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

The LXX translators never had the freedom to take over non–Israelite tradition in its written form into the context of their translations… The freedom given to them was not that of alteration; rather, theirs was the responsibility of preservation (p. 350). One might simply claim that the Alexandrian translators or other unknown scribes arbitrarily inflated the chronology, but for no discernable reason. This kind of ad hoc explanation is deeply inadequate. First, a compelling reason and motive for this kind of systematic revision is essential for any reconstruction theory. Answering the question, “why did this change occur in the text?” is central to the text–critical enterprise. Second, LXX studies by experts in the field provide daunting arguments against LXX inflation hypotheses. Aejmelaeus begins: Now, knowing the translators considered the text they were reading to be authoritative Scripture and, on the other hand, that most of them, after all, were fairly literal, it would seem to be a good rule of thumb to start with the assumption that larger divergences from the MT mainly come from the Vorlage [the Hebrew text behind the translation], and only exceptionally and with imperative reasons [should they be attributed] to the translator… The scholar who wishes to attribute deliberate changes, harmonizations, completion of details and new accents to the translator is under the obligation to prove his thesis with weighty arguments and also to show why the divergences cannot have originated with the Vorlage . That the translator may have manipulated his original does not mean that he necessarily did so. All that is known of the translation techniques employed in the Septuagint points firmly enough in the opposite direction (p. 68, 71). Davila continues: “We have strong reason to believe that the translators of Genesis treated their Vorlage with respect and rendered the Hebrew text before them into Greek with great care and minimal interpretation,” (p. 11). Focusing on the Gen 5/11 numbers, Wevers writes: “It can be safely concluded that [the LXX translator of] Gen had another [non–MT] chronology in the background. It was not the product of his imagination…” (1993, p. 73). Tov’s study concludes: Although the LXX has been transmitted into Greek, these details [the numbers in Gen 5/11] should not be ascribed to the translator, but the Hebrew Vorlage … they did not go as far as to recalculate the logic or system of genealogical lists. The LXX translation of Genesis is relatively literal, although some freedom in small details is recognizable, but no large scale translational pluses, minuses or changes are found in this version… Accordingly, any recalculation of chronological lists by a translator is highly unlikely. Furthermore, the LXX version of the lists has much in common with the SP, especially in chapter 11, strengthening the assumption that the two phenomena took place at the Hebrew level (2015, p. 221, n. 1, emphasis added). Building on Tov’s argument, LXX inflation hypotheses cannot account for the higher ba in SPGen 11, which fundamentally match two completely independent sources: LXX Gen 11 and Josephus’ Hebrew text of Genesis (Tables 1 and 2). In addition, the SP’s antediluvian chronology differs drastically from the LXX, where it exhibits severe deflation. The SP matches the artificially constructed chronology found in Jubilees (Smith Jr. 2018a; Appendix, n. 3). Evidence of deliberate deflation in SP Gen 5 from the original is found in Jerome. In his SP MSS, the figures for Methuselah and Lamech in Genesis 5:25–28 do not match the numbers in any present–day SPMSS (Table 1). Instead, Jerome’s SP MSS contained Methuselah’s numbers (187, 782, 969), matching the MT and some LXX MSS. A reading from the Samareitikon , a Greek translation of the SP or a Samaritan Targum (Joosten 2015), also has 782 as the ry for Methuselah (Wevers 1974b, p. 106). Thus, the SP was deliberately reduced (at minimum) for the lives of both Methuselah and Lamech (Hayward, p. 35; Smith Jr., 2017, p. 170, n. 5; 175) to bring it in line with Jubilees . While the SP scribes deflated Gen 5 SP to match Jubilees (Smith Jr., 2018a), no adequate motive has been proposed for their alleged inflation of the Gen 11 begetting ages. In summary, LXX inflation hypotheses fail (in part or whole) on eight major points: 1. They cannot explain the matching ba in the SP and LXX of Genesis 11, whichwould need to arise separately and independently, and yet somehow identically, if any LXX inflation hypothesis were true. The SP certainly did not originate from the LXX. 2. There are no ancient testimonies to support them. 3. It would have been impossible for the LXX translators (or anyone else) to get away with such a fraud due to the subsequent dissemination of the LXX throughout the Diaspora. Jewish communities embraced and used the LXX for several centuries before the advent of the Church. A falsely inflated primeval chronology would have been quickly exposed as fraudulent. 4. LXX Genesis bears no evidence of significant conformity to Egyptian world view claims, making it dubious that the translators would have corrupted the sacred text to conform solely with Egyptian chronology. 5. The LXX’s chronology fails to equal or surpass ancient versions of Egyptian chronology. 6. If the goal of equaling or surpassing Egyptian chronology was real, then the LXX’s chronology should be much longer than it presently is. Gen 5 could have been expanded by at least two millennia. Gen 11 could have been inflated by several centuries. 7. Septuagint and OT textual scholars maintain that the numbers in LXX Gen 5/11 should be attributed to the LXX’s Hebrew Vorlage , not the translators. Thus, the LXX testifies to an early 3 rd century BC Hebrew text of Genesis with the longer chronology. 8. There is external evidence of HebrewGenesis texts that contained the longer primeval chronology in the 1 st century AD and earlier. Any inflation theory must provide a specific and adequate motive for inflating the numbers. To my knowledge, a coherent, rational explanation and viable motive for inflations in the LXX that can account for all of the evidence has yet to be produced. Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 121