What's With the Ages of the Patriarchs? (Part 2)

In my last post I touched on alternative explanations for the ages of the ancient patriarchs. However, I also noted that Joseph Smith's revelations embrace those ages, thus seeming to tie his credibility to them. So it would seem that if you want to uphold Joseph, you have to accept the ages at face value. But it turns out not to be so simple.

First there is the question of which ages to use. The numbers in the Masoretic Text (MT) (our Old Testament) are somewhat different from the Septuagint (LXX) (the Old Testament in Jesus' time). The Book of Moses, which comes from the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the Bible, follows the MT except that Enoch's age is increased from 365 to 430. Although they were not incorporated into our Book of Moses, apparently Joseph and/or Oliver Cowdery also changed other ages in their work on the JST.

To get an overview of the situation I did what many curious Bible readers have done: I calculated the dates of the various ages [1]. Below are graphs of the ages as described by the MT, the LXX, the Book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price, and the fuller JST [2]. The year of birth, priesthood ordination (all taken from D&C 107, except Adam, who presumably always had the priesthood), and death are indicated, as is the Flood. To make comparisons easier, the years count up from zero. (Click images to enlarge. Note the slightly different scale for the LXX.)

MT

LXX

PofGP

JST

It turns out that no matter which scenario you choose, there are things that don't make sense. Here is a list of the problems I have identified.

D&C 107 says that everyone down to Methuselah was ordained by Adam, and they are specifically named as having attended the gathering three years prior to Adam's death. But in the LXX Adam dies before Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah are born.

According to the PofGP, Enoch was translated at age 430. This means that Enoch established the city of Zion, which existed for 365 years, at age 65 (which is also the year Methuselah was born). This timing puts the founding of Zion well before the death of Adam, which doesn't seem to fit with the scriptural context. More specifically, the account of Enoch in the Book of Moses suggests that when Enoch began his preaching Adam had long since died.

[Moses 6] 45 And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam.
46 For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God; and it is given in our own language.

But according to the MT, PofGP, and JST, none of Enoch's 'fathers' had died when he said this [3].

According to Moses 8:2, Methuselah was not taken up with the city of Zion,

...that the covenants of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to Enoch; for he truly covenanted with Enoch that Noah should be of the fruit of his loins.
3 And it came to pass that Methuselah prophesied that from his loins should spring all the kingdoms of the earth (through Noah), and he took glory unto himself.

But according to the MT, PofGP, and JST, Methuselah's son, Lamech (Noah's father), was born and ordained to the priesthood well before the city of Zion was taken up.

Speaking of being left behind, depending on the scenario, between three and five patriarchal ancestors of Enoch died sometime after Zion and Enoch were translated. Why weren't they also translated?

D&C 107:53 specifies that Adam called together Seth through Methuselah, "who were all high priests". But in the MT and PofGP Lamech was also alive and had been ordained to the priesthood. Perhaps to correct this, adjustments in the JST have Lamech as having not been born yet.

D&C 107:52 says that Noah was ordained to the Priesthood at the age of ten. However, Moses 8:12-14,19 seems to suggest that Noah was ordained after the birth of his sons, the last named of which was born when Noah was 500 years old.

The bottom line is this: no matter which scenario you choose (including the two canonized ones), if you take the ages and relationships of the ancient patriarchs at face value you end up with problems of scriptural internal consistency. It seems clear that further adjustments or clarifications are needed.

In my final post in this series we'll look more closely at D&C 107.


Notes:

1. I have checked and double-checked my work, but I can't be certain it is free of mistakes. Please let me know if I've made any. Here is an image of my spreadsheet. (Click to enlarge.) Highlights represent differences from the MT.



2. These four sources were chosen for convenience. Other ancient sources contain additional variations.

3. Technically this problem could be resolved by pushing Enoch's statement into the last 50-120 years of his life. But it seems clear from the text that Enoch made this statement at the beginning of his preaching, before the establishment of Zion. Alternatively, Enoch could be referring to death rhetorically. But that does not explain why Enoch appeals to written records as supporting evidence for the existence of Adam.

---