The LXX Genesis Chronologies—A Closer Look
Bodie Hodge
Biblical Authority Ministries, April 4, 2024 (In-Depth)
There is a debate over chronologies—so what else is new
(Titus 3:9)? I really don’t like diving into chronological debates but I keep
having people knock on my door, send me messages, and stop me in the hallway to
deal with these debates.
One of the best ways to understand the chronological debates
in Scripture is to tally things up yourself to see firsthand the intimate
issues and intricacies. Chronologically, I’ve been pushed (not by choice) into
the sojourn
debate and the age
of the earth debate—again, it was not because I wanted to. Though, I have a
great deal of respect for those who dive into this meticulous subject. And now
it seems another similar type of debate must be dealt with.
I’ve largely stayed out of this particular debate until I
read a message shared by a colleague. We were standing in the hallway when he
showed me a message that stated something to the effect that if we aren’t
following the LXX translation (Old Testament translated into Greek) then we are
part of the problem of opposing God and His Word.
First off, this person was not arguing for biblical authority—but
rather for translational authority. Note,
translational authority is a distinctly different category from biblical
authority.
Nearly all the inerrant, God “breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16),
texts of Old Testament Scripture were originally penned in biblical Hebrew, with
only a few passages in Aramaic[1]
(the New Testament was written in Koine Greek). So now you might be wondering, what
was the big deal? Why is someone so passionately urging us to hold a certain
translation as “superior” to the original language texts? To answer this, let’s consider the chronology data in Genesis 5 regarding
the pre-Flood patriarchs from Adam to Noah (10 generations in total).
This particular debate stems from the popular Masoretic Text
(in Hebrew) of Genesis 5 versus the Greek LXX (Septuagint), which renders the
chronologies in Genesis 5 a bit differently. In other words, the chronologies
in both texts are close but don’t completely agree with each other. So,
the natural question is… which one is trustworthy? And therefore, which one has
been put into error in subsequent copies, or through translation, and why?
For those immediately wondering if this causes an issue with
inerrancy—calm down. This doesn’t affect the inerrancy of Scripture at all—the
Bible’s original texts were inerrant.
The discussion here is about copies and
translations of those inerrant texts. Simply put, something has gone awry with
one of these families of texts to cause the discrepancy—thus, inerrancy is
preserved.
Where Can Potential Mistakes Be Introduced?
One needs to understand where changes could occur in either
text family from a big picture. Copying mistakes—especially in the
old days when this was done meticulously by hand—is one obvious way. Things
like misspelled words, updating the word because the language has changed, ink
stains where you can’t read a previous text properly, water stains, frayed or
ripped pages, and so on, can contribute to copyist errors. Through textual
criticism (which is a good thing!), we can usually ascertain the original text rather
easily.[2]
Another obvious way is via translator issues (like translational bias) where a translator
thinks a passage means something (that it may not) and translates it as such. Hebrew
idioms or passages can sometimes be metaphorical, poetic, songs, or prophecy
that uses certain imagery. And the translator has to figure out how to
translate those (sometime tricky) types of passages into another language.
In summary, there are essentially two translation methods—"word-for-word"
(called formal equivalence) and "thought-for-thought"
(called dynamic equivalence). And translators
have to attempt to strike a balance using these two methods, which can be
difficult. That is, using too much “word-for-word” could miss the Hebrew
idioms, metaphorical meanings, and so on. Whereas using too much “thought-for-thought”
could introduce the translator’s bias (or belief) as opposed to the actual
intended meaning of the inspired text.
Furthermore, a translation can sometimes mishandle a
translational rule. For example, the length in inches was a span more than threescore
and a baker’s dozen. The correct answer is 82 inches knowing that a score is
twenty (and you have 3 of them making 60) and that a baker’s dozen is 13 (which
gives you 73) and a span is 9 inches that needs to be tacked on making the
final 82 inches. Consider for a moment the KJV rendering of Psalm 90:10: The
days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength
they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon
cut off, and we fly away. If a translator doesn’t know the precision of these
English terms, they could err in a translation into Spanish, German, Chinese,
Japanese, etc.
Hence, this is why it’s good to have multiple translators
constantly check and compare any translation to the original text (if possible).
Nevertheless, translator issues and biases occur more than
you might think—just look at the multitudes of English Bible translations (and
their updates) trying to reduce translational issues. Regarding chronology, utilizing
original language dates immediately reduces any translator bias to zero.
With original language texts, like a Hebrew text for
instance, any errors would likely come in one way:
1.
In the copying phase
With a translation, errors would likely come in two ways:
1.
In the translational phase
a.
Translator Issues
b.
Inaccurate starting texts due to previous copying
mistakes
2.
In the copying phase subsequently since the
translation was completed
Of course, this is assuming that translators or copyists (like
the scribes) were not intentionally trying
to destroy the text. Furthermore, the Masoretic text is not the only source of
Hebrew for the Old Testament chronologies. The three primary sources for
original language texts are the Masoretic Text (MT), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP),
and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).
It is worth noting that while there are chronology concerns
in the Masoretic Text (MT), which are more in the Persian period[3],
any MT discrepancy is well after other events that can be used to anchor actual
dates for chronology. So these are not part of the discussion on the Genesis 5
renderings.
Original Language Text Data For Genesis 5 Chronologies
There is one Dead Seas Scroll (DSS) fragment found from
Genesis 5 (specifically Genesis 5:13-14) of Cainan (Kenan) and it matches with
the MT and the SP saying:
“And Kenan lived eight hundred and
forty years after he became the father of Mahalahel, and had other sons and
daughters. So all the days of Kenan were nine hundred and ten years, and he
died.”[4]
Table 1 shows the original language texts and the data we
have for the Genesis 5 lineages. These include the Masoretic Text, the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and what little data we have from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Table 1: Original
Language Texts for Genesis 5
(Tabulated as: age at
fathering the next child in the lineage; years lived after the child; total
years lived)
|
Name |
Masoretic |
Samarian Pentateuch[5] |
Dead Sea Scrolls |
|
Adam |
130; 800; 930 |
130; 800; 930 |
|
|
Seth |
105; 807; 912 |
105; 807; 912 |
|
|
Enosh |
90; 815; 905 |
90; 815; 905 |
|
|
Cainan |
70; 840; 910 |
70; 840; 910 |
70; 840; 910 |
|
Mahalaleel |
65; 830; 895 |
65; 830; 895 |
|
|
Jared |
162; 800; 962 |
162;785;
847 |
|
|
Enoch |
65; 365; Translated |
65; 365; Translated |
|
|
Methuselah |
187; 782; 969 |
67; 653, 720 |
|
|
Lamech |
182; 595; 777 |
53; 600; 653 |
|
|
Noah |
500; 350; 950 |
500; 350; 950 |
|
Early Translation Data For Genesis 5 Chronologies
Table 2 (below) has the data for early translations of the Hebrew of Genesis 5 into three different
ancient languages. These languages are Latin, Greek, and Aramaic. There are two
ancient independent sources for the Aramaic translations—the Peshitta (Syriac)
and the Targum of Jonathan. The Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate (4th-century
Latin translation of the Bible) was translated from Hebrew texts found in and
around Bethlehem around AD 400.
The portions of the Old Testament written in Aramaic (269
verses) are primarily in Daniel and Ezra. Aramaic is similar to Hebrew, as
compared to Greek and Latin, and is a variant Chaldean language of the
Babylonians and Ur. Let me briefly explain the history behind this language.
Abraham hailed from Ur of the Chaldees (or Chaldeans), which
is his ancestral people (Genesis 11:28-31). And so, the languages that derived
from Abraham (Arabic with Ishmael; Edomite with Esau, biblical Hebrew with
Isaac down through Moses, etc.) along with these other Chaldeans (also known as
Babylonians) were all forms of Heber/Eber’s language as it came down through
Peleg at Babel (Genesis 10:24-25)—hence the name “Heberew” or Hebrew.
As the Chaldeans began to reign with a powerful empire,
under Nebuchadnezzar out of Babylon, the Chaldean language began to dominate
several lands within the Empire (similar to how Greek and Latin languages dominated
various areas within the Greek and Roman Empires).
The Chaldean language deviated into two forms—Eastern and
Western. The Western form dominated the lands of Aram (think of the Mountains
of Ararat and Armenia) but stretched westward toward the holy land and Syria
and beyond. This form of Chaldean (West Chaldea AKA West Chaldee) became known
as Aramaic because it was dominant in the lands of Aram. In ancient Syria, it
was Syriac—a variant form of Aramaic or West Chaldee.
This is why there are quite a few similarities between the
Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic—they stem from the same source at the Tower of Babel.
Though, the languages are different enough to keep the average person of that
day from grasping them without a little work (e.g., Isaiah 36:11). [Think of it
like this—English came out of a German language about 1000 years ago. Yet most
English speakers can’t regularly converse in German without learning it. But an
English speaker can easily learn German (since we actually share a lot of words
and grammar) as opposed to Japanese or Hungarian.]
In the same way, a Hebrew speaker could learn a sister
language like Aramaic or Chaldean much easier. For instance, the Chaldean
grammar and words were easily learnable for Daniel when he went into captivity
under Nebuchadnezzar (e.g., Daniel 1:4). This is unlike the Assyrian language,
which was totally different from Hebrew (e.g., Jeremiah 5:15) and difficult for
Hebrew speakers in Assyria when the Northern Kingdom of Israel was enslaved and
taken captive by the Assyrians.
All this to say that Aramaic is very similar to Hebrew in
many ways. In fact, it’s even called “Hebrew” in many English translations of
New Testament passages (like John 19:13-20 and Acts 24:14). Nevertheless, I’m
still treating these Aramaic works as a translation because the biblical Hebrew
of the Old Testament is being converted into the Aramaic form.
The numbers for Genesis 5 in these early translations are as
follows in Table 2.
Table 2: Early
Translations of Genesis 5
(Tabulated as: age at
fathering the next child in the lineage; years lived after the child; total
years lived)
|
Name |
Latin Vulgate |
Aramaic Peshitta[6]
|
Greek Septuagint |
Aramaic Targum (Jonathan)[7]
|
|
Adam |
130; 800; 930 |
130; 800; 930 |
230; 700; 930 |
130; 800; 930 |
|
Seth |
105; 807; 912 |
105; 807; 912 |
205; 770; 912 |
n/a; n/a; 912 |
|
Enosh |
90; 815; 905 |
90; 815; 905 |
190; 715; 905 |
90; 815; 905 |
|
Cainan |
70; 840; 910 |
70; 840; 910 |
170; 740; 910 |
70; 840; 910 |
|
Mahalaleel |
65; 830; 895 |
65; 830; 895 |
165; 730; 895 |
65; 830; 895 |
|
Jared |
162; 800; 962 |
162; 800; 962 |
162; 800; 962 |
162; 800; 962 |
|
Enoch |
65; 300; 365 Translated |
65; 300; 365 Translated |
165; 200; 365 Translated |
65; 300; Translated |
|
Methuselah |
187; 782; 969 |
187; 782; 969 |
167; 802; 969 |
187; 782; 969 |
|
Lamech |
182; 595; 777 |
200; 595; 777 |
188; 565; 753 |
182; 595; 777 |
|
Noah |
500; 350; 950 |
500; 350; 950 |
500; 350; 950 |
500; 350; 950 |
Discussion
From looking at the numbers, it’s clear that there is
general agreement between the original language texts, the two Aramaic texts (Peshitta,
Targum), and the Latin Vulgate texts., There were minor glitches in Lamech’s
initial age at 200—the math doesn’t even work for the Peshitta; and three of
the Samaritan Pentateuch ages are off. Otherwise, 6 of the 7 are quite good
confirmations of each other. The only
major outlier is the Greek Septuagint translation (LXX).
With the first seven, except Jared, exactly 100 years
was added to the age of the patriarch prior to having a child and subtracted
from the age of the patriarch after they had the child, thus immediately adding
600 years to an overall chronology that none of the other texts have! (Nor has any original language text had
anything like this.)
Obviously, this large discrepancy is not due to a copyist
error, but rather an active and intentional moving of 100 years from one column
and adding it to another column uniformly during a translational phase. Was
this done because the LXX Genesis translator didn’t understand the way the
numbers were written out and thus mistranslated it?
It’s possible. Actually, this same translator did the same
thing in Genesis 11—taking 100 years from one column and moving to back to the
initial age. For instance, in Genesis 11:12 where original language texts and
other early translation have Arphaxad at age 35, the LXX has, “And Arphaxad
lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan” (Genesis 11:12 LXXE).
The LXX did the same column shift of ages in Genesis 11 in certain instances.
It’s possible that
the translator failed to translate these ages correctly and misapplied
translational rules. This could easily be explained as a translational
misunderstanding—because it was consistently done. But regardless, this change
was obviously done during the translational phase.
Was it an active bias? I don’t think there is any active
bias to Lamech and Methuselah age glitches. These appear as the typical copyist
glitches. These types of glitches are like what we see in the Samaritan
Pentateuch or the one in the Peshitta (where they can’t read a number or it is
smudged ink or a water mark or previously errant copy of a number) and they at
least try to work the math out correctly arrive at the final age between the
three numbers.
But the obvious moving of 100 years from one column to
another in Genesis 5 and 11 makes me think that the translator either didn’t
translate it correctly (an innocent mistake on his part) or was actively trying
to inflate dates while still trying to preserve the integrity of the text.
If it is innocent, I understand—that is where a good review
process by secondary translators would have been helpful. If it was intentional,
then let’s ask the question… why? Or
more precisely, what was going on during that time in the culture that could
help us understand the grounds for such a change?
After all, a translation is only as good as its translators.
Some “translations” (made up by cults) have very clear biases—take for instance,
in modern times, the Jehovah’s Witness translation (New World Translation/NWT)
or the King James Version of 1833—also called the “Joseph Smith Translation” (JST)
used by Mormons. Both have intentional changes to fit their respective errant
theology by neglecting the original language text and meaning.[8]
In the case of the Mormon translation, there are over 3000 verses that have
been changed, added, or modified.
Original language texts are automatically closer to the
original inspired and inerrant text. Nevertheless, since all human beings are
fallible creatures prone to error, translator bias is real. So, what was going
on about 2000 years ago (3rd–2nd century BC) when the LXX was being translated?
Historical researcher and translator Larry Pierce points out
that about 2,000 years ago, various cultures were vying to be the oldest so
they could claim to be the first or preeminent. Thus, cultures would intentionally
try to push their histories back farther and farther into a chronology war.[9]
But consequently, as they did this, they continued to lose,
embellish, and disconnect their history! God’s Word reveals that every great
people group goes back to the same event—the events at Babel after the Flood
(Genesis 11). So why was this so easy for many cultures to simply push back
their dates? Larry Pierce points out that the great scientist and historian Isaac
Newton realized how it was done. Pierce writes,
“Newton points out that except for
biblical history, early historians did not use absolute dates until around 250
BC. Before that time, they usually marked time by the reign of kings.”[10]
So, without an absolute timeline, this was easy for cultures
with random reference dates to rulers. But the Bible has dates that are very
precise. And so, how does one deal with cultures that keep trying to push back their
alleged history? Did a translator of the LXX try a clever way to push back
dates, in an attempt to give biblical history a little older push, while still
trying do justice to the text? It’s possible. Regardless, there was definitely
a motive for translational bias.
If Solomon can be influenced by pagan women even with his
great wisdom (Nehemiah 13:26), then so can translators (i.e., man is not
perfect). This is why any translation should always be judged by original
language texts. So in the midst of these chronology wars in the third century
B.C., scholars quickly translated the Hebrew Old Testament into the Greek
language, which had become the universal trade language of that time.
The LXX, like the historical battles in surrounding
cultures, potentially lengthen dates early on in an attempt to demonstrate
Jewish claims of antiquity (along with the Egyptian and Greek claims who were
controlling them in Alexandria). Again, these chronology wars were significant
at the time the LXX was being translated.[11]
The Septuagint (AKA Interpretatio
septuaginta virorum or seniorum)
is abbreviated as the Roman numeral for 70 (LXX) because it was said that 70
(more precisely 72) scholars produced this translation in Alexandria, Egypt (a
Greek city in Egypt) in about 70 days. The style of Greek was not classical or
Hellenistic Greek but that which was common in Alexandria (Alexandrian).
In fact, the LXX has many other issues with regards to its
Genesis translation. For instance, the Egyptian (and Greek) understanding of
the heavens was influential for the translation of raqia as something solid στερεωμα (stereoma), which is where
we get firmament and firmamentum (Latin).[12]
Furthermore, in Genesis 6:2-3, sons
is translated as “angels” in the LXX.
And as a result, the LXX introduced a novel translation of
the word nephilim as giants, followed
by the Latin Vulgate as well as the King James Version. Nephilim is a noun
derived from the word that means “to fall” and a simple rendering would
literally be “the fallen”. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says:
“Actually, the translation ‘giants’
is supported mainly by the LXX and may be quite misleading.”[13]
Another LXX glitch presents itself when one does a careful
analysis of the pre-Flood patriarchs. If dates are carefully added up within
the LXX, then there is the famous “problem of Methuselah”. Genesis 5:27
says that “all the days of Methuselah which he lived were 969 years and he
died.” And so, tallying up the dates using the LXX would mean that he died 14
years after the Flood, which is a problem because only eight
people survived the Flood in the Ark—and Methuselah was not one of
them.
Outside of Genesis, there are also other instances of bad
arithmetic in the LXX. Numbers 1 details the number of men in each of
the 12 tribes of Israel. They add up to 603,450, but Numbers 1:46 gives
the total 603,550. They got it wrong on the tribe of Reuben. The correct figure
for the tribe of Reuben is 46,500 instead of the LXX figure of 46,400.
And In Numbers 26, there is yet another glitch.
Again, the tribes are numbered, and they add up to 580,630, but the total given
in Numbers 26:51 is 601,730.
Other times, I’m told that early Christians favored the LXX,
so we should too and even Jesus quoted from it. There is no doubt early
Christians were using the LXX—a Greek translation in a Greek speaking world!
However, consider a careful analysis of the precision of wording Christ used
when quoting the Old Testament.
“Jesus quoted from the Old
Testament about 64 times in the Gospels. More than half of His quotes agree
with both the LXX and the MT. In 12 instances, Jesus’s quotes differ from both
the LXX and the MT. In 7 instances, He sides with the LXX over the MT. And in
another 12 instances, He agrees with the MT over the LXX. So if we make a case
that other ancient texts such as the LXX should never be used
instead of the MT, then Jesus would be in error as He clearly didn’t draw
explicitly from what we know today as the MT.[14]”[15]
A total of 24 times, Jesus’s wording was deviant from the
LXX rendering. And yet, Jesus’s accuracy is always 100%!
Returning to Genesis, the LXX’s addition of 1,500 years in
Genesis (between pre-Flood and post-Flood patriarchs) does nothing to
synchronize with old earth and secular evolutionary timelines. Although it does
come closer to matching the stretched dates of some secular civilizations, like
Egypt
which have been found errant.[16]
At Biblical Authority Ministries, we utilize the MT chronology with
consultation to other original language texts simply because translations can
have these types of obvious errors.
Again, the LXX adds about a hundred years to most of the
progenitors named in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 that doesn’t match with any
original language text or any early translation by Jews or Christians. For
instance, instead of Genesis 11:14 reading “Salah lived thirty years and begat
Eber,” the LXX reads “Sala lived an hundred and thirty years and begot Heber.” These
shifted additions are not found in any original language text, fragment, or any
other early translation (e.g., the Peshitta, which is a Syriac/Aramaic translation).
Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate relied on Hebrew
language texts (but did consult the LXX) long before the MT came into existence.
And yet, he was open about the fact that the LXX had problems when he
translated the Latin Vulgate. (The MT dates match with the Latin Vulgate dates.)
It should also be noted that Josephus—a Jewish historian in the first century
AD, who followed the LXX closely, actually agreed with the MT date over the LXX
on the age of Lamech as a first century witness.[17]
Final Thoughts
It's important to note that this is not just an accidental
scribal error. It is clearly an attempt a translator to alter the translational
text in the LXX to extend the dates. So, when analyzing all these early texts
and translations, there is really only two options:
1. The scribes/translators uniformly
adjusted most of the dates to reduce the number of years in the chronology
in different places with different languages and different times:
(1) Hebrew scribes
for the MT
(2) Hebrew Scribes
for the Samaritan Pentateuch
(3) Hebrew /Aramaic scribes for the DSS
(4) Jerome in Latin
(5) Aramaic
Peshitta translators
(6) the Aramaic
targums translators
2. A Greek translator inserted
the extra centuries by moving 100 years here and there from one column to
another.
Which one looks more reasonable to you? (The answer should
be clear!) That is, I can think of no reasonable motive for why the Hebrew/Aramaic
scribes would want to reduce the length of years, but I can see why the Greek-influenced
scribes could want to extend the periods. They were living in the Greek world,
which believed in a slightly older earth, thus making the LXX more “acceptable”
to them with the extended years. After all, this is exactly what we see today
with
compromised Christians adding the secular humanism’s long ages by
reinterpreting the Bible (in Genesis 1) to include that immense
amount of time (“millions of years”)!
So, which text is most likely correct—the LXX or all the
others (which largely agree)? The LXX is clearly the outlier. We have several articles that address the LXX
chronology in various respects. Please see the following links for more
information:
·
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/some-remarks-preliminary-to-a-biblical-chronology/
·
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/can-we-trust-the-genealogies-in-genesis/
·
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/how-long-ago-was-the-curse/
·
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/when-did-methuselah-die/
·
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/oect/gaps-genesis-genealogies
[1] Note,
there are no books in the Bible written entirely in Aramaic, but there are Aramaic
portions that can be found in Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah.
[2]
Ron Rhodes, Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability, Reasoning From the
Scriptures Ministries, April, 11, 2018, https://www.brianoconnell.org/uploads/7/2/4/9/72493145/manuscript_evidence_for_the_bible_-_by_ron_rhodes.pdf.
[3] In
a nutshell, the MT scholars sought to shorten the Persian period so it could
discredit the Messianic claims of Jesus as fitting with Daniel’s prophecies
(for example, the Seder Olam).
[4]
The Dead Se Scroll Bible, Translated by M. Abegg, Jr., P. Flint, and E. Ulrich,
HarperOne Publishers (A division of HarperCollins Publishers), New York, NY,
1999, p. 8 [4QGenb: Gen 5:13 (or 14)].
[6]
David Bauscher, The Holy Peshitta Bible Translated (The Old Testament), Lulu
Publishing, New South Wales, Australia, 2018.
[8]
For instance, see: Bodie Hodge, Is Jesus the Creator God?, Answers in Depth, December 12, 2007, https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/.
[9]
Larry Pierce, Chronology Wars, Answers Magazine, January 1, 2010, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/chronology-wars/.
[10] Ibid.
[11]
Larry Pierce, Chronology Wars, Answers in Genesis, January 1, 2010, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/chronology-wars/.
[12] As
a side note, sadly, most (if not all) flat-earthers have commonly used this
term, firmament (as translated in the KJV), to justify their false belief of a hard
“dome” that covers a circular flat earth (think of a snow-globe). For more
information on why, and where this originated, start by checking out the
following article: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/does-bible-teach-earth-flat.
[13] R.
Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook
of the Old Testament, entry (1393a) נפילים (nepîlîm) giants, the Nephilim, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1980, as accessed through Online Bible.
[14] G.
Miller, “Septuagint,” A Christian Thinktank, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/alxx.html, January 30, 1995.
[15]
Bodie Hodge and Stacia McKeever, Two Ages at Once, Demolishing Supposed Bible
Contradictions, Volume 1, December 15, 2008, https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/two-ages-at-once/.
[16]
Elizabeth Mitchell, Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is
Unreliable?, New Answers Book 2, July
22, 2010, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/.
[17]
Josephus, The Revised Works of Josephus, Chapter 3, The
Deluge — God’s Covanent with Noah — Death of Noah.
