Search the Community

I have been revisiting a chronology I did some years ago. I'm trying to recall why I made some conclusions [eg - the Noah,Shem,Arphaxad issue mentioned elsewhere]. On reading Anstey's work I see a lot of concurrence in ideas however, I have a concern about one small detail as named in the thread name. Here is Anstey's reasoning: Joseph stood before Pharaoh, aged 30 (Gen. 41:46). At the end of 7 years' plenty Joseph was 37 (Gen. 41:29-30). At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into Egypt, Joseph was 39 (Gen. 45:6). At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into Egypt, Jacob was 130 (Gen. 47:9). Therefore Jacob was 130 when Joseph was 39. Therefore Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born. For me however, the text gives a clear impression that the meeting with his brother's is taking place at the end of the second year of famine if not even at the start of the third. Regardless, the brothers returning to their father and then the arranging of the move of them all to Egypt would have required some time and would very possibly been the next year. If we count people's ages according the the years, not based on their birthdays {anniv] as we now do, then should we not add another year. So Joseph would then be a son of forty years when the family came to Egypt at which time, as stated in Gen 47.9 Jacob was 130 years. In that case: Jacob was 130 when Joseph was 40. Jacob was 90 when Joseph was born. Any input?