Re: [asa] Re: Ages of the patriarchs

*The post-flood patriarchs have a continual discrepancy, the deletion of 100
years from the LXX and SP to the MT in the cases of six patriarchs and 50
years difference for Nahor. It can't be an addition because the MT is the
latest text.*

Venturing a bit beyond my firm knowledge here, but this seems overstated to
me. The LXX is an earlier text than the extant MT, but it is a Greek
translation probably done in Egypt. The Masoretic tradition that informs
the MT is thought to be a Babylonian tradition that arguably dates back to
the time of Moses. The SP dates to the second century BCE and arguably in
some respects represents a "smoothing over" of the tradition to accomodate
the Samaritan's idiosyncrasies. (See here:
http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2006/07/11/hebrew-witnesses-to-the-text-of-the-old-testament-tchb-3/)
The SP in many ways agrees with the LXX. It could be argued that the SP and
the LXX represent in some respects a Samaratinization-Hellenization of the
tradition. The Masoretic tradition is witnessed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as
is the Samaritan tradition.

Given all this, it seems too simple to conclude that the MT must have
deleted / changed the partriarchal geneologies from the original sources and
that the LXX / SP reflect those sources more accurately. It seems just as
likely that the Masoretic tradition is closer to the autographs and that the
SP / LXX represent some kind of textural corruption.

On 2/23/07, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Merv, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >>I think your overall point is well-taken -- that number games after the
>
> fact should be taken skeptically, especially if they are based on one of
>
> a number of possible translations. Nonetheless, you can't make me
>
> believe that you wouldn't hold an apparently ordered sequence (even one
>
> to a hundred) to be any different than one that actually did appear
>
> random. If I told you I was going to recite one hundred random
>
> numbers, but I then recited from one to a hundred in order, you would
>
> quickly inform me of the deficiency of my "randomness". But if I am
>
> willing to wade through a large (and finite) quantity of numbers to find
>
> that sequence, it is no longer so amazing. In fact take the
>
> (im)probability of the specified sequence you want to look for: is it
>
> 1/100000! (which would be the chance of your football fans arriving in
>
> ordered sequence but by chance). Then by looking at 100000! such
>
> sequences (each of the entire length), you have a 1/e (~37% chance) of
>
> finding your one predicted sequence. Repeat that whole feat 10 times,
>
> and you've raised your odds of finding your sequence to ~99% -- a
>
> virtual certainty.
>
>
>
> So it becomes a statistical certainty that you will find the entire
>
> Bible (any version you want) somewhere in pi or square root of two, or
>
> any non-repeating sequence of infinite length. It would be amazing NOT
>
> to. (the mathematical equivalent of the classic evolutionist's
>
> argument, perhaps.) But to find these things in a finite sequence that
>
> isn't mind-bogglingly long -- that would be amazing. To find a
>
> universe of finite space and time that has life, well -- I think that is
>
> pretty amazing. Something to praise God for. But I say that in faith,
>
> not knowing the parameters to define the problem or state the
>
> probabilities, so my friends of different persuasion will remain
>
> unconvinced.<<
>
>
>
> First of all, let me apologize for using the GIGO example that somehow has
injected "garbage" into this thread. Since I started it I'll recant and
repent.
>
>
>
> How much of the discrepancy in the patriarch's ages from text to text is
due to simple scribal error and whatever could be due to purposeful
manipulation we can't know. So if there is manipulation it is downward from
an older age to a younger one. Therefore textual variation offers no excuse
for revising the patriarch's ages down to what we consider to be normal life
spans.
>
>
>
> If you look at the total rationale that has been offered on this thread by
all the contributors I think the weight of Scriptural and historical
evidence falls on their actual ages being at least approximate to the
advertised ages in the LXX.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Merv
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:34 PM
> To: dickfischer@verizon.net; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Ages of the patriarchs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --merv
>
>
>
> dickfischer@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > Apparent randomness is not the issue. If the number sequence was
advertised in advance or predicted than whatever the sequence was would be
just as improbable as 1 to 100,000. The odds of any number sequence
occuring in a specified order is just as unlikely as any recognizable number
pattern.
>
> >
>
> > Take the sentence, "Amy's baby chews doughnuts each Friday." What's the
pattern? Each first letter is in sequence. Okay, so what? The patriarch's
ages taken from a particular text forms a number pattern. What does that
prove? Another set of ages from another text would yield another number
pattern. What significance could we attach in accordance with the
spiffyness of the different patterns?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 23 12:12:12 2007