Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus

Your words:

When was the switch from the LXX to the MT made? Did it even happen?

Thus far, we have examined but a single sentence! Yet, in the very next sentences of his ARJ paper, Smith says,

“Most ancient Christian scholars argued for the originality of the LXX’s primeval chronology. This strong consensus lasted for over 14 centuries until the Reformation, when the MT supplanted the primacy of the LXX in the western church.”

One can refute this statement with a little bit of critical thought. The Latin Vulgate drew on the Hebrew rather than the Greek text, and clearly used the MT chronology. Smith conveniently chooses not to engage with it. But the Vulgate quickly became the predominant text in the Western church. Therefore, the MT became the ‘default’ chronological text over 1,000 years before Smith claims it did (4th century vs. 16th century). Bede was an early Anglo-Saxon scholar who was read widely over the next 1,000 years and is highly regarded even today. He preferred the MT over the LXX; in his Letter to Plegwin, he sided with Jerome over Eusebius on the issue.7 But Bar Hebraeus, a little-known scholar who lived 400 years later than Bede, is consequential?

CMI : Is the Septuagint a superior text for the Genesis genealogies?
by Lita Cosner, Robert Carter | Published: 25 September 2018
https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

My response being in the lifetime of Josephus, here are his words:

Antiquities, book I, chapter6:5. I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.

Remark first the sum total: "Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge" - Masoretic chronology, right?

However, the sum total is not verbatim given in the Bible. Now he will quote what is, and what is supposed to prove Abraham was born 292 after Deluge:

for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge.

70 + 120 + 132 + 132 + 134 + 130 + 135 + 12 = 292? No = 865.

So, the Bible text, which Josephus learned by heart as a child, which he may be mangling in places by bad memory, definitely gives a total by far exceeding the Masoretic timeline.

Moreoever, if Abraham was born in 865 after Flood - Shem had already died in 500 after Flood (he was 600 years old when he died and he was 100 years by the Flood). So, no way that Shem could be Melchisedec.

But if Abraham was born 292 after Flood - presumably the new total for a changed text - Shem still had 208 years to live and he could be Melchisedec.

Now, check Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:[3] Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever.

While, Jewish commenters have gone out of their way to claim Melchisedech was Shem. Unfortunately, where I used to consult Haydock comment, on a trad site which is down, I recall a reference to Rabbi Kimchi making such a claim, but where I now need to consult Haydock - "ecatholic2000" - is a Novus Ordo site, and we only find that Melchisedech is not Shem:

Comment on Genesis 14 : Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. Hebrew xii. 6.; nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted; but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. H. --- See Pererius. S. Jerom ep. ad Evagrium, says, "Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the sacrament of Christ in bread and wine...a pure sacrifice." See S. Cyp. ep. 63, ad Cæcil. S. Aug. de C. D. xvi. 22. &c. Many Protestants confess, that this renowned prince of Chanaan, was also a priest; but they will not allow that his sacrifice consisted of bread and wine. In what then? for a true priest must offer some real sacrifice. If Christ, therefore, be a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, whose sacrifice was not bloody, as those of Aaron were, what other sacrifice does he now offer, but that of his own body and blood in the holy Mass, by the ministry of his priests? for he was the priest: this is plainly referred to bringing forth, &c. which shews that word to be sacrificial, as in Judges vi. 18. The Hebrew may be ambiguous. But all know that vau means for as well as and. Thus the English Bible had it, 1552, "for he was the priest." W. --- If Josephus take notice only of Melchisedech, offering Abram and his men corporal refreshment, we need not wonder; he was a Jewish priest, to whom the order of Melchisedech might not be agreeable. It is not indeed improbable, but Abram might partake of the meat, which had been offered in thanksgiving by Melchisedech; and in this sense his words are true. But there would be no need of observing, that he was a priest on this account; as this was a piece of civility expected from princes on similar occasions. Deut. xxiii. 4. 2 K. xvii. 27. H.

So, I believe that the Jews changed the ages of post-Flood patriarchs principally to make Shem a candidate for Melchisedech, to not have Melchisedech a Gentile.

The Latin Vulgate you mentioned ... first of all, it replaced Vetus Latina, which was straight from LXX. Second, it was an Apologetic tool against Judaism. This is why Liturgic Psalms are NOT St. Jerome's translations from Hebrew, which were only for apologetic usage (Jews had been complaining in such situations that Christians had a fake text), and this is why the chronology now used at Chritstmas in the Roman Martyrology, credited to St Jerome, is not based on his Vulgate text. And obviously, 400 AD is after the switch from LXX or similar to Masoretic timeline which I credit to the lifetime of Josephus. Whether St Jerome went himself to Hebrew text, or used Aquila of Sinope, he accessed a Hebrew text posterior to the youth of Josephus. Aquila "fl. 130" - flourished / was active in 130 AD.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Sts Cyprian and Justina, Martyrs
26.IX.2018

PS, Masoretic chronology was indeed the "default" in the Latin West for instance when St Thomas Aquinas was swearing to uphold the Decretum Gratiani canon law, the Sentences of Lombardus and, note well, the Historia Scholastica by Petrus Comestor. This changed in Roman Liturgy in the late 15th C. as I just found out by my friend, liturgic near expert Stephan Borgehammar. He teaches Church History of some sort at Theological faculty of Lund. More thereon later, another article./HGL

PPS, I was tired and forgot to mention the Greek East is to this day using not just LXX text but LXX based chronology of Syncellus./HGL

Nicomediae natalis sanctorum Martyrum Cypriani, et Justinae Virginis. Haec, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Eutolmio Praeside, cum multa pro Christo pertulisset, ipsum quoque Cyprianum, qui erat magus et suis magicis artibus eam dementare conabatur, ad Christianam fidem convertit; cum quo postea martyrium sumpsit. Eorum corpora, feris objecta, rapuerunt noctu quidam nautae Christiani, et Romam detulerunt; quae, postmodum in Basilicam Constantinianam translata, prope Baptisterium condita sunt.