Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Introduction

The textual variation in Genesis 5:22 presents a significant challenge for Old Testament textual critics. The Masoretic Text (MT) states that “Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah,” while the Septuagint (LXX) offers a divergent reading: “Enoch pleased God after he fathered Methuselah two hundred years.” This analysis aims to ascertain the most authentic version of this verse by examining both documentary evidence and internal narrative considerations.

Manuscript Evidence and Analysis

Textual Variants Overview

Main Reading (MT – Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia):

Hebrew: וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה
English: “Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters.”

Variant Reading (LXX):

Greek: “καὶ εὐηρέστησεν Ἑνώχ τῷ θεῷ μετὰ τὸ γεννῆσαι αὐτὸν τὸν Μαθουσαλὰ διακόσια ἔτη”
English: “And Enoch pleased God after he fathered Methuselah two hundred years.”

External Evidence

The MT, our primary source, reads “walked with God” in both verse 22 and 24 of Genesis 5. This phrase is consistent within the MT and appears in both instances in this chapter. In contrast, the LXX uses “pleased God,” introducing a notable variant. The Documentary Method gives precedence to the documentary evidence, thus highlighting the importance of considering these divergent textual traditions.

Internal Evidence and Narrative Consideration

The phrase “walked with God” (וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִים) in the MT suggests a close, continuous relationship between Enoch and God, which is a significant theological assertion. The repetition of this phrase in verses 22 and 24 strengthens the thematic consistency within the narrative.

The LXX’s rendering, “pleased God” (εὐηρέστησεν τῷ θεῷ), appears to paraphrase the metaphor to avoid anthropomorphic implications. This variant might reflect an interpretative tradition aimed at emphasizing Enoch’s piety without suggesting a literal walking with God, which could be seen as irreverent or theologically problematic for some ancient readers.

The LXX’s chronological discrepancy, indicating “two hundred years” instead of “three hundred years,” raises additional questions about the transmission and translation process. This variance could reflect a different Vorlage or an attempt to harmonize Enoch’s lifespan with other ancient traditions.

Comparative Analysis

Masoretic Text (MT):
- Consistency: Repeats “walked with God” in verses 22 and 24.
- Theological Implication: Emphasizes an intimate, ongoing relationship with God.
- Chronology: Three hundred years.
Septuagint (LXX):
- Interpretation: “Pleased God” avoids anthropomorphism.
- Chronology: Two hundred years, potentially reflecting a different tradition.
- Harmonization: Aligns with certain theological or chronological considerations in early Jewish or Christian thought.

Consideration of Other Manuscripts

Samaritan Pentateuch: Typically aligns with the MT in Genesis, though it can have unique readings.
Targums: Aramaic translations and paraphrases that often reflect interpretative traditions.
Syriac Peshitta and Vulgate: These also generally follow the MT but can reflect unique interpretative traditions similar to the LXX.

After evaluating both the documentary evidence and the internal narrative considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the original reading of Genesis 5:22 is likely “walked with God,” as preserved in the Masoretic Text. This conclusion is supported by the thematic consistency within the MT and the theological implications of the phrase. The Septuagint’s variant “pleased God,” while providing valuable interpretative insight, seems to be a paraphrase intended to address potential theological concerns rather than reflecting the earliest textual tradition. The MT’s reading, with its emphasis on an intimate and ongoing relationship between Enoch and God, aligns with the broader narrative and theological context of Genesis.

The primary weight of external evidence generally goes to the original language manuscripts, and the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex are almost always preferred. In Old Testament Textual Criticism, the Masoretic text is our starting point and should only be abandoned as a last resort. While it is true that the Masoretic Text is not perfect, there needs to be a heavy burden of proof if we are to go with an alternative reading. All of the evidence needs to be examined before concluding that a reading in the Masoretic Text is corrupt. The Septuagint continues to be very much important today and is used by textual scholars to help uncover copyists’ errors that might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts either intentionally or unintentionally. However, it cannot do it alone without the support of other sources. There are a number of times when you might have the Syriac, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Aramaic Targums, and the Vulgate that are at odds with the Masoretic Text; the preferred choice should not be the MT.

Initially, the Septuagint (LXX) was viewed by the Jews as inspired by God, equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, in the first century C.E., the Christians adopted the Septuagint in their churches. It was used by the Christians in their evangelism to make disciples and to debate the Jews on Jesus being the long-awaited Messiah. Soon, the Jews began to look at the Septuagint with suspicion. This resulted in the Jews of the second century C.E. abandoning the Septuagint and returning to the Hebrew Scriptures. This has proved to be beneficial for the textual scholar and translator. In the second century C.E., other Greek translations of the Septuagint were produced. We have, for example, LXX^Aq Aquila, LXX^Sym Symmachus, and LXX^Th Theodotion. The consonantal text of the Hebrew Scriptures became the standard text between the first and second centuries C.E. However, textual variants still continued until the Masoretes and the Masoretic text. However, scribes taking liberties by altering the text was no longer the case, as was true of the previous period of the Sopherim. The scribes who copied the Hebrew Scriptures from the time of Ezra down to the time of Jesus were called Sopherim, i.e., scribes.

From the 6th century C.E. to the 10th century C.E., we have the Masoretes, groups of extraordinary Jewish scribe-scholars. The Masoretes were very much concerned with the accurate transmission of each word, even each letter, of the text they were copying. Accuracy was of supreme importance; therefore, the Masoretes used the side margins of each page to inform others of deliberate or inadvertent changes in the text by past copyists. The Masoretes also use these marginal notes for other reasons as well, such as unusual word forms and combinations. They even marked how frequently they occurred within a book or even the whole Hebrew Old Testament. Of course, marginal spaces were very limited, so they used abbreviated code. They also formed a cross-checking tool where they would mark the middle word and letter of certain books. Their push for accuracy moved them to go so far as to count every letter of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In the Masoretic text, we find notes in the side margins, which are known as the Small Masora. There are also notes in the top margin, which are referred to as the Large Masora. Any other notes placed elsewhere within the text are called the Final Masora. The Masoretes used the notes in the top and bottom margins to record more extensive notes, comments concerning the abbreviated notes in the side margins. This enabled them to be able to cross-check their work. We must remember that there were no numbered verses at this time, and they had no Bible concordances. One might wonder how the Masoretes could refer to different parts of the Hebrew text to have an effective cross-checking system. They would list part of a parallel verse in the top and bottom margins to remind them of where the word(s) indicated were found. Because they were dealing with limited space, they often could only list one word to remind them where each parallel verse could be found. To have an effective cross-reference system by way of these marginal notes, the Masoretes would literally have to have memorized the entire Hebrew Bible.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).