We sometimes see various "ancient manuscripts" being touted as "authentic", or that we should perhaps even "seriously consider" that they might be "gospel truth". Are they?
We have found one quick way is to check which Manuscript they used for their Geneologies in Genesis 10 and 11.
The New Testament, in Luke 3:36, has Cainan as the son of Arphaxad. This also agrees with the Septuagint (LXX) in Genesis 10:21-24 and Genesis 11:13,14.
The Hebrew Masoretic Text (which most of you have for your Older Testament; KJV 1611 and others), does not agree with either the New Testament or the Septuagint (LXX) in this and many other places.
The Masoretic Text was assembled (under R" supervision) between the 6th and 10th Centuries A.D.: the Middle Ages.
Just go to the Chapter that lists the Geneology of Shem through Arphaxad and see who Arphaxads' son is. This will be in Genesis 10:24 and 11:12. If any Bible or "ancient source" you are using has Sala, Selah or Shelach as the son of Arphaxad and leaves out Cainan, then whoever composed it copied from the much later Masoretic Text, and it completely disagrees with the New Testament in Luke 3:36.
During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church paid very high prices for "ancient texts". There were many forgeries about.
The Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts also agree with the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament in this place and disagree with the Masoretic Text.
This is not to attack anyones' Faith or Religion, but only for your consideration to notice the differences in the these Manuscripts.
Shalom!
PEOPLE OF G-D MINISTRIES
© Copyright 2001 - 2004 People of G-d Ministries, Inc. No reproduction or redistribution without the Prior Written Consent and Approval of People of G-d.
FOOTNOTES
[1