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

Tov, E. 2015. The genealogical lists in Genesis 5 and 11 in three different versions. In Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint , pp. 221–238. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 167. Leiden: Brill. Wacholder, B.Z. 1974. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo–Greek Literature . Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Wacholder, B.Z. 1975. Chrono–Messianism: The timing of messianic movements and calendar of sabbatical cycles. Hebrew Union College Annual 46:201–18. Wallraff, M., U. Roberto, and K. Pinggera, eds. 2007. Iulius Africanus Chronographiae: The Extant Fragments . Trans. by William Adler. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Wevers, J.W. 1974a. Text History of the Greek Genesis . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wevers, J.W., ed. 1974b. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Genesis . Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wevers, J.W. 1993. Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis . Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 35. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Whiston, W. 2009. Dissertation 5: Upon the chronology of Josephus. In The Works of Josephus , pp. 849–72. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson. Whitcomb, J., and H.M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood . Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing. Williams, P. 1998. Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology. Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, no. 1:98–106. Young, J.A. 2003. Septuagintal versus Masoretic chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism , ed. R.L. Ivey, Jr., pp. 417–30. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. THE AUTHOR Henry B. Smith Jr. is the Administrative Director of the Shiloh and Ai Archaeological Excavations, Israel for the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR). He graduated with a B.A. in Economics from Rutgers in 1992. With a 13-year business background, he earned an M.A. in Theology with an emphasis onApologetics from Trinity Seminary, graduating with high honors in 2005. He earned his M.A.R. from Westminster Theological Seminary in 2015. Henry is presently ABR’s lead researcher for the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project , found online at www.BibleArchaeology.org. APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DATA 1. The “begetting age” refers to the precisely designated year that the patriarch fathered the named descendent, that is, the year of his birth (Sexton 2015; 2018a, 2018b). a. The MT’s total of 2008 years consists of 1656 years from Adam to the Flood (including 182 for Lamech’s begetting age), and 352 years from the Flood to Abraham. The birth of Abraham occurs in the 130 th year of Terah’s life, based on a matrix of texts. b. The SP’s antediluvian epoch is 1307 years, mimicking the Book of Jubilees (n. 3; Smith Jr. 2018). The SP’s post–Flood calculation of 942 years mirrors the LXX, except for the omission of Kainan (130 years) and the SP’s deliberate reduction of Terah’s lifespan to 145 (n. 9). c. The LXX’s total of 3394 years entails 2262 years from Adam to the Flood, and 1132 years from the Flood toAbraham’s birth in Terah’s 130 th year. It includes Kainan, and 188 for Lamech’s begetting age. Wevers’ textual reconstruction of the LXX will be followed, unless otherwise indicated. [Codex Vaticanus is not considered, as Gen 1–46:27 was added in the 15 th century AD in miniscule form (Wevers, 1974a, p. 33)]. d. Ussher’s BC dates entail the MT’s 2008–year figure, the “short” Egyptian Sojourn of 215 years, 480 years from the Exodus to the Temple, and 390 years for the divided kingdom period. e. The BC Creation and Flood dates derived from the LXX Gen 5/11 assume a 2166 BC birth date for Abraham. 2. An explanation for the discrepancies between the MT (182, 595, 777) and LXX (188, 565, 753) for Lamech is complex. Lamech’s LXX numbers likely arose in the original Greek translation from an inadvertent error while the translator was reading the Hebrew text, immediately followed by a two–stage and deliberate emendation to correct the chronological matrix. The MT’s readings are original and are externally affirmed by LAB and Josephus. 3. The SP begetting ages for Jared (62), Methuselah (67) and Lamech (53) have been deliberately changed to conform with Jubilees ( ca. 160–140 BC origin). The antediluvian chronology of the SP mirrors Jubilees , which imposes an artificial chronological framework onto the biblical text to create a schematic history spanning 50 cycles of jubilees (49 years each), totaling 2450 years from Adam to the Conquest ( Jub . 50:4). Segal writes: The chronological framework of jubilees and weeks is common to other works of the Second Temple period that divide world history into eras of pre–determined length. Underlying all of them is the idea of periodization: at the end of a pre–defined length of time, the world returns to its primordial state… It is possible to demonstrate that the chronological framework [of Jubilees ] was superimposed upon the already existing stories (p. 84, emphasis added). The jubliean scheme forced the author to also alter the ry and lifespans of Jared (785, 847), Methuselah (653, 720) and Lamech (600, 653) to prevent them from living through the Flood. Jerome’s SP MSS with the correct numbers for Methuselah (MT/LXX: 187, 782, 969) and Lamech (MT/ LAB : 182) are proof that the now extant SP was deliberately reduced to mimic Jubilees , and not vice–versa. There is no other logical explanation for the SP’s numbers in Genesis 5. Jubilees ’ artificial chronological structure verifies that its begetting ages did not originate from a Hebrew, biblical text of Gen 5/11. By its very nature, Jubilees discredits the ba in the SP (and MT) of Gen 5 which match it (Smith Jr., 2018). 4. Gen 11 MT retains the original ry figures except for scribal errors (see below). The lifespan figures in Gen 11 SP from Shem to Nahor are secondary harmonizations and were not part of the original, inspired text. Therefore, they cannot serve as a basis for textual reconstruction of Genesis 11 [contra Cosner and Carter (p. 103–104) and Shaw (p. 68)]. The ry figures from Arpachshad to Nahor in Gen 11 SP have been deliberately deflated (Smith Jr., 2018), and have no external attestation prior to Eusebius ( ca . AD 310). Since the ry figures in Gen 11 SP are incorrect, the lifespans in Gen 11 SP, except for Shem, are also incorrect. 5. Almost all LXX MSS read 430 or 330 for Arpachshad’s ry (Wevers 1974b, p. 144). The LXX translators most likely had a Hebrew Vorlage with 430. The proto–MT could easily have lost the suffix ים at the end of “30” in “430,” accidentally making it into 403. 330 comes from a simple scribal gloss from 430 in Greek (Shaw, p. 68). The SP was deflated to 303. Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 130