S. Douglas Woodward

Woodward has an intriguing thesis (he's not the only one with it): the Masoretic Text was corrupted by rabbis in the first two centuries A.D. to obscure any reference to Jesus as the Messiah. How? Changing some verses and reducing the chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. Why the latter? There was an idea prevalent among many, based on the seven days of Creation in Genesis 1, and the idea that each day is 1,000 years, about when the Messiah should appear. According to Woodward, the rabbis (led by Akiba) removed hundreds of years from the chronogenalogies to point not at Jesus, but Bar Kohkba. It's an old theory (I have seen references to it in works by William Whiston).

As part of the book, he discusses biblical chronology. A old hobby horse of mine. He discussed possible corruptions in the Masoretic Text (MT) over the Septuagint version (LXX). He points out that the New Testament authors seem to reference the LXX, not the MT.

This last is covered a lot and in detail in chapter four. But, Woodward is partly disingenuous here. He quotes the ESV version of the Bible for the New Testament, then the LXX (in the Brenton translation), but then he gives the Old Testament reference in the King James Version (KVJ). Why is this disingenuous? Because the KJV is from 1611! If you read the ESV Old Testament for the verses he cites, they often do match. He should have referenced the KJV in both the New and Old Testaments for his comparisons. But, there definitely are some verses that seem messed up in the Masoretic Text when you compare them to the New Testament, and the Septuagint does seem better. Like, for instance, Deuteronomy 32:43 referenced in Hebrews 1:6. Here the Septuagint seems better than the Masoretic. Did somebody fiddle with the text? And why?

Woodward says yes, without ever giving any proof, just some ancient accusations and circumstantial evidence. His conclusion, the LXX is better, thus it's chronogenealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 must be better. So, then he comes up with a new chronology of the Bible. He places the Exodus at 1628 B.C., fits it up to David Rohl's conclusions on the Exodus (without buying any of Rohl's redatings or other assertions, it seems). The Flood for him is 3360 B.C. and the Creation is 5616 B.C. (p. 226, fig. 53).

Okay. But, his devotion to the Septuagint seems hit or miss. For instance, Woodward cites Ezekiel 4:1-5 to determine that the Kingdom of Israel (after Solomon's United Israel split into Judah and Israel) must last 390 years. He thus says you add 390 to 586 B.C. (the fall of Jerusalem to Babylonia) and you get 976 B.C. for the death of Solomon. "390 days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment" for Ezekiel 4:5 in the ESV. But, but, BUT! The Septuagint—his vaunted LXX!—has only 190 years here! Ezekiel 4:5 in Brenton's LXX translation has: "for a hundred and ninety days: so thou shalt bear the iniquities." Uh-oh!

There are other issues with his chronology. Accept the MT Ezekiel 4:5, for instance, but not the MT or LXX years at I Kings 6:1 for the period between the Exodus and the start of the building of the Temple by Solomon. The MT has 480 years, the LXX 440 years. Woodward claims 594 years (p. 193, fig. 41). Well...

There are other issues too with the book. It needs an editor. There are formatting issues, typos, messed up references. He goes off on tangents, tells jokes, is long-winded. He follows no citation format, and sometimes they are messed up to the point of annoyance. He is in dire need of an editor. But, you can get the point of his text. I am interested in his ideas. Perhaps others have done it better. See the works of Jeremy Sexton and Henry B. Smith, for instance, on the LXX.… (altro)