Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 3:36
i have a question concerning this passage:
Luke 3:34-36 "The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, The son of Serug, the son of Arau, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shalah, The son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,"

i checked for sources for this geneaology (Gen. 11), and the only source that supports Luke's list is the LXX. All Hebrew or Aramaic OTs i can access are not in agreement with Luke.
The Peshitta and all greek texts seem to agree in Luke's text. This seems to be an indication agains peshitta primacy. Where did Luke get "Cainan" from, if he wrote in Aramaic?

Does anyone have any further insight to this?
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.

If Luke would have used an LXX this would not prove that he wrote his gospels in Greek <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I'd say that the Greek variants and mistranslations in the case from an Aramaic source prove a point.

This is G.D. Bauschers comment.
Quote:* All Greek texts support ?Qainan? as father of Shalah,
though all Hebrew mss. as well as Aramaic O.T. mss. seem
to lack this reading in Genesis 11:12 and in 1 Chronicles
1:18 . Only The LXX has this reading in Gen. 11:12. The
LXX is lacking the verse of 1 Chronicles 1:18. The
?Arphakshar?reading here agrees with The Peshitta O.T.
spelling of this name in every place in which it is found.
Hebrew mss. have ?Arphakshad? , as does The LXX and
all Greek mss. of Luke 3:36. This is evidence that The
Peshitta NT did not follow Hebrew O.T. mss. or The LXX or
The Greek NT, but probably followed The Peshitta O.T. text
(or vice versa) for these names
You cannot be certain the LXX of Genesis 11:12 was not revised to correspond to to the Luke 3:36 reading, which is likely a mistake in transmission. There are some other locations in which the Alexandrian text is matches Greek witnesses of the apostolic writings better than the Hebrew text. The first step to proving that Luke depended on an LXX for this information is to prove that such a reading existed early enough rather than the reverse.
See this article I stumbled upon on this topic: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)