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

$5.00

The study of Genesis 11:13 exemplifies the complexities of Old Testament textual criticism, as it brings together evidence from various manuscript traditions and historical contexts. This verse, which describes Arpachshad’s life after fathering Shelah, displays notable discrepancies between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). While the Masoretic Text simply states that Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after fathering Shelah and had other sons and daughters, the Septuagint inserts an additional generation, mentioning “Cainan” between Arpachshad and Shelah. This variance in genealogical data poses questions about which reading reflects the original text of Genesis. By examining the available manuscript evidence, the historical development of the Masoretic Text and Septuagint, and the role of ancillary sources like the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can make an informed assessment of the likely original reading.

The Masoretic Text: The Foundational Hebrew Manuscript Tradition

The Masoretic Text (MT) serves as the base text for most modern Old Testament translations and is considered the authoritative Hebrew version. Developed and preserved by Jewish scribes, the MT’s lineage traces back to the scribes of the Second Temple period and was standardized by the Masoretes between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E. The MT’s version of Genesis 11:13 reads, “And Arpachshad lived four hundred and three years after he fathered Shelah, and he fathered other sons and daughters.” This simple genealogy lacks any mention of an additional descendant named Cainan, who appears in the Septuagint.

The MT has proven remarkably reliable, thanks to the meticulous efforts of the Masoretes, who used extensive notes and cross-referencing systems to ensure accuracy. For example, they counted every letter and recorded unusual word forms, reducing the likelihood of error. Despite this, the MT is not free from all variants or potential transmission errors, and thus careful comparison with other manuscripts can help clarify certain readings. The absence of Cainan in the MT genealogy of Genesis 11 aligns with the genealogy presented in 1 Chronicles 1, which also omits Cainan from Arpachshad’s lineage. This consistency strengthens the MT’s credibility in this instance, as genealogical records are usually preserved with great care.

The Septuagint (LXX): A Different Tradition with Unique Variants

The Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, includes the additional figure of Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah. The LXX version of Genesis 11:13 states, “And Arpachshad lived after he had begotten Cainan four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters.” According to this text, Cainan later fathered Shelah, inserting an additional generation. This variant is significant, as the Septuagint was widely used in the early Christian period and influenced New Testament writers, who sometimes cited its readings in their own genealogies, such as in Luke 3:36.

The inclusion of Cainan in the Septuagint raises questions about its origin. Scholars have debated whether this variant reflects an original reading lost from the Hebrew tradition or if it represents a later addition unique to the Septuagint. Some argue that this addition was made to harmonize genealogical inconsistencies or to resolve perceived gaps. It is worth noting that the earliest copies of the LXX, such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, both dating from the 4th to 5th centuries C.E., contain this additional figure, indicating that it became an established part of the Septuagint tradition.

Evaluating Other Ancient Manuscript Evidence

To determine the authenticity of the MT and LXX readings, it is essential to examine other textual witnesses, including the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and references in the New Testament.

The Samaritan Pentateuch

The Samaritan Pentateuch, another ancient textual tradition of the Pentateuch, does not include Cainan in its genealogy of Genesis 11. This absence aligns with the Masoretic Text, suggesting that the addition of Cainan in the LXX is not universally attested across ancient Hebrew manuscripts. The Samaritan Pentateuch, while often showing distinctive variations from the MT, generally preserves genealogies with care, as lineage is central to the Pentateuch’s historical narrative. The omission of Cainan in both the MT and Samaritan Pentateuch strengthens the likelihood that the additional generation in the LXX reflects a secondary development rather than the original reading.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls offer invaluable insight into the textual landscape of the Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period. Among the fragments of Genesis found at Qumran, no complete copy of Genesis 11 has survived to verify the presence or absence of Cainan. However, the general alignment of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic Text supports the MT’s reliability in other cases. The fidelity of the MT in the Qumran texts suggests that the Masoretic version of Genesis 11:13, which lacks Cainan, might be closer to the original.

The New Testament Genealogy in Luke

LUKE 3:36 Updated American Standard Version
36 [the son of Cainan,] the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

In Luke 3:36, the genealogy of Jesus includes the phrase “the son of Cainan” between Arpachshad and Shelah, which aligns with the reading found in the Septuagint. However, some key manuscripts, including Papyrus 75 (P75) and Codex Bezae (D), do not contain “son of Cainan” in this position, which agrees with Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12, and 1 Chronicles 1:18, where Cainan is absent. This variation suggests that “Cainan” may have been a later interpolation, possibly a copyist’s error, as it is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, Samaritan texts, or the Targums. Although most extant manuscripts of Luke include “Cainan,” early Christian figures such as Irenaeus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Jerome rejected this addition, considering it an interpolation. Josephus, who often follows the Septuagint, also omits Cainan in his genealogy in Jewish Antiquities (I, 146). There is even a possibility that the term “Cainan” could be a corruption of “Chaldean,” which would make the original reading something like “the son of Chaldean Arpachshad.” Given the high textual weight of P75, the Updated American Standard Version includes “[the son of Cainan]” in brackets to indicate uncertainty about its originality, underscoring the complexity of this textual issue without attributing any error to Luke himself, who was guided by the Holy Spirit in his writing.

Weighing the External and Internal Evidence

In Old Testament textual criticism, priority is typically given to the original Hebrew manuscripts, particularly the Masoretic Text. The MT serves as the foundational text, and deviations from it require compelling evidence to be considered original. While the Septuagint is valuable for identifying possible copyist errors in the MT, the addition of Cainan in the LXX lacks corroborative evidence from other ancient Hebrew sources. Neither the Samaritan Pentateuch nor the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the presence of Cainan, which suggests that the MT’s reading is likely original.

From an internal evidence perspective, the MT’s straightforward lineage without Cainan aligns well with other genealogies, such as 1 Chronicles 1, which also omits Cainan. Additionally, genealogies in the Hebrew Bible are typically consistent and cautious about alterations, making it less probable that the MT would omit a generation without reason. The LXX’s additional generation could be seen as an attempt to harmonize or expand the genealogical record rather than preserving an original reading.

Historical Context of the Masoretic Text’s Authority

The Masoretic Text’s history offers further support for its reliability. Between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E., the Masoretes meticulously preserved the Hebrew Scriptures, adding notations and cross-references to ensure accuracy. The codices produced during this period, including Codex Leningradensis and the Aleppo Codex, are foundational texts for today’s Old Testament. The Masoretes’ commitment to precision lends weight to the MT’s reading, which lacks Cainan. The Masoretes were known for their conservatism in preserving the text, only deviating from tradition when absolutely necessary. Their trustworthiness as scribes makes it unlikely that they would have omitted a generation without compelling evidence.

Moreover, the MT has proven consistent in its genealogical records across different books, further affirming its fidelity. The Masoretes’ system of checks, such as counting letters and marking unusual words, indicates their dedication to accuracy, suggesting that the omission of Cainan was intentional and reflective of the original text.

The Role of the Septuagint in Textual Criticism

While the Septuagint remains an essential resource in Old Testament textual criticism, its reading of Genesis 11:13 requires careful evaluation. The LXX is known to contain interpretative expansions, especially in genealogical passages, where scribes occasionally introduced adjustments to harmonize apparent gaps. The addition of Cainan may reflect such a scribal decision rather than an original detail. Since the Septuagint was translated several centuries after the original Hebrew text, it is susceptible to variations introduced by translators working with different source texts or interpretative motivations.

The LXX’s divergence in Genesis 11 may result from an attempt to bridge gaps in understanding rather than a reflection of an ancient Hebrew tradition. Considering the lack of support from other Hebrew manuscripts, the addition of Cainan is better viewed as an interpretative gloss rather than an original feature of Genesis.

Conclusion: The Originality of the Masoretic Reading in Genesis 11:13

In summary, the evidence favors the Masoretic Text’s version of Genesis 11:13, which omits Cainan from the genealogy. The MT’s consistency across other genealogical passages, the support from the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the absence of Cainan in the Dead Sea Scrolls all strengthen the case for the MT as the original reading. While the Septuagint offers valuable insights, its addition of Cainan in Genesis 11 likely reflects a later interpretative expansion rather than the original text.

Genesis 11:13 itself doesn’t repeat the genealogy explicitly but follows the genealogy from Genesis 11:12, where Arpachshad fathers Shelah without any mention of Cainan. This makes Genesis 11:12 a direct point of reference for understanding Genesis 11:13’s genealogy, reinforcing that the original Hebrew text has Arpachshad directly fathering Shelah, without Cainan as an intermediary.

In the context of our textual argument in the UASV on Genesis 11:13, mentioning Genesis 11:12 effectively supports the argument against the inclusion of Cainan. So, our footnote’s reference to Genesis 11:12 serves to back the overall point about Genesis 11:13’s original genealogy.

For conservative Bible scholars, maintaining the MT as the base text aligns with the historical-grammatical method, which emphasizes fidelity to the original language manuscripts. The MT’s reliability, combined with the Masoretes’ careful preservation, provides confidence that the reading in Genesis 11:13, without Cainan, reflects the original wording intended by the biblical author. This conclusion demonstrates the importance of weighing external evidence alongside the internal coherence of the text, ensuring that the integrity of Scripture is upheld.

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).