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

Overall, the MT is our most reliable and important witness to the original OT text. However, as Young notes: In general, M[T] is a conservative, persistent, and stable text, and has been shown repeatedly to be the best and most important witness to the ancient Hebrew Bible. But it is not perfect; in places it has suffered corruption (p. 425; cf. Gentry 2009). Even though the Reformers had largely accepted the Gen 5/11 MT chronology as original, a number of subsequent Christian chronologists argued that the LXX fundamentally preserves the original figures and the MT’s primeval chronology is the result of a deliberate post–AD 70 corruption (Goodenow 1896; Hales 1830; Hayes 1741; Jackson 1752; Russell 1865; Seyffarth 1859). Unfortunately, modern conservatives have not engaged with their arguments. Instead, superficial reasons for dismissing the LXX’s primeval chronology are widespread in the conservative academic literature. Kainan’s inclusion or exclusion in Gen 11 (Appendix, n. 11) and Methuselah’s begetting age (Smith Jr., 2017) are often used to pummel the LXX’s credibility. Moreover, evangelicals tend to quickly dismiss LXX Gen 5/11 either because of the numerous (and often substantial) text critical divergences between the LXX and MT in other OT books, or because of unsubstantiated theological predispositions favoring the MT. A few brief examples should demonstrate my point. Williams does not explicitly reject the LXX in Gen 5/11, but by citing text critical problems in books outside of Genesis (and the Pentateuch), the tenor of his argument encourages the reader to be dismissive of any serious consideration of its primeval chronology (pp. 99–100). Ray downplays the LXX by pointing out the number of numerical variants in extant MSS, contrasted against the united witness of the MT (p. 35; similarly, Hasel 1980a, p. 36). Merrill claims that “[n]o good reason exists to scuttle MT in favor of the two major versions” (p. 270). Green asserts the MT’s numbers are “incontrovertibly established” (p. 300). Whitcomb/Morris label the LXX’s numbers as “obviously false” (p. 475). Jones’ arguments are dogmatic and blatantly hostile: “It is deplorable enough that a witness so corrupt, depraved, and morally impaired as the LXX has been allowed by text critics and other scholars a place in the witness box as to the true text of the Old Testament.” Jones even makes the preposterous (and all too common) assertion that the LXX did not even exist until the 2 nd century AD (p. 19; 17, n. 2). Williams’ use of LXX books outside of Genesis to cast doubt on the Gen 5/11 LXX numbers is a defective text critical methodology. The Pentateuch was translated in Egypt more than a century before the rest of the OT books were translated by others, perhaps in Israel (Gentry, p. 24). Most LXX books developed independently of one another, and then circulated in individual scrolls. Thus, each book presents its own unique text critical challenges. Aejmelaeus explains: With regard to textual criticism, this means that observations made about the text of one book cannot be generalized to cover other books… the text–critical problems concerning the Septuagint vary greatly from book to book…Because the various books were translated over a period of at least a hundred years by different individuals, it is impossible to draw up any general rules concerning the use or usefulness of the Septuagint in the textual criticism of the whole OT (pp. 59, 61, 63). Consistent with Aejmelaeus’ methodological framework is Shaw’s thesis. His overview of the main textual variants found in Gen 1–11 (excluding the numbers) is actually relevant to this investigation, since Gen 5/11 appear in the same literary context, and reflect the work of the same translator(s). Shaw concludes the three witnesses–LXX/SP/MT–all go back to one original base text (pp. 16–45). Such an analysis is much more pertinent than appeals to the complex text critical challenges found in completely unrelated LXX books, such as Job, I Samuel, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel. Ray’s predisposition against the LXX because it has many more numerical variants inGen 5/11 than theMTfails on numerous points. First, the Jewish Diaspora and the Church widely disseminated the LXX across a vast geography and time in antiquity (Hengel 2002). Conversely, the proto–MT (the precursor to the MT) was under the highly controlled authority of the rabbis in the post–70 AD period, whereby variants were purged from the MSS and strict measures were employed for copying the Hebrew text (Tov 2011, pp. 30–31). More variation in the LXX MSS is exactly what one would expect to find given these two different sets of historical circumstances. Second, most of the numerical variants in LXX MSS of Gen 5/11 can be explained by basic scribal errors and/or variations in word order. Third, textual variation is an invalid argument against our ability to reconstruct the original text, as Wevers has meticulously shown in his magnum opus of LXX Genesis (1974b). Textual variation means there are many MSS available to us, and while that makes the work more complex, it does not preclude against Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 119 Table 2. The Numbers in Josephus’ Genesis 11 Hebrew Text a. 12 years is an early scribal error from the original, two. b. Reu and Serug’s ba in Josephus have been transposed. c. Josephus’ original ba for Nahor is restored to 129.