Thanks for that excellent presentation and intro to the LXX! I hope you will have Henry back for Part 2 to discuss specific issues relating to the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11. Henry alluded to how the date for the flood is impacted by the decision regarding a long or short sojourn (a 215 year difference). I'm sure he would agree, that is just one of several crucial OT interpretive decisions related to determining, even an approximation of, an absolute dating for the time of the flood. In addition to the long or short sojourn (IMO, the short sojourn is correct), other chronologers might respectfully mention a few other chronological forks in the road (e.g., the timeline of Judges, which includes Jephthah's 300 years and also the timeline of the Hebrew kings, which relates to 1Kings 6:1). Regarding the latter Kings period - and just to illustrate - there is a ~50 year difference if the late Christine Tetley's proposal to utilize the Lucianic text of the LXX for the Biblical timeline is accepted. She and some other scholars think the Lucianic text represents the "Old Greek" in key sections of the LXX text regarding the kings of Israel. Rahlfs critical edition of the LXX published the so-called "kaige" recension text (which has likely been revised more toward the MT text). Generally the kaige sections encompass: 2Samuel 10 through 1Kings 2:11 and 1Kings 22 through 2Kings 25. Tetley proposed using the chronology found in the Lucianic text of the LXX as well as her own revised Egyptian chronology (which is a whole other issue ;>). The proposal to use the LXX Lucianic text would then be in contrast with Edwin Thiele's reconstructed chronology of the MT text. If she was correct, it means rejecting Thiele's specific absolute dates for that time period as well as all the other "Thiele based" chronologers like Young, McFall, or Steinmann. Bottom line - the chronology of the Lucianic text of the LXX for the the divided kingdom is ~50 years earlier than what is commonly accepted (981 BC vs 931). I don't agree with everything Tetley proposed. For example, she accepted a late date for the Exodus while I would propose a "very early" date (~1547 BC, vs the commonly accepted "early"date of 1446). As a result, I don't think Dame Kathleen Kenyon was as far off as most conservatives criticize her for. Regarding Tetley's 981 BC beginning chronology for the divided kingdom, I also wonder if there may even be a case for a 986 BC divided kingdom (which would make 1022 BC Solomon's 4th year). Significantly, that 4th year 1022 BC is also tied to the Jubilee year (Oct 1015/1014, IMO). The coming Jubilee would explain why Solomon waited 11 months to dedicate the temple after actual completion. It seems problematic to me, that, even now in the 21st century, the Lucianic text is not published in any of the major published Greek or English editions of the LXX. So, the student has to generally "go fish" for the textual witnesses within the Greek apparatus and/or rely on (a few) research papers. I am not an expert, but the Lucianic text supposedly also often generally agrees with venerable texts like Codex Vaticanus as well as the ancient Old Latin and Armenian texts. The Lucianic text is likely where the critical texts of the OT will be heading. Disclaimer - there are timeline reconstruction issues in both kaige and non-kaige LXX versions of the Kings period, just as there are in the MT text. There is no simple "cut & dry" reconstruction. It's complicated - and so people should think twice about jumping down the rabbit hole of Biblical chronology. On the other hand, chronology is the backbone of history - and we must ultimately agree, a decent Biblical chronology is important to Biblical archeology and even apologetics.
It was great that you got back to this topic and was hoping that it would be handled like the Flood boundary. Please do everything that you can to get to looking at the Gen 5 & 11 chronology differences.
14:33 Wait, could there have been a stream flowing out of the Temple Mount? This would have been before the destruction caused by Antiochus Epiphanies.
If you folks truly believe in telling both sides of a biblical issue you will do an episode featuring maybe David Daniels and the difference of The underlying text re textus receptus or the wescott hort text. I know this isnt your focus but you opened up a can of worms and fairness requires the other side be told.
Thanks for having Henry on; i think he is the real deal. I am looking forward to more episodes with Henry.
Great interview. More please.
This is a really excellent episode. Great guest and great interview questions. Thanks!
Looking forward to the second part!
Thanks for that excellent presentation and intro to the LXX! I hope you will have Henry back for Part 2 to discuss specific issues relating to the chronology of Genesis 5 and 11. Henry alluded to how the date for the flood is impacted by the decision regarding a long or short sojourn (a 215 year difference). I'm sure he would agree, that is just one of several crucial OT interpretive decisions related to determining, even an approximation of, an absolute dating for the time of the flood. In addition to the long or short sojourn (IMO, the short sojourn is correct), other chronologers might respectfully mention a few other chronological forks in the road (e.g., the timeline of Judges, which includes Jephthah's 300 years and also the timeline of the Hebrew kings, which relates to 1Kings 6:1). Regarding the latter Kings period - and just to illustrate - there is a ~50 year difference if the late Christine Tetley's proposal to utilize the Lucianic text of the LXX for the Biblical timeline is accepted. She and some other scholars think the Lucianic text represents the "Old Greek" in key sections of the LXX text regarding the kings of Israel. Rahlfs critical edition of the LXX published the so-called "kaige" recension text (which has likely been revised more toward the MT text). Generally the kaige sections encompass: 2Samuel 10 through 1Kings 2:11 and 1Kings 22 through 2Kings 25. Tetley proposed using the chronology found in the Lucianic text of the LXX as well as her own revised Egyptian chronology (which is a whole other issue ;>). The proposal to use the LXX Lucianic text would then be in contrast with Edwin Thiele's reconstructed chronology of the MT text. If she was correct, it means rejecting Thiele's specific absolute dates for that time period as well as all the other "Thiele based" chronologers like Young, McFall, or Steinmann. Bottom line - the chronology of the Lucianic text of the LXX for the the divided kingdom is ~50 years earlier than what is commonly accepted (981 BC vs 931). I don't agree with everything Tetley proposed. For example, she accepted a late date for the Exodus while I would propose a "very early" date (~1547 BC, vs the commonly accepted "early"date of 1446). As a result, I don't think Dame Kathleen Kenyon was as far off as most conservatives criticize her for. Regarding Tetley's 981 BC beginning chronology for the divided kingdom, I also wonder if there may even be a case for a 986 BC divided kingdom (which would make 1022 BC Solomon's 4th year). Significantly, that 4th year 1022 BC is also tied to the Jubilee year (Oct 1015/1014, IMO). The coming Jubilee would explain why Solomon waited 11 months to dedicate the temple after actual completion. It seems problematic to me, that, even now in the 21st century, the Lucianic text is not published in any of the major published Greek or English editions of the LXX. So, the student has to generally "go fish" for the textual witnesses within the Greek apparatus and/or rely on (a few) research papers. I am not an expert, but the Lucianic text supposedly also often generally agrees with venerable texts like Codex Vaticanus as well as the ancient Old Latin and Armenian texts. The Lucianic text is likely where the critical texts of the OT will be heading. Disclaimer - there are timeline reconstruction issues in both kaige and non-kaige LXX versions of the Kings period, just as there are in the MT text. There is no simple "cut & dry" reconstruction. It's complicated - and so people should think twice about jumping down the rabbit hole of Biblical chronology. On the other hand, chronology is the backbone of history - and we must ultimately agree, a decent Biblical chronology is important to Biblical archeology and even apologetics.
It was great that you got back to this topic and was hoping that it would be handled like the Flood boundary. Please do everything that you can to get to looking at the Gen 5 & 11 chronology differences.
Another GREAT episode guys!!
Very very informative and interesting.
Looking forward to learning a whole lot more.
Thank you 😊
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great job guys!
From what I’ve seen. The Septuagint chronology makes more sense in the big picture of creation.
14:33 Wait, could there have been a stream flowing out of the Temple Mount? This would have been before the destruction caused by Antiochus Epiphanies.
Why even bother with external evidence, if the text(s) holds priority? 1:01:00
If you folks truly believe in telling both sides of a biblical issue you will do an episode featuring maybe David Daniels and the difference of
The underlying text re textus receptus or the wescott hort text. I know this isnt your focus but you opened up a can of worms and fairness requires the other side be told.