B. THE SCRIPTURAL CHRONOLOGY USED IN THE 1ST CENTURY AD:
(1). THREE MAIN VERSIONS FROM ONE ORIGINAL TEXT:
(a). The Original And The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).
From the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (about 440 BC1 until the Council of Jamnia (around 100 AD) there existed a 'Vorlage Text' of the Old Testament in PaleoHebrew. This Vorlage was essentially the original complete Old Testament Text. With time the Vorlage gave rise to three 'recensions'. The first of these was the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), again in Paleo Hebrew, about 408 BC. Tobish the Ammonite allegedLy took a copy of the Law with him when he was cast out of the Temple by Nehemiah (13:4 9 and Ezra 4:1 4) and set up the rival system of worship in Samaria. This was essentially a copy of the Vorlage Pentateuch.
(b). The Septuagint Greek (LXX] Translation.
The second recension was the Septuagint Greek (LXX) which was translated from the Vorlage Text about 250 BC by 72 Jewish scholars in Alexandria. This version became necessary because of the number of Greek speaking Jews that were resident in Egypt under the favourable Ptolemaic Dynasty. It has been noted by most authorities that the LXX translation of the Vorlage Pentateuch was particularly carefully done because of its revered position in the canon.
(c). The Council Of Jamnia And The Masoretic Text [MT).
Finally the Masoretic Hebrew (MT) was re written in square 'modern' Assyrian characters at the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD with the vowel points added around 900 AD. In 'Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts', p.49 (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London), Sir Frederick Kenyon commented that this dual procedure could easily be 'one considerable source of corruption' in the MT.
(d). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Council of Jamnia
The biblical Dead Sea scroll material can be clearly divided into two groups. There are 170 manuscripts from the 11 Qumran caves and fragments from Masada, all of which pre-date 70 A.D.. The second group comprise manuscripts from the desert caves in the Wadi Murabba'at, the Nahal Hever, and the Nahal Se'elim. They were hidden there shortly after 100 AD.
These two groups of scrolls show two distinct text types. Those pre-dating 70 AD have a text that agrees with both the LXX and the OT quotations used by Christ, the Apostles, and, indeed, the early Church Fathers. Those post-dating 100 AD have a text virtually identical with that translated in our present OT. The dividing line between text types was the Council of Jamnia around 100 AD.
(e). The Action Taken By The Council of Jamnia.
The Council of Jamnia is vital to this discussion. We quote Prof. Horn here: 'A unified text suddenly became the standard at the end of the first century and [the fact] that not one copy of a divergent text survived (except the Dead Sea scrolls that had already been hidden when Jamnia convened), indicate clearly that the Council of Jamnia must have taken actions in this matter.'
He went on to state, '...the Jews rejected it [pre-70 AD version and LXX since... it had become the Bible of the Christians.' Sir Frederick Kenyon concluded (op.cit., p. 56): 'In the second century of our Era, this repudiation took form in the production of a rival version.' All scholars agree that this 'rival version' was the Masoretic Text (MT) which, with some variations, has been used as the basis of our modern OT translations.
(f). The Masoretic Text And The New Greek Versions.
Sir Frederick then went on to point out that the standardised Masoretic Text spawned 3 Greek versions, namely that of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Then around 200 AD, Origen produced his Hexapla or sixfold version of the Old Testament. This version contained the above 3 Greek versions in parallel, plus the MT in Hebrew, the MT in Greek, and then the LXX as revised by Origen (This is NOT the Alexandrian LXX as we have it today).
Note that, except for the LXX, all 5 other versions in Origen's Hexapla were simply variations on the Masoretic text. Furthermore, as Sir Frederick noted on p. 58, '...Origen's efforts were not directed towards the recovery of the original form of the Septuagint LXX, but at bringing it into harmony with the Masoretic Hebrew Text then current, and to do this he introduced alterations into it with utmost freedom.'
With all other versions simply variations on the MT, Origen's 'doctoring' of the LXX to bring it into line with the MT was a serious matter. Fortunately, in the year 617AD, Bishop Paulus of Tella in Mesopotamia made a Syriac translation detailing Origen's alterations so that the form of the original LXX was preserved for us, and today it is still extant (This is referred to as the Alexandrian LXX).
(2). WHAT WAS IN THE VORLAGE TEXT?
The Vorlage Text is quoted in scrolls for Qumran and Masada written prior to Jamnia. After that Council the Jews used the new MT exclusively and destroyed all other versions. But Christ, the Apostles, and Josephus all quote from the Vorlage, and its LXX translation, as did the Church Fathers. In most matters, the differences between the texts are usually relatively minor. However the chronologies have some significant differences. It is just at this point that we need to know shat was in the Vorlage for our chronology.
On this chronological issue, then, it is crucial to note that the SP does NOT support the MT in Genesis 5 and 11. By contrast it fully supports the LXX in Genesis 11, and largely supports it in Genesis 5. This is important since the LXX and SP were two independent links with the Vorlage original, as they were not corrected from each other. From this result it is apparent that, for Genesis 5 and 11, the MT is more likely to be at variance with the Vorlage as quoted by Christ and the Apostles, than is the LXX and SP.
