Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The textual variation in Genesis 10:24 reveals the challenges involved in Old Testament textual criticism, especially when comparing the Masoretic Text (MT) with other ancient manuscripts. The MT, the textual foundation for Old Testament study, reads in Genesis 10:24, “Arpachshad fathered Shelah.” This reading is consistent with 1 Chronicles 1:18, which states the same lineage. However, when examining the Septuagint (LXX), an additional figure—Cainan—appears in the genealogy. The LXX renders Genesis 10:24 as, “Arpachshad fathered Cainan, and Cainan fathered Shelah.” This variation is mirrored in Luke 3:35-36, where Cainan is inserted between Arpachshad and Shelah. The presence of Cainan in the genealogy has raised significant questions regarding which reading reflects the original Hebrew.

The Masoretic Text: A Strong Foundation

The MT, particularly preserved in codices such as the Codex Leningrad B 19A and the Aleppo Codex, holds considerable authority in Old Testament textual studies. The transmission of the MT by the Masoretes between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E. is renowned for its accuracy and precision. Their scrupulous methods of cross-referencing, counting letters, and documenting even minor variations in the side margins underscore the reliability of the MT. Therefore, any deviation from the MT, such as the inclusion of Cainan in the LXX, must be rigorously evaluated with substantial evidence before considering it as potentially original.

The Hebrew phrase in the MT, וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד יָלַ֣ד אֶת־שָׁ֑לַח (“Arpachshad fathered Shelah”) is direct and unambiguous. The verb יָלַד (yalad) means “to father” or “to beget,” and this verb’s use suggests an immediate father-son relationship between Arpachshad and Shelah. In both Genesis 10:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:18, the MT presents a consistent lineage without mention of Cainan, strengthening the case that the Hebrew textual tradition does not support his inclusion.

The Septuagint and the Addition of Cainan

The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, has been instrumental in understanding potential textual variants in the Old Testament. While the LXX offers insights into the early Hebrew text, it is not without its complications. In this case, the insertion of Cainan in Genesis 10:24 raises concerns about whether this represents an ancient Hebrew variant or a later interpolation.

It is crucial to note that the Septuagint was initially viewed by the Jewish community as divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew Scriptures. However, by the second century C.E., as the Christian Church began to adopt and use the LXX to support the messianic claims of Jesus, Jewish communities distanced themselves from this translation, returning to the Hebrew text. This shift complicates the LXX’s role in textual criticism, particularly in instances like this where the Greek text introduces a reading absent from the Hebrew manuscripts.

The addition of Cainan could have arisen through a variety of scribal errors, whether intentional or accidental. The LXX translators, working with a Hebrew text different from the MT, might have misinterpreted or added Cainan based on genealogical traditions that were circulating at the time. However, without corroborating evidence from Hebrew manuscripts, this variant remains difficult to justify as original.

Luke 3:35–36: Following the Septuagint?

The genealogy presented in Luke 3:35-36 includes Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah, aligning with the LXX rather than the MT. Luke, writing in Greek and likely drawing from the LXX, presents a genealogy that deviates from the Hebrew tradition. This raises an important question: Does Luke’s use of the LXX confirm the authenticity of Cainan’s inclusion, or is he merely reflecting the textual tradition of the Greek Old Testament, which had already diverged from the Hebrew?

Luke’s reliance on the LXX for his genealogy should not be interpreted as a correction to the Hebrew text. Rather, it reflects the textual tradition that was accessible and authoritative in the Greek-speaking world. The fact that the MT does not include Cainan in Genesis 10:24 or 1 Chronicles 1:18 must be given considerable weight in determining the original reading. While the New Testament writers occasionally cite the LXX, this does not inherently mean that the LXX always preserves a superior reading over the Hebrew manuscripts.

The Role of Other Ancient Manuscripts

Beyond the MT and the LXX, other ancient textual witnesses can shed light on this genealogical question. The Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are invaluable in this regard. Notably, the Syriac and Targums align with the MT, excluding Cainan from the genealogical record. The Dead Sea Scrolls, though not containing this specific portion of Genesis, generally reflect a Hebrew tradition consistent with the MT, reinforcing the idea that Cainan’s addition in the LXX is not reflective of the earliest Hebrew texts.

The Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the late 4th century C.E., also follows the MT’s rendering of Genesis 10:24, omitting Cainan. Jerome’s approach to translation involved consulting both the Hebrew and Greek texts, and in this instance, he evidently prioritized the Hebrew tradition. Jerome’s preference for the MT supports the view that the original Hebrew text did not include Cainan.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Evaluating the Internal Evidence

In addition to examining external manuscript evidence, internal evidence can be critical in determining the original reading. The genealogies in Genesis 10 serve an essential purpose in tracing the lineage of nations and key biblical figures. The genealogical structure in Genesis 10:24 presents a straightforward pattern, with no indication that a figure like Cainan should be inserted between Arpachshad and Shelah. The insertion of Cainan in the LXX and Luke disrupts this pattern, introducing an additional generation that complicates the otherwise smooth flow of the genealogy.

Moreover, 1 Chronicles 1:18, which mirrors Genesis 10:24, consistently presents Arpachshad as the father of Shelah. If Cainan were genuinely part of the original genealogy, we would expect his name to appear here as well, but it does not. This internal consistency within the Hebrew Bible further strengthens the case for the MT’s reading.

The Original Reading of Genesis 10:24

After considering the external evidence, including the MT, LXX, and other ancient witnesses, as well as the internal evidence within the genealogical structure, the weight of evidence supports the Masoretic Text’s reading of Genesis 10:24: “Arpachshad fathered Shelah.” The additional figure of Cainan in the LXX appears to be a later interpolation, possibly arising from a misunderstanding or variant tradition in the Greek translation process. Luke’s genealogy, while significant for its use of the LXX, does not override the authority of the Hebrew text, particularly when the MT is corroborated by other ancient witnesses such as the Syriac and Targums.

Therefore, based on the available evidence, the original reading of Genesis 10:24 aligns with the MT, excluding Cainan from the genealogy. This conclusion is consistent with the broader textual tradition of the Old Testament and maintains the integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures as preserved by the Masoretes.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).