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

The higher ba in Ant . 1.83–87 are preceded by an epochal summation in Ant. 1:82: “The time of [the Flood] was [2262/2656/1656] years from Adam…” Thackeray argues for 2262 as the original figure: [Following] Niese, with the best MS. of Josephus here extant, cod[ex]. O… The figure 2262 is the correct total of the items which follow and is doubtless original… The figures in the other authorities [manuscripts] (2656 SPL Lat., 1656 Zonaras, 1056 Epitome) are due to conformation, partial or complete, to the Hebrew text of Genesis (1931, p. 38, n. d ). Thackeray accepts the 188 reading in Ant . 1.87 for Lamech’s ba , which agrees with the summation figure of 2262 years (cf. Niese and von Destinon 2008, p. 28; Feldman 2000, p. 31, n. 201). Both the epochal summation (2262) and the correlating individual ba are found in manuscript O, considered one of the best witnesses of Josephus. The singular 1656 reading from the 12 th century AD Chronicle of Zonaras is based on a now unknown MS of Josephus (Feldman 2000, p. XXXVIII), and is undoubtedly a corruption to conform Ant . 1.82 to the MT. If 182 is Lamech’s original ba (“82” in MSS S, P, and L), then it would reduce the years in Ant . 1.82 from 2262 to 2256. The figure of 2256 is unknown in witnesses of Josephus. I propose it was changed to 2656 by scribal error, where the “600” was accidentally picked up from Noah’s age at the start of the Flood just two verses prior in Ant. 1.80 (Jackson 1752, p. 46, n. 88). 2656 in Ant . 1.87 is found in 4 MSS (S, P, L and Lat.; Niese et. al. 2008, p. 20), the same witnesses that contain [1]82/182 for Lamech’s ba . The figure of 2656 is not the result of attempted conformity to the MT’s 1656. The 2656 reading originated by accident from 2256 in an archetype that preceded the four later MSS in which it appears. Both 2262 and 2256 correspond with extant individual ba found in Ant . 1.83– 87, and closely match the sum of the numbers found in LXX Gen 5. The difference is found in Lamech’s ba . Since Josephus himself and modern scholars state that he used a Genesis Hebrew text, 2256 is the original pre–Flood calculation in Ant. 1.82. It requires 182 for Lamech’s ba , which only appears in Hebrew texts ( LAB , MT) and not in any LXX MSS (Wevers 1974b, p. 107). This is confirmed even further by the appearance of 707 for Lamech’s lifespan in all MSS of Josephus, almost surely the result of the 70 (ἑβδομήκοντα) dropping out in the very early stages of its textual transmission (Feldman 2000, p. 32, n. 223). It was 777 originally, matching the MT and inferred in LAB . No MSS of Josephus match the LXX’s lifespan of 753, and 707 (or 777) cannot be reconstructed back into 753 in Greek via scribal error(s). The 777 year lifespan for Lamech serves as the most convincing evidence that Josephus was using a Genesis Hebrew text for the longer primeval chronology, not the LXX. [Future research will significantly expand upon this argument]. For the post–Flood epoch, Ant. 1:148 reads: “...Abraham... was born in the 992nd year after the deluge.” Manuscripts R and O contain 992 years (Niese and von Destinon, p. 28), and are often considered superior witnesses to Books 1–10 of Antiquities (Nodet 1997, p. 158, n. 12). Ant . 1:149–150 contain the higher individual ba , so the 992–year reading is correct, and is the only one that makes sense of the context. Thackeray concludes: [Following] Niese’s two principle MSS. R and O: the figure here given is approximately the total of the figures that follow… and is doubtless original. The reading of the other MSS. (292) has been taken over from the Hebrew Bible [MT] (1931, p. 72, n. h ). Codices M, S, P, L, Epitome, and Latin read “292,” 700 years short of the sum of the individual ba that immediately follow it. An examination of MSS of Ant . 1:149–50 support the 992–year post–Flood chronology, exposing the 292–year readings as wide- scale attempts to conform Josephus’ chronology to the MT. Josephus begins with Terah, working his way back to the Flood. He places the birth of Abraham in Terah’s 70 th year, a number found in all witnesses. (We will return to Nahor in a moment). In Ant . 1:149, Serug fathered Nahor at age 132 (LXX/SP–130), and Reu was 130 (LXX/SP–132) when he fathered Serug. These have been accidentally transposed, and no variants match the MT. The begetting ages for Peleg, Eber, Shelah andArpachshad all match the LXX/SP, with no variants (Niese et. al. 2008, p. 37). The absence of Kainan further confirms Josephus’ use of a Genesis Hebrew text (Appendix, n. 11). The incorrect figure of “12” for Arpachshad’s birth year after the Flood differs from the 2–year figure found in the MT/SP/LXX (Gen 11:10). It is surely a scribal gloss. Nahor’s original ba in Ant . 1:149 is usually considered to be 120 (Thackeray 1931, p. 73). This number diverges from the LXX/ SP reading of 79 (Wevers 1974b, p. 146) and the MT (29). It is reasonable to surmise that Josephus originally wrote Nahor’s ry of 129 accidentally (Hales, pp. 301–302; Wevers 1974b, p. 147). Or, his HebrewMS contained an erroneous reading of 129 froma scribal error. 129 then became 120 by scribal error in the transmission of Antiquities (Hughes, p. 248, n. 16). If we accept 129 as the original number in Josephus, and we correct Arpachshad’s birth year after the Flood from twelve to two, then the individual begetting ages add up exactly to 992, vindicating Josephus’ original epochal summary found in MSS R and O of Ant . 1:148. Despite the difficulties with reconstructing Nahor’s ba , the total evidence from Josephus undoubtedly supports the longer chronology. Only 129 for Nahor’s ba , combined with the higher ba unanimously attested in all extant MSS of Ant . 1:149–50, can explain the 992–year epochal summation figure in MSS R and O. Moreover, statements by Josephus himself cannot possibly be reconciled with a 292–year time span from Abraham back to the Flood (Hayes, pp. 66–69). The 292–year reading is not original, and should be recognized as a widespread and “palpable forgery” (Hales, p. 294). One final piece of evidence confirms the longer chronology was in Josephus’ Greek and Hebrew texts of Gen 5/11. I have argued that the MT’s shorter chronology did not exist in biblical MSS of Genesis before 70 AD. However, some of the MT/SP begetting ages in Gen 5 do appear in the artificial primeval chronology of Jubilees . These begetting ages found in Jubilees were not derived from the Genesis text but were invented by the author to create a jubilees based chronology. Jubilees is the original source of the shorter pre–Flood chronology, not the Genesis text (Smith Jr. 2018; Appendix, n. 3). Halpern–Amaru has shown that Josephus was familiar with and used the Book of Jubilees (2001). If so, he would Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 126