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

the LXX containing the original Gen 5/11 numbers. In fact, a larger volume of MSS greatly increases the likelihood that the original readings have not disappeared, whether purposefully or by accident. Cosner and Carter attempt to approach the subject more objectively than most: “We did not come into the analysis with the agenda of proving MT superiority” (p. 105). While I certainly accept their intention as earnest, their method immediately moves into a pro–MT/anti–LXX stance. First, they quickly appeal to very brief pro–MT opinions from two conservative scholars. They do not adequately develop or defend the basis for these opinions. Second, they speculate that the LXX may have been inflated by the Alexandrian Jews to “agree with the Egyptian chronology of Manetho” (p. 99), a theory that has at least 8 fatal flaws (see below). No other viable motive for alleged LXX inflations is presented. Third, they utilize lifespans in SP Gen 11 as the foundation for reconstructing the post–Flood chronology. These numbers were added to the SP by uninspired scribes over 1000 years after Moses, and are not original (Hendel, p. 73). They cannot be used as a reliable foundation for textual reconstruction. Fourth, they provide no viable explanation for how/why the chronology in Gen 11 SPwas (allegedly) inflated independently of the LXX. Fifth, they provide no analysis of external witnesses to Gen 5/11 from antiquity. This absence is striking and at odds with text–critical scholarship on the OT (Wevers 1974b; Hendel 1998; Kauhanen 2013). Sixth, there is no substantive interaction with LXX scholars who argue that the LXX translators treated the Genesis text very conservatively, and that the numbers came from the Hebrew Vorlage . In the end, Cosner and Carter deduce that the MT’s chronology is original, a conclusion that was baked into the methodological cake from the outset. (Despite my criticisms of their methodology and conclusions, their article contributes positively to the subject). This representative sampling of approaches can be categorized as either dismissive, superficial, or methodologically deficient. Getting to the bottom of this complex subject first requires shedding conservative evangelicalism’s anti–LXX impulse. Gentry writes: Differences, therefore, between the LXX and other witnesses to the text which are genuine textual variants should be evaluated on a case by case basis, and one should not prefer a priori either the LXX or the MT (p. 33). Unquestionably, the numerical divergences in Gen 5/11 qualify as genuine variants. They are a unique problem, and by and large, are not the result of accidental errors. Many of the numbers have undergone deliberate and systematic revision. They must be judiciously evaluated on their own merits, while all relevant evidence is carefully assessed. CHRONOLOGICAL INFLATION OR DEFLATION? Table 1 illustrates how the numbers vary among the three witnesses. While some of the differences can be ascribed to accidental errors (Appendix, nn. 5–8, 11), scholars universally acknowledge that the divergences of 100 years (50 for Nahor) in the ba signify deliberate alterations of the text. This is further confirmed by six 100– year variations in the ry in Gen 5, which were also deliberately amended so that the original lifespans would remain intact when a mathematical cross–check is performed. These differences are of great chronological significance. This is particularly true for the post–Flood epoch, where the apologetic task of correlating pre– Abrahamic archaeological evidence with the primeval history is dependent on the accuracy of the begetting ages and the date of the Flood. 1. LXX Inflation Hypotheses The longer LXX chronology is presently traceable to when Jewish scribes in Alexandria, Egypt originally translated the Pentateuch into Greek ( ca . 281 BC). This means either: (a) the LXX translators used a Hebrew text with the longer chronology or, (b) the LXX translators fabricated it. If (a) is true, then a very ancient Hebrew text contained the longer chronology. Many MT proponents have assumed that (b) must be true, often claiming that the Alexandrian translators intentionally inflated the chronology to reconcile it with Egyptian history. Many specifically point to the Egyptian priest Manetho’s chronology as the catalyst. Numerous scholars have used this argument to explain the length and origin of the LXX’s primeval chronology. First, to my knowledge, this explanation originated in the 19th century AD. No ancient author made this claim (Sexton 2015, p. 212). Second, the hypothesis fails to achieve its stated goal. Bickerman notes that according to Manetho the pharaohs began to reign in 4244 BC (1975, p. 76, n. 14), about one millennium before the earliest Flood date which can be derived from the LXX ( ca . 3298 BC). Ray concurs: The suggestion that the LXX chronology resulted as a response to the Egyptian chronology of Manetho is inadequate. The modern scheme is dated to about 3000 B.C. However, Manetho’s actual figures total 5471 years by dead reckoning, from the First Dynasty to the conquering of Egypt by Alexander the Great, a figure which was assumed as fairly accurate until recently (p. 36, n. 7). Ancient witnesses such as Julius Africanus (AD 170–240) affirm that Egyptian chronologies in general were much longer than the LXX’s: The Egyptians, indeed, with their boastful notions of their own antiquity, have put forth a sort of account of it by the hand of their astrologers in cycles and myriads of years… they think they fall in with the eight or nine thousands of years ... (Wallraff, p. 25, emphasis added). Similarly, Theophilus of Antioch (d. AD 183) argues the age of the world (5529 BC) is much more recent than the “…15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out…” (Schaff 2004, p. 1118). And, Eusebius suggested that Egyptian chronologies in antiquity should be deflated to bring them in line with the comparatively shorter (and in his view, accurate) LXX chronology (Adler, pp. 479–480). Moreover, Genesis LXX exhibits no evidence of a large– scale accommodation to Egyptian cosmogony, theogony, or anthropogony. It highly implausible that the Jewish scribes in Alexandria would thoroughly capitulate to Egyptian worldview claims only in Gen 5/11. Hanhart agrees: Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 120