I had to go to Wikipedia to even remember what the Septuagint was, and I don’t think I’d care even if I knew what the events in the Septuagint were, except in that I’d need to care a little to be likely to know.

As for the relative authority of different sources with differing opinions on the chronology of whatever those events are, I have no idea whatsoever.

I’m slightly curious to see whether anyone here has any knowledge or opinion on the subject.

Greek translation of the Old Testament, written by mortals (Rabbis) for political and pedagological reasons.

I don’t think that “authoritative chronology” is even remotely on the table. The OT was written not as a history book, but as a theological set of stories. Religious propaganda, if you will,

So if you’re looking for chronologies, look at archaeological digs, carbon-14 data, and similar concrete evidence of civilization. Don’t look at the text of a so-called holy book.

@elbanditoroso. Blasphemy! With such logic, it is possible to burn religion out of the entire civilization completely.
@luigirovatti.
Without taking into account the site, fight for this issue to the end.

@freguarUK and how is this a problem?

The authoritative source of the Septuagint, IMHO, should be the Masoretic Tankh. The other translations from the Masoretic version (the Syriac Peshitta or the Samaritan Pentateuch) did not exactly reproduce essential diacritic markings or concise marginal notes so important for precise translation.