Re: [asa] Re: Ages of the patriarchs

Here is a good explanation of the differences of the three manuscripts. Go to this link and scroll down to item (4):
 
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/553
 
(Note that when it says the "Hebrew" it is referring to the Masoretic.)
 
It discusses how all three versions show clear signs of tampering in order to make the last few antedeluvial patriarchs die before the Flood. The best explanation for this, IMO, is that the earlier version of the Hebrew text (now lost) had numbers in which they actually died **after** the Flood. But I don't believe for a moment that the original author would be so dense as to write that. So here again we are led back to the belief that the original numbers were mistranslated from another base. Presumably, in the original base system, the numbers showed that all Patriarchs but Noah died before the Flood. But since the numbers were mistranslated into base-10, then this caused the problem with Patriarchs dying too late and so all three versions came up with some edits to fix the problem.
 
best regards,
Phil M.
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: dopderbeck@gmail.com
To: dickfischer@verizon.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: 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.

 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

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 19:24:52 2007