Pseudepigrapha Journal For The Study of The

Journal for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha
http://jsp.sagepub.com/
The Curse of Cainan (Jub. 8.1-5): Genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11

and a Mathematical Pattern
Helen R. Jacobus
Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2009 18: 207
DOI: 10.1177/0951820709103182
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/18/3/207
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jsp.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jsp.sagepub.com/content/18/3/207.refs.html
Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha
Vol 18.3 (2009): 207-232
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0951820709103182
http://JSP.sagepub.com
The Curse of Cainan (Jub. 8.1-5):

Genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11
and a Mathematical Pattern*
HELEN R. JACOBUS
Department of Religions and Theology, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester
Abstract
This study suggests that Cainan (LXX Gen. 10.24; Gen. 11.12; [LXX A] 1 Chron. 1.18;
Jub. 8.1-5; Lk. 3.36-37), the missing thirteenth patriarch from Adam in the genealogical
table in Masoretic text (MT) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) was known to the
authors of the proto-MT, and the proto-SP. Using textual and chrono-genealogical
analysis, it offers evidence to show that the thirteenth generation from the thirteenth
generation from Adam had to contend with a curse. An arithmetical test on the variant
chrono-genealogical data in Gen. 5 and Gen. 11 in the MT, SP, LXX Vaticanus (B), LXX
Alexandrinus (A) and the Peshitta show that the ages and ‘begetting’ ages of the
ancestors across the recensions create an integrated mathematical model. It would
appear that the variant data in the texts was compiled by the same mathematical school
of Jewish scholars, probably in Palestine and Alexandria. The arithmetical paradigm
takes into account Cainan’s presence in LXX B and LXX A and his absence in the proto-
MT, proto-SP and the Peshitta. It is likely that the Gen. 5 and Gen. 11 chrono-genealo-
gies can be dated to between the compilation of the LXX Genesis, in the third century
BCE and the schism between the Samaritans and the Jews in the second century BCE.
Keywords Cainan, Curse, Genesis, Jubilees, Genealogies, Samaritan.
* My sincere thanks go to Dr P. Guillaume for his support and useful references in

the early stages of this study.

208 Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 18.3 (2009)
1. Introduction
Cainan, the father of Shelach, son of Arpachshad, grandson of Shem and
great-grandson of Noah, is listed in the genealogies of Shem in the
Septuagint (LXX), LXX Gen. 10.24, Gen. 11.12-13; (LXX A) 1 Chron.
1.18; and Lk. 3.36-37 as the thirteenth generation from Adam. 1 He is
conspicuously absent from the Masoretic text (MT) and the Samartian
Pentateuch (SP) where it is stated that Arpachshad, the first patriarch to
be born after the Flood (Gen. 10.1), is the father of Shelach (MT, SP
Gen. 10.24; Gen. 11.12-13; 1 Chron. 1.18, 24) instead of Cainan. 2
An explanation for this discrepancy between the LXX and the
Masoretic and Samartian versions of the Pentateuch is contained in a
surprisingly elaborate narrative in Jub. 8.1-5. According to Jubilees,
Cainan, the thirteenth generation from Adam, was sent away after he
discovered the secrets of astronomy and astrology.3 This knowledge had
been imparted by the fallen angels, the Watchers, to human beings 4
before the Flood and these terrestrial ancestors had carved the secrets
into rock.
In contrast to Cainan’s unauthorized discovery, Enoch, the seventh
generation from Adam,5 had been chosen to receive divinely revealed,
1. Cainan is listed as the father of Shelah in later versions of Genesis: LXX, OL and
EthGen (VanderKam 1989: II, 50, n. to Jub. 8.1). The name also appears in 1 Chron.
1.18 of Codex Alexandrinus but not in P75 and Codex Bezae (Fry 1992). Codex Vati-
canus is missing Gen. 1.1–46.28; these pages were copied from the Vatican Codex
Christianus R IV 38 in the fifteenth century and added to the text (Parker 1992). Note
that the genealogical ages in Gen. 5 and Gen. 11 in A New English Translation of the
Septuagint (Pietersma and Wright 2007) reflect the data in LXX A Genesis only, not LXX
B Genesis (cf. Brenton [1844], who uses LXX B Genesis as his base text and notes the
LXX A variants). Neither translation includes LXX A 1 Chron. 1.18. This variant is noted
in BHS.
2. The MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, Armenian, Syriac, Vulgate and the Targums
exclude Cainan (VanderKam 1989: II, 50, n. to Jub. 8.1).
3. It is noteworthy that in the Jubilees chronology, the Cainan pericope begins in the
29th Jubilee (Jub. 8.1) and ends in the 30th Jubilee (Jub. 8.5) (I thank Peter Nockolds
for this observation): 29 and 30 are the number of days in alternate lunar months. In the
luni-solar calendar, a thirteenth month is intercalated every two or three years. These
numerical values, which have subliminal negative connotations in this narrative, may
support the polemic against the luni-solar calendar expounded in Jub. 6.36.
4. ‘Ancestors’ according to Wintermute (1985: 71); ‘ancients’ according to Vander-
Kam (1989: 50); and the descendants of Seth, in Josephus, Ant. 1.68 (Thackeray, LCL).
5. Gen. 5.18. Enoch’s position in the generational list is noted in 1 En. 93.3 and
4Q212 (4QEnochg ar) III 23 (Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2004: 140; García Martínez
and Tigchelaar 1998: II, 442-44).

JACOBUS The Curse of Cainan (Jub. 8. 1-5) 209
esoteric astronomical and calendrical knowledge6 (Jub. 4.17-19). In the

Ethiopic or 1 Enoch, the ‘holy ones’ and the archangel Uriel transmit
these secrets to Enoch (1 En. 1.2; 2.1; 17.2; 33.1–36.4; 41.5-8; 59.1-3;
60.11-14; 69.20-21; 71.4; 72–82).7
According to Hartoum, the name of Cainan may be a later addition to
the book of Jubilees, influenced by the LXX, because its presence contra-
dicts the chronology in Jub. 2.23, which states that there were 22 ‘lead-
ers of humanity’8 from Adam to Jacob. That sacred number excludes
Cainan from the vertical genealogy; were he included, Cainan’s name
would increase the numerical value of the patriarchal line from Adam to
Jacob, to 23.9
However, Halpern-Amaru has pointed out that the repudiation of
Cainan in the narrative of Jub. 8.1-5 ensured that the generational num-
ber remained at 22 (1994: 619-20). The 22 patriarchs from Adam to
Jacob were ‘blessed and sanctified’, an honour which was denied Cainan.
Hence, paradoxically, Cainan exists as a Shemite ancestor in Jubilees,
although he is not counted among them.10
This article explores whether Cainan existed in an early tradition and
may have been expunged from the MT by editors at a later date, or, if his
name was originally absent from the proto-MT and proto-SP.11
The methodology followed in the present study is two-fold, consisting
of (1) textual analysis and (2) a close reading of the variant data regard-
ing the toledot (the genealogies in Gen. 5.1-32 and 11.10-32) in the MT,
6. The details of astronomical and calendrical knowledge in the Book of Luminaries

(1 En. 72–82) and in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q208–4Q211) are not explored in the
present study.
7. See Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2004: 19, 21, 38, 48-49, 56-57, 72-73, 91, 93,
96-116.
8. All translations from Jubilees are taken from VanderKam 1989.
9. A.S. Hartom, Sefer HaYovlot in Sefarim Hachizonim (Tel Avi: Yavneh, 1980)
(Hebrew) 38, n. to v. 1 (cited by VanderKam 1989: II, 50, n. to Jub. 8.1) and Halpern-
Amaru (1994: 619-20 n. 40). VanderKam mistakenly notes that the addition of Cainan
brings the total of generations from Adam to Jacob to 22 in Jub. 2.23 (2001: 41).
10. J. Rook suggests that as Cainan’s sin was ‘not sexual, but calendrical’, he was
allowed to continue the pure, Shemite line; cf. Rook 1990: 115, cited by Amaru-Halpern
1994: 619 n. 38.
11. The view that Cainan was present in an earlier tradition was expressed by
Bork (1929), cited by Northcote 2004: 9. Following Bork, Northcote argues that Cainan
was present ‘in an earlier Old Testament chronological tradition, but was later removed
from the SP (but not the LXX)…’ (2004: 8). Hasel (1980: 7) observed that ‘it remains a
moot question’.

SP, the mid-fourth century, (diplomatic) Septuagint Vaticanus (LXX B)

and fifth-century Alexandrinus (LXX A) to see whether a significant
mathematical pattern emerged and, if so, whether it took account of data
about Cainan.12
2. Background
The author of Jubilees implies that Cainan was excised from the patri-
archal genealogical list for secretly practising astronomy, astrology and
divination. The story states that Cainan’s discovery of this knowledge
would anger his great-grandfather, Noah, because this antediluvian
‘writing’ explicated prohibited skills that had been transmitted by the
Watchers. Cainan subsequently named his son ‘Shelach’,13 because he
(Cainan) ‘had been truly sent’:
Jub. 8.1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week—at its beginning [1373
Anno Mundi]—Arpachshad married a woman named Rasueya, the daughter of
Susan, daughter of Elam. And she bore a son for him in the third year of that
week [1375 AM], and he named him Kainan. 8.2 When the boy grew up, his
father taught him (the art of) writing. He went to look for a place of his own
where he could possess his own city. 8.3 He found an inscription which the
ancients had incised in a rock. He read what was in it, copied it, and sinned on
the basis of what was in it, since in it was the Watchers’ teaching by which
they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon and stars and every heavenly
sign. 8.4 He wrote (it) down but told no one about it because he was afraid to
tell Noah about it lest he become angry with him about it.
8.5 And in the thirtieth jubilee, in the second week—in its first year [1429
AM]—he married a woman whose name was Melka, the daughter of Madai,
Japheth’s son. In its fourth year14 he became the father of a son whom he
named Shelah, for he said: ‘I have truly been sent’ (VanderKam 1989: 50-51).
2.1. Counting the Generations

The name of Cainan is not found among the biblical genealogies extant
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. According to 4QAges of Creation A and B
(4Q180–4Q181), there are apparently ten generations from Shem to
12. The use of method 2 was inspired by the chrono-genealogical paradigms used by
Bruce K. Gardner (2001). I thank him for sending me a copy of his book.
13. Punning with the third person masculine singular perfect piel of xl#.
14. The chronology gives Cainan a progenitor age of 57 (1375 AM to 1432 AM)
(VanderKam 1989: II, 50-51), which represents a different tradition to that in the LXX
where it is 130 (LXX Gen. 11.13).

Abraham.15 If this is so, then, counting inclusively, one would have to

infer that Cainan has been omitted since, had Cainan been included,
there would have been eleven. See the tables section at the end of this
article, where Table 4 on the Chrono-Genealogical List presents the
data in LXX Genesis 11 (ten patriarchs from Shem to Terah, including
Cainan).
The significance of the tenth generation may be that the Covenant
was established with Noah (Gen. 9.9-17), who was the tenth generation
from Adam, and with Abraham (Gen. 15.18; 17.9-14, 19, 21), who was
the tenth generation from Noah (counting the patriarchs from Shem,
omitting Cainan). This symmetrical genealogical reckoning is echoed by
Josephus in Jewish Antiquities (see sections 5 and 7, below).
There is evidence for an interest in generation-counting in Second
Temple literature that is not explicit in Genesis. The sources in the Dead
Sea Scrolls are quite unequivocal: 4Q180–4Q181 state Abraham’s gen-
erational position from Shem until the birth of Isaac who, in turn, consti-
tuted a new generation, and a successive chrono-genealogical ordinal in
the family tree.
The numerical place in the genealogy of Enoch, as the seventh from
Adam, is specified in 1 Enoch (1 En. 37.1; 93.3 [4Q212 iii 23]). Interest-
ingly, the genealogical position of Cainan, as the thirteenth in line from
Adam in Jubilees, is ambiguous: he is also the seventh from the seventh
generation, if one counts the generations inclusively from Enoch. Thus,
there is a significant numerical connection between Enoch and Cainan.
Milik argued that the seventy generations from Enoch to Jesus in
Luke (Lk. 3.23-37)—these include Cainan—may be based on an apoca-
lyptic prophecy in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 10.12)16 which is also
extant in 4QEnochb ar (4Q202) iv 10-11.17 Although Cainan’s name is
never referred to in 1 Enoch, it is possible that the Lukan pericope may
have used Jub. 8.1-5 as supporting evidence for the variant toledot in
the LXX.
15. 4Q180 1 4b, 5: ‘This is the sequence of the son[s of Noah from Shem to Abra-
ham,] [unt]il he sired Isaac; the ten [generations…]’; 4Q181 2 1: [to Abraha]m [until he
sire]d Isaac; [the ten generations…] (García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997: I, 370-71,
374-75).
16. Milik 1976: 175, 257; Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2004: 29.
17. 4Q202 iv 10-11 (1 En. 10.8-12) in García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997: I,
406-407.

Northcote observes that the existence of Cainan in Jubilees ‘owes

little to the LXX’ in terms of ‘other chronological respects’ (i.e. the age
of begetting Shelach). Therefore, ‘the existence of this second, inde-
pendent source [Jubilees] should suggest some caution in treating the
extra generation of Cainan as merely a later interpolation made by LXX
chronographers’ (Northcote 2004: 8).
There is little agreement among textual critics as to whether Cainan’s
name in the generational list of the LXX originated in an early or later
tradition. Westermann noted that ‘something must have fallen out
between Gen. 10.21 and 24’ and that it was ‘obvious’ that ‘the list of the
sons of the sons of Shem’, which is missing in the J source, has been
arranged by the R redactor ‘so that they are in Gen. 10.22 (“P”)’. He
suggested that ‘Gen. 10.21a is cut short’. Westermann added that ‘R’
was very skilful and that ‘the name that begins Gen. 10.24 is not an
insertion… One can conclude with certainty that the “J” list of the sons
of Shem between vv 21 and 24 has fallen out in favour of “P”’s…v.22’.
Westermann concluded that the absence of Cainan in the MT and SP was
‘a further sign that there were differences of tradition for the descen-
dants of Shem’ (Westermann 1984: 524-26).
Later scholars such as Lohfink placed Gen. 10.22-23 in the earlier
‘Pg’ text and assigned ‘P’ to a late period (1994: 145 n. 29); however,
this leaves an even more sudden jump between Gen. 10.21 and 10.25.
3. The Thirteenth Generations from Cainan

In the genealogy of Shem, Arpachshad represents the twelfth generation
while Cainan is the thirteenth generation from Adam (see Table 1: List
of Generations). As shall be shown, the thirteenth generation from
Cainan, counting inclusively, is a cursed position, which can be amelio-
rated by the benign intervention by a righteous person to ensure that the
blessed generational lineage continues.
There is literary support for the ensuing argument that Cainan was
probably known to the original compilers of Rachel’s genealogy, parts
of the Jacob cycle, the story of Judah and Tamar, and the Joseph cycle.
Below are treated exegetical perceptions of the apparent curse inherited
by biblical figures situated in the thirteenth position from Cainan and
hermeneutical interpretations of rescue or prevention by a righteous
person. The curse of Cainan provides an unspoken subtext.

3.1. Joseph and Benjamin

The sons of Rachel, Joseph and Benjamin are the thirteenth from Cainan
in the Shemite chrono-genealogy (see Table 2: Rachel’s toledot). Rachel
herself is one position ahead of Jacob in the genealogical line due to the
fact that there is a chronological gap filled by Bethuel, her grandfather
and Abraham’s nephew. (Bethuel’s position in the family tree corre-
sponds to the generational level of Isaac who was not born until Abra-
ham was 100 years old [Gen. 21.5].18) The manifestation of the curse
through Rachel’s line may be evident in the well-constructed Joseph
cycle, in which Joseph is the victim of a plot by his brothers to kill him
(Gen. 37.18-20). There was no righteous person to save him throughout
his ordeals; God, however, was with him (Gen. 39.2a) (see also Man-
asseh and Ephraim, below).
Benjamin is Jacob’s thirteenth child as well as being situated in the
thirteenth generation from Cainan in Rachel’s line.
According to a midrash, Jacob unknowingly cursed Rachel when
she was pregnant with his thirteenth child (Gen. 31.32)19 and so, with
dramatic irony, sealed her fate. Rachel died in labour, naming, Benjamin
‘Son of my trouble [or sorrow]’ (Gen. 35.18b); Jacob changed the
infant’s name to ‘Son of [the] right hand’ (Gen. 35.18c), which may
have been his intervention, as a righteous person, to protect and bless his
youngest son.20
In Gen. 42.4, Jacob expresses concern that Benjamin might come to
harm if he travelled to Egypt with his brothers, although, initially, Jacob
did not offer any grounds to explain the reason for his fears. Later, Jacob
explained to his sons that as Benjamin was the only surviving son of
Rachel (so he believed), he himself would die if Benjamin was endan-
gered by undertaking the journey (Gen. 42.38). This information was
18. Bethuel may be an inserted generation (Gen. 22.22-23; 24:15, 24, 47, 50; 25.20;
28.2, 5) see Table 2, Rachel’s toledot; he is, arguably, missing from Gen. 29.5: Nbl
rwxn-Nb Laban, son of Nachor (arguable, as a ‘son’ can mean a descendant of the house
of a person [cf. Gen. 32. 1], although the genealogy has been painstakingly listed prior to
this verse). Bethuel is also omitted from Gen. 31.53a, when Laban swears by the God of
Abraham and the God of Nachor [who may be Nachor2, hence his and Jacob’s respective
grandfathers, or Nachor1 who is their common great-grandfather]; however, Jacob
swears by the fear of his father, Isaac in Gen. 31.53b. Hence, Bethuel is not mentioned at
all in the Jacob–Laban narrative.
19. Gen. R. 74 on Gen. 31.32; see also Daube 1968: 632.
20. Cf. Gen. 48.14a, 18b. The protective blessing with the right hand is given by
Jacob to Ephraim, the thirteenth generation from Cainan in Jacob’s line.

relayed by Judah to Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 44.20, 22, 27, 29, 30-31, 34),
but, yet again, no tangible reasons were given to explicate Jacob’s
anxiety for Benjamin’s safety.
3.2. Er, Onan, Shelah

All of Jacob’s grandchildren belong to the thirteenth generation from
Cainan in Jacob’s line (see Table 3: Jacob’s toledot). Judah’s sons, Er
and Onan, are thus the thirteenth from the thirteenth generation in the
Shem–Abraham genealogy; they die (Gen. 38.6-10) fulfilling the curse.
Judah promised Tamar that she could marry his third son, Shelah,
when he grew up but he had no intention of fulfilling this pledge because
he was concerned that Shelah might also die (Gen. 38.11d). It is not
clear whether the text implies that Judah believed that Tamar herself
was a carrier of bad luck, or that she was a harbinger of this specific
curse. Either way, Gen. 38.11d indicates that Judah may have thought
that sexual union with Tamar by his two eldest sons was connected with
their deaths.
Interestingly, in Jubilees, it is Judah’s Canaanite wife, Bedsu’el, who
breaks Judah’s promise to Tamar. Bedsu’el does not permit Shelah to
marry Tamar, although no explanation is given for her actions (Jub.
41.6-7).
The rewritten narrative in Jubilees absolves Judah of the sin of lying
to Tamar, by transferring that transgression to Bedsu’el (Halpern-Amaru
1999: 116). Nonetheless, a storyline entailing the undermining of Judah’s
legal contract by his wife is somewhat curious. The absence of an overt
reason for Bedsu’el’s behaviour raises the question of whether she, too,
blamed Tamar for the deaths of Er and Onan.
If so, in Jub. 41.6-7, Bedsu’el did not undermine Judah apparently but
implemented his true objective on his behalf. Accordingly, in Jubilees
41 the responsibility for ensuring the continuation of the sanctity of the
Davidic line would then have been taken up by the two women in this
narrative, Bedsu’el and Tamar.
Judah’s fear for Shelah’s life is not represented in Jub. 41, nor in the
later Testament of Judah. Instead, the background of an inherited gen-
erational curse is replaced by a complicated polemic on racial purity.
VanderKam argues that Jubilees explicates the ethnic unsuitability
of Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite woman (Gen. 38.2; Jub. 34.20; 41.2-
3; see VanderKam 2001: 79). Tamar is introduced as ‘one of the Aram-
aean women’ (Jub. 41.1), a detail which is not extant in Genesis 38.
VanderKam suggests that Tamar had been chosen by Judah as an

appropriate Semitic candidate for producing Abraham’s descendants

(Jub. 41.1; cf. Gen. 38.6; see VanderKam 2001: 79).
Indeed, Jub. 41.2-3 elucidates that Er rejected Tamar because of her
ethnic background, and that he had wanted to marry a woman of the
same racial origin as his mother. Onan’s reasons for refusing to produce
children with Tamar in Jub. 41.4-5 differ little from what is given in
Gen. 38.9: that is, their putative line would not be his, but Er’s.
The eugenics theme is more overt in the Testament of Judah, in which
the actions of Er and Onan are described as the result of their Canaanite
mother’s intervention to prevent them from inseminating Tamar (T. Jud.
10.1-5; see Kugler 2001: 58-59).
As in Jubilees, Judah’s wife, called Bathshua in Testament of Judah,
also does not permit Shelah to marry Tamar, despite Judah’s promise to
enable the second proto-levirate marriage.21 Here Bathshua’s action and
motivation are actually specified: she overrules Judah because Tamar is
not from the daughters of Canaan (T. Jud. 10.6). When Bathshua finds
a Canaanite bride for Shelah, Judah curses her and she dies (T. Jud.
10.6; 11.3).
This rewritten version of events fits the time-line of Gen. 38.1-12;
however, the exegesis in Testament of Judah involves attributing a level
of dominance and power to Bathshua that is problematic, namely, that
she causes Onan not to impregnate Tamar (T. Jud. 10.4-5) and she
revokes Judah’s vow against his will.
Tamar redeems the sanctified genealogical line by tricking Judah into
consorting with her (Gen. 38.13-35; Jub. 41.8-12). It is she who insti-
gates a solution to the problem of the endangered thirteenth generation:
Perez and Zerah, Judah’s twin sons with Tamar, are also Judah’s
putative grandsons (Gen. 38.27-30). Their problematic position in the
thirteenth generation is, therefore, confounded due to the sexual self-
sacrifice of Tamar, who is ‘more righteous’ than Judah (ynmm hqdc, Gen.
38.26a and Jub. 41.19—though this is not the case in the Testament of
Judah). Judah is not intimate with his widowed daughter-in-law again
(Gen. 38.26c), and he repents the sin of incest, which he committed in
contravention of Lev. 18.15 and 20.12 (Jub. 41.23-25; T. Jud. 12.8; see
Loader 2007: 180-84).
Shelah is symbolically sent away, that is, his life is saved; how-
ever, he cannot now marry Tamar, as that would be a sin according to
21. There are detailed points of contact and differences between Jub. 41 and T. Jud.
8.1-3; 10.1–11.5; 12.1-12; 13.1-8; see Hollander and de Jonge 1985: 27, 197-206.

Lev. 18.8 and 20.11 (cf. Jub. 41.20). He is not a blood-ancestor of David
in the Shemite line; that place is taken instead by Perez (Ruth 4.18-22).22
The linguistic connection between Judah’s son Shelah and Cainan’s
son Shelach alerts the reader, or audience, to an association between
them. Not only is there symmetry between Judah’s son Shelah and
Cainan’s son Shelach but there is also a morphological parallel between
Cainan and Adam, for God had also sent Adam away (whxl#yw, Gen.
4.23) from the garden of Eden. Adam, Cainan and Shelah are each
thirteen generations apart.
3.3. Manasseh and Ephraim

Another solution to protect the thirteenth generation from Cainan in
Abraham’ s line may have been initiated by Jacob. According to Gen.
48.5, 16b, Jacob adopts the sons of Joseph (Jacob’s favourite son, Gen.
37.3): Manasseh and Ephraim. Joseph is himself the thirteenth genera-
tion from Cainan in his mother’s line, as was Benjamin, as discussed.
Manasseh and Ephraim, therefore, move back a place, that is, from
the thirteenth to the twelfth generation from Cainan, in Jacob’s geneal-
ogy (Gen. 48.11-20). They thus become generationally level with their
own father, Joseph. Jacob also blesses them, and reserves a special bless-
ing for the younger son, Ephraim (see n. 20, above) (Gen. 48.17-20).
Joseph parallels his father’s action and compensates his eldest son by
adopting Manasseh’s grandchildren. Joseph’s descendants, known to
him during his lifetime (Gen. 50.23a), were brought back to the thir-
teenth generation in his father’s line, under his protection: the children
of Manasseh’s son, Machir, were born upon Joseph’s knees (Gen.
50.23b).23
4. The Missing Thirteenth Generations

There is generational slippage at four points in the Shemite genealogies
where the grandfather becomes the father of his grandson.
(1) In Jubilees, Cainan is sent away for discovering forbidden astro-
nomical knowledge; in the LXX chrono-genealogies and Jub. 8.1-5,
22. In the Testament of Judah, Shelah’s situation is resolved off-stage: the narrative
is related by Judah to Shelah’s children (T. Jud. 8.3); cf. Gen. 38 and Jub. 41, where it is
not known what became of him.
23. A possible word-play for his blessing Pswy ykrb-l( wdly. Vered Hillel notes that
the phrase may have originated from the Akkadian concept that the knee was the seat of
generative power (Hillel 2007: 187 n. 61). It is unlikely that Gen. 50.23b could have
been meant literally, in the way that Gen. 30.3 may have been.

Arpachshad is listed as the father of Cainan and as the grandfather of

Shelach. In the MT and SP toledot, Arpachshad is recorded as the father
of Shelach. Cainan, the thirteenth generation from Adam, and the sev-
enth generation from Enoch, is missing in the MT and SP. Cainan is
subliminally present and absent textually in both the MT and SP. He is
there in the narrative framework as the invisible, punished patriarch, and
not there in the official, Hebrew and Samaritan generation-lists.
(2) Judah’s sons, Er and Onan, die and Judah’s youngest son, Shelah,
is symbolically sent away by being displaced from the Davidic line. All
three belong to the thirteenth generation from Cainan in Jacob’s line.
Judah has twins, Perez and Zerah, with Shelah’s would-be levirate wife,
Tamar. She is Judah’s daughter-in-law and his two eldest sons’ widow.
His putative grandsons, the next generation, thus become his biological
sons and, at the same time, a replacement thirteenth generation. Perez
steps onto the next patriarchal rung in the Davidic genealogical line.
(3) Jacob adopts his grandsons, Joseph’s sons, Manasseh and Ephraim
and blesses them. Ephraim, like Benjamin, the thirteenth child in the
thirteenth generation in Rachel’s toledot, is blessed by Jacob’s right
hand.24 Manasseh and Ephraim move back a generation from the thir-
teenth position, to the twelfth generation.
(4) Joseph adopts the descendants of Manasseh in order to protect
them. They remain in the thirteenth generation during Joseph’s lifetime,
confirming that a righteous person can transform a cursed genealogical
position into a blessed one.
Abraham’s first son, Ishmael, is another figure related to the number
thirteen: he is circumcised at the age of thirteen (Gen. 17.25); when the
Covenant passes to Isaac (Gen. 17.19, 21; 21.12), he is sent away xl#
with his mother, Hagar (Gen. 21.14) and creates a family tree to parallel
Jacob’s (Gen. 25.12-18).
5. Josephus
In his Jewish Antiquities, Josephus states that Noah was the tenth gen-
eration from Adam (Ant. 1.79) and that Abraham was the tenth genera-
tion from Noah25 (Ant. 1.148). Josephus uses the chrono-genealogical
24. Cf. Exod. 15.6, 12.

25. Cf. 4Q180 and 4Q181 in which it is stated that there are ten generations from
Shem to Abraham. Josephus counts inclusively from Adam to Noah and exclusively
from Noah to Abraham, omitting Cainan (i.e. he counts from Shem to Abraham).

data of the patriarchs which are extant in LXX A (Ant. 1.83-88, 148-50);
however, he lists Arpachshad as the father of Shelah (Ant. 1.146),26
possibly harmonizing with the proto-MT and proto-SP.
Thackeray, in his Introducion to the LCL edition (p. xiii), states that
‘where the traditions differed’, Josephus ‘as a rule inclines to the
Pharisaic interpretation’.27 As Josephus used the proto-LXX A chrono-
genealogical data for the ages of the patriarchs and the proto-MT toledot
for the generational line, it is likely that he was aware of these different
traditions. The alternative is that there was a source which conflated the
chrono-genealogies of the proto-LXX A and a proto-MT infrastructure to
which Josephus was witness.
Cainan is not mentioned by Josephus at all; however, he relates a
narrative that is a variation of Jub. 8.3. Josephus records that the descen-
dants of Seth built two pillars, one of brick and one of stone; on these
pillars they inscribed their astronomical knowledge, so that in the event
of a flood the stone pillar would survive (Ant. 1.68-71). Unlike the ver-
sion of the story in Jubilees, in Jewish Antiquities the acquisition of
astronomical knowledge by the antediluvian ancestors was not trans-
mitted to them from elsewhere, nor was it divinely revealed.28
Interestingly, Josephus connects Arpachshad with the Chaldeans (Ant.
1.144), possibly based on the etymology of his name d#kpr), which
may be associated with d#k (Gen. 22.22).29 This incidental reference
associates the father of Cainan with astronomy and divination.
6. The Genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and 11

Returning to the genealogies (see Table 4: Chrono-Genealogical List),
I have analyzed the toledot from a mathematical text-critical view,
using the variant chrono-genealogical data in the MT, LXX B (Codex
Vaticanus), LXX A (Codex Alexandrinus) and SP to see if there is a sig-
nificant pattern, and if so, whether these lists, when examined together
26. Josephus has a unique reference that Arphachsad was born twelve years after the
flood (Ant. 1.150); cf. Gen. 11.10 MT and LXX, which say two years after the deluge.
27. Josephus, Ant. 1–4.
28. There are other instances of literary connections between Jewish Antiquities and
Jubilees: so esp. Ant. 1.41 and Jub. 3.28; Ant. 1.52d and Jub. 4.1, 8; and Ant. 2.224 and
Jub. 67.5 (Thackeray, LCL, xiii n. c). Whiston argues that Josephus confused Seth with
the eponymous Egyptian king, as Josephus refers to a possible Egyptian toponym and
myth in this pericope (2003: 32 n. e).
29. Thackeray, LCL, 70 n. d.

as a set, contained any information about Cainan. The methodology for

computing the presence of Cainan was, therefore, a two-part process.
I have followed the procedure adopted by several scholars who ana-
lyze the age of each patriarch at the birth of the first son, the progenitor
age (Reproductive Age) and the years of the rest of their lives (Interval
Age).30 The Final Age (FA), the age of death, is given in Gen. 5.1-32,
but not in Genesis 11. (The FA is not included in the genealogical table
[Table 4, below], due to space, though it can be easily calculated by
adding the RA and IA.)
The formula for the data in Genesis 5 is: (a) the name and age of the
patriarch at the birth of his named son (RA); (b) the number of years of
life between the birth of the named son and the patriarch’s death (IA);
and (c) the final number of years lived (FA).31
Genesis 11.10-26 follows (a) and (b) and does not include (c). Terah
has a variant FA (Gen. 11.32); his IA has to be calculated.32 (See the
Excursus on the Peshitta, below.)
30. A history of scholarship in the field of chronography in the Hebrew Bible and
chrono-geneaology in the MT, SP, LXX and Jubilees is summarized in Northcote 2004: 3-
36. The subject is indebted to the work of A. Jepsen (1929: 252-55), who developed the
methodology of the ‘progenitor chronology’, that is, the ‘age of begetting’ which has
been used by scholars to calculate epochs in Israelite history from the Creation (cited by
Northcote 2004: 4-5).
31. With the exception of Enoch (Gen. 5.22), Enoch walked with God after he begat
Methuselah for 300 years, and there is the addition of the exceptional verse to the
formula at Gen. 5.24.
32. Terah’s IA age of 135 (MT, LXX) is reached by subtracting his RA of 70 (Gen.
11.26) from his final age, 205 (Gen. 11.32). In the SP, Terah’s final age is 145, giving
him an IA of 75 (145 – 70).
In 4Q252 II 8-10, some exegesis is provided for Gen. 12.4 (that Abram was aged 75
when he left Haran). It states that Terah was 140 when he left Ur of the Chaldees (aged
70 when Abram born—Gen. 11.26), that Abram was 70 when they left (therefore,
Terah’s RA was 70), and that Abram lived for five years in Haran (not in the MT or LXX).
Thus, Abram would be 75 when he left Haran (Gen. 12.4). Terah would have spent 65
years in Haran (60 without Abram).
In the Peshitta, Terah’s RA in Gen. 11.26 is 75 (cf. 70 in the MT, SP, LXX) and the FA
in Gen. 11.32 is 205, making an IA of 130 (cf. 135 in the MT and LXX, and 75 in the SP)
(Lamsa 1957: 17). See the Excursus on the Peshitta, below.
Similarly, Noah’s IA, 450, is reached by subtracting his RA, 500 (Gen. 5.32) from his
final age of 950 (Gen. 10.29). His final age should be 951, to include the year of the
deluge: 500 [+ 100 interval] + 1 Flood ‘Year’ when he was aged 600 (Gen. 7.6; cf. 7.11–
8.14) = 601; plus 350 years after the Flood = 951, not 950 (Gen. 9.32). All other ages are
given in the text.

6.1. Searching for Mathematical Patterns in the Toledot

(1) The generations were divided into the two groups of ten patriarchs
born before and after the Flood: Adam to Noah (Gen. 5 group) and Shem
to Terah (Gen. 11 group) (Gen. 5.3-32; 11.10-32, respectively). The
latter group includes Cainan (see Table 4: Chrono-Genealogical List).
In addition to dividing the chrono-genealogies into the two main
groups associated with the names in Genesis 5 and 11, the data were
sub-divided into progressively smaller units, consisting of one fewer
patriarch in each sub-group.
In the Genesis 5 group, the sub-units for each recension consisted of
the first to the tenth patriarch (Adam to Noah) and the first to the ninth
(Adam to Lamech), subtracting Noah, and so on, until the first to the
seventh patriarch (Enoch). The next sub-group was composed of the
second to the tenth patriarch (Seth to Noah), the second to the ninth
patriarch (Seth to Lamech), and so forth, until Seth to Enoch. These
sequences were repeated for each recension (MT, SP, LXX B, LXX A).
The process was repeated for the Genesis 11 group. The sub-units
were composed of the first to the tenth ancestor (Shem to Terah), the first
to the ninth patriarch (Shem to Nahor) and so on, until Reu, the seventh
ancestor after the Flood; the second to the tenth ancestor (Arpachshad to
Terah), the second to the ninth patriarch (Arpachshad to Nahor), and so
on, until Reu. This has been tabulated, again, for each recension.
The Reproductive Ages (RA) and Interval Ages (IA) for each sub-
group were then added up, and the total RA in each recension was
subtracted from the IA (and any minuses were ignored) to obtain a
composite figure for each patriarchal sub-group in each recension.
(2) It was found that in the four Genesis 5 recensions there was the
same mathematical connection between Adam to Noah and Adam to
Lamech as there was between Seth to Noah and Seth to Lamech (patri-
archs 1-10, 1-9; 2-10, 2-9), respectively, even though there were differ-
ences in the chronological data (IA and RA) between the recensions.
In the Genesis 11 groups there was a similar mathematical pattern,
but the connection existed between the alternate first and second
patriarchs: Shem to Terah and Arpachshad to Terah, and Shem to
Nachor and Arpachshad to Nachor (patriarchs 1-10, 2-10; 1-9, 2-9).
The IA Difference and RA Difference between each of these pairs
was also calculated.
The results for the sub-groups in each text across the recensions in
Genesis 5 are identical. A similar pattern occurred for the sub-groups
across the recensions in Genesis 11, with a variant result for the LXX B.

In each sub-group, the sum of the Total Difference, the IA Difference

plus the RA Difference is 1000.
6.2. Toledot Mathematical Results

Below are the results of the arithmetical test on the variant chrono-
genealogical data just discussed:
Genesis 5
MT
Adam to Noah: IA 7019 – RA 1556 = 5463
Adam to Lamech: IA 6569 – RA 1056 = 5513
Total Difference: 50
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
Seth to Noah: IA 6219 – RA 1426 = 4793

Seth to Lamech: IA 5769 – RA 926 = 4843
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
LXX B
Adam to Noah: IA 6409 – RA 2142 = 4267
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500

Seth to Noah: IA 5709 – RA 1912 = 3797
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
LXX A
Adam to Noah: IA 6389 – RA 2162 = 4227
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500

Seth to Noah: IA 5689 – RA 1932 = 3757
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500

SP
Adam to Noah: IA 6880 – RA 1207 = 5673
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500

Seth to Noah: IA 5709 – RA 1912 = 3797
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
Genesis 11
MT
Shem to Terah IA: 2606 – RA 390 = 2216
Arpachshad to Terah IA: 2106 – RA 290 = 1816
Total Difference 400
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
Shem to Nachor: IA 2471 – RA 320 = 2151

Arpachshad to Nachor: IA 1971 – RA 220 =1751
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
LXX B
Shem to Terah: IA 2706 – RA 1370 =1336
Arpachshad to Terah: IA 2206 – RA 1170 = 1036
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 200

Arpakshad to Nachor: IA 2071 – RA 1100 = 971
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 200
LXX A
Shem to Terah: IA 2840 – RA 1170 = 1670
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100


Arpachshad to Nachor: IA 2205 – RA 1000 = 1205
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
SP
Shem to Terah: IA1836 – RA 1040 = 796
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100

Arpachshad to Nachor: IA 1261 – RA 870 = 391
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
6.3. Summary of Findings

A pattern emerges for the same groups across all four recensions.
Significant results were achieved for the sub-groups outlined in sections
6.1 and 6.2. No such mathematical pattern emerges when random num-
bers are used as a control, nor is there a pattern when the variant chrono-
logical information for the individual patriarchs is randomly exchanged
in different recensions.
The significant patriarchal sub-groups in Genesis 5 across all recen-
sions yielded the same Total Difference between the IA and RA of 50
years; an IA Difference of 450; and an RA Difference of 500 (8 sub-
groups in total).
In Genesis 11, for the significant sub-groups in the MT, LXX A and
SP, the Total Difference between the IA and RA was 400, while the RA
Difference was 100 (six sub-groups). For the LXX B (significant results),
the Total Difference between the IA and RA was 300 and the RA Differ-
ence: 200 (two sub-groups). All the significant sub-groups in Genesis 11
achieved an IA Difference of 500. This figure (500) was the favoured
number in all the sub-groups, and it is the sum of the other composite
mathematical components that had been extracted from those groups.
The composite numbers that emerge are: 50, 450, 500 (Gen. 5); 300,
500, 200 (Gen. 11, LXX B only); 400, 500, 100 (Gen. 11, other recen-
sions). The composite numbers in each set total 1000.

6.4. Comment
Given the variants, it is surprising that such a similar pattern occurs in
the different recensions. It would appear that Gen. 5.3-32 and Gen.
11.10-26, 32 in the proto-MT, proto-SP, proto-LXX B, and proto-LXX A
were redacted by the same mathematically minded school. If this were
the case, it is remarkable that the numerous different variants in the raw
data were preserved so accurately throughout the centuries in antiquity
(and during the Common Era), neither revised by subsequent redactors
or scribes, nor subjected to mistakes.
These results demonstrate that even the minor variants have been
faithfully preserved and that there has been exceptional attention to
detail. The inter-relationship between all four recensions suggests that
we need to reconsider the theory that the genealogies were redacted
separately over different time-periods, possibly over several hundred
years.33 They appear to function together as a mathematical whole. The
results above demonstrate that each list produces identical results when
calculated in the same way, with a slight difference for LXX B in Gen-
esis 11, despite the variant data and the presence or absence of Cainan in
the separate Genesis 11 recensions.
It cannot be argued that the numbers have calendrical significance.
The mathematical pattern favours a decimal numeral system, and, as
such, Mesopotamian influence, which uses a base sexagesimal numeral
system, may be ruled out.
Excursus: A Note on the Peshitta

The genealogies in the Peshitta agree with the MT with the exception of Terah, whose
RA is 75 and IA is 130 (cf. n. 32, above) in the Peshitta. If Terah’s variant data is taken
as a mathematical ‘wild card’ and is factored into all the recensions, the results are as
follows: against the MT, LXX A and LXX B, Terah’s IA variation is +5 and the RA
variation is -5 ; against the SP, Terah’s IA is +55 and the RA is -5. However, results
across the board for the IA Difference, RA Difference and Total Difference remain
unchanged. This would suggest that the redactor of the Peshitta’s genealogical lists was
familiar with the mathematical system in all these recensions.
33. Northcote 2004: 3-36. He postulates (pp. 16-20) that LXX A (Gen. 5) is a
‘corrected’ version of LXX B.

7. Discussion and Conclusion

This study contends that Cainan was probably known to the writers or
redactors of the proto-MT and proto-SP. This reasoning is based on
(1) narrative and (2) mathematical grounds.
7.1. Narrative Grounds

The literary structure of Genesis employs a vertical, genealogically
based chronology from Adam, yet the counting of the generations is not
explicit. In contrast, particular patriarchs’ positions in the sanctified
generational line from Adam to Abraham, or to Jacob, are explicated in
Second Temple literature (1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jubilees), and
in Josephus.
Not only was there an interest in counting the generations in a
singular genealogical line (as, e.g., in Jub. 2.23, which has twenty-two
generations from Adam to Jacob, excluding Cainan), there was also a
literary practice of sub-dividing the ancestors symmetrically, as, for
instance, in Ant. 1.79, 148 and possibly 4Q180 1 3-6 and 4Q181 II 2 1.
From a literary perspective, it would be logical for there to be a
cursed generation mirror-imaging a sanctified one, from a parallel, linear
position in the generational line.34 Just as the antediluvian patriarch,
Enoch, was chosen to receive astronomical and calendrical knowledge
from the ‘holy ones’ and the archangel Uriel (1 En. 1.2; 2.1; 17.2; 33.1–
36.4; 41.5-8; 59.1-3; 60.11-14; 69.20-21; 71.4; 72–82 and Jub. 4.17-19),
so the seventh generation from Enoch, Cainan, received forbidden
astrological knowledge (indirectly) from the fallen angels, the Watchers
(Jub. 8.3), transmitted to the ancients before the Flood.
It is possible that readers of these sources, or an audience, were
expected to compute numerical relationships between characters in the
Bible, or Second Temple texts, to deepen their understanding of the
literature. The sub-text of the problematic thirteenth generation from
Cainan, a position which needed to be restored or protectively blessed
by a righteous person, appears to have been integral to the framework of
34. I am indebted to my supervisor, George J. Brooke, for suggesting that there may
be a linguistic connection between Canaan (Nn(k) who is cursed by Noah in Gen. 9.25
and Cainan, whereby the name itself carries a curse. In Jubilees, Ham reacts with disgust
to the cursing of his youngest son and separates from his father (cf. Jub. 7.13). In
support of this idea, it should be noted that Cain (Nyq) is cursed after he has murdered
Abel (Gen. 4.11), and before he is sent away.

parts of Genesis, as discussed, as this centripetal theme is repeated,

albeit in different, intricately constructed story-lines.
The data in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 are, in the main, independent of
the patriarchal narratives and any significant, numerical positions in the
genealogy (with the possible exception of Enoch, Gen. 5.21-24). There
is no reason, therefore, why an original tradition pertaining to Cainan
could not have predated the redaction of the Genesis 5 and Genesis 11
toledot in the recensions.
7.2. Mathematical Grounds

If the chrono-genealogies in the proto-MT and the proto-SP were silent
on Cainan and the thirteenth place, and a story about this silence were
transmitted in an oral tradition, it is possible that Cainan’s name was
deliberately preserved in the LXX. However, it is not feasible that data
about Cainan were transmitted from the LXX to the proto-MT and proto-
SP whence it was removed by editors. The results reveal that the
chrono-genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 in all four recen-
sions and the Peshitta were intricately constructed to take account of
Cainan’s presence in the LXX A and LXX B, and conversely, of his
absence from the proto-MT and proto-SP.
This section of the Bible cannot have been translated from a single
Hebrew Vorlage because the LXX has not one, but two variant genea-
logical recensions that include Cainan. Furthermore, the proto-MT and
proto-SP, both of which omit his name, themselves contain variant
chrono-genealogical data from each other.35
The results demonstrate that the composition or redaction of the
toledot of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 in the recensions emanated from the
same mathematically minded school of Jewish scholarship. This group
would, most likely, have worked together in Alexandria and Palestine,
intellectually crossing geographical boundaries.
The only fragment of the toledot that has been preserved from
Qumran is Gen. 5.13, or Gen. 5.14. Ironically, the text simply consists
of the name, Kenan, or Cainan Nnyq without offering any numerical data.
35. Emanuel Tov noted that it was ‘difficult to know whether there ever existed a
single archetype of the Masoretic Text, and even if such a text had existed, it cannot be
identified or reconstructed’ (2001: 25). Similarly, Fernández Marcos observed that ‘the
divergences’ (in the historical books) ‘between the LXX and the Hebrew have to be
interpreted more as a witness to the pluralism of the Hebrew text before its consonantal
fixation at the synod of Yamnia (c. 100 CE) than as a result of the exegetical preferences
of the translators’ (2000: 23).

Palaeographically, the manuscript has a late date: c. 50–68 CE (Davila

1994: 31, 37).
Another theory, which considers the possibility of separate textual
development, is that the genealogical lists were emended over a period
of hundreds of years, from the sixth century BCE to the second century
BCE for political or theological reasons, or in order to transmit secret
systems of calendrical reckoning (Northcote 2004). If that were the case,
the same mathematical formula would, necessarily, have had to have
been handed down over several centuries, spanning various Jewish
groups in different countries at alternative points in time.
Whatever period, or periods, countries, or groups that were involved
with this model, the hypotheses that attribute ‘a later scribal addition in
the Septuagint’ to the existence of Cainan (Hasel 1980: 7) or to a ‘copy-
ist’s error’ in the proto-MT (Etz 1993: 183) may be discounted.
The thesis that the final MT genealogies predated the LXX versions
and the proto-SP (Larsson 2002: 520-21) can also be questioned on the
grounds that the above results show that the mathematical system was
shared. It, therefore, had its origin in the same source and flowed in
several directions. If the period of redaction in all recensions was not
contemporaneous, then the question of priority cannot be certain.
The integrated mathematical paradigm would suggest, however, that
the compilation of the toledot in the proto-SP took place during a period
of communication and co-operation between all the groups concerned.
This is likely to have occurred before there was a schism between the
Samaritans and the Jews, following the destruction of the Samaritan
temple on Mt Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE (Tov 1989: 399).
Esther and Hanan Eshel date the destruction of the Samaritan temple
to 111 BCE; they also observe that there was a deterioration in Jewish–
Samaritan relations when the Hasmonean state was established in 164
BCE (2003: 239-40). If this is the case, the final form of the toledot in the
different recensions could have been completed sometime during the
third and second centuries BCE.36
Following Philip R. Davies (1998: 10),37 we may consider whether
the toledot in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 in these separate sources created
36. The scholarly consensus is that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek in the
third century BCE (Jobes and Silva 2005: 31).
37. According to Davies, the canonization process can include texts which are used
for educational purposes: ‘There is also curricular listing, in which certain texts form
the basis of an educational syllabus’ (Davies 1998: 10).

a puzzle that could have been employed for educational purposes. There
is little evidence, however, that the toledot mathematical pattern is based
on any calendrical system of reckoning solar and lunar cycles.
Finally, this study draws attention to the missing thirteenth patriarch
who, although buried deep in the biblical text, left clues for future
generations to discover.
Table 1. List of Generations
1. Adam 1. (13) Cainan

2. Seth 2. Shelach
3. Enosh 3. Eber
4. Kenan 4. Peleg
5. Mahalalel 5. Reu
6. Jared 6. Serug
7. Enoch 7. Nahor
8. Methuselah 8. Terah
9. Lamech 9. Abraham
10. Noah 10. Isaac
11. Shem 11. Jacob
12. Arpachshad 12. Judah, Joseph
13. (-) MT 13. Er, Onan, Shelah; Manasseh, Ephraim
Table 2: Rachel’s toledot.

MTGen. 5; 11.10-32; 22.23; 24.29; 29. 33-30.24; 35.17-18
(Cainan: LXX Gen. 10.24; 11.12-13; LXX A 1 Chron. 1.18; Lk. 3.36; Jub. 8.1-5)
1. Adam 1. Cainan (13)

2. Seth 2. Shelah
3. Enosh 3. Eber
4. Kenan 4. Peleg
5. Mahalalel 5. Reu
6. Jared 6. Serug
7. Enoch 7. Nahor1
9. Lamech 9. Nahor2 (married niece Milcah)
10. Noah 10. Bethuel
11. Shem 11. Laban, Rebecca
12. Arpachshad 12. Leah, Rachel
13. (-) MT 13. Benjamin: thirteenth child/thirteenth
generation from thirteenth

Table 3: MT/LXX Jacob’s toledot

(Cainan: LXX Gen. 10.24; 11.12-13; LXX A 1 Chron. 1.18; Lk. 3.36; Jub. 8.1-5)
1. Adam 1. Cainan (thirteenth)

2. Seth 2. Shelah
3. Enos 3. Eber
4. Kenan 4. Peleg
5. Mahalalel 5. Reu
6. Jared 6. Serug
7. Enoch 7. Nahor
9. Lamech 9. Abraham
10. Noah 10. Isaac
11. Shem 11. Jacob
12. Arpakshad 12. Judah, Joseph, (Ephraim adopted by Jacob), Benjamin
13 (-) MT 13. Er, Onan, Shelah; Peleg, Zerah; Manasseh, (Machir’s
sons adopted by Joseph)
Table 4. Chrono-Genealogical List
MT LXX B LXX A SP
RA IA RA IA RA IA RA IA
Genesis 5
1. Adam 130 800 230 700 230 700 130 800
2. Seth 105 807 205 707 205 707 105 807
3. Enosh 90 815 190 715 190 715 90 815
4. Kenan 70 840 170 740 170 740 70 840
5. Mahaleel 65 830 165 730 165 730 65 830
6. Jared 162 800 162 800 162 800 62 785
7. Enoch 65 300 165 200 165 200 65 300
8. Methuselah 187 782 167 802 187 782 67 653
9. Lamech 182 595 188 565 188 565 53 600
10. Noah 500 450 500 450 500 450 500 450
Genesis 11
1. Shem 100 500 100 500 100 500 100 500
2. Arpakshad 35 403 135 400 135 430 135 303
3. Cainan – – 130 330 130 330 – –
4. Shelah 30 403 130 330 130 330 130 303
5. Eber 34 430 134 270 134 370 134 270
6. Peleg 30 209 130 209 130 209 130 109
7. Reu 32 207 132 207 132 207 132 107
8. Serug 30 200 130 200 130 200 130 100
9. Nahor 29 119 179 125 79 129 79 69
10. Terah 70 135 70 135 70 135 70 75

Bibliography
Bork, F.
1929 ‘Zur Chronologie der biblischen Urgeschichte’, ZAW 47: 206-22.
Daube, D.
1968 ‘The Night of Death’, HTR 61: 629-32.
Davila, J.
1994 H. ‘4QGenb’, in E. Ulrich et al. (ed.), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XII:
Qumran Cave IV: Genesis to Numbers (Oxford: Clarendon Press): 31-38.
Davies, P.R.
1998 Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (London:
SPCK).
Eshel, E., and H. Eshel
2003 ‘Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran
Biblical Scrolls’, in Shalom Paul et al. (eds), Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew
Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden:
Brill).
Etz, D.V.
1993 ‘The Numbers of Genesis V 3-31: A Suggested Conversion and Its
Implications’, Vetus Testamentum 43: 171-89.
Fry, Virgil R.L.
1992 ‘Cainan’, in ABD: I, 807.
García Martínez, F., and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar
1997 The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (2 vols; Leiden: Brill).
Gardner, Bruce K.
2001 The Genesis Calendar: The Synchronistic Tradition in Genesis 1–11 (Mary-
land: University Press of America).
Fernández Marcos, N.
2000 The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible
(Leiden: Brill).
Halpern-Amaru, B.
1994 ‘The First Woman, Wives and Mothers in Jubilees’, JBL 113: 609-26.
1999 The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (SJSJ, 60; Leiden:
E.J. Brill).
Hasel, G.
1980 ‘Genesis 5 and 11: Chronogenealogies in the Biblical History of Beginnings’,
Origins 7.1: 23-27 (online: http://ldolphin.org/haselgeneal.html [retrieved
29 January 2009).
Hillel, V.
2007 ‘Naphtali, a Proto-Joseph in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, JSP
16: 171-201.
Hollander, H.W., and M. de Jonge
1985 The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTO, 8; Leiden:
Brill).
Jepsen, A.
1929 ‘Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex’, ZAW 47: 252-55
Jobes, K.H., and M. Silva
2005 Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic).

Kugler, R.A
2001 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseude-
pigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Lamsa, G.
1957 The Holy Bible from Ancient Near Eastern Manuscripts (Philadelphia: A.J
Holman).
Larsson, G.
2002 ‘Septuagint versus Massoretic Chronology’, ZAW 114: 511-21.
Loader, W.
2007 Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the
Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of
Jubilees (Leiden: Brill).
Lohfink, N.
1994 Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuter-
onomy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Milik, J.T.
1976 The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Nickelsburg, G.W.E., and J.C. VanderKam
2004 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Northcote, J.
2004 ‘The Schematic Development of Old Testament Chronography: Towards an
Integrated Model’, JSOT 29: 3-36.
2007 ‘The Lifespans of the Patriarchs: Schematic Orderings in the Chrono-
genealogy’, VT 57: 243-57.
Parker, D.C
1992 ‘Codex Vaticanus’, in ABD: I, 807
Pietersma, A., and B.G. Wright
2007 A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations
Traditionally Included under that Title (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Rook, J.
1990 ‘The Names of the Wives from Adam to Abraham in the Book of Jubilees’,
JSP 7: 105-17.
Sasson, J. M.
1978 ‘A Genealogical “Convention” in Biblical Chronography?’, ZAW 90: 171-85.
Tov, E.
1989 ‘Proto-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch’, in A.D. Crown (ed.),
The Samaritans: Their Religion, Literature, Society and Culture (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck): 397-407.
2001 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2nd edn).
VanderKam, J.C. (trans.)
1989 The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium,
511; Scriptores Aethiopici; Leuven: Peeters).
2001 The Book of Jubilees (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press).
Von Gall, A. F.
1918 Der Hebraïsche Pentateuch der Samaritaner (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann).
Whiston, W.
2003 The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrick-
son).

Westermann, C.
1984 Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (translated by John J. Scullion; London:
SPCK).
Wintermute, O.S.
1985 ‘Jubilees’, in OTP: II, 35-142.

Pseudepigrapha Journal For The Study of The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pseudepigrapha Journal For The Study of The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal for the Study of the

The Curse of Cainan (Jub. 8.1-5): Genealogies in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

The Curse of Cainan (Jub. 8.1-5):

Keywords Cainan, Curse, Genesis, Jubilees, Genealogies, Samaritan.

* My sincere thanks go to Dr P. Guillaume for his support and useful references in

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

esoteric astronomical and calendrical knowledge6 (Jub. 4.17-19). In the

6. The details of astronomical and calendrical knowledge in the Book of Luminaries

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

SP, the mid-fourth century, (diplomatic) Septuagint Vaticanus (LXX B)

2.1. Counting the Generations

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Abraham.15 If this is so, then, counting inclusively, one would have to

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Northcote observes that the existence of Cainan in Jubilees ‘owes

3. The Thirteenth Generations from Cainan

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

3.1. Joseph and Benjamin

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

3.2. Er, Onan, Shelah

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

appropriate Semitic candidate for producing Abraham’s descendants

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

3.3. Manasseh and Ephraim

4. The Missing Thirteenth Generations

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Arpachshad is listed as the father of Cainan and as the grandfather of

24. Cf. Exod. 15.6, 12.

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

6. The Genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and 11

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

as a set, contained any information about Cainan. The methodology for

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

6.1. Searching for Mathematical Patterns in the Toledot

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

In each sub-group, the sum of the Total Difference, the IA Difference

6.2. Toledot Mathematical Results

Seth to Noah: IA 6219 – RA 1426 = 4793

Seth to Lamech: IA 5259 – RA 1412 = 3847

Seth to Lamech: IA 5239 – RA 1432 = 3807

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Seth to Lamech: IA 5259 – RA 1412 = 3847

Shem to Nachor: IA 2471 – RA 320 = 2151

Shem to Nachor: IA 2571 – RA 1300 = 1271

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Shem to Nachor: IA 2705 – RA 1100 = 1605

Shem to Nachor: IA 1761 – RA 970 = 791

6.3. Summary of Findings

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Excursus: A Note on the Peshitta

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

7. Discussion and Conclusion

7.1. Narrative Grounds

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

parts of Genesis, as discussed, as this centripetal theme is repeated,

7.2. Mathematical Grounds

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010

Palaeographically, the manuscript has a late date: c. 50–68 CE (Davila

Downloaded from jsp.sagepub.com at Brunel University on October 5, 2010