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

6. Several potential reconstructions exist for the ry for Shelah. A few LXX MSS read 403, matching the MT. I slightly favor 403, but 430 is also possible. If 430 is original, the accidental loss of ים could easily account for the MT’s present reading (Shaw, p. 68). 430 does not appear in LXX MSS (one reads 450). 330 appears in several LXX MSS (Wevers 1974b, p. 144), and could have easily arisen from an original 430 in Greek (Shaw, p. 68). Getting from an original 330 in Hebrew to the 403 in the present MT is possible, but more difficult than these other scenarios. Any of these resolutions to Shelah’s ry can illustrate agreement between the MT/LXX. The SP has been deflated to 303. 7. Eber’s 430 is a scribal error in the MT and was originally 370, preserved in some LXX MSS (Hendel, p. 73), and detected in the SP’s 100–year deflation to 270. It is also possible 430 was accidentally picked up from Arpachshad’s original ry , or from Shelah’s (possible) 430 that was in the MT prior to its accidental change to 403 (nn. 5–6 above). 8. The ry for Nahor in the MT (119) or LXX (129) could be explained in either direction as a minor scribal error. I slightly favor 129. 9. The SP amended Terah’s lifespan to 145 to “fix” the chronological matrix involving Abraham’s birth, his call to and departure for Canaan, and the end of Terah’s life. The reading is (almost) universally considered secondary (Hendel, p. 74). 10. No textual reconstruction can make LAB compatible with the lower ba or higher ry in the MT/SP. (1) Seth’s ba is presently 105, but is explained by a scribal error: CCV (205) in Latin to CV (105). This is affirmed by Seth’s ry , 707. Seth’s lifespan (707+205) would then equal 912 years, extant in the MT/LXX/SP. (2) Enosh’s ba changed from 190 to 180 in the Latin text. His ry (715) matches the LXX. (3) Kenan’s ry changed from 740 to 730. His ba reads 520 in Latin (DXX), an obvious scribal error from CLXX (170). (4) Jared’s ba slightly changed from 162 (CLXII) to 172 (CLXXII). (5) Lamech’s ry slightly changed from 595 to 585. (6) Noah’s ba is 300, obviously a scribal error. The original reading was 500, supported by all other witnesses. (Hughes, p. 251; Jacobson, pp. 286–288; Harrington 1983, pp. 304–307). 11. Kainan’s (Gen 11:13b–14b; cf. Luke 3:36) absence in the MT/ SP is often used to discredit the LXX’s entire primeval chronology. This is a non–sequitur . Josephus and numerous church fathers (Julius Africanus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Eusebius) accepted the longer chronology, but did not include Kainan (Tanner 2015, p. 33–35). a. Kainan’s originality in LXX Genesis 11 is virtually indisputable, appearing in nearly all LXX MSS, including the earliest and most significant witnesses: Papyri 911 – late 3 rd century AD Codex Alexandrinus (A) – 5 th century AD Codex Cottonianus (D) – 5 th –6 th century AD Codex Coislinianus (M) – 7 th century AD Papyri 833 – an uncial palimpsest, 8 th –9th century AD (Wevers 1974b, p. 144; 23, 24, 26) b. Kainan’s alleged “addition” to LXX Gen 11 by the Alexandrian translators is usually bound to the now discredited LXX inflation hypotheses (Shaw, pp. 86–88). c. Kainan’s ba of 130 is necessary for Demetrius’ post–Flood chronology (Shaw pp. 90–91), indicating Kainan was in Demetrius’ LXX Gen 11 MS, less than 70 years from the original translation. d. The story of Kainan appears between Arpachshad and Shelah in Jubilees (8:1–6). Steinmann claims Kainan was added to Jubilees by Christian scribes after the 4 th century AD (2017, p. 711), over four centuries after its date of origin. However, Kainan must be original to Jubilees for its jublilean based chronology to work. Kainan’s 57–year begetting age is integral to the Adam–Conquest chronology of 2450 years ( Jub 50:4). Establishing this exact date was a central goal of the author. The alleged addition centuries later would have disrupted the entire timeline, and there is not one shred of manuscript evidence for it. Kainan was therefore in the Genesis text being used by the author of Jubilees in ca . 160 BC. e. Kainan’s independent witness in Jubilees and Demetrius (necessarily implied) disproves the theory that Kainan originated as a scribal error in a singleMS of Luke 3:36 (Sarfati 2004). Steinmann (p. 711) claims that Kainan was then universally interpolated by Christian scribes back into Syriac and Ethiopic MSS of Jubilees , and also into every known manuscript of LXX Gen 11 and Luke 3:36 across the entire Mediterranean world . Kainan’s appearance in LXX papyrus 911 (late 3 rd century AD; Wevers 1974b, p. 23) alone repudiates this theory. f. While Kainan might be absent in MS 75 of Luke 3:36 ( 75 is very fragmentary and in poor condition for Luke 3:36), its only corroborating witness is Codex Bezae. Kainan appears in 40-plus NT manuscripts of Luke 3:36. While 75 needs to be examined more closely, its age alone is insufficient to reject Kainan. g. Since Kainan was in LXX Gen 11 originally, it was in the Hebrew Vorlage being used by the Alexandrian translators. Thus, Kainan must have dropped out of another main stream of the Hebrew textual tradition by accident, likely during the Babylonian Exile. With one slip of the eye and by writing from memory for a small section of text, Kainan could have completely been dropped out of the Hebrew text inadvertently. The vocabulary and numbers are very repetitive in Gen 11, increasing the possibility of this kind of error. Once the omission took root, Hebrew scribes removed Kainan from Gen 10:24 and I Chronicles 1:18, 24 to harmonize them with Gen 11. h. Kainan is absent in Josephus and LAB , further affirming both works used a Hebrew text of Genesis and not the LXX. These omissions indicate that Kainan fell out of a major Hebrew archetype (at minimum) prior to the 1 st century AD, since he does not appear in MT/SP Gen 11 either. I propose Kainan was preserved in an archetypal Hebrew text that eventually led independently to both Gen 11 LXX (then Demetrius) and Jubilees . i. Kainan’s witness in both LXX Gen 10:22, 24 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24 is best described as messy (Ray, pp. 35–36, n. 1). It is probably impossible to reconstruct exactly what happened in the transmissional history. Scribes and translators would have compared their LXXMSS to Hebrew text(s) and other known LXX MSS, then added or removed Kainan depending upon whether they thought his name was original. The LXX was (re)copied and Smith ◀ The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 ▶ 2018 ICC 131