Difference in Flood Dates – Part II

Continued from the previous post regarding the two competing texts of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT), and the differences between them.
    Continuing with the list of seven items that are involved in understanding the various Rabbinical schools and their varying understandings, there were Talmudic Academies in Syria Palaestina were yeshivot (Jewish educational institutions that focused on the study of traditional religious texts, primarily the Talmud and the Torah). These served as centers for Jewish scholarship and the development of Jewish law in the Land of Israel (called Syria Palaestina by the Romans during the Talmudic period, and Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda under the Byzantines). These academies had a great and lasting impact on the development of world Jewry, including the creation of the Jerusalem Talmud.

The Talmudysci (or Talmudists or Talmud Readers). Talmudic Aramaic" refers to the Jewish Babylonian Aramiac as found in the Talmud, te central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law (halakha) and Jewish theology

The Talmud was also the first major work of Rabbinic literature, and was published in 200 AD, at which time the work was studied exhaustively by several generations of rabbis in Babylonia and Israel and their discussions were written down in a series of books that became the Gemara. When combined with the core text of the Mishnah, they become the Talmud. However, since there are two rabbinical analysis of the commentary, there are two Gemaras, and therefore, there are two Talmuds.
7. As late 600 AD a Masoretic text (from masoreth, meaning “tradition”), was begun and eventually published in the 10^th century AD. This traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun and completed by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them.

The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies in various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among the various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue.
     When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters in the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter marked the center of the text. In this way any future emendation could be detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600 years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late 9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic Hebrew Bible.
    All of this has led to debate over which is correct: 1) the original Septuagint (LXX), with its primeval chronology, a text began in the 3^rd century BC and completed in 132 BC, and is the earliest extant translation of the Old Testament written in Koine Greek (“the common dialect”) from the original Hebrew, and evidently made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. The Koine Greek was also known as Alexandrian dialect, common Attic, Hellenistic or Biblical Greek, and was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during the Hellenistic period, the Roman Empire and the early Byzantine Empire, or late antiquity. 
    It evolved from the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC, and served as the lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries; or 2) the later Masoretic (MT) text, which was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.

It should be noted that modern scholars seeking to understand the history of the Tanakh’s text use a range of sources other than the Masoretic Text, including early Greek (Septuagint) and Syriac (Peshitta) translations, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls and quotations from rabbinic manuscript older than the oldest surviving Masoretic text and often contradict it.
    It should also be kept in mind that these early writers, such as: “Eusebius (AD 206–340), followed by Ephraem of Syria, Jerome, (AD 340–420), Julian of Toledo (AD 642–690), Jacob of Edessa (AD 640–708), Byzantine chronology George Syncellus (d. AD 810), and Armenian annalist Bar Hebraeus (AD 1226–1286), just to make a few” all had the same original writers (or what became handed down from them) in which to make their judgments—a factor involved in the early history of the Old Testament writing, specifically the Torah, Talmud, etc., of which some men spent their entire lives studying, evaluating and trying to understand their content.
    This debate has recurred throughout history, and each side can point to some excellent scholars who support their view. It should be noted that one of the arguments used in the Masoretic text is that Jesus, the Messiah, was in fact born precisely in the fullness of times. It is, therefore, not the calculation of years that counts, as the Jewish scholars maintain, but rather the whole of the historical facts in which Jesus presents himself as the true Messiah of God. In other words, this LXX-supporting statement defines the “sixth age” by epochs demarcated by events in salvation history, not by calendar dates. Thus, the LXX supporters claim that “it is not the calculation of years that counts, as the Jewish scholars maintain, but rather the whole of the historical facts in which Jesus presents himself as the true Messiah of God.”
    Accurately, or inaccurately, it is believed that at least some of the early writers argued that the Jewish rabbis in the second century AD deflated the primeval chronology by 1300 years in their Hebrew manuscripts to discredit Jesus as Messiah.” Others claim that the Jews falsified their chronology in connection with an argument that the Messiah was to arrive in the “sixth age.” Still others claim the altering of the dates was not attributed to the motive of messianic chronology and discrediting Jesus, but rather, their purpose was to encourage their contemporaries to lower their age of marrying. Whatever the reason, we have no way of knowing what changes to dates, if any, took place, no matter the reason.

Published in 1948, the book “Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts,” by Sir Frederic Kenyon, the textual scholar, stated: “There is indeed no probability that we shall find manuscripts of the Hebrew text going back to a period before the formation of the text which we know as Masoretic. We can only arrive at an idea of it by a study of the earliest translations made from it… ” At the time of this publication, the Dead Sea Scrolls were being discovered and hailed as the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times

On the other hand, while there were variances in different texts that were handed down over the centuries to the age of these scholars and their evaluations, though there is no definite knowledge as to why they were changed. It is also known that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, from 150 BC to 75 AD shows that in this period there was not the scrupulous uniformity of text that was so stressed in later centuries. According to Menachem Cohen, an Israeli scholar who worked for over 30 years to correct grammatical errors in the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea scrolls decided these issues “by showing that there was indeed a Hebrew text-type on which the Septuagint-translation was based and which differed substantially from the received MT.”
    Furthermore, it is claimed that the reason Julian preferred the LXX is because he believed the account of its inspiration contained in the writings of another ancient author, Aristeas (2^nd century BC), who claimed that all 70 of the supposed translators came up with the exact same Greek text, word for word. While no scholar accepts this today, Julian evidently preferred the LXX chronology because he believed the translators were inspired, which no one believes today. Saying the Jews altered their text was not based on a scholarly comparison of the texts but was a conclusion from an a priori belief that the LXX was inspired.
    We are not criticizing any of these works or the tremendous effort that has gone into the interpretation and dissemination of their contents. However, it should be observed from these simple comments that any given date or sequence of events or changes, or strong stand on an issue, is suspect, not the event, but the placement of it in open space.
    In answer as to why we use the Biblical date of 2344 to 2343 BC regarding the Flood, is because Moses wrote those patriarchal years as directed by the Lord; these same dates are found in Moses writing in the Pearl of Great Price; and Joseph Smith used those dates in his School of the Prophets.