Genesis 5:32

Noah was five hundred years old. In Hebrew this expression reads literally, “Noah was a son of 500 years,” meaning that he was in his 500th year. Now “son of a year” means, strictly speaking, within the first year of life (Ex. 12:5). This fact, an important point in Hebrew chronological language, becomes even more clear from a comparison of the 6th and 11th verses of ch. 7. Although both verses speak of the beginning of the Flood, one of them declares Noah to be 600 years old, and the other says that the event occurred in Noah’s 600th year. Consequently the former verse, “Noah was a son of 600 years,” means that he was “in his 600th year,” and not in his 601st year as we would naturally conclude.

Not one of the preceding patriarchs waited so many years before the birth of his offspring as did Noah; half a millennium passed before his own home was blessed by the arrival of a son (see p. 183). This genealogy breaks off with Noah, mentioning only the birth of his sons. The mention of all three sons foreshadows their importance in repopulating the earth after the Flood.

Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another principle of Hebrew genealogy must be explained in this connection. From the sequence of the names of Noah’s sons given here and elsewhere the impression may be gained that Shem was the oldest and Japheth the youngest of Noah’s three sons. That this is incorrect can be seen from a comparison of this text with certain others. Noah’s sons were not triplets (see chs. 9:24; 10:21). According to ch. 9:24 Ham was the youngest of the brothers. Chapter 10:21, furthermore, refers either to Shem or to Japheth as “the elder” of the two, although the ambiguous Hebrew grammatical construction does not make it clear which of the two was older.

From ch. 11:10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old two years after the Flood, when his father would be about 602 years of age; the age of Noah at Shem’s birth must then have been 502 years — not 500 as might be inferred from ch. 5:32. But one of the three, the eldest, was born in Noah’s 500th year (ch. 5:32). These texts lead to the conclusion that actually Japheth was the eldest son of Noah, being born when his father was 500 years old, and that Shem and Ham followed in that order. The KJV translation of ch. 10:21 is therefore the correct one, rather than that of the RSV, according to which Shem would have been the eldest son. The last part of ch. 5:32 would therefore be stated more accurately, “And Noah began to beget Japheth, Shem, and Ham.”

Shem is mentioned as the first of the three sons because of his importance as the progenitor of the postdiluvian patriarchal line from which the chosen people of God, together with the promised seed, should spring. Ham is mentioned next as the forefather of races with whom the OT readers of Moses’ time, and later, had much more contact than with the descendants of Japheth, who inhabited more remote regions. The same principle is repeated in Abraham’s case, where he, the youngest of Terah’s sons, is mentioned first (ch. 11:27) on account of his greater importance to those for whom the record was written.

By reducing the ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech at the birth of their first-born sons, the Samaritan Pentateuch leaves only 1,307 years between creation and the Flood, instead of 1,656 years as in the Hebrew text and English translations based upon it.

But the LXX, in contrast, presents a much longer period before the Flood. It does this by assigning to some of the patriarchs, at the oldest son’s birth, an age 100 years higher than does the Hebrew text. Therefore it arrives at a total of 2,242 or 2,262 years (the various MSS show a discrepancy between 167 and 187 for Methuselah’s age at the birth of Lamech).

Josephus, whose figures are practically identical with those of the LXX, presumably derived them from that version, which was current in his day. Josephus gives Methuselah’s age as 187.

If the Septuagint figure 187 for Lamech is to be taken as a correction of an earlier 167, it can be easily accounted for (see p. 180).

Many readers are not aware of those differences in the ancient lists, because the KJV and practically all other Protestant translations into English are based on the Hebrew text.