Dear Daniel, The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codex manuscript) reads thus: The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, theMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 18, 2005View SourceDear Daniel,The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codex manuscript) reads thus:"The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise context of the "two years" is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint."The ESV and NASB both have much the same, but the NIV notes Acts 13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support this reading.The source of Luke's information however does not of necessity come from the MT or LXX biblical text. Just like in Luke 3:36 the precise source of his information may remain unknown to us.Here is an excerpt from a post to LXX studies:"What I meant was this. The source of St.Luke's knowledge is unknown to us (remember & cf Lk 1:1-4). The MT text does not mention Cainam. Some copies of the OT Greek do. There could be another Jewish written source - annals or birth records perhaps that include Cainam which we do not know of at this state in our knowledge. This idea is supported by the fact that we simply do not know what some references are that can be found within the OT text itself (e.g. Ezra 4:15; Dan 9:2(explicitly); 2 Chron 20:34?).
A scribe could have (working under Steve's "scribal habits" modus) inserted Cainan based upon unknown Jewish source material - including his own general knowledge store - and not necessarily that of an OT Greek exemplar or even a Hebrew exemplar - whatever its nature - i.e.lectionary, prayer book, grammar, etc."
If one thinks that St.Luke's dictum at Lk 3:36 needs justification it is only in the mind of a scribe or that of a present day source seeker. St. Luke's source is unknown to us - period."As to the authenticity of 1 Sam 13:1 the verdict is still out.Cordially in Jesus,Malcolm Robertson________________________________"Daniel Buck" wrote:
> I imagine Josephus is cited [in the TNIV] for Saul's age in ISamuel 13:1. That's quite inconsistent in my opinion, since no one
that I know of has ever followed the reading of Josephus, Julius
Africanus, or any historian for the name of Salah's father in Luke
3:36. Following the text makes no less sense historically in one
passage than the other, and there's ancient evidence (02 03 and 05,
respectively) for omitting both problem passages altogether.>
I checked into this myself, and my surmising was untrue. The TNIV
cites Byzantine manuscripts for Saul's age (30), and a textual
reconstruction for the years of his reign (42)--thus reversing the
numbers in the original NASB.
The Qumran scroll 4Q51 has a Hebrew text which seems to underlie the
LXX in I and II Samuel, but it is deficient before chapter 14, so
there's no B.C.E. MS evidence for or against the inclusion of I
Likewise, there's no equally ancient evidence for or against the
inclusion of "Cainan" in Genesis 5:24 (which is presumed to underlie
Luke 3:36). So the CBT's inequal treatment of these two passages
serves as a lopsided exception to their general tendency to add to
the Hebrew and subtract from the Greek.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
... of the two years is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the Septuagint. ... 13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support thisMessage 1 of 2 , Aug 22, 2005View Sourcemalcolm robertson wrote:
> The textual note that I have from the JPS 2nd ed.(Leningrad Codexmanuscript) reads thus:
> "The number is lacking in the Heb. text; also, the precise contextof the "two years" is uncertain. The verse is lacking in the
> The ESV and NASB both have much the same, but the NIV notes Acts13:21 ...ETH TESSARAKONTA and the fact some late LXX MSS support
> The source of Luke's information however does not of necessitycome from the MT or LXX biblical text. Just like in Luke 3:36 the
precise source of his information may remain unknown to us.
>. . . St. Luke's source is unknown to us - period."
> As to the authenticity of 1 Sam 13:1 the verdict is still out.I suppose this would be a good place to give my own preferred
explantion, as I have devoted more research to 1 Sam 13:1 than to
any other textual problem in either Testament. Let me state first of
all that my theory would be falsified by the discovery of any Hebrew
manuscript of this verse predating the Christian era.
Sometime in the 2000 years prior to the composition of the latest ms
of I Samuel 13, the custodian of a ms noted that the usual reignal
formual (was ___ years old in his reigning, and he reigned over
Israel for ____ years) was missing for Saul. So he inserted the
formula in the margin of his copy, intending to fill in the
information when he found it (as was pointed out, there are several
indications in the book of Acts that various facts of extrabiblical
history were still extant in the early years of the Christian era).
Whether he ever found this information or not, what apparently
happened was that his marginal note (as often happened) found its
way into the text of a later copy at the beginning of chapter 13.
That it could even be translated "Saul reigned one year; and when he
had reigned two years, he" shows that the KJV editors were already
familiar with the argument that the custodians of the Masoretic text
had advanced for interpreting this verse so differently than its
reignal formula demands. Without the pointing of the MT, the verse
has no numbers in it at all, and all manuscripts of 1 Samuel in
Greek give testimony that it has no place in the narrative.