Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pseudepigrapha
http://jsp.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha can be found at:
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
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
LXX B
Adam to Noah: IA 6409 – RA 2142 = 4267
Adam to Lamech: IA 5959 – RA 1642 = 4317
Total Difference: 50
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
LXX A
Adam to Lamech: IA 5939 – RA 1662 = 4277
Adam to Noah: IA 6389 – RA 2162 = 4227
Total Difference: 50
IA Difference: 450
RA Difference: 500
SP
Adam to Lamech: IA 6430 – RA 707 = 5723
Adam to Noah: IA 6880 – RA 1207 = 5673
Total Difference: 50
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
LXX B
Shem to Terah: IA 2706 – RA 1370 =1336
Arpachshad to Terah: IA 2206 – RA 1170 = 1036
Total Difference: 300
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 200
LXX A
Shem to Terah: IA 2840 – RA 1170 = 1670
Arpachshad to Terah: IA 2340 – RA 1070 = 1270
Total Difference: 400
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
SP
Shem to Terah: IA1836 – RA 1040 = 796
Arpachshad to Terah: IA 1336 – RA 940 = 396
Total Difference: 400
IA Difference: 500
RA Difference: 100
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.
33. Northcote 2004: 3-36. He postulates (pp. 16-20) that LXX A (Gen. 5) is a
‘corrected’ version of LXX B.
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.
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).
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.
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).