“I have doubts whether you have been as scrupulous with your research regarding the Inspiration of the New Testament as you have been with the doctrine of the Incarnation”
In a conversation I had with a sincere individual a couple of weeks ago, the above sentiment was expressed regarding what seemed to them to be inconsistency in my approach to the Apostolic Scriptures. While scrupulously researching the doctrine of the Incarnation and concluding that it lacks validity, I yet accept (with little scholarly research involved) the Inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures as canonized by the Church Fathers. Admittedly, a claim of inconsistency is valid from a logical perspective.
Although I am somewhat acquainted with the viewpoints of textual criticism and debates regarding the validity of the Scriptures and its inconsistencies as understood by the world of higher academia, I personally find such scholarship to be fruitless. Inevitably, considering the apparent logic and criticism of scholars regarding the Scriptural text can only lead to doubting or discarding most, if not all of it. The outcome of such “scholarship” leaves one without a sure or consistent foundation for faith and practice at all. Therefore, I am of the opinion that G-d is well able to preserve His written instructions and truth despite the failings of His messengers and/or the criticism of His opponents.
Yet, in considering parashah Vayigash, I found myself facing a passage of scripture that presents many questions and inconsistencies. In Genesis 46, after Jacob receives clear direction from HaShem to undertake the journey to Joseph in Egypt, a listing of the “children of Israel who were coming to Egypt”, is given beginning in verse 8, with the final tally of people listed in vv. 26-27.
All the persons coming with Jacob to Egypt – his own descendents, aside from the wives of Jacob’s sons – sixty-six persons in all. And Joseph’s sons who were born to him in Egypt numbered two persons. All the people of Jacob’s household who came to Egypt – seventy. (Genesis 46: 26-27 Stone Chumash)
By simply adding the number of sons and grandsons listed by birth mother in this passage the total comes to 69 persons; 32 of Leah, 16 of Zilpah, 7 of Bilhah, and 14 of Rachel. An additional discrepancy is found in the total of Leah’s sons and grandsons (plus daughter Dinah) given as 33 in v. 15 when by actual count 32 individuals are listed. This discrepancy is easily overcome based on the literal (p’shat) reading of the passage which commences with “Jacob and his offspring” immediately prior to listing Leah’s children and grandchildren (v.8). Therefore, Jacob is counted in the number coming to Egypt along with Leah’s offspring as she is considered his primary wife being mother of the greatest number of his descendents. Leah’s offspring plus husband Jacob equals 33.
If Leah’s total is considered 33 then the plain tally of persons comes to 70. Yet, in verse 26 a tally of 66 persons is given. A careful reading of the Scripture indicates two details regarding the 66 individuals; a. they were “coming with Jacob to Egypt” and b. they were “his own descendants” (literally “of Jacob’s loins”). Because Joseph and his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim were already in Egypt, they would not be “coming with Jacob to Egypt” and therefore could not be included in this total. Jacob himself also could not be included because he was the progenitor and not one of “his own descendents”. The total of seventy minus four (Joseph, Manasseh, Ephraim, Jacob) equals 66 individuals who accompanied Jacob to Egypt and were his direct descendants.
With this settled, yet another apparent mathematical difficulty presents in v. 27 in which the sons of Joseph born to him in Egypt are numbered at two with the total individuals who came to Egypt tallied at 70. In Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 94:9) R. Levi said in the name of R. Samuel b. Nahman; “Have you ever seen a man give his neighbor sixty-six glasses, then give him another three and count them seventy?”. In other words, the math doesn’t add up, for 66 plus 3 (Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh) equals 69 (not 70). The identity of the mysterious 70th person has many opinions among the rabbis who conjecture that this person was Moses mother Jochebed (who was born as the caravan of Jacob entered Egypt), Dan’s son Hushim, or Serah the daughter of Asher.
But in the most literal sense it is the “people of Jacob’s household” that define the 70 individuals of v. 27. Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim were of Jacob’s household regardless of being already in Egypt. Logically the household would also include the patriarch or head, Jacob himself (as the seventieth person). This identical total is also found in Exodus 1:1-5 in which the children of Israel who “emerged from Jacob’s loins” and came with Jacob to Egypt, along with Joseph who was already in Egypt, is given as 70 persons. In Deuteronomy 10:22 Moses also reiterates; “with seventy souls did your ancestors descend to Egypt”.
For the believer in Yeshua and the Apostolic Scriptures, this most logical and plain understanding of Genesis 46:8-27 hits a snag when compared with Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:14;
And Joseph sent and summoned Jacob his father and all his kindred, seventy-five persons in all. (Acts 7:14 ESV)
Acts chapter seven is a veritable minefield of inconsistencies and errors in the precise minds of the textual critics. Various scholars have listed from five to fifteen deviations and/or inconsistencies in the details of Stephen’s speech as compared with the record of the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the history of the Jewish people. Details such as G-d appearing to Abraham in Mesopotamia (7:2) (instead of Haran as given in Genesis 12) and Jacob being buried in the tomb Abraham bought in Shechem (7:15-16) (rather than the tomb Abraham bought in Machpelah in Genesis 23) cause critics to smirk at remarks that were presumably spoken with the wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. chapter 6 vv. 10, 16).
Stephen’s listing of the total number of Jacob’s kindred as 75, is perhaps one of the least confounding inconsistencies found in Acts seven for it is clearly based on the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46:26-27;
And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, all the souls were sixty-six. And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls. (Genesis 46:26-27 LXX)
The Septuagint also gives the number of “souls of Jacob” in Exodus 1:5 as 75 while listing 70 souls of the fathers who went down to Egypt in Deuteronomy 10:22. To add to the confusion the Septuagint expands the listing of Joseph’s descendents given in Genesis 46:20. While the Hebrew (Masoretic) text lists Joseph and his sons Manasseh and Ephraim exclusively, the Septuagint adds five additional people (the son and grandson of Manasseh as well as two sons and a grandson of Ephraim) to the listing.
In the face of these apparent contradictions, the majority of Christian commentators are quick to point out that the Septuagint was the most widely disseminated and familiar translation of the Tanakh in the Greek-speaking world and was therefore naturally employed by Stephen in his speech before the Sanhedrin. St. Jerome, in Hebrew Questions, understands that Luke purposely used the familiar Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46 in Stephen’s speech in order not to confuse his predominately Gentile and/or Hellenist Jewish audience. Jerome also relates that since Luke is traditionally understood to have been a proselyte to Judaism he would have been “ignorant of Hebrew letters”, therefore, the Septuagint would hold more authority in the eyes of his audience than [a more Biblically precise reckoning given by] the author himself. [1]
Although the Septuagint total differs from the Hebrew Masoretic text in both Genesis 46 and Exodus 1 –while yet agreeing with the Masoretic total of 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22 — the lack of objection on the part of the Sanhedrin proves that the sum of 75 individuals was within the pale of Orthodoxy of first century Judaism. Instead of being a contradiction of Scripture Stephen’s reckoning was somehow a compliment of it.
Charles Wordsworth, in his commentary on Acts, astutely points out that in both the Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic text the total of 70 is related to Jacob’s kindred who initially descended into Egypt. The sum of 75 as used in the Septuagint is in relation to Jacob’s total kindred within Egypt itself (including Joseph and sons who were in Egypt, those who descended from Canaan into Egypt, and the grandsons of Joseph who were yet to be born within Egypt). [2]
St. Augustine (City of God, Volume II) understands the whole period that Joseph lived after summoning Jacob’s kindred to Egypt (71 years) as being the time of their entrance into Egypt. This is based on Genesis 50:23 which describes Joseph as living to see his great-grandsons through both the lines of Ephraim and Manasseh. Because Joseph’s great-grandson through Manasseh (Gilead) and through Ephraim (Eran) are listed in the Septuagint account of Genesis 46:20, the 75 souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt includes not only the initial 70 who descended into Egypt but also the grandsons and great-grandsons that Joseph lived to see born to him in Egypt before his death. [3]
With this in mind, Parashah Vayigash can be understood as presenting two aspects of the journey to Egypt, one being Jacob’s “coming unto Joseph” (45:18) and the other being Jacob’s “coming into Egypt” (46:26-27). The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 46 and Exodus 1 emphasizes Jacob’s initial “coming into Egypt” along with the sons’ and grandsons’ of “his loins” at that time being a total of 70 in number. The Septuagint focuses on Jacob’s kindred “coming unto Joseph” which includes all the “souls of the house of Jacob” who came “with Joseph” into Egypt (Genesis 46:27 LXX). This encompasses the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Joseph born in Egypt, (based on Genesis 46:20 and 50:23) who are reckoned to be members of Jacob’s household and total 75 individuals.
In standing before the Sanhedrin, Stephen was defending himself against the charges, leveled against him by members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen. The charges were that he spoke blasphemous words against the Temple and the Torah by teaching that Yeshua would destroy the Temple and change the customs of Moses (cf. Acts 6:9, 13-14). Based on context, it would seem that the trumped-up charges were a result of the semicha (ordination) process that Stephen and six others had undergone in the assembly of believers in Jerusalem. The twelve Apostles had charged the assembly with choosing seven men “full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” to have authority in caring for the widows among them. Based on the assembly’s recommendation, the Apostles prayed and laid hands upon Stephen and six other men (Acts 6:1-6).
The manner of “laying on of hands” (semicha/ordination) that Stephen and the others had received was unconventional based on Talmudic accounts of the semicha process in the time of the second Temple. According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 19a) the custom of semicha involved each teacher ordaining his own students. This practice was based on the original account of semicha given in Torah, in which Moses transferred his authority to his student Joshua through the laying on of hands, therefore every student was to be ordained by the hands of his teacher. [4]
In Stephen’s case it was the congregation of believers who had elected him to receive semicha and not an individual Apostle under whom he had been studying. Based on Stephen’s name being of Greek origin, it is likely that he was a Hellenist Jew who perhaps was one of the 3,000 Jewish pilgrims who had come to faith in Yeshua during the feast of Shavuot in Jerusalem (Acts 2). [5] If this was the case, then Stephen, along with an influx of numerous Hellenist Jewish believers, would have been involved in the Jerusalem assembly for only a short time and been relatively unknown to the twelve Apostles, having no opportunity to study under them or under other rabbis in the community. Therefore, the Apostles entrusted the choice of seven men worthy to have authority over the widows to the congregation who would better know the character of the men among them.
Although the recommendation of the congregation indeed produced seven worthy and able leaders, to the Jewish community in general this unconventional semicha process could be viewed as a threat to a custom of Moses given in the Torah and to the authority of the Temple itself, as the members of the Sanhedrin were also required to undergo a formal semicha/ordination process [6]. Interestingly, it was a synagogue of Hellenist Jews, the Freedmen, who instigated accusations against Stephen as a Hellenist Jew occupying an authoritative role within a Jerusalem synagogue community, something which most likely was seen as stepping outside of his rightful boundaries within the Jewish community.
Therefore, Stephen’s use of the Septuagint rendering of Genesis 46 is well thought out and purposeful based on the accusations leveled against him, as the Septuagint focuses on individuals born of Jacob’s line in Egypt. Those born within the strange land and place of exile were equally children of promise as those born in Canaan, in the Promised Land. Both were considered to be of the House of Jacob with all the rights and privileges thereof. Stephen, as one being born in a “strange land” (Diaspora) subtly and wisely presents an aspect of Biblical history that would uphold his right, as a son of Jacob, to occupy a role of leadership within the Jewish community in the Promised Land.
Suddenly the smirk of the textual scholar turns into a spark of inspiration and understanding for the devout. For inevitably the Scripture is not occupied with the precision and logic of scholarly minds — which considers inspired details as the columns of a ledger — but instead is concerned to communicate a perspective to be understood and embraced as a way of life.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In studying Jacob’s journey to Egypt in Vayigash and its connection to Acts 7:14, I was reminded of the fact that the traditional yartzheit of St. Stephen is December 26th, the day after Christmas. On this day the death of the first martyr of the Messianic assembly is remembered. How fitting and “inspirationally” ironic that the parashah of this week would so honor and exonerate a very misunderstood man. One who the critical scholars understand to be inconsistent and riddled with error and one who traditional Christianity understands as refuting the Torah through the wisdom and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
________________________________________________________________________
[1] C.T.R. Hayward (translator), St. Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, pp. 79-81.
[2] Charles Wordsworth, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Book of Acts), Rivingtons, London, 1867, p. 68.
[3] St. Augustine (Bishop of Hippo), City of God Volume II, book XVI, chapter 40.
[4] Jerusalem Encyclopedia entry; Ordination, available at: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=119&letter=O&search=ordination
[5] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4 (B’sorat HaMashiach), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002 p. 953.
[6] Jerusalem Encyclopedia, ibid.
