A.
NAMESHEBREW TEXT.SEPTUAGINT.JOSEPHUS.
Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.
1.Adam130800930230700930230700930
2.Seth105807912205707912205707912
3.Enos90815905190715905190715905
4.Cainan70840910170740910170740910
5.Mahalaleel65830895165730895165730895
6.Jared162800962162800962162800962
7.Enoch65300365165200365165200365
8.Methuselah187782969[*]187782969187782969
9.Lamech182595777188565753182595777
10.Noah500450950500450950500450950
To the flood100 100 100
Total1656 2262 2256
* The Vatican text of the Seventy makes this number 167.

Comparing the Hebrew figures with those of the Septuagint, it seems plain that one set or the other has been altered by design. It should be borne in mind that the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into Greek, made about 285 B. C., which is not far from 1500 years prior to the date of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts. Also that Josephus wrote in the latter part of the first century after Christ, giving Jewish history quite faithfully as then understood.——In the first table Josephus sustains the Septuagint with only the one slight exception of making Lamech 182 instead of 188 at the birth of Noah—his total being thereby six years less.

The reader will note carefully how these main differences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint stand. In the first five names and in the seventh, the years in the first column—i. e. the age of the father at the birth of his son, are less by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, or (what amounts to the same thing) greaterby 100 in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew. To correspond, the years in the second column are greater by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, so that the totals as they appear in the third column come out the same in both texts.——These are the only important variations. The other is a slight one—the Septuagint adding six years to the age of Lamech at Noah’s birth, or the Hebrew taking six years off from the number as in the Septuagint. In this case Josephus is with the Hebrew text.——It may be noted also that in the cases of Jared and Methuselah, the figures agree.——Now the question is—Which text is pure, and which has been corrupted?

A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of Arphaxad (two years after the flood) to the call of Abram, made up from the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of Gen. 11:10–26:

B.
NAMESHEBREW TEXT.SEPTUAGINT.SAMARITAN.
Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.Age at Son’s birth.Rest of life.Total.
1.Shem100500600100500600100500600
2.Arphaxad35403438135400535135303438
3.Salah30403433130330460130303433
4.Eber34430464134270404134270404
5.Peleg30209239130209339130109239
6.Reu32207239132207339132107237
7.Serug30200230130200330130100230
8.Nahor291191481791253047969145
[or 79]
9.Terah1301352051301352057075145
[or 70] [or 70]
10.Abram,
his call		75 75 75
Total365 1015 1015

Here it will be noticed that the important differences are of the same sort as in the corresponding table beforethe flood. In a series of six names (Arphaxad to Serug inclusive) the Hebrew has 100 years less in each life than the Septuagint before the dividing point. In the first (the important) column, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint. The years in the second and in the third columns are quite irregular. In the case of Nahor the Septuagint exceeds the Hebrew either 50, as in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, or 150 as in the Vatican text.

On the question—Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew:

(a.) That it is the original.——​(b.) That in general it has been preserved by the Jews with extreme care and guarded against corruption with the greatest vigilance.

In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in question may be urged—