Henry B. Smith Jr. - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Henry B. Smith Jr.
Bible and Spade 2020 through 2022, 2020
Conservative evangelicalism has made a colossal error by adopting the methodological assumptions ... more Conservative evangelicalism has made a colossal error by adopting the methodological assumptions intrinsic to William F. Albright’s comparative archaeological method (CAM) and its subsequent iterations. In the last several decades, conservative OT scholarship has largely planted its hermeneutical flag in the shifting sands of ANE studies, philosophical naturalism in the guise of objective origins science, and postmodern cultural sensibilities. As a result, OT interpretation floats on an almost endless sea of hermeneutical choices. This problem is grossly magnified in Genesis 1–11, where the collision between worldview paradigms is exceptionally acute.
“By Whose Authority?,” Bible and Spade 32, no. 4 (Fall 2020): 10–11;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part One): The Failure of Comparative Archaeological Method,” Bible and Spade 34, no. 2 (Spring 2021): 21–27;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Two): Jesus Christ and the Supreme Authority of Scripture,” Bible and Spade 34, no. 3 (Summer 2021): 25–32;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Three): The Patriarchal Lifespans,” Bible and Spade 35, no. 3/4 (Summer/Fall 2022): 42–52.
Answers Magazine, 2024
Far from drawing hasty conclusions, Stripling involved various experts from several Israeli unive... more Far from drawing hasty conclusions, Stripling involved various experts from several Israeli universities to conduct metallurgy testing, ceramic analysis,
and carbon dating. Since the pottery from the dump pile dated to the Iron Age I and Late Bronze Age, they logically concluded that the tablet was created within those early time periods. Furthermore, scientific analysis concluded that the lead came from a mine in Greece known to be in use during the Late Bronze Age. All this evidence points to the fact that the writing is likely from 1400 to 1300 BC.
Bible and Spade, 2023
Endnotes for: The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament: A Book Re... more Endnotes for: The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament: A Book Review-Part One
Bible and Spade, 2023
Part One of this book review highlights the comparisons that many critics make between the biblic... more Part One of this book review highlights the comparisons that many critics make between the biblical record of Creation and other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. Does Genesis borrow plot points? Does the terminology actually show that the Israelites believed the world was covered with a solid dome? How should we regard any similarities between pagan mythology and the Bible?
Endnotes and Bibliography for part one are here: https://biblearchaeology.org/images/Smith-Documentation-Winter-2023.pdf
Answers Magazine, 2023
Over two seasons, I supervised a group digging on the northern end of Shiloh, just outside the Ca... more Over two seasons, I supervised a group digging on the northern end of Shiloh, just outside the Canaanite city wall fortifications. We experienced Shiloh’s archaeological profile firsthand, reclaiming artifacts and uncovering architectural features that shed light on this significant city.
Bible and Spade, 2022
Allowing scientific and historical inquiry to inform our understanding of the Bible is good and n... more Allowing scientific and historical inquiry to inform our understanding of the Bible is good and necessary. But ultimately we must allow Scripture to reform our scientific and historical conclusions. There is nothing wrong in principle with rethinking a time-honored interpretation of God’s word on the basis of new data. The problem is letting inferences from the data drive us to tenuous arguments. Implausible ad hoc exegesis designed to reconcile the Bible with the claims of modern research does more methodological damage than apologetic good in the long run. It generates harmful hermeneutical habits and instincts whereby the longstanding interpretations of God’s people are questioned more readily than the ephemeral results of the scientific establishment
Answers Magazine, 2022
C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." The Bible, o... more C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." The Bible, of course, is replete with "interferences" by the God of Scripture. We immediately think of events such as the creation of the universe out of nothing, the global flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho collapsing, Lazarus being raised from the dead, and so on. Since the infinite God of creation is speaking in the Bible, we can have absolute confidence that his revelation is both trustworthy and true. There is no higher authority to whom we can appeal. But without a willingness to accept God's Word as accurate and authoritative, people's worldview will inevitably be skewed by their very limited and fallen perspective.
Over the last 150 years, the field of biblical archaeology has contributed greatly to our understanding of the Bible and its historical background. However, archaeological evidence uncovered in the ancient Near East has also been used in a variety of ways to discredit the reliability of miraculous biblical accounts. While archaeological and historical evidence cannot confirm miracles per se, archaeologists can altogether miss the significance of certain finds because their worldview rejects the supernatural.
Bible and Spade, 2021
In “The Failure of the Comparative Archaeological Method” (CAM), I proposed that CAM has opened t... more In “The Failure of the Comparative Archaeological Method” (CAM), I proposed that CAM has opened the floodgates for a hermeneutical Wild West in evangelical OT scholarship. The methodology reduces divine revelation to a level at or below that of human intellectual reflection, negates the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture, centers the locus of interpretive authority in the human mind, and removes the Holy Spirit as Scripture’s authorized interpretive mediator by replacing Him with the ANE scholar. In attempting to dialogue with the critical-biblical world, evangelicals have too often absorbed its metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions and have resorted to treating the Bible “just like any other ancient text.” But—as I stressed in part one—the Bible is not just any other ancient text. It is the speech of the infinite, eternal, holy, omniscient, omnipresent Creator, the Lord of heaven and earth. CAM does not—indeed it cannot—allow Scripture to stand as Scripture.
Here in part two, we will examine CAM further and see how the problems with the method only deepen. Scripture’s own self-attesting witness and the extensive expositions on Scriptural authority generated by the Church historic are nullified by CAM for the mirage of methodological neutrality. That being the case, CAM negates the unique and total authority of Scripture. Th is method’s assumptions also contradict Jesus’s views of Scripture and His attitude toward man-made traditions elevated to the level of Scripture. After discussing that, we will begin to explore the exceedingly problematic ways evangelical scholars treat Genesis 1–11, and particularly the ways they treat the patriarchal life spans. The discussion and analysis will carry over into part three and find its conclusion there.
Bible and Spade, 2021
"Evangelical scholars are disposed to use hermeneutical procedures originally developed on the ba... more "Evangelical scholars are disposed to use hermeneutical procedures originally developed on the basis of non-Christian presuppositions. They make minimal changes to these procedures, of course, to avoid directly denying the possibility of miracles or the divine authority of Scripture. But minimal changes are not enough. We ought to be rethinking the entire process of interpretation on the basis of sound presuppositions." Vern S. Poythress
Bible and Spade, 2020
Archaeology is an exciting field which has provided us with a great deal of information about the... more Archaeology is an exciting field which has provided us with a great deal of information about the Bible and the ancient world. However, without careful hermeneutical controls, its application to the Bible has come with a heavy price. By adopting faulty hermeneutical methods, evangelicals have made a Faustian bargain with the archaeologist’s spade, undermining the very Scriptures they seek to defend.
Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 2019
Kainan, the son of Arpachshad in Luke 3:36, is considered original to Luke’s messianic genealogy ... more Kainan, the son of Arpachshad in Luke 3:36, is considered original to Luke’s messianic genealogy by the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece 28 (NA28) and UBS 5. A few scholars have argued instead that his name originated as a scribal error in an early manuscript of Luke’s Gospel. Then, Christian scribes across the Mediterranean world almost universally accepted his name as original to Luke, interpolating Kainam/n into the forty plus manuscripts of Luke presently extant. According to this theory, Christian scribes also added Kainan to all known Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts of Genesis 11:13b–14b dated prior to the 12th century AD. While doing so, they allegedly borrowed the begetting age (130) and remaining years of life (330) from Shelah in the next verse (LXX Gen 11:15–16) and falsely assigned them to Kainan. They also added Kainan to some manuscripts of LXX Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24. Additionally, Christian scribes also amended extant copies of the pseudepigraphical Book of Jubilees by fabricating a biography for Kainan in chapter eight and inserting it between the lives of Arpachshad and Shelah.
This article will examine several lines of textual and historical evidence and demonstrate that this explanation for Kainan’s origin cannot be sustained. Other untenable theories of Kainan’s origin will also be explored. Instead of being spurious, Kainan’s originality in LXX Genesis 10:24 and 11:13b–14b, the Book of Jubilees, and Luke 3:36 is virtually certain. Moreover, we will also propose that the most viable explanation for the known matrix of evidence is that Kainan appeared in the original Hebrew text of Genesis, but first disappeared from Genesis 11 by a combination of scribal and mental error in a very ancient archetypal Hebrew manuscript. This was followed by a complex sequence of events that occurred over the span of several centuries.
Bible and Spade, 2018
In September of 2018, Lita Cosner and Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International wrot... more In September of 2018, Lita Cosner and Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International wrote a critique of two articles I published under the auspices of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. Their article, “Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?”, can be found on the CMI website. I recommend that the reader simultaneously read my exposition and interaction below, along with their online posting.
The question of Kainan’s inclusion in Luke 3:36, Genesis 10:24, 11:13–14 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 2... more The question of Kainan’s inclusion in Luke 3:36, Genesis 10:24, 11:13–14 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24 has been the subject of debate for many centuries. This article will survey “new” evidence for Kainan in manuscripts (MSS) of Luke and the Septuagint (LXX). The evidence itself is actually not “new” at all, but has been ignored in modern discussions about Kainan’s originality, especially by scholars who reject his inclusion in Luke’s Gospel. Moreover, we will present numerous lines of evidence and argumentation for Kainan’s original inclusion in Luke, the Septuagint, and yes, even the original Hebrew text of Genesis.
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, 2018
Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous... more Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs. The MT's total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC and the Flood at ca. 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1).
This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT's chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post–AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies, and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be proposed.
Bible and Spade, 2018
In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports t... more In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports the originality of the longer primeval chronology found (mostly) in the LXX. Thus far, the research has led to the conclusion that the MT’s primeval chronology was deliberately reduced in the post 70 AD period by 1250 years. One of the objections to this proposed reconstruction is the lower begetting ages found in Genesis 5 of the SP. From Adam to Mahalalel, and then Enoch, these figures match those found in the Masoretic Text. Some scholars have argued their matching character favors them as the original text. Since I have proposed that the lower begetting ages in the MT are the result of deliberate and systematic deflation, an explanation for the independent appearance of these particular figures in the SP must be offered. The purpose of this article is to present a plausible theory explaining why the SP was also deflated in Genesis 5.
Answers Research Journal, Aug 2017
Most conservative scholars who view the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous ... more Most conservative scholars who view the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham claim that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages given to Moses by Yahweh. Calculations derived from the MT yield a timespan for this period of about 2008 years. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) yields a chronology for this era of 3394 years, 1386 years greater than the MT. In some LXX manuscripts of Genesis 5:25, Methuselah was 167 years old when he fathered Lamech, placing Methuselah's death 14 years beyond the Deluge. This obvious problem often leads to a swift dismissal of any possibility that the LXX might preserve the original begetting ages and remaining years of life for each named patriarch in Genesis 5 and 11. This article will examine this issue and advance four main points: (1) the figure of 187 for Methuselah is original to the LXX translation and to Moses; (2) the reading of 167 in certain manuscripts of the LXX is a scribal error which occurred early in its complex transmissional history; (3) the appearance of 167 in some LXX manuscripts does not automatically negate the overall validity of the LXX's primeval chronology; and (4) numerous lines of historical and textual evidence suggest the young-earth creation community should remain open and willing to contemplate the strong likelihood that the primeval chronology of the LXX reflects most of the numbers that Moses originally recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
Associates for Biblical Research, 2017
The goal of this article is to update the ABR community of supporters and other interested reader... more The goal of this article is to update the ABR community of supporters and other interested readers on the present state of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. The project officially began in 2016 (with its unofficial roots extending back to 2010). The research has produced substantial fruit, and as a result, ABR is pleased to announce plans to publish our first book, tentatively titled, "From Adam to Abraham: The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11." This update will survey the goals of the project, describe new developments and the present direction of our research, answer some questions we have received about Genesis 5 and 11 from supporters, and briefly outline plans for publication(s).
Read the rest of this paper here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/04/26/From-Adam-to-Abraham-An-Update-on-the-Genesis-5-and-11-Research-Project.aspx
Bible and Spade 2020 through 2022, 2020
Conservative evangelicalism has made a colossal error by adopting the methodological assumptions ... more Conservative evangelicalism has made a colossal error by adopting the methodological assumptions intrinsic to William F. Albright’s comparative archaeological method (CAM) and its subsequent iterations. In the last several decades, conservative OT scholarship has largely planted its hermeneutical flag in the shifting sands of ANE studies, philosophical naturalism in the guise of objective origins science, and postmodern cultural sensibilities. As a result, OT interpretation floats on an almost endless sea of hermeneutical choices. This problem is grossly magnified in Genesis 1–11, where the collision between worldview paradigms is exceptionally acute.
“By Whose Authority?,” Bible and Spade 32, no. 4 (Fall 2020): 10–11;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part One): The Failure of Comparative Archaeological Method,” Bible and Spade 34, no. 2 (Spring 2021): 21–27;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Two): Jesus Christ and the Supreme Authority of Scripture,” Bible and Spade 34, no. 3 (Summer 2021): 25–32;
“Wild West Evangelical Hermeneutics (Part Three): The Patriarchal Lifespans,” Bible and Spade 35, no. 3/4 (Summer/Fall 2022): 42–52.
Answers Magazine, 2024
Far from drawing hasty conclusions, Stripling involved various experts from several Israeli unive... more Far from drawing hasty conclusions, Stripling involved various experts from several Israeli universities to conduct metallurgy testing, ceramic analysis,
and carbon dating. Since the pottery from the dump pile dated to the Iron Age I and Late Bronze Age, they logically concluded that the tablet was created within those early time periods. Furthermore, scientific analysis concluded that the lead came from a mine in Greece known to be in use during the Late Bronze Age. All this evidence points to the fact that the writing is likely from 1400 to 1300 BC.
Bible and Spade, 2023
Endnotes for: The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament: A Book Re... more Endnotes for: The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament: A Book Review-Part One
Bible and Spade, 2023
Part One of this book review highlights the comparisons that many critics make between the biblic... more Part One of this book review highlights the comparisons that many critics make between the biblical record of Creation and other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. Does Genesis borrow plot points? Does the terminology actually show that the Israelites believed the world was covered with a solid dome? How should we regard any similarities between pagan mythology and the Bible?
Endnotes and Bibliography for part one are here: https://biblearchaeology.org/images/Smith-Documentation-Winter-2023.pdf
Answers Magazine, 2023
Over two seasons, I supervised a group digging on the northern end of Shiloh, just outside the Ca... more Over two seasons, I supervised a group digging on the northern end of Shiloh, just outside the Canaanite city wall fortifications. We experienced Shiloh’s archaeological profile firsthand, reclaiming artifacts and uncovering architectural features that shed light on this significant city.
Bible and Spade, 2022
Allowing scientific and historical inquiry to inform our understanding of the Bible is good and n... more Allowing scientific and historical inquiry to inform our understanding of the Bible is good and necessary. But ultimately we must allow Scripture to reform our scientific and historical conclusions. There is nothing wrong in principle with rethinking a time-honored interpretation of God’s word on the basis of new data. The problem is letting inferences from the data drive us to tenuous arguments. Implausible ad hoc exegesis designed to reconcile the Bible with the claims of modern research does more methodological damage than apologetic good in the long run. It generates harmful hermeneutical habits and instincts whereby the longstanding interpretations of God’s people are questioned more readily than the ephemeral results of the scientific establishment
Answers Magazine, 2022
C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." The Bible, o... more C.S. Lewis defined a miracle as "an interference with Nature by supernatural power." The Bible, of course, is replete with "interferences" by the God of Scripture. We immediately think of events such as the creation of the universe out of nothing, the global flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho collapsing, Lazarus being raised from the dead, and so on. Since the infinite God of creation is speaking in the Bible, we can have absolute confidence that his revelation is both trustworthy and true. There is no higher authority to whom we can appeal. But without a willingness to accept God's Word as accurate and authoritative, people's worldview will inevitably be skewed by their very limited and fallen perspective.
Over the last 150 years, the field of biblical archaeology has contributed greatly to our understanding of the Bible and its historical background. However, archaeological evidence uncovered in the ancient Near East has also been used in a variety of ways to discredit the reliability of miraculous biblical accounts. While archaeological and historical evidence cannot confirm miracles per se, archaeologists can altogether miss the significance of certain finds because their worldview rejects the supernatural.
Bible and Spade, 2021
In “The Failure of the Comparative Archaeological Method” (CAM), I proposed that CAM has opened t... more In “The Failure of the Comparative Archaeological Method” (CAM), I proposed that CAM has opened the floodgates for a hermeneutical Wild West in evangelical OT scholarship. The methodology reduces divine revelation to a level at or below that of human intellectual reflection, negates the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture, centers the locus of interpretive authority in the human mind, and removes the Holy Spirit as Scripture’s authorized interpretive mediator by replacing Him with the ANE scholar. In attempting to dialogue with the critical-biblical world, evangelicals have too often absorbed its metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions and have resorted to treating the Bible “just like any other ancient text.” But—as I stressed in part one—the Bible is not just any other ancient text. It is the speech of the infinite, eternal, holy, omniscient, omnipresent Creator, the Lord of heaven and earth. CAM does not—indeed it cannot—allow Scripture to stand as Scripture.
Here in part two, we will examine CAM further and see how the problems with the method only deepen. Scripture’s own self-attesting witness and the extensive expositions on Scriptural authority generated by the Church historic are nullified by CAM for the mirage of methodological neutrality. That being the case, CAM negates the unique and total authority of Scripture. Th is method’s assumptions also contradict Jesus’s views of Scripture and His attitude toward man-made traditions elevated to the level of Scripture. After discussing that, we will begin to explore the exceedingly problematic ways evangelical scholars treat Genesis 1–11, and particularly the ways they treat the patriarchal life spans. The discussion and analysis will carry over into part three and find its conclusion there.
Bible and Spade, 2021
"Evangelical scholars are disposed to use hermeneutical procedures originally developed on the ba... more "Evangelical scholars are disposed to use hermeneutical procedures originally developed on the basis of non-Christian presuppositions. They make minimal changes to these procedures, of course, to avoid directly denying the possibility of miracles or the divine authority of Scripture. But minimal changes are not enough. We ought to be rethinking the entire process of interpretation on the basis of sound presuppositions." Vern S. Poythress
Bible and Spade, 2020
Archaeology is an exciting field which has provided us with a great deal of information about the... more Archaeology is an exciting field which has provided us with a great deal of information about the Bible and the ancient world. However, without careful hermeneutical controls, its application to the Bible has come with a heavy price. By adopting faulty hermeneutical methods, evangelicals have made a Faustian bargain with the archaeologist’s spade, undermining the very Scriptures they seek to defend.
Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 2019
Kainan, the son of Arpachshad in Luke 3:36, is considered original to Luke’s messianic genealogy ... more Kainan, the son of Arpachshad in Luke 3:36, is considered original to Luke’s messianic genealogy by the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece 28 (NA28) and UBS 5. A few scholars have argued instead that his name originated as a scribal error in an early manuscript of Luke’s Gospel. Then, Christian scribes across the Mediterranean world almost universally accepted his name as original to Luke, interpolating Kainam/n into the forty plus manuscripts of Luke presently extant. According to this theory, Christian scribes also added Kainan to all known Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts of Genesis 11:13b–14b dated prior to the 12th century AD. While doing so, they allegedly borrowed the begetting age (130) and remaining years of life (330) from Shelah in the next verse (LXX Gen 11:15–16) and falsely assigned them to Kainan. They also added Kainan to some manuscripts of LXX Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24. Additionally, Christian scribes also amended extant copies of the pseudepigraphical Book of Jubilees by fabricating a biography for Kainan in chapter eight and inserting it between the lives of Arpachshad and Shelah.
This article will examine several lines of textual and historical evidence and demonstrate that this explanation for Kainan’s origin cannot be sustained. Other untenable theories of Kainan’s origin will also be explored. Instead of being spurious, Kainan’s originality in LXX Genesis 10:24 and 11:13b–14b, the Book of Jubilees, and Luke 3:36 is virtually certain. Moreover, we will also propose that the most viable explanation for the known matrix of evidence is that Kainan appeared in the original Hebrew text of Genesis, but first disappeared from Genesis 11 by a combination of scribal and mental error in a very ancient archetypal Hebrew manuscript. This was followed by a complex sequence of events that occurred over the span of several centuries.
Bible and Spade, 2018
In September of 2018, Lita Cosner and Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International wrot... more In September of 2018, Lita Cosner and Dr. Robert Carter of Creation Ministries International wrote a critique of two articles I published under the auspices of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. Their article, “Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?”, can be found on the CMI website. I recommend that the reader simultaneously read my exposition and interaction below, along with their online posting.
The question of Kainan’s inclusion in Luke 3:36, Genesis 10:24, 11:13–14 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 2... more The question of Kainan’s inclusion in Luke 3:36, Genesis 10:24, 11:13–14 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24 has been the subject of debate for many centuries. This article will survey “new” evidence for Kainan in manuscripts (MSS) of Luke and the Septuagint (LXX). The evidence itself is actually not “new” at all, but has been ignored in modern discussions about Kainan’s originality, especially by scholars who reject his inclusion in Luke’s Gospel. Moreover, we will present numerous lines of evidence and argumentation for Kainan’s original inclusion in Luke, the Septuagint, and yes, even the original Hebrew text of Genesis.
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, 2018
Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous... more Many biblical scholars who interpret the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from Adam to Abraham claim the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages for the patriarchs. The MT's total for this period is 2008 years. The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) presents markedly different chronological data for each epoch, for a grand total of 2249 years. Calculations derived from the primary manuscripts (MSS) of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) yield a chronology of 3394 years for this period, 1386 years greater than the MT. The MT is classically represented by the Ussher chronology, which places creation at 4004 BC and the Flood at 2348 BC. Figures from the LXX place creation at ca. 5554 BC and the Flood at ca. 3298 BC (Table 1; Appendix, n. 1).
This paper proposes that the LXX preserves (most of) the original numbers in Genesis 5 and 11. Most of the MT's chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 does not represent the original text, and is the result of a deliberate and systematic post–AD 70 corruption. Corroborating external witnesses, internal and external evidence, text critical and LXX studies, and historical testimonies will be presented, along with arguments rebutting LXX inflation hypotheses. Explanations for important, accidental scribal errors will be discussed, and a text critical reconstruction of Genesis 5 and 11 will be proposed.
Bible and Spade, 2018
In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports t... more In several articles, I have argued that the internal, external and historical evidence supports the originality of the longer primeval chronology found (mostly) in the LXX. Thus far, the research has led to the conclusion that the MT’s primeval chronology was deliberately reduced in the post 70 AD period by 1250 years. One of the objections to this proposed reconstruction is the lower begetting ages found in Genesis 5 of the SP. From Adam to Mahalalel, and then Enoch, these figures match those found in the Masoretic Text. Some scholars have argued their matching character favors them as the original text. Since I have proposed that the lower begetting ages in the MT are the result of deliberate and systematic deflation, an explanation for the independent appearance of these particular figures in the SP must be offered. The purpose of this article is to present a plausible theory explaining why the SP was also deflated in Genesis 5.
Answers Research Journal, Aug 2017
Most conservative scholars who view the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous ... more Most conservative scholars who view the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 as yielding a continuous chronology from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham claim that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) preserves the original begetting ages given to Moses by Yahweh. Calculations derived from the MT yield a timespan for this period of about 2008 years. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) yields a chronology for this era of 3394 years, 1386 years greater than the MT. In some LXX manuscripts of Genesis 5:25, Methuselah was 167 years old when he fathered Lamech, placing Methuselah's death 14 years beyond the Deluge. This obvious problem often leads to a swift dismissal of any possibility that the LXX might preserve the original begetting ages and remaining years of life for each named patriarch in Genesis 5 and 11. This article will examine this issue and advance four main points: (1) the figure of 187 for Methuselah is original to the LXX translation and to Moses; (2) the reading of 167 in certain manuscripts of the LXX is a scribal error which occurred early in its complex transmissional history; (3) the appearance of 167 in some LXX manuscripts does not automatically negate the overall validity of the LXX's primeval chronology; and (4) numerous lines of historical and textual evidence suggest the young-earth creation community should remain open and willing to contemplate the strong likelihood that the primeval chronology of the LXX reflects most of the numbers that Moses originally recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
Associates for Biblical Research, 2017
The goal of this article is to update the ABR community of supporters and other interested reader... more The goal of this article is to update the ABR community of supporters and other interested readers on the present state of the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. The project officially began in 2016 (with its unofficial roots extending back to 2010). The research has produced substantial fruit, and as a result, ABR is pleased to announce plans to publish our first book, tentatively titled, "From Adam to Abraham: The Case for the Septuagint’s Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11." This update will survey the goals of the project, describe new developments and the present direction of our research, answer some questions we have received about Genesis 5 and 11 from supporters, and briefly outline plans for publication(s).
Read the rest of this paper here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2017/04/26/From-Adam-to-Abraham-An-Update-on-the-Genesis-5-and-11-Research-Project.aspx