PDA

View Full Version : Counting 70 or 75 in WTT, NAU, and LXT

Yaku Lee
08-25-2009, 09:38 PM
Counting 70 or 75 in WTT, NAU, and LXT

In Gen 46:8-27, Jacob and his descendants who went to Egypt are individually listed by name and counted. And there seems to be some discrepancies in counting, and I would like to know why.

(1) In WTT and NAU, Jacob’s descendents through Leah are enumerated in Gen 46:9-15: Reuben and sons, 5 (v. 9); Simeon and sons, 7 (v. 10); Levi and sons, 4 (v. 11); Judah and “sons,” 6 – 2 + 2 = 6 (v. 12); Issachar and sons, 5 (v. 13); and Zebulun and sons, 4 (v. 14). Leah had a daughter named Dinah (v. 15). Now these numbers add up to 32 (5 + 7 + 4 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 1 = 32).

If this subtotal is 32, instead of 33 as Verse 15 says, then the rest of the counting comes out just fine: 32 (v. 15?), 16 (v. 18), 14 (v. 22), and 7 (v. 25) give a subtotal of 69. When Joseph and his two sons are subtracted from this subtotal, it gives 66 (v. 26). And when Jacob is added to 69, it gives the grand total of 70 (v. 27).

Q1. Why does Verse 15 sayשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשָׁלֹשׁ "thirty-three” while there are only thirty-two names to count?

Q2. There is only one daughter listed in Verse 15. But why does the same verse sayוּבְנוֹתָיו“and his daughters,” and θυγατέρες “daughters” (LXT) in the plural form?

(2) In LXT, Jacob’s descendants through Rachel are listed in Gen 46:19-22. The count is as follows: Joseph and “sons,” 8 (v. 20); Benjamin and “sons,” 11 (v. 21). And the list gives a subtotal of 19 people.

Q3. Why does Verse 22 say the subtotal is “δέκα ὀκτώ” while 19 names are listed?

Q4. In Verse 20, the number of the names of Joseph’s “sons” born in Egypt is 7. But why does Verse 27 say the number is ἐννέα, two more than the listed names of seven?

Here again, if only the names are counted, everything comes out just fine. That is, 32, 16, 19, and 7 give a subtotal of 74. And since Joseph and his “sons” born in Egypt are altogether 8 in number, subtracting 8 from 74 gives 66 (v. 26). When Jacob is added to 74, it gives 75 (v. 27).

(3) Finally, in LXE, it is only pointed out that Οφιμιν is missing from Verse 21, making the subtotal come out correctly to “eighteen.”

Any light on any of these four questions concerning text internal matters would be highly appreciated.

Regards

jimofbentley
08-27-2009, 03:00 AM
Question 1)

The reasons why the numbers "don't add up" have puzzled scholars for some time. There seem to be several general answers to this:

1) The "33" includes Er and Onan, but not Dinah (Von Rad, Wenham)
2) The "33" excludes Er and Onan, but includes Dinah and Jacob (Skinner, Keil & Delitzsch)
3) The "33" excludes Er and Onan, but includes Dinah and an otherwise unknown daughter (Hamilton)

Which is the correct, I am not sure.

Question 2)

That the text reads "daughters" (plural) does not, of necessity, demand that more than one person be considered. For instance:
1) 1 Chronicles 7:17 - "And the sons of Ulam: Bedan".
2) 1 Chronicles 2:7 - "The sons of Carmi: Achar".
3) 1 Chronicles 2:8 - "The sons of Ethan: Azariah".

In each case the plural "sons" was used to indicate only one descendant.

Questions 3-7)

When it comes to the LXX, other issues come into play.

1) Does the Hebrew text before the translator read the same as the text of the MT?
2) How competent is the translator at his task?
3) Does the translator have an agenda that he is working towards. In other words, will he manipulate the text by adding or subtracting material to either make it "fit" with other parts of the Scriptures, or with his own ideology? Is he trying to "harmonize" the various sources he has?
4) Is the translator seeking to work "word for word", "dynamic equivalence" (to steal a more modern phrase), or as a paraphrase?
5) Does the translator seek to include other material not in his Hebrew text? This appears to be the case here when descendants of Manasseh are brought in from Numbers 26:29 and descendants of Ephraim are included form Numbers 26:35-36.
6) The LXX runs into the same problems of translation that every modern version does. Sometimes they have to make a choice, and it turns out to be a bad one.

These are questions that can only be determined through a more careful study of the various texts. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful here.

Yaku Lee
08-28-2009, 02:29 AM
Question 1)

The reasons why the numbers "don't add up" have puzzled scholars for some time. There seem to be several general answers to this:

1) The "33" includes Er and Onan, but not Dinah (Von Rad, Wenham)
2) The "33" excludes Er and Onan, but includes Dinah and Jacob (Skinner, Keil & Delitzsch)
3) The "33" excludes Er and Onan, but includes Dinah and an otherwise unknown daughter (Hamilton)

Which is the correct, I am not sure.

Question 2)

That the text reads "daughters" (plural) does not, of necessity, demand that more than one person be considered. For instance:
1) 1 Chronicles 7:17 - "And the sons of Ulam: Bedan".
2) 1 Chronicles 2:7 - "The sons of Carmi: Achar".
3) 1 Chronicles 2:8 - "The sons of Ethan: Azariah".

In each case the plural "sons" was used to indicate only one descendant.

Questions 3-7)

When it comes to the LXX, other issues come into play.

1) Does the Hebrew text before the translator read the same as the text of the MT?
2) How competent is the translator at his task?
3) Does the translator have an agenda that he is working towards. In other words, will he manipulate the text by adding or subtracting material to either make it "fit" with other parts of the Scriptures, or with his own ideology? Is he trying to "harmonize" the various sources he has?
4) Is the translator seeking to work "word for word", "dynamic equivalence" (to steal a more modern phrase), or as a paraphrase?
5) Does the translator seek to include other material not in his Hebrew text? This appears to be the case here when descendants of Manasseh are brought in from Numbers 26:29 and descendants of Ephraim are included form Numbers 26:35-36.
6) The LXX runs into the same problems of translation that every modern version does. Sometimes they have to make a choice, and it turns out to be a bad one.

These are questions that can only be determined through a more careful study of the various texts. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful here.