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

inspired text of Gen 11. Although the rabbis deflated the ba by 100 years each (and Nahor by 50 years), they did not need to inflate the ry because there were no lifespans to serve as a checksum. They had no reason to amend the ry , so they left them intact in Gen 11. After accounting for accidental scribal errors, I propose that each ry in Gen 11 MT reflects the original numbers, and MSS of the LXX also preserve the original ry. When reconstructed text– critically, each ry in LXX/MT Gen 11 can be shown to have originally matched (Appendix, nn. 4–8). These agreements provide corroborating evidence for the longer chronology in Gen 11, and powerfully support the claim that the rabbis deflated the MT’s primeval chronology. CONCLUSION In this paper, I have proposed a theory of textual reconstruction for the numbers in Genesis 5 and 11 based on text critical and internal evidences, Septuagint studies, ancient testimonies, and external witnesses. The LXX’s primeval chronology, with a Creation date of ca . 5554 BC and a Flood date of ca . 3298 BC, has the strongest evidence favoring its originality. Based on the totality of the evidence, I respectfully encourage conservative evangelicals to immediately abandon three prevailing dogmas: 1. Any LXX inflation hypothesis. 2. Inflexible adherence to Ussher’s Creation date of 4004 BC or similar dates based on the MT’s primeval chronology. The MT’s numbers can no longer be treated as if they are the only possible original texts of Scripture in Genesis 5 and 11 . At minimum, the longer chronology needs to be welcomed back into the discussion, as it had been for 2000 years. The LXX should receive a fair and judicious hearing, not dogmatic and superficial dismissals. 3. Apologetic arguments which advocate the radical revision of non-carbon-14 based archaeological dates in the Ancient Near East in the 2 nd and 1 st millennia BC to reconcile them with a ca . 2400 BC Flood date. (Re)dating the Flood to ca . 3298 BC (based on a 2166 BC birth date for Abraham) provides a biblically grounded pre–Abrahamic chronological framework for assessing archaeological evidence. I propose that the prospective redating of pre-Abrahamic archaeological periods should be done within the context of the LXX’s post–Flood chronology, not the MT’s. REFERENCES Adler, W. 1992. Eusebius’ Chronicle and its Legacy. In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism , ed. by H.W. Attridge and G. Hata, 467–91. Detroit: WSU Press. Aejmelaeus, A. 1987. What can we know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint? Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99, no. 1:58–89. Attridge, H.W. 1976. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus . Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Beckwith, R.T. 1981. Daniel 9 and the date of Messiah’s coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and early Christian computation. Revue de Qumran 10, no. 4:521–42. Beckwith, R.T. 1996. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian . Leiden: Brill. Bickerman, E. J. 1975. The Jewish historian Demetrios. In Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Part III-Judaism Before 70 , ed. by J. Neusner, pp. 72–84. London: Brill. Cosner, L., and R. Carter. 2015. Textual traditions and Biblical chronology. Journal of Creation 29, no. 2:99–105. Charlesworth, J. 1981. The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement . Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7S. Chico, California: Scholars Press. Davila, J. 1990. New Qumran readings for Genesis One. In Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins , eds. H.W. Attridge, J.J. Collins, and T.H. Tobin. College Theological Society 5. Lanham: University Press of America. Fallon, F. 1983. Eupolemus: A new translation and introduction. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2 , ed. by J.H. Charlesworth, pp. 861–72. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Feldman, L.H. 1996. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism . Leiden: Brill. Feldman, L.H. 1998. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible . Berkeley: University of California Press. Ferch, A. 1977. The Two Aeons and the Messiah in Pseudo–Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. Andrews University Seminary Studies 15, no. 2:135–51. Finegan, J. 1998. Handbook of Biblical Chronology , revised edition. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Gentry, P. 2009. The Text of the Old Testament. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 1:19–45. Goodenow, S.B. 1896. Bible Chronology Carefully Unfolded . New York: Fleming H. Revell Company. Green, W.H. 1890. Primeval chronology. Bibliotheca Sacra 47, (April): 285–303. Guggenheimer, H., ed. 1998. Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology . Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Hales, W. 1830. A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy . London: C.J.G. and F. Rivington. Hanhart, R. 1992. The translation of the Septuagint in light of earlier tradition and subsequent influences. In Septuagint, Scrolls, and Cognate Writings , eds. G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars, pp. 339–79. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Hanson, J. 1983. Demetrius the Chronographer:  A new translation and introduction. In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2 , ed. J.H. Charlesworth, 1 st ed., pp. 844–858. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Hardy, C., and R. Carter. 2014. The Biblical minimum and maximum age of the Earth. Journal of Creation 28, no. 2:89–96. Harrington, D.J. 1970. The original language of Pseudo–Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Harvard Theological Review 63, no. 4:503– 14. Harrington, D.J. 1971. The Biblical text of Pseudo–Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33, no. 1:1–17. Harrington, D.J. 1983. Pseudo–Philo: a new translation and introduction. In The OT Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2 , ed. by J.H. Charlesworth, pp. 297– 377. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson. Hasel, G. 1980a. Genesis 5 and 11: Chronogenealogies in the Biblical history of beginnings. Origins 7, no. 1:23–37. Hasel, G. 1980b. The meaning of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Origins 7, no. 2:53–70. Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 128