WILLOWTREE

By sheer antiquity the LXX must be held more reliable. Produced from 300 to 100 BC. This time frame makes the manuscripts Ezralitish in origin. The MT began to formulate centuries after the death of Christ. [source: Dr. Gene Scott]

Of the three Great Uncial mss only the Alexandrinus (4th century) contains the entire book of Genesis and the most reliable chronology of the LXX. The only exception being the second generation of Cainan's figures.

The Rutherford chronology is based upon the above source.


http://img65.exs.cx/img65/8673/ray4pj.jpg

http://img65.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img65&image=ray4pj.jpg

The above chart is from page 663.

The top link: Enlarge by clicking on icon bottom right area.

Rutherford quoting Dr. Hales page 696:

"About the end of the First century Jewish rage ignited as their own Sciptures were used against them to prove that Jesus was indeed the Christ. Universal among the Jews was just as man was created in the sixth 'day' of creation, so would Messiah come in the sixth 1000-year 'day' of human history."

Rutherford: Adam created 5407 BC which means in 407 BC 5000 years are completed.

Rutherford quoting Josephus page 696:

"Those Antiquities contain the history of five thousand years and are taken out of our sacred books, but are translated by me into the Greek tongue" [Contra Apion I:1]

Rutherford: The sixth "Day" of 1000 years from the date of Adam (A.A.) thus began in 407 BC and ended 594 AD during which very "Day" Christ came.

During the early Christian era many versions and copies of the Scriptures, both Jewish and Christian, sprang into existence with considerable variaton between the texts. Jewish scholars and Rabbis began to corrupt the numbers of years in the genealogies of the early Patriarchs of Genesis, so as to make it appear that the sixth thousand-year "day" had not arrived and therefore Jesus could not be the Messiah.

Rutherford quoting Ephrem the Syrian (c.333 AD) page 697:

"The Jews have subtracted 600 years from the generations of Adam, Seth, etc. in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the coming of Christ; he having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind after 5 1/2 millenniums."

Rutherford: The MT systematically subtracts 100 years from six antidiluvian Patriarchs, making 600 years total:

Seth: LXX; 230, MT; 130, SP; 130, Josephus; 230

Enos: LXX; 205, MT; 105, SP; 105, Josephus; 205

Cainan: LXX; 190, MT; 90, SP; 90, Josephus; 190

Mahalaleel: LXX; 170, MT; 70, SP 70, Josephus; 170

Jared: LXX; 165, MT; 65, SP; 65, Josephus; 165

Methuselah: LXX; 165, MT; 65, SP; 65, Josephus; 165

NOTE: Willowtree: The above figures are the years Seth born after Adam.

Enos after Seth.

Cainan after Enos.

Mahalaleel after Cainan.

Jared after Mahalaleel.

Methuselah after Enoch. Total = 600 years.

Rutherford: This confirms the assertion of Ephrem the Syrian. BUT Ephrem the Syrian says nothing about corruption of Patriarchs after the Flood, thus showing the corrupting of the Hebrew text was executed in two stages, with the postdiluvian tampering at a later stage.

The MT exhibits BOTH corruptions, whereas the SP only suffered the first and escaped the second, hence the substantial agreement between the SP and LXX texts in regard to the generative ages of the Patriarchs after the Flood, yet the utter disageement between the LXX and SP before the Flood.

Rutherford paraphrasing Dr. Hales, page 697:

The first definite record of the Hebrew genealogies appears in Aquila's Version 128 AD, which was sanctioned by Seder Olam Rabba about 130 AD.

Rutherford: For a long time the longer and shorter versions were in circulation.

Bishop of Antioch, Theophilus (c.133 AD) "Antolycus", Book 3rd he reckoned using the Scriptures that 3400 years passed from Adam to the birth of Isaac.

This shows the version he used agreed approximately with the LXX. The MT assigns 2110 years for that period.

Eusebius (333 AD) also noted the errors of Hebrew text as he recognized the validity of the longer chronology of the LXX.

In the 6th century AD the Jewish doctors/Masoretes decided the Hebrew text containing the much shorter chronology would be the authentic text for Jews. Copies from this text is where our English translations originated from.

WT

funinspace

WT,

I don't have time to do your response justice, so just a couple thoughts for now (remember I am weak in this area). I will try to look deeper into it early next week...
It is my understanding that the LXX we have is copies from much later (aka 4th century). So whatever happened in 300-100BCE, we really don't know too much about it. However, we do now have copies of Genesis from the Qumran, which is from this time frame in question.


Then why does it appear that the Qumran copies are in agreement with the MT?

The below is a much larger article that I just borrowed a snipet from:
http://www.ldolphin.org/haselgeneal.html

Clivedurdle

My mum always used to say the Welsh were one of the lost tribes of Israel - now I know where it came from, but she would not have been happy about including the English! Arthur - the once and future king - was originally a celtic hero against the English!

(And be very careful calling myths drivel - I'll let Merlin and a few dragons loose on you!!!)

chapka

No, I didn't; that's why I asked specifically where your version differed from the one I used (to which I provided a link).

As far as I can tell from the images you posted, there was only one difference; your source gave 79 years from Nahor to Terah, instead of my text's 179. As far as I can tell, then, your numbers still don't add up unless there are differences somewhere else in the chronology; you end up with 1,764 years, not 1,692. Closer but still not right. Have you actually added these numbers up yourself, or are you just assuming your source has done it correctly?

You gave a number: 1,692. When I add up the numbers in the Bible, even the Septuagint, even in your variant as far as you've provided it, I don't get that number. What's not to understand?

yummyfur

Why show Josephus? sure he matches these LXX numbers you give,
But, I believe that Josephus give us close to the 1012 years between the Flood and Exodus that funinspace came up with from the supposedly Jesus hating MT, so here is another source who has different dates than the specific LXX version your referencing. You use it to help support your premise that the LXX is superior, but this same source matches the MT for Flood to Exodus dates. It seems that Josephus escaped the first change in dates that Rutherford poses, but somehow got the second change.

Do you think all world Jewry, was already scheming to blot out Jesus's messiahship in 90 CE and had a coordinated plan? holy(pun intended) conspiracies batman! I think Jesus worshipers were the least of their problems at this period. But wouldn't this have interfered with Josephus's attempt to make Vespasian the messiah? He would need to only skew his dates by 50 years between the proof that Jesus was the messiah, and that Vespasian was the messiah(if by death, if by birth even less as Vespasian was born in 9 CE). Also, Josephus was preserved by Christians, so it is unlikely that Jews were tampering with it later.

Another point is that Josephus, in his Antiquites, states that the Great Year is 600 years long, So I would assume some Jews might have considered each "day" in Genesis to be 600 years long, not 1000. Though personally I don't think any such ideas were "universal" among the first century Jews, what is the evidence that this was so? Also if the Messiah is supposed to show up on the 6000 year day, and Jesus did so, wouldn't that mean the world should have ended 1,000 years ago because the "7th day" would be over then?

Josephus has:
Abraham being born 292 years after the flood
Abraham has Isaac in his 100th year
Jacob born in Isaac's 76th year
Jacob comes to Egypt in his 130th year
400 from Jacob coming to Egypt, to Exodus

Josephus has Jacob as 130 when he comes to Egypt, but has him die at 150, though he states he became ill after living 17 years in Egypt, but not dieing right then.

The extra 30 that Exodus states, to make the 430 year stay in Egypt, could be explained by Josephus having Jacob coming to Egypt after Joseph had served the Pharoah for 30 years of his life, instead of reading it as Joseph being 30 years of age. Then if we count Israel's presence in Egypt, as including Joseph, we have 430 years in Egypt. My greek isn't that great, but I think the line in Josephus could be read either way.

funinspace

Well, after looking into the issues around LXX, SP, and the MT ,regarding Ge 5 and 11, I would have to say it's closer to a puddle of mud. So I would grant that the older date of the Flood is within the realm of possible datings. However, with that I would also say that there is obviously too much confusion within the dates among all the various texts, that it is essentially impossible to state dates with any certainty. If the Qumran provides any further information in the future, then maybe some of the assumptions could be eliminated, and some dates could become more probable. I am not sure, but it sounds like Cave 4 still has not revealed all it's secrets. But maybe I just can't find recent enough info out there… I noticed Celsus also pointed this out in one of the formal debate proposals.
It appears from many sources that the argument for LXX right to be supreme is fairly weak. And as I've already noted, the large body of Christian Biblical Scholars that have helped with the major translations of the last 50 years, have sided with the MT.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/12026.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/07023.htm
Here is a quote which evidences Josephus using 2 differing chronologies:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/07023.htm
With that I'm not sure how much of a reference Josephus can be. Also, by what capacity does he become an independent witness to the various texts?

There are few scholars that I've read that consider Eusebius, much more than a cheerleader for whoever was in power.

I'd be curious to see any evidence for this assertion, but it's not really important.

In summary, I'd say thanks for a tour into how you see the time periods. While I would disagree that one could declare one chronology more accurate, I agree that yours is one of the possible ones. And now I know a little more about the variant sources.

WILLOWTREE

The subject is: Why does my date of the Flood (3145 BC) not coincide with the traditional genealogies translated in most English versions ?

Answer: Because I subscribe to the Rutherford chronology based upon Codex Alexandrinus.

The LXX/Alexandrinus chronology was not used to translate most of our English versions - the MT was.

I do not wish to address the differences between the Brenton version and the Alexandrinus. Maybe we can, but the present issue is as stated above.

I haven't looked as of today. I will accept your comment above as fact for now.

The Alexandrine chronology/genealogies provide the figures which add up to the 3145 BC Flood date (one exception/Cainan generation as noted).

If you disagree then please show me the error.

Simply asserting a ridiculous implication that I have not added the figures indicates that you are trying to get me to refute myself.

Show me.

Its already been established that the English Bible is incorrect if one dates the Flood 3145 BC.

If I have made an error then expose it.

It seems like you expect me to do the work for you .......why should I when I say there is no error ?

WT

chapka

I did:

The total is 1,864 years. Subtract 100 years for the one difference you've identified and you get 1,764 years.

I've done the math. I came up with a different number than you did. I've shown you the numbers I used. I've pointed out that, insofar as you gave any particular numbers, they mostly agree.

How much more can I do? I don't know what precise version of the manuscript you're using. If you have a link to a source for your version, please show it to me. I've even given you a link to a number of septuagint texts so that you can choose one you're happy with.

The reason I asked if you'd done the math yourself, or if you were relying on a third-party authority, is because I want to know if there's any point in continuing to question you on the specific numbers. If you don't have the actual numbers and you've just decided to trust that the discrepancy between the apparent numbers and your source's, then you're making one kind of argument. If you're actually making an argument from a text that you're familiar with and prepared to defend, that's another matter.

So which is it? Do you have an argument, or not?

funinspace

I think the 3145 number is from this sequence in the below source (sorry, but I'm not sure how to keep tables in tact): http://www.grisda.org/origins/07023.htm


SEPTUAGINT ALEXANDRINUS
1 2 3 4 5
Gen. 5 Antediluvian Birth First- Death
Patriarchs A.M. Born Rest Total A.M.
1 Adam 0 230 700 930 930
2 Seth 230 205 707 912 1142
3 Enosh 435 190 715 905 1340
4 Kenan 625 170 740 910 1535
5 Mahalaleel 795 165 730 895 1690
6 Jared 960 162 800 962 1922
7 Enoch 1122 165 200 365 1487
8 Methuselah 1287 187 782 969 2256
9 Lamech 1474 188 565 753 2227
10 Noah 1662 600 --- --- ---
Date of Flood 2262

Gen. 11 Postdiluvian
Patriarchs 2
1 Shem 22
2 Arpachshad 2264 135 430 565 2829
Kenan (LXX) 2399 130 330 460 2859
3 Shelah 2529 130 330 460 2989
4 Eber 2659 134 370 504 3163
5 Peleg 2793 130 209 339 3132
6 Reu 2923 132 207 339 3262
7 Serug 3055 130 200 330 3385
8 Nahor 3185 79 129 208 3393
9 Terah 3264 70 135 205 3469
Flood to Abra(ha)m 1072
Creation to Flood 2262
Total to Abra(ha)m 3334
So from here we have 1072 years form the Flood to Abraham. Add that to the standard NIV or NET Bible for Abraham to the Exodus (which is 720 years), and you get 1,792 years. Add that to WT's Exodus date 1,453BC and one gets 3,245. That's just 100 years off. The difference could be the 100 years you already mentioned.

spin

This date of 300 BCE is based on a slavish adherence to an obviously pseudepigraphic text known as the Letter of Aristeas. The letter supposedly written during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, yet ascribing Demetrius of Phalereus as the one who gave the idea of translating the Hebrew books to Philadelphus. When Philadelphus acceded to the throne as co-ruler in 285 BCE, Demetrius was imprisoned, then banished, dying soon afterwards. There are various other problems with the text, but the one should suffice. Aristeus is not a historical work, and anything relying on the dating it implies will be erroneous.

300 BCE is right out.


spin