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

11. Nahor’s ba in the LXX should be 129, not 79. Advocates of any inflation theory must also explain why SP scribes independently and separately chose to inflate Nahor’s ba by only 50 years as well. Now consider that if the goal was deflation, and if Nahor’s original ba was 79, then the rabbis realistically could only reduce this number by 50 years to 29 to make it consistent with the rest of the MT’s numbers from Arpachshad to Serug. 79 in the SP serves as independent verification of its originality. The 50–year adjustment of Nahor’s ba can only be logically explained as an intentional chronological deflation in the MT (Sexton and Smith Jr., p. 48). Second, the rabbis avoided deflating the figures for Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem and Terah, which would have resulted in internal chronological errors relating to other biblical passages (Hales, p. 281). Their goal was not only to deflate the chronology, but to limit the changes to prevent them from being discovered. Conversely, if the goal truly were inflation, Jared, Methuselah and Lamech’s begetting ages could (and should) have been increased by one hundred years each (to 262, 287, 288), and would not create such difficulties. The careful selection of the begetting ages that were altered, as well as the amount that each age was adjusted, confirms that the original chronology was deflated. Third, and most significantly, the MT’s post–Flood chronology creates four genuine and irreconcilable errors when compared to Gen 25:8. The verse indicates that the 175–year–old Abraham “died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years…” (ESV). In the MT: 1. Eber was still alive at age 464 when Abraham died at 175. 2. Similarly, Shem’s death at age 600 occurs in the MT only 25 years before Abraham’s death, thrice Abraham’s age. 3. Most remarkably, Noah’s death at 950 occurs only two years before Abraham was born . Lastly, Gen 11:10–25 (Table 1) repeatedly indicates that the named patriarchs had “[other] sons and daughters.” Thus, thousands of post–Flood descendants would have lived to ages similar to Arpachshad (438), Eber (464) and Shelah (433), makingAbraham’s death premature when compared to other unnamed contemporaries. Using the MT, Abraham would have been neither “an old man,” nor “full of years” compared to the world around him. This would be analogous to applying similar statements to a modern man who died at the age of 30 or 35. In the LXX, however, Noah had been deceased for nearly 1000 years, Shem for about eight centuries, and Eber for about four, when Abraham died. Only in the longer chronology of the LXX/ SP had lifespans dropped to the point where Abraham’s epitaph could be considered accurate and coherent. The MT’s post–Flood chronology creates an insurmountable problem for MT advocates, for it yields genuine and irreconcilable errors within the sacred text. EXTERNAL EVIDENCES VERIFY THE LONGER CHRONOLOGY IS ORIGINAL Citations in external sources using Hebrew and Greek texts of Genesis circulating in the 1 st century AD and earlier should contain the higher ba in Gen 5/11 (and lower ry in Gen 5) if the rabbis soon thereafter deflated the chronology by 1250 years. And that’s exactly what we find. 1. Demetrius the Chronographer ( ca . 220 BC) The historian Demetrius wrote in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy IV (221–205 BC). Demetrius’ works are preserved in Eusebius and Clement . He wrote in Greek (Hanson, p. 183, n. 6) and is the earliest known external witness to the primeval chronology. He dates Creation to 5307 BC and the Flood to 3043 BC (Finegan, p. 145). Fragment 2:18 reads, “[F]rom Adam until Joseph’s brothers came into Egypt, there were 3624 years; and from the Deluge until Jacob’s coming into Egypt, 1360 years” (Hanson, pp. 851–852). These figures yield a period of 2264 years fromAdam to the Flood (3624–1360), a figure only consistent with the longer chronology (Smith Jr. 2017, p. 172, n. 19). As “the earliest datableAlexandrian– Jewish author we know” (Finegan, p. 141), his witness to the longer primeval chronology predates the first reliable witness to the MT’s chronology by several centuries. 2. Eupolemus ( ca . 160 BC) Eupolemus was a Jewish historian of the 2 nd century BC (Wacholder 1974, p. 3). His Greek work is entitled, “On the Kings in Judea.” Fragment 5 appears in Clement’s Stromata (Fallon 1983). In it, Eupolemus calculates 5149 years from Adam to the 5 th year of the reign of Demetrius I ( ca . 158 BC; Wacholder 1974, p. 7), yielding the same Creation date as Demetrius the Chronographer (5307 BC; Finegan, p. 145). Eupolemus used the LXX, and since he was a high–ranking Jerusalem official, this indicates both the LXX and the longer chronology were embraced in Israel proper. Because of his status, he also had access to and used Hebrew texts, writing in a “koine- Judaeo-Greek” with a “strong Hebrew flavor” (Wacholder 1974, pp. 12–13, 246–248, 256–257; Holladay, p. 95, 99, nn. 2–3). Fallon adds: “… Eupolemus has also used the Hebrew text, as his rendering of the name Hiram indicates… use of the Hebrew text is further indicated by his translation of terms that the Septuagint has merely transliterated” (pp. 862–863; Holladay, p. 101 n. 15). Josephus’ praise of Eupolemus’ work ( Against Apion 1:23) also supports the accuracy of his chronology. Eupolemus’ writing and chronological statements would have been under intense scrutiny in Jerusalem. He was an official delegate sent to Rome by Judas Maccabeus in 161 BC (Holladay 99, n.6). Since he “belonged to one of the leading priestly families of Jerusalem” (Holladay, p. 93), he would have had access to Hebrew scrolls in the Temple library. Eupolemus would never have used the LXX’s primeval chronology unless it closely matched the Hebrew text(s) of Genesis available to him. His choice of an erroneously inflated LXX chronology would have embarrassed the priesthood, his family, and the nation. His writing, chronology, place of residence and status strongly indicate there were Hebrew texts in Jerusalem with the longer chronology in the 2nd century BC. 3. Pseudo–Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ( LAB , 1 st century AD) LAB is also called the Book of Biblical Antiquities , a work presently extant in Latin, translated from an intermediate Greek text (Harrington 1970, p. 507). Upon (re)discovery in the 19 th century, it was wrongly attributed to Philo of Alexandria. LAB chronicles biblical history from Adam to Saul, and includes parallels from Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 123