1158Re: TNIV Textual Resources
- Aug 18, 2005Dear 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
- Next post in topic >>