tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post3700500113486551562..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Reviving Biblical Chronologyjohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-47063848679178388632017-06-01T13:07:14.191-07:002017-06-01T13:07:14.191-07:00Hi Jeremy
Thanks for your comments, which I just ...Hi Jeremy<br /><br />Thanks for your comments, which I just noticed today. I have made the correction you noted. I enjoyed your paper, which makes some excellent points, and I hope that it will provoke further discussion on this interesting issue.john bylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-89710190834290837022017-03-18T10:46:51.218-07:002017-03-18T10:46:51.218-07:00Thomas R: It's not a matter of leaning toward ...Thomas R: It's not a matter of leaning toward the source language v. not leaning toward the source language. The question is what the Hebrew originally said. And the LXX is by far our oldest witness to the Hebrew. The LXX attests to a very ancient Hebrew text with the longer chronology. During the nearly 600 years after the Pentateuch was translated into Greek (until Eusebius), the MT's shorter chronology only appears twice: in Jubilees (2nd century BC), which only contains a few numbers that match the MT's chronology, and Seder Olam Rabbah (2nd century AD), which is the first time a complete MT timeline shows up. Notably, *both of these ancient witnesses are corrupted Jewish chronologies in which history is engineered for ideological purposes* (that is not a disputed point). So there are no reliable witnesses during the 600 years after the translation of LXX Gen 5 and 11, and during that same period the LXX's chronology appears all over the place in reliable witnesses (Demetrius, Eupolemus, Luke 3:36, LAB, Josephus, SP Gen 11). It shows up in chronologies that were based on *Hebrew* texts and sources. It's pretty clear that the MT's chronology was invented in the 2nd century, and that it borrowed some ideas (including a few specific corrupted numbers) from the highly compromised Jubilees. The Hebrew behind LXX Gen 5 and 11 is anterior and superior to the Hebrew of MT Gen 5 and 11.JDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351613661584298773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-41152048190818663172017-03-18T10:34:32.459-07:002017-03-18T10:34:32.459-07:00Dr. Byl,
First, thanks for reading my paper and p...Dr. Byl,<br /><br />First, thanks for reading my paper and posting on it. I'm gratified by your comments. One minor correction in your original post. You wrote, "If Sexton is right about the completeness of the Genesis genealogies...." Of course, I don't argue for the completeness of the *genealogies*, only the *chronology*. I could tell from the rest of your post that you know this. Thanks again!<br /><br />JeremyJDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351613661584298773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-54833799941561756672017-03-18T07:58:44.945-07:002017-03-18T07:58:44.945-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lewis Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05470410316942686555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-25351339052945235122017-03-17T23:11:35.005-07:002017-03-17T23:11:35.005-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351613661584298773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-8027187722993610822017-03-17T23:04:46.606-07:002017-03-17T23:04:46.606-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.JDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351613661584298773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-4785705318827432692017-03-06T10:48:32.896-08:002017-03-06T10:48:32.896-08:00Thomas: The supposed theological significance of n...Thomas: The supposed theological significance of numbers is not a basis on which to do textual criticism. -Jeremy SextonJDShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12351613661584298773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-72422786533726573242016-09-23T16:44:34.203-07:002016-09-23T16:44:34.203-07:00Addressing the specific issue at hand, the text is...Addressing the specific issue at hand, the text is clear: If X happened when I was 105, it's irrelevant whether X was that my grandson was born or my son was born; it's fantastic that one still hears an argument that it matters. <br /><br />If LXX and the Vulgate got some years different than the Masoretic text ... while I can read Greek, Latin and Irish, how can one not lean toward the source language... in any case it's a rounding error.<br /><br />One need not be nonplussed by pagan sources that aren't exactly in agreement.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193475066608279382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-80058975933872982202016-09-23T16:35:39.828-07:002016-09-23T16:35:39.828-07:00At risk of arguing what fundamentally applies to e...At risk of arguing what fundamentally applies to every point in the debate between Christianity and the secular west:<br /><br />"If Sexton is right about the completeness of the Genesis genealogies--and I believe he is--then one must conclude that mainstream historical science is wrong. So what? This is already entailed in our belief in the Biblical account of the creation and fall of Adam & Eve, which plainly contradicts the evolutionary view of mainstream science."<br /><br />One had to grapple with the definition of science ('historical' intentionally omitted).<br /><br />Science is reasonably defined as 'what can be demonstrated to be repeatable without the interference of actors outside the system'.<br /><br />A little before my ancestors spoke much English, Louis Pasteur addressed the spontaneous generation of life by demonstrating that such life was already present in the substances in any given test tubes of the day. For one who would deny that substance, spontaneous generation is the only possible explanation; but M. Pasteur demonstrated that outside influence. For those who reject the demonstration: it is impossible to deny the conclusion that life is spontaneously generated if you deny that life was previously present.<br /><br />On today's field of debate ... the same framework applies, and the same presuppopsitions.<br /><br />If I have to explain the emergence of any designed object, without reference to the designer, by definition it will appear to be an un-designed object. 'Historical science' purports to describe what happened if there was no external influence. If by definition I exclude the action of a conscious creative agent, I will by definition look for the best explanation for how anything will arise by a conscious creative agent. However, my explanation will always by definition fail to find the mark, since there really is such an agent! The debate is about the presupposition, not about the conclusion.<br /><br />Brothers who believe that God as he has revealed himself to us exists: don't try to reconcile his existence and action with any conclusions derived from presupposition that he doesn't exist!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193475066608279382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-55899478024307938482016-09-15T09:23:47.727-07:002016-09-15T09:23:47.727-07:00It seems that one of the problems with the stricte...It seems that one of the problems with the stricter chronology has been its conflict with Egyptian chronology. But then again, Egyptian chronology has its own set of problems.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-28574549919008156162016-09-04T14:24:26.274-07:002016-09-04T14:24:26.274-07:00I've been able to read some discussions betwee...I've been able to read some discussions between Jeremy Sexton and James Jordan online. Interesting stuff. Sexton's a big fan of the LXX chronology. Some of his arguments are certainly interesting, but ultimately, I find the theologically significant numbers emerging out of the Masoretic chronology hard to escape, especially given that the differences between the LXX and Masoretic in Genesis 5 and 11 are round numbers: differences of 100 or 50 years, for example. That makes molding in order to achieve a numerically round end (i.e. the rise of the Temple coming precisely 3000 years after the Creation) implausible. Josephus is an interesting case: the numbers he gives correspond to the LXX, but sometimes the sums he gives correspond to the Masoretic. Such traces of the Masoretic chronology may well reveal a slip on the part of a scribe who altered the text. Cascione has a fascinating treatment of the numerical features of Genesis 5 and 11 in "Repetition in the Bible."Thomas Hamiltonhttp://www.kabane52.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.com