Errors in Patriarchal Ages in the Septuagint and the Methuselah Anomaly
One of the most glaring errors in the Septuagint involves its modifications to the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis, particularly in the genealogy from Adam to Noah. While the Hebrew Masoretic Text provides a consistent account of these ages, the Septuagint inflates the lifespans of several patriarchs, leading to chronological discrepancies that affect the biblical timeline in significant ways. Most notably, these changes result in the absurd implication that Methuselah, Noah’s grandfather, would have lived beyond the year of the flood—a detail that conflicts with the narrative of Genesis and the theological integrity of the account.
Discrepancies in Patriarchal Ages
The Septuagint consistently increases the ages of patriarchs at the birth of their firstborn sons. For example, where the Masoretic Text states that Adam was 130 years old when he fathered Seth, the Septuagint changes this to 230 years. This pattern continues throughout the genealogical record, inflating the ages at the birth of the patriarchs’ sons by 100 years in most cases, though there are occasional deviations from this rule.
A comparison of a few examples demonstrates the discrepancies:
| Patriarch | Masoretic Text Age at Son’s Birth | Septuagint Age at Son’s Birth | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adam | 130 | 230 | +100 |
| Seth | 105 | 205 | +100 |
| Enosh | 90 | 190 | +100 |
| Kenan | 70 | 170 | +100 |
| Mahalalel | 65 | 165 | +100 |
| Methuselah | 187 | 167 | -20 |
While the inflated ages for most of the patriarchs lead to an extended pre-flood timeline in the Septuagint, the Methuselah anomaly introduces a unique problem. According to the Masoretic Text, Methuselah lived 969 years, dying in the same year as the flood (Genesis 5:27), which occurs when Noah was 600 years old. This aligns with the biblical narrative, implying Methuselah’s death coincides with or even slightly precedes the flood, maintaining consistency with the account of only Noah and his family surviving the deluge.
The Methuselah Anomaly in the Septuagint
In the Septuagint, however, Methuselah’s age at the birth of Lamech is reduced from 187 years (Masoretic) to 167 years, but his total lifespan is extended to 969 years—the same as in the Masoretic Text. Because of the adjustments made to the ages at which other patriarchs fathered their sons, Methuselah’s 969-year lifespan would have him living beyond the year of the flood if the Septuagint’s chronology is followed precisely.
According to the Septuagint timeline, Noah’s flood occurs 14 years before Methuselah’s death, creating an internal inconsistency within the biblical narrative. If Methuselah were indeed alive at the time of the flood, it would directly contradict Genesis 7:23, which clearly states that all humans outside Noah’s family perished. This chronological anomaly casts doubt on the Septuagint’s reliability, as it introduces a logical inconsistency that disrupts the theological coherence of the Genesis account.
Implications of the Septuagint’s Error
The Methuselah anomaly in the Septuagint raises significant theological issues:
- Inconsistency in Scriptural Chronology: By allowing Methuselah to survive the flood, the Septuagint implies that the divine judgment of the flood was incomplete, contradicting the narrative of God’s thorough cleansing of the earth. The Masoretic Text, in contrast, maintains a consistent timeline, with Methuselah’s death aligning with the flood year, preserving the integrity of the judgment narrative.
- Impact on Genealogical Continuity: The inflated ages in the Septuagint disrupt the flow of the genealogies in Genesis. The ages in the Masoretic Text present a clear, interconnected lineage that aligns with other chronological markers in the Hebrew Bible. By deviating from these figures, the Septuagint introduces discrepancies that impact the broader biblical timeline, affecting interpretations of other chronological events throughout the Old Testament.
- Theological Implications of Survival Beyond Judgment: The flood is described as a total judgment against humanity’s wickedness, sparing only Noah and his family. Methuselah’s survival past the flood would imply an exception to this judgment, which has theological ramifications for understanding the nature of divine justice. By allowing Methuselah to survive, the Septuagint disrupts the portrayal of a complete, sovereign act of judgment, introducing ambiguity regarding who was saved and why.
- Discrepancy in Doctrinal Interpretation: The inflated patriarchal ages in the Septuagint reflect a potential interpretative bias or an agenda to align the biblical account with Hellenistic views of antiquity, where figures with extraordinarily long lifespans were common. This divergence suggests that the Septuagint translators may have been influenced by contemporary cultural views on age and ancestry, leading them to adjust the ages in the biblical account to fit culturally acceptable patterns rather than adhering strictly to the Hebrew original.
Conclusion
The errors in patriarchal ages within the Septuagint, and particularly the Methuselah anomaly, highlight significant issues in the Greek translation’s consistency and theological alignment with the Hebrew text. These deviations not only introduce chronological inconsistencies but also compromise the integrity of the Genesis narrative. For Reformed scholars who view the Septuagint as a corrective over the Hebrew, the Methuselah anomaly serves as a cautionary example, emphasizing the need to prioritize the original Hebrew text, which preserves a consistent, theologically coherent account of pre-flood history. By elevating the Septuagint’s authority in this context, one risks embracing a flawed chronology that undermines the theological continuity and doctrinal foundations of the biblical record.
A Call for Faithfulness to the Text of Scripture
The examination of the Septuagint’s origins, textual inconsistencies, doctrinal deviations, and chronological errors reveals profound challenges in treating it as a corrective tool for the Hebrew Masoretic Text. From its dubious historical foundation in the Letter of Aristeas to its internal inconsistencies and theological distortions, the Septuagint fails to meet the standard of fidelity required to preserve the integrity of Scripture. These issues underscore the theological and textual superiority of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, affirmed by both its meticulous preservation and its alignment with the doctrines of providential preservation articulated in Reformed confessions.
The historical inaccuracy of the Septuagint, with its origins rooted in legend rather than fact, undermines its credibility as a reliable ancient witness. Its patchwork nature, compiled over time and reflecting the biases of various translators, betrays a lack of uniformity that contradicts claims of divine inspiration or providential preservation. The Masoretic Text, in contrast, demonstrates an unbroken lineage of scribal fidelity, confirmed by the remarkable alignment of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the traditional Hebrew text.
The textual deficiencies of the Septuagint further erode its reliability. Its inconsistent translation quality, ranging from precise to paraphrastic, reflects the diverse abilities and theological biases of its translators. These biases are evident in the doctrinal deviations introduced by the Septuagint, which often align more closely with Hellenistic philosophical ideals than with the theological framework of the Hebrew Scriptures. By altering concepts of creation, diminishing the anthropomorphic language of God, and inserting Greek sacrificial elements, the Septuagint distorts key theological truths foundational to the biblical narrative.
The Methuselah anomaly starkly illustrates the Septuagint’s failure to maintain chronological coherence. Its inflated patriarchal ages disrupt the biblical timeline and introduce absurdities, such as Methuselah outliving the flood. This error undermines the theological integrity of the Genesis account, where the flood serves as a complete act of divine judgment against humanity’s wickedness.
Furthermore, the parallels between the elevation of the Septuagint and Roman Catholic veneration of the Latin Vulgate raise troubling questions about the theological trajectory of modern Reformed textual criticism. By treating the Septuagint as a superior or corrective text over the Masoretic Text, some scholars replicate the very errors the Reformers sought to rectify during the Reformation. The Reformers’ insistence on the primacy of the original languages—Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament—remains a cornerstone of Reformed theology and confessional standards. Departing from this principle risks compromising the doctrines of sola scriptura and providential preservation.
This series has demonstrated that the Masoretic Text remains the most reliable witness to the Old Testament Scriptures, preserved by God’s providence through the centuries. The Septuagint, while historically and academically significant, cannot be elevated to the level of a corrective text without introducing doctrinal, historical, and theological inconsistencies. The Masoretic Text’s consistency, alignment with New Testament citations, and affirmation by the Reformers solidify its place as the authoritative text for the Old Testament.
In conclusion, the Reformed community must resist the temptation to elevate the Septuagint in ways that undermine the authority of the Hebrew text. Doing so aligns with neither the principles of the Reformation nor the confessional standards that safeguard the purity and preservation of Scripture. Instead, Reformed scholars and theologians should reaffirm their commitment to the original texts, upholding the Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus as the authoritative witnesses to God’s inspired Word. By doing so, they will continue to honor the doctrines of preservation and authority that are foundational to the Christian faith.
