> I had read comments on this back a couple hundred years -- I did not
> find it in the Church Father's, (yet) but I've not found anything on
> the web I couldn't find in Clarke's commentary. (A nice detailed
I'm sorry if this is more tantalizing than informative, but I recall reading
a study (was it in the Harvard Theological Review?), from the 80's, I think,
presenting a strong case for how the LXX, the MT, and the Samaritan text's
version of the pre-Noahic genealogies depend on each other. Note, all three
versions diverge from each other. If I recall correctly, the author
suggested that no priority should be ascribed to any single text for an
"Ur-genealogy." Each version has reflects a change from the autograph.
I've lost this reference in my files, but I know that I passed it on to
James Miller a couple of years back. Maybe he still has that reference.
untitledJoel Kalvesmaki 16kalvesmaki@...
Graduate Student, Early Christian
Studies Catholic University of America Washington, DC