Steven Avery

Hmm.. back to .. what is "the LXX" ? Vaticanus ? Sinaiticus ? Alexandrinus ?
Are you sure "the LXX" does have Cainan ?

Spin and Apikorous wanted to define Vaticanus as "the LXX" and spin claims it is "directly derived from the Hebrew".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Maybe you should ask Joe Wallack, who mentioned this here.

So your response is to demonstrate the unreliability of Joe Wallack as a textual source ?

You are the one who posted here .. so I asked you for the earliest evidence. If you want to say "I dunno" and retract the post & claims..fine. Or if you want to ask JW to try to run interference .. go right ahead.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

Praxeus, are you implying that none of the documents commonly known as "the LXX" mention Cainan in Genesis 11:12?

Larsguy47

This is just a "variation" in the type of genealogy list. There was an avoidance of having women in these genealogy lists so when the line was passed through a daughter they either left her off and listed the grandson as the "son" or sometimes, in the case of "Cainan" they substitute the son-in-law to indicate there was a maternal generation in between. Generations are skipped frequently when the line goes through the mother/daughter.

So there is no "error" is not one, simply one list is more complete than the next.


Larsguy47

Steven Avery

Nope.

Yes if you use the spin spin.

Jack the Bodiless

Apparently, it does.
From what I've seen so far, Joe Wallack seems fine as a source. Praxeus, on the other hand...

Jack the Bodiless

I remember that. I gather this is a common scholarly view (that Vaticanus is closest to the original Hebrew), but you attempted to portray it as some sort of fringe crackpottery.

However, if you're implying that "Cainan" is not in Vaticanus (I don't know of a good online version of Vaticanus to check), and it's not in the Masoretic either (which you consider to be "inspired" IIRC): you seem to be implying that an error has crept in, and that Luke used an inferior version to the one that became Vaticanus.

...Which would be careless of him. Especially as he was also supposed to be "inspired".

Jack the Bodiless

And your evidence for this custom is... ?

It would, however, be an error. "And Arpachshad lived five and thirty years, and begat Shelah. And Arpachshad lived after he begat Shelah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters". The Bible specifically says that Arpachshad was 35 years old when he fathered Shelah: so, if he wasn't, the Bible is wrong.

Larsguy47

Yes you do. If you want to claim something is "Biblical" then you can't do so by misquoting it. Since there are varying interpretations of the timeline, in an open discussion like this, you must qualify your timeline as must others. The simplest way therefore is not claim exclusively your timeline is correct but just a variation and then allow it to be compared with others. That leaves "who is right and who is wrong" out of the comparison.

An example of this are the implied co-rulerships during the united and divided kingship period. For some people the idea of a co-rulership is just as foreign as can be and they just have an aversion to that and prefer to believe the Bible is simply in error if it gives confusing dates for the kingships; whereas others understand this is a technical reference and harmonize the references to create co-rulerships. The result, generally, is a 49-year difference. But you can spend a lot of time trying to justify either choice. Rather than do that, just establish both timelines and make those comparisons with whatever archaeological or other evidence we're looking at.

For instance, you have at least 4 primary dates for the Exodus. One in 1260 BCE for those who need to date it there based upon Pi-Rameses being mentioned in Genesis, even though the the "land of Rameses" was used to describe that region when Joseph was vizier. I date the Exodus in 1386 BCE based upon a combination of the KTU 1.78 eclipse text and when Kathleen Kenyon dates the fall of Jericho. Others using the 763BCE eclipse (rather than the 709BCE eclipse, as I do) to date the Assyrian period calculate the Exodus c. 1446BCE. Jehovah's witnesses have a combination mix of Bible and secular chronology, adding 20 years to the timeline for the NB Period and avoiding the implied co-rulerships entirely, adding an extra 49 years to their timeline beyond the others, so they get a very early date for the Exodus in 1513 BCE. But that's still just four dates and it's easy to just compare 1260, 1386, 1446 and 1513BCE with whatever you're comparing. Without accusing anyone of aggressive "manipulation" of the chronology, etc.

Yes, as you've read it, to the best of your ability. But someone else might read it differently. Your timeline reflects the level of your Biblical expertise, as does mine (or anyone elses). But I don't challenge it at this level, I just make comparisons.

For instance, your date for the Exodus is 1483 BC. You believe that is the best Biblical dating. Fine. My dating is 1386BCE. A direct comparison to when Kathleen Kenyon believes the fall of Jericho occurs (she's the archaeologist that excavated at Jericho) between 1350-1325BCE, thus her Exodus implied dates are from 1390-1365 BCE. 1386BCE fits in that range. 1483BCE is too early. Thus the archaeological application suggests your "Biblical" dating for the Exodus is not onl wrong but also too early. It suggest my 1386BCE date, however, is correct.

Well, that's fair, but don't expect not to be criticized or challenged (or ignored) based on certain details in your timeline.

I can accept that, though others believe many things are not directly stated in the Bible and can only be understood accurately by extrapolation.

At any rate, thanks so much for setting up your personal Biblical timeline. "Dean Anderson's Personal Biblical Timeline" -- that has a nice ring to it.

Larsguy47

Apikorus

Similarly, we all eagerly await publication of "Larsguy47's Personal Dating of the Exodus Based on the 1948 Israeli War of Independence," to be published in BASOR or perhaps in Middle Eastern Quarterly.

Jack the Bodiless

I am pretty sure that there isn't a character called "Kathleen Kenyon" in the Bible: therefore her "date for the Exodus" would not be a Biblical date, even if she HAD a "date for the Exodus" (and nothing she found at Jericho implies that there WAS an "Exodus").

Dean's dates are Biblical, yours are not. Once you start to allow for extra-Biblical evidence: where do you stop? Such evidence actually demonstrates that the Bible is bunk.