The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis - Christian Mission Connection

The History of the LXX Chapter 1
lived to be 969 (the life span given in both), the LXX becomes entangled in the absurdity of making
Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years! Yet Genesis 7- 10 and II Peter 3:20 are adamant in
proclaiming that only Noah, his three sons and all four of their wives; that is, only 8 souls survived
the Deluge. Discordances of a similar nature and magnitude are found with regard to the Postdiluvian
patriarchs except that here the life spans also differ, often by more than 100 years.
The Patriarchal chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the
trans l a t o r s o f t h e f o r m e r d e s i r e d t o l e n g t h e n t h e c h r o n o l o g y a n d t o g r a d u a t e t h e l e n g t h o f t h e l i v e s o f
those who lived after the Flood so as to make the shortening of the life spans gradual and
continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. This fit into their phi l o s o p h i c c o n c e p t o f g r a d u a l a n d
uniform change (pre "uniformitarianism"); a philosophy which embraced the basic precepts of
evolution. That is, they were primeval evolutionists. Thus the dramatic life span changes, which
m a n i f e sted the historic results of the sudden catastrophic transformations upon the earth and all life
d u e t o t h e w o r l d w i d e D e l u g e , w e r e a l t e r e d t o e l i m i n a t e s u c h p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e w h i c h w a s c o n t r a r y t o
t h e i r r e l i g i o u s- philosophic beliefs.
The constructor of th e scheme found in the LXX lengthens the chronology of the Patriarchs after the
Flood unto Abraham's leaving Haran by 720 years. He also graduates the length of the lives of the
Patriarchs throughout the entire register, both those before and after the Flo od. The curious result
is that with the three exceptions of Enoch, Cainan (whose life exceeds that of his father by only 5
years) and Reu (whose age at death is the same as that of his father), every one of the Patriarchs
f r o m A d a m t o A b r a h a m i s m a d e t o di e a f e w y e a r s y o u n g e r t h a n h i s f a t h e r . C o u l d a n y t h i n g b e m o r e
manifestly artificial?
Incidentally, the Samaritan text 1 evinces similar signs of tampering. For example the interval from
Adam to the Deluge is 349 years shorter (A.M. 1656 MT - 1307 Sam. = 349) 2 in this text as compared
to the Hebrew and the interval from the Flood to Abraham is longer by 490 years. After analyzing
the disparity between these discordant ages of the Patriarchs in both the LXX and the Samaritan
Pentateuch with regard to the Hebrew, C.F. Keil concluded that the Hebrew Text was the only
reliable account: 3
"That th e p r i n c i p a l d i v e r g e n c e s o f b o t h t e x t s f r o m t h e H e b r e w a r e i n t e n t i o n a l c h a n g e s , b a s e d u p o n
chronological theories or cycles, is sufficiently evident from their internal character, viz. from the
improbability of the statement, that whereas the average durati o n o f l i f e a f t e r t h e f l o o d w a s a b o u t h a l f
the length that it was before, the time of life at which the fathers begot their first-b o r n a f t e r t h e f l o o d
was as late and, according to the Samaritan text, generally later than it had been before. No such
1 The Samaritan Pentateuch is not a version; it is the Hebrew Text written in Samaritan or old pointed Hebrew script and
is preserved in the Sanctuary of the Samaritan Community at Nablous (Shechem). It was quoted by Jerome and Eusebius
in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. as well as other so -called Church Fathers. It was published in A.D. 1632. Although the
t e x t i t s e lf is believed by many to go back as far as the time of the 9th century B.C. Moabite Stone (or at least to that of
Hezekiah in the 8th century B.C.), most of the Samaritan scrolls containing the whole or a part of the Pentateuch are
supposed not to be older than the 10th century A.D. [J.I. Munro, The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism,
(London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1911)].
In 1815, the text came under the careful scrutiny of the great Hebrew scholar Gesenius. He concluded, as does this
author, that it was a vulgar text with many corruptions, hence far inferior to the Masoretic Text and with little critical
value. Moreover, the Samaritan text differs in matters of varying significance from the Masoretic Text in about 6,000
places. In A.D. 1867, McClintock and Strong succinctly summed the Samaritan Pentateuch's status: "This last (the
Samaritan Pentateuch), however, need not come into consideration, since it is well understood that the Samaritan text,
here (Genesis 5 & 10) as well as elsewhere, is merely fabricated from the Greek; and those who treat it as an independent
authority only show themselves ignorant of the results of criticism on the subject". [McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of
Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. II, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1867), p. 298.]
2 Anstey, The Romance of Bible Chronology, op. cit ., p. 73-74. See chart on Anstey's p. 73.
3 C . F . K e i l , Commentary On The Old Testament , Trans. by James Martin, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1976), p. 123.
- 12-