This Friday we'll finish up a study of the Book of Genesis begun in September.

Learning the events, especially those in the life of Jacob, has illuminated allusions made later in Scripture. In a study on Hosea, for instance, it was helpful to be familiar with the proceedings at Mizpah and with Jacob's time in Paddan-aram (Hosea 5:1, 12:12).

We are cramming five chapters into the final meeting because back-to-school is looming, especially for those with children off to college.

So, I read chapter 46 last night in preparation and got hung up on its relation to Acts 7:14. If you don't know ... and you probably already do, but it's new to me ... Stephen mentions 75 people heading to Joseph's care in Egypt under Jacob but Genesis 46:20 tallies the descendants as 70. One of those perfect, symbolic biblical numbers, 10 by 7.

Turns out that Stephen got his Jewish history from the LXX which appends the following to Genesis 46:20 -

"And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, even Machir. And Machir begot Galaad. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; Sutalaam, and Taam. And the sons of Sutalaam; Edom." (Breton)

Five more descendants. Was Joseph a great grandfather, and Jacob a great-great grandfather?!¹

How do my many study Bibles account for St. Stephen's misinformation? Let's start with the most conservative, my (new) Scofield, which says on Acts 7:14 -

"There is no real contradiction. 'The members of Jacob's family' numbered seventy, but the 'whole family' would include the wives of Jacob's sons."

This note appears next to a box of enclosed text on 7:16 labeled "A Seeming Contradiction Explained," i.e., where Stephen says Jacob was buried.

Zondervan's Spirit of the Reformation Bible is next and says on Acts 7:14 -

"The Hebrew text of Exodus 1:5 states 'seventy.' But the Septuagint, [...] which Acts 7 basically follows, and the fragments of Exodus found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, read 'seventy-five.' The explanation of the number 'seventy-five' is to be found in the five additional descendants of Joseph included in the Greek translation of Gen. 46:20, which lists two sons of Manasseh, two sons of Ephraim and one grandson of Ephraim."

No gross box in which contradictions are soothingly explained.

Ordinarily, I would classify Sproul's Reformation Study Bible (Ligonier) as more conservative than Zondervan's but he actually leaves the matter quite unresolved and messy. That is, the note on Acts 7:14 is identical to Zondervan's but the note on Gen. 46:27 says this:

"Such variations occasionally occur in the Greek Old Testament, and we don't always have the information necessary to explain them."

A note on a previous verse, Gen. 46:10, reads "Perhaps an inadvertent scribal addition, this name is omitted in Num. 26:12 and 1 Chr. 4:24." Scribal additions? Two verses against the one? But Genesis is "older"?

Since I am saving the best for last, let's move now to a tried-and-true Catholic work, Navarre. This is the Pentateuch volume which I love and cherish. After explaining the problem and its origin, the conclusion is "In this as in other passages of the Bible we can clearly see that the Word of God is being expressed in human language and with the forms and devices that people normally use, sometimes overlooking numerical exactness." Oh, how poor Professor Enns might agree with thee!

And so, what does the jolly, ol' NAB say? Not much on Gen. 46, but on Acts 7, there's a blanket acknowledgment that Stephen's speech contains "a number of minor discrepancies" with the Old Testament data.

As for the LXX, this is from Karen Jobes and Moises Silva's highly accessible book, Invitation to the Septuagint:

Traditionally, the Orthodox churches have treated the Greek version as divinely inspired, although this issue is a matter of some debate among Orthodox scholars today. Those who hold to the inspiration of the Greek translation understand it to have superseded the Hebrew. An attendant theological corollary is that God has continued his revelation beyond the original authors of the Old Testament books.

Then they quote Bishop Ware:

When this [LXX - tks] differs from the original Hebrew (which happens quite often), Orthodox [Christians - sic] believe that the changes in the Septuagint were made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are to be accepted as part of God's continuing revelation.²

None of this bothers me, of course. What really concerns me - and I wish someone would explain - is why the popular NIV doesn't follow the MT on the names in Gen. 46:13, 16 but instead follows, as their note says, the Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac. Surely its editors don't think, like the Orthodox, that an ancient version has superseded the Hebrew?! Just another reason not to prefer the NIV.

---

¹ I know someone will come at me with a numerical argument, demonstrating the plausibility of Joseph being a great grandfather at a ripe, young age. I also expected to come across an argument defending 66 books in the Old Testament based on the number in Genesis 46:26. Twelve tribes, twelve apostles, OK. 66 descendants, 66 books, eh, NO.

² Does any Catholic believe that where the Vulgate differs from the Hebrew or Greek, the Vulgate is inspired? While the view given by Ware, Jobes and Silva might not be universal among the Orthodox, I think a potential convert would have to seriously consider this understanding before "crossing the Bosphorus," as they say.