The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

Smith, H.B., Jr. 2018. The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism , ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 117–132. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. THE CASE FOR THE SEPTUAGINT’S CHRONOLOGY IN GENESIS 5 AND 11 Henry B. Smith Jr. , Associates for Biblical Research, PO Box 144 Akron PA 17501 hsmith@biblearchaeology.org ABSTRACT Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs. The MT’s total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures from the LXX place creation at ca . 5554 BC and the Flood at ca . 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1). This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post– AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies, and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be proposed. KEY WORDS Genesis 5 and 11; Primeval Chronology; LXX; MT; SP; Genealogy; Josephus; Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ( LAB ) Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org 117 INTRODUCTION For over two millennia and across a vast geographical span, Christian scholars and their Jewish predecessors commenting on Gen 5/11 almost universally concluded the genealogies yield a chronology. Until the Reformation, a majority of Christian chronologists believed the LXX preserved most of the original numbers (Hales, pp. 211–214). During the Reformation, the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) supplanted the LXX in the Western church, and eventually a chronological interpretation of Gen 5/11 using the MT’s numbers became the majority viewpoint. In his seminal work Primeval Chronology , W.H. Green concluded that “the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham” (1890, p. 193). Green’s perspective eventually became the dominant interpretation in conservative scholarship, and the chronological interpretation was largely abandoned. [The most persuasive arguments for a chronological interpretation of Gen 5/11 can be found in Sexton 2015, 2018a and 2018b (See also, Goodenow 1896; Hasel 1980b; Kulling 1996; Sexton and Smith Jr. 2016; Tanner 2015)]. The widespread adoption of Green’s thesis effectively halted any serious discussion amongst conservatives on the numerical divergences between the three textual witnesses of Gen 5/11 (Table 1). In the 20 th and 21 st centuries, detailed interest in the evidence bearing on the begetting ages ( ba ), remaining years ( ry ), and lifespans in the MT/LXX/SP has become almost non–existent. Conservatives have, by and large, simply accepted the numbers in the MT as original, and tend to repeat superficial arguments for that perspective. Few attempts have been made to even probe the evidence in a serious manner (exceptions include: Cosner and Carter 2015; Sexton 2015; Shaw 2004; Young 2003). Scholars who have proposed more in–depth resolutions almost invariably operate from the perspective of critical scholarship (Hendel 1998, p. 63; Klein 1974; Larsson 1983), often leading to conclusions incompatible with a high view of Scripture. The model of textual reconstruction proposed here begins with the premise that the original, inspired numbers were historically accurate, internally consistent, and mathematically correct. RAPID DISMISSALS OF THE LXX Scripture’s promises that God will preserve His Word do not specify how those promises will be carried out. He certainly does not promise to preserve the OT Scriptures in the Masoretic Text alone . Such a position is impossible to maintain in light of the textual and historical evidence. Most importantly, it cannot be supported by a doctrine of preservation derived from Scripture itself. Only the divinely authorized writers were uniquely and infallibly moved by the Holy Spirit, not scribes who translated, (re)copied, and/or transmitted the biblical text after it reached its final, canonical form. The Bible never promises the infallible transmission (copying) of Scripture in any single textual tradition. Rather, it merely promises preservation (Mat. 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; I Pet. 1:24–25; Is. 40:8), which has subsequently occurred in complex ways over many millennia. Such complexity should not erode our confidence in God’s Word, however. Rather, it brings glory only to God, the One who preserves His Holy Word while sovereignly controlling all of history, even the ink, pen and papyrus held in the hands of fallible and sinful men.