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

written in Hebrew, originating before AD 70 in Israel, and utilizing a Hebrew text of Genesis which contained the longer antediluvian chronology of 2256 years. LAB serves as a devastating witness against the MT’s shorter chronology. 5. Josephus ( ca . AD 94) Most of the higher ba found in Gen 5 of LAB and LXX Gen 5/11 also appear in Antiquities of the Jews (1:67, 83–87, 149–50; Tables 2 and 3). Josephus’ numbers are often dismissed as a mere parroting of the LXX. A close examination reveals something quite different. Josephus explicitly states that he worked directly from Hebrew texts ( Ant. 1:5, 9:208, 10:218; Against Apion 1:1, 54). Studies by Norton (pp. 69–71), Attridge (pp. 29–33), and Feldman (1998, pp. 25–26, 30) all confirm that he had a Genesis Hebrew text in his possession. Shutt demonstrates how Josephus often “hellenized” names in Genesis directly from the Hebrew (pp. 169, 178). Noah, for example, always appears as Νῶε in the LXX, but as Νῶχός in Josephus (Nodet 2011, pp. 261–262). Other examples of translation from Hebrew to Greek by Josephus include: Enosh (Gen 5:9) LXX–Ενως Ant . 1.83–Ανοσως Mahalalel (Gen 5:15) LXX–Μαλελεηλ Ant . 1.84–Μαλαηλος Enoch (Gen 5:21) LXX–Ενωχ Ant . 1.85–Ανωχος Reu (Gen 11:18–21) LXX–Ραγαυ Ant . 1.148–Ρεους Serug (Gen 11:20–23) LXX–Σερουχ Ant . 1.149–Σερουγος Moreover, Septuagint and Josephus scholar Henry Thackeray argues extensively that Josephus used a “Semitic” text for Genesis through Ruth (1967, pp. 75–99).After an exhaustive analysis of over 100 of Josephus’ passages dealing with the Pentateuch, Josephus scholar Nodet concludes that “Josephus’ ultimate Hebrew source (H) is quite close to the Hebrew Vorlage of G [LXX]” (1997, p. 174). This affirms Wevers’ and Tov’s conclusions that the higher numbers in Gen 5/11 LXX came from a Hebrew text of Genesis. Due to his societal status, Josephus very likely used a high–quality Hebrew text. Nodet suggests that his Hebrew source(s) were Temple library scrolls that had been in use for a considerable period of time, perhaps a century or more (1997, pp. 192–194; Ag. Ap. 1:31). If correct, this would push Josephus’ witness to the longer chronology in a Genesis Hebrew text back to the turn of the millennium. Only in accord with the longer chronology, Josephus states that the history recorded in the Hebrew Bible covers 5,000 years: “Those antiquities contain the history of 5000 years; and are taken out of our sacred books, but translated by me into the Greek tongue” ( Ag. Ap. 1:1). And: “The things narrated in the sacred Scriptures, are, however, innumerable, seeing that they embrace the history of 5000 years…” ( Ant . 1:13). This figure begins with Adam and ends with Artaxerxes ( Ag. Ap. 1:8; ca . 425 BC), and cannot be reconciled with the MT’s chronology, which covers (generously, at maximum) ca . 3900 years for the same period (Hardy and Carter 2014, p. 95). The difference, strikingly, is explained by the 1250–year reduction in the MT by the rabbis. Hales is correct in stating the 5000–year statements are the “master key” to Josephus’ overarching chronology of history since Adam: The authenticity of this period of 5000 years is unquestionable from its repetition; and it has providentially escaped the depredations of his editors because it was only mentioned thus incidentally, and not applied formally as a chronological character (pp. 295, 297). “The depredations of his editors” to which Hales refers are instances where chronological statements in Josephus MSS of Antiquities were later corrupted by scribes. Epochal summation figures in Ant . 1:82 and 1:148 were deflated to match totals derived from the MT. A few of the ba have been deflated as well. Because of (alleged) internal chronological discrepancies, it has been asserted that Antiquities is an unreliable witness to the chronology of Gen 5/11. Hasel claims that Josephus had the longer (LXX) and shorter chronologies (MT) in his possession simultaneously, as do others (Hendel, p. 69; Klein, pp. 245–250; Wacholder 1974, p. 98, n. 7; Whiston, p. 851). He concludes that “Josephus does not seem to be of much help in answering the question of the time element” in the primeval history (1980a, pp. 25–26). Scholars making these claims consistently fail to closely examine the manuscript evidence. First, it is impossible that Josephus, twice, could have made such colossally basic math errors in the immediate context of the begetting ages he provides for each patriarch. For the antediluvian era, Josephus assures the reader Ant . 1.82 is accurate: “These years, added together, amount to the aforementioned total” ( Ant . 1.88). Second, an analysis of the extant textual variants of Ant . 1:67, 83– 87, and 149–150 decidedly demonstrates that the original numbers in Josephus’ Hebrew text essentially matched the higher ba found in the longer chronology. Adam’s ba of 230 and his 700 ry appear in a non–chronological context ( Ant . 1.67), having survived any attempts at emendation. No variants match the MT. Ant. 1.83 also contains the ba of 230 for Adam, reflected in the best MSS of Josephus. In Ant . 1.83 Seth begets Enosh at age 205, with no textual variations. Enosh begets Kainan at age 190, with one Latin MS deliberately reduced to 90. In Ant. 1.84–85, the ba of 170 for Kenan, 165 for Mahalalel and 162 for Jared are all unanimously attested. The majority of Ant. 1.86 MSS indicate that Methuselah was born when Enoch was 165 years old (Niese et. al. 2008, pp. 16, 19–20). For Methuselah’s ba , the best MSS of Josephus attest to 187 as original, affirmed by Niese et. al. (2008, p. 20), Thackeray (1931, p. 40), and Whiston (p. 851). While some LXX MSS incorrectly have 167 (causing Methuselah to live 14 years past the Flood), no MSS of Josephus contain the erroneous 167 reading. There is no doubt that 187 is the correct number in Josephus, and its originality is confirmed by the MT, Demetrius, LAB , Julius Africanus, and various LXX MSS (Smith Jr. 2017, pp. 169–179). For Lamech’s ba in Ant . 1.87, the witness of Josephus is primarily divided between 188 and 182/82. Manuscripts S, P, and L contain 82 (Niese et. al., p. 20). The “100” (ἑκατὸν) dropped out by accident early in the transmissional history. There is no reason to surmise it was 82 originally. The Latin MSS contain 182 (Whiston, p. 851). Meanwhile, 188 is found in codices M and O. 188 appears in almost all extant LXX MSS (Wevers 1974b, p. 107), while 182 appears in the MT and LAB . Both Niese and Thackeray have chosen 188 as the original figure in Josephus, while Whiston has chosen 182. (We will return to Lamech in a moment). Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 125