Unveiling The Divine Debate: LXX vs. MT - Which Text Holds Truth?

Is the Septuagint a Superior Text for the Genesis Genealogies?

Introduction

The debate over the chronologies found in the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) has garnered considerable attention. The MT gives a total span of time about 1,300 years less than the LXX. In this article, we will examine the arguments made by proponents of the LXX and evaluate their claims.

Key Points:

1. Smith's Flawed Scholarship: Henry Smith, one of the main proponents of the LXX chronology, has been criticized for misinterpreting and mis-citing multiple sources. His scholarship is flawed, and there are serious lapses in his methodology.

2. Lack of Proper Documentation: LXX proponents need to properly document their sources and provide clear explanations for their position. Many of their claims are difficult to validate, and their methodology is foreign to the study of this area.

3. Questionable Quotes: Smith cites Ephraem the Syrian as evidence that Jewish rabbis intentionally deflated the primeval chronology in their Hebrew manuscripts. However, the quote attributed to Ephraem cannot be traced back to any original source and lacks authenticity.

4. Selective Use of Sources: Smith's bibliography is stilted and selective, featuring many obscure chronographers while ignoring important opposing witnesses. He fails to include well-known scholars who support the MT, such as Bede.

5. Early Church Views: Throughout church history, there has been a debate on this issue, with both sides supported by excellent scholars. This debate should not define someone's Christian faith or their view of Scripture.

6. The Importance of Genesis as History: The debate over these genealogies is important because it pertains to the historical accuracy of Genesis. Christians believed that Genesis provided a straightforward chronology from which they could derive the age of the world.

7. The Case of Methuselah's Age: Smith argues for the original LXX begetting age of Methuselah as 187, which is different from the MT's 167. While we agree with his case, there are flaws in his argumentation.

8. Augustine's Perspective: Augustine provides an important perspective on the LXX and MT debate. He argues that deliberate changes to the text are unlikely and suggests that the LXX numbers may have been inflated to make the genealogy more plausible to skeptics.

1. Lack of Evidence for LXX Primacy: There is a lack of evidence for an early 2nd-century gathering of Jewish leaders who would have had the authority to change the Hebrew manuscripts and disseminate them widely. The burden of proof lies on LXX proponents to establish a plausible textual history.

2. The Need for Further Scholarship: LXX proponents have work to do in order to support their claims. They need to document their sources, provide evidence for their arguments, and establish a credible textual history that does not rely on conspiracy theories.

Why This Matters

The debate over the chronologies in Genesis is significant because it pertains to the historical accuracy of the Bible. Christians who believe in the inspiration and authority of Scripture should engage with these arguments and strive for high standards of scholarship when evaluating different viewpoints.

Think About It

Does the existence of differing chronologies in the MT and LXX undermine the reliability of Scripture? How can Christians reconcile these differences and maintain confidence in the historical accuracy of Genesis?