Sean Doyle (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2016), 16. And also in: The Grace of Christ and Original Sin: Book II: Chapter 27 [XXIII.]—On Questions Outside the Faith—What They Are, and Instances of the Same, (p. 727).
     ⁹¹An older translation of City of God can be found online in: Philip Schaff, ed., Fathers of the Second Century, vol. 2. Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2004). The reader can follow Augustine’s arguments there in full.
     ⁹²C&C state that my citation of Augustine on the particular issue of the Methuselah variant is “wildly incorrect.” They then provide an extensive quote from City of God. Augustine claims the numbers in Gen 5 of the LXX arose from the deliberate revisions of a single, renegade scribe. Augustine himself clearly distinguishes between accidental errors (Methuselah and Lamech’s numbers) and deliberate, large–scale changes which “suggests deliberate design rather than mere chance” and are “different from them” (DCD XV.13, 10; Babcock, City of God, 156, 152 ). C&C also acknowledge this distinction: “there are two kinds of differences… those which are most likely the result of scribal error, and there are those which must be intentional, because they are systematic” (emphasis original). I have repeatedly made this same distinction in all of my published articles and presentations at ETS and ICC, so I fail to see why my quotation of Augustine on the specific issue of the Methuselah variant is “wildly incorrect.” Perhaps this fallacious pejorative refers to the fact that I accept Augustine’s assessment that the Methuselah variant is the result of an accident, without accepting his arguments about deliberate revisions by a renegade scribe in Gen 5 LXX on the whole, or his claims about Hebrew manuscripts controlled by the Jewish authorities. Or, perhaps it refers to the fact that Augustine later speculates that the Methuselah variant (167) was possibly not accidental, but part of the renegade scribe’s plan (DCD XV.13). He leaves it up to the reader to decide if the speculation is viable (it is not). At the end, he appeals to the 5 manuscripts containing the 187 begetting age for Methuselah. He reiterates this point in Questions on the Heptateuch–Question 2:“But the faultiness of several codices has given rise to this question. Not only in the Hebrew, but also in the translation of the Septuagint (in fewer but more accurate codices) a different reading is found: Methuselah is found to have died six years before the flood” (Ramsey, Writings On The Old Testament: The Works of Saint Augustine, 16).
     ⁹³Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 18–19.
     ⁹⁴Augustine’s explanation of the division scheme is found in DCD XV.13, followed by a more detailed discussion in XV.14.
     ⁹⁵According to Augustine, the renegade scribe did not inflate the begetting ages for Jared (162), Methuselah (187) and Lamech (182). Each of their ages in the Hebrew text, divided by 10, would yield a “plausible” teen begetting age (16, 19, and 18).
     ⁹⁶Schaff, Fathers, 665.
     ⁹⁷While Jubilees radically alters the entire chronology of Genesis 5 and 11, its author clearly believed the lifespans were actual ages.
     ⁹⁸The Qumran author’s exegesis of Noah’s age at the time of the Flood, and the integration of his life into the chronology of the Flood narrative, is literal. See: Jeremy D. Lyon, Qumran Interpretation of the Genesis Flood (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 69–89.
     ⁹⁹Philo of Alexandria applies his usual allegorical exegesis to the numbers for Enoch’s life, but he does not employ a veiled division scheme to yield more “believable” numbers: Questions and Answers on Genesis, I.82–83, II.17 and II.78 (Philo Judaeus, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, trans. C. D. Yonge [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993], 808, 821, 839).
     ¹⁰⁰"…some such discrepancy might have occurred in one copy...” (Babcock, City of God, 156).
     ¹⁰¹Although Genesis 11 did not include lifespans in the original text, anyone can add the begetting ages and remaining years to calculate the lifespans. However, the begetting ages and remaining years both need to be correct to get the actual, original lifespan.
     ¹⁰²According to Augustine, Jared’s begetting age of 162 was not inflated in the LXX because it would yield a “real” age of 16.2 in the scribe’s division scheme (DCD XV.13).
     ¹⁰³In a self-refuting twist, Augustine turned to the Hebrew numbers in Genesis 5 to counter contemporary Christian arguments that the antediluvian lifespans should be divided by ten to get the “real” lifespans (DCD XV.12). Such division would yield absurd begetting ages such as 10.5 for Enosh and 7 for Kenan. By leaving Nahor’s begetting age at 79 in the LXX, the renegade scribe failed miserably at his scheme. Nahor was really 7.9 years of age when he fathered Terah!
     ¹⁰⁴Gen 35:28; 47:28.
     ¹⁰⁵Babcock, City of God, 198.
     ¹⁰⁶Ibid., 155. Augustine reduces their ostensible motive for deflating the chronology to mere jealousy: “…simply because they resented having the authority of their Scriptures passed to others…” The evidence from this period and the NT indicates that Jewish attitudes towards the Church and the Gospel went far beyond mere jealousy. Augustine’s own use of the terms “malice and perversity” goes against his attempt to minimalize their posture.
     ¹⁰⁷Babcock, City of God, 199; Schaff, Fathers, 717.
     ¹⁰⁸I have provided an extensive argument with viable reasons for deflations in both the MT and the SP of Genesis 5, as well as evidence for the originality of SP/LXX Gen 11 (both in this article and in other published research). Conversely, C&C have still not put forth a theory that can even remotely explain alleged inflations in both the LXX Gen 5/11 (in Alexandria) and SP Gen 11 (in Shechem).
     ¹⁰⁹The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version, Part I, Fasc. 1. (Preface, Genesis-Exodus) (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 1977).
     ¹¹⁰Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with an English Translation of the Text (New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1982), 9.