Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1876RE: [lxx] Re: Luke 3:36 and the LXX

Expand Messages
  • David Hindley
    Dec 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Wieland,

      Ahhh. I did not notice that fine difference!

      It did appear to be a digression in Jubilees, and thus may not have been a part of it originally.

      Ken Penner, though, said a Syriac fragment, which may be independent of the Ethiopic, has 8:2-4. If 8:2-4 did not originally refer to Kainan, then who? I did not notice either R H Charles (_APOT_) or O S Wintermute (Charlesworth's _OT Pseudepigrapha_) refer to this discrepancy in the footnotes to their translations.

      Interesting ...

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio USA



      -----Original Message-----
      From: sentto-1293705-1763-1135266830-dhindley=compuserve.com@... [mailto:sentto-1293705-1763-1135266830-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Wieland Willker
      Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:40 AM
      To: LXX-List
      Subject: [lxx] Re: Luke 3:36 and the LXX


      > The Cain under discussion was not a son of Shem, but of Arphaxad.


      Well, acc. to Gen 10:24, but acc. to Gen 10:22 he looks like a son of Shem. Perhaps the name was omitted at some stage to get rid of this problem? Not of relevance here, though.

      Thanks for alerting me to Jubilees 8:1-5. Not sure though to take "he" for Arphaxad.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie



      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/eCfwlB/TM
      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic