Re: [asa] Cainan

I've got a further complication. In Nestle's 16th ed., 1936 (there are
more recent ones that I don't have), the preferred reading in Luke is
_Kainam_, with _Kainan_ noted in the apparatus. The LXX apparently has
the latter, though I do not have a critical edition of the text. It's
also in I Chronicles 1:2.

I note that there is no ultimate difficulty in having a child and his
uncle with the same name (Genesis 10). Genesis 5 and 11 refer to just the
son. But Luke puts in another generation. That is a problem.

I can guess at the reason why the LXX has a passage that is different in
the Massoretic text. There is an explanatory verse that, if I recall
correctly, occurs in the Qumran text following I Samuel 11:2. It is not
in either Massoretic or LXX texts. I believe that there are a number of
passages different between the latter two. Copyists made mistakes. Was
Luke writing from memory and misremembered? I think there are other
quotes or near quotes that are not exact.
Dave (ASA)

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:06:18 -0700 (MST) gordon brown
<Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU> writes:
> Does anyone on this list know whether there is anything close to a
> consensus about what was probably the original reading of those
> verses in
> Genesis 10 and 11 in which the Septuagint mentions Cainan?
>
> The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint agree on the Cainan in Genesis
> 5,
> but the name occurs in the LXX in Gen. 10:22 and 10:24 (twice) and
> 11:12,13 (four times) without a mention in the MT. If the Hebrew on
> which
> the LXX is presumably based was correct, then some copyist must have
>
> deliberately gone through and cut out the passages that contained it
> when
> making a copy that eventually led to the MT. On the other hand, if
> the MT
> version is correct, then someone deliberately changed the text to
> insert
> the references to Cainan.
>
> What is also strange in the LXX is that in 10:22 Cainan is mentioned
> as
> being a son of Seth (and brother of Arpachshad if son really means
> first
> generation), and in 10:24 he is a son of Arpachshad. That might
> indicate
> two people with the same name.
>
> The Dead Sea Scrolls are of no help since these verses are in a gap
> of
> several chapters that were not recovered from the Genesis
> manuscripts.
>
> Several years ago someone on this list suggested that a copyist of
> Luke 3
> had accidentally lost his place and included the second Cainan. Then
> he
> suggested that Christians had changed their copies of the Septuagint
> to
> include him in Genesis. However I find it hard to believe that no
> copies
> from exclusively Jewish sources would have survived.
>
> Gordon Brown (ASA member)
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 5 23:31:53 2008