Divine Wisdom: 6 Powerful Insights from Smith's Christian Response

The Most Reliable Text for Genesis 5 and 11 Genealogies

Introduction

Creationists have been examining the textual basis for the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, specifically comparing the Greek Septuagint (LXX) manuscript family with the Hebrew Masoretic (MT) manuscript family. The LXX produces a chronology over 1,300 years longer than the MT, leading to considerable debate. This article argues in favor of the reliability of the Masoretic Text and responds to the claims made by proponents of the Septuagint.

The Problem with the Ephraem Quote

One of the main proponents of the Septuagint, Henry Smith, used a quote from Ephraem the Syrian to support his claim that Jews altered the biblical text in Genesis 5 and 11. However, it has been discovered that this quote is forged and cannot be traced back to an original source. Moreover, Ephraem's extant writings contradict the claim made in the quote. This invalidates a major piece of evidence for Smith's argument.

Lack of Evidence for Jewish Tampering

While there are claims that Jews changed other Scriptures for anti-Christian motives, there is a lack of evidence connecting such motives to the genealogies in Genesis. Early witnesses like Eusebius and Julian of Toledo noticed differences between the LXX and MT versions but did not attribute these changes to anti-Christian motivations. This weakens Smith's argument significantly.

An Impossible Conspiracy

Smith claims that Rabbi Akiba had the authority to make the changes seen in the MT genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. However, even if we entertain this idea, it would have been impossible for every Jewish synagogue across Europe, Africa, and Asia to change their Torah scrolls accordingly. The process of copying Torah scrolls by hand was meticulous and time-consuming, making it highly unlikely that such a conspiracy could take place without leaving any record.

Textual Analysis

Smith's errors in historical reconstruction and textual analysis further undermine his argument. The three major text types (MT, LXX, and SP) existed before Rabbi Akiba, suggesting that he did not invent the MT. Additionally, the textual analysis shows that it is easier to explain how the current MT, LXX, and SP derive from an MT-like original, rather than getting both the MT and SP from an LXX-like original. Smith has not engaged with this important aspect of the debate.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented, it is clear that Smith's arguments for the superiority of the Septuagint in the Genesis genealogies are weak. His inclusion of a forged quote and selective use of historical sources cast doubt on his research. Furthermore, his failure to provide a comprehensive textual reconstruction undermines his claims. It is essential for scholars in the LXX community to engage in higher standards of scholarship and produce substantial evidence to support their extraordinary claims. Until then, the Masoretic Text remains the most reliable textual basis for the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11.

Why This Matters: The reliability of the biblical text has significant implications for understanding the genealogies in Genesis and establishing a chronology of events. It also impacts our understanding of biblical history and its connection to archaeological evidence. As Christians, we rely on accurate translations and interpretations of Scripture to guide our faith and worldview.

Think About It: How do we determine which textual basis is most reliable when there are different manuscript families with variations in their chronologies? What factors should we consider when evaluating historical claims? How does our understanding of biblical texts shape our interpretation of history?