I have heard various interpretations as
to the curse placed by Noach on Cainaan. There is also a discrepancy as to
whose son Cainaan was because of the difference between the Masoretic text and the
LXX, hence this short study is an attempt to compare the texts and see the
whole matter. This study also would look into Turah to see the nakedness of Noach
and what it means in relation to him cursing Cainaan. The traditionalist view is
a generalist view which comes from a carnal mind. As the carnal mind is enmity
towards Aluahym, the carnal mind will never grasp the spiritual matters hidden
in the letter and the carnal mind will never look towards Turah to understand
the context of what actually happened. Let’s begin by comparing the LXX with
the Masoretic text to first see the obvious hidden as the translators couldn’t
probably grasp the one in focus i.e. Cham, Cainaan or Shalach. Moreover, the
traditionalist generalist view holds Cham as culprit whose seed Noach cursed,
whereas the fact was that Cham was not cursed by Noach but held accountable for
seeing the nakedness of his father Noach and only Cainaan was cursed.
Masoretic:
Gen 10:6 The sons of Cham were Kush and Mitsrayim and Phut and Kanaan.
LXX: Gen 10:6 And the sons of
Cham, Chus, and Mesrain, Phud, and Chanaan.
Here in Gen 10:6 both the Masoretic and
LXX text shows
LXX translation:
Gen 10: 22 Sons of Sem, Elm, and Assur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram, and
Cainan
Gen 10:23 And sons of Aram, Uz, and Ul,
and Gater, and Mosoch.
Gen 10:24 And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.
Gen 10:25 And to Heber were born two
sons, the name of the one, Phaleg, because in his days the earth was divided,
and the name of his brother Jektan. Chanaan/Kanaan as one of the sons of Cham
Masoretic text:
Gen 10:22 The sons of Shem were Elam and Ashshur and Arpakshad and Lud and Aram
Gen10:23 The sons of Aram were Uts and
Chul and Gether and Mash.
Gen 10:24 Arpakshad begat eth-Shelach; and Shelach fathered eth-Eber.
Gen10:25 Two sons were born to Eber; the
name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his
brother’s name was Yoqtan.
The Masoretic text omits Cainaan as the
son of Arphaxad and just mentions ‘Arpakshad
fathered Shelach; and Shelach fathered Eber’ whereas the LXX lists Cainaan
as the son of Arphaxad
So, who is correct here?
While the LXX would want the reader to see Cainaan as the son of Arpakshad, the Masoretic text says Arpakshad begat Shelach.
In comparison of the 2 texts, Shelach is the focus and not Cainaan because
1) Shelach was the son of Cainaan (LXX)
2) Shelach was the son of Arpakshad (Masoretic text)
LXX translation makes a mistake here by
listing Cainaan as the son of Arphaxad and contradicts itself when in Gen 10:6
it lists Cainaan as the son of Cham.
The translators and readers get very
confused and some have assumed the Cainaan’s were different people because the
name is also spelled differently which we will look at little later.
In 1 Chronicles 1:18 LXX further
contradicts itself as it says in verse 18 Arphaxad, Sala. The verses omitted
are parts of the missing scrolls of the Septuagint
10 And Chus begot Nebrod: he began to be a mighty hunter on
the earth.
11 Omitted
12 Omitted
13 Omitted
14 Omitted
15 Omitted
16 Omitted
17 The sons of Sem, Aelam, and Assur,
18 and Arphaxad, Sala,
19 Omitted
20 Omitted
21 Omitted
22 Omitted
23 Omitted
24 Omitted
25 Eber, Pheleg, Ragan
Hence, the Masoretes text here is more
authentic in correctly removing Cainaan from being the immediate son of
Arphaxad as he was not his son but the son of Cham.
Now let’s see why Noach cursed Cainaan?
Masoretic Text:
Gen 9:19 These three were the sons of
Noach, and from these the whole earth was populated.
Gen 9:20 Then Noach began a man of the
ground and planted a vineyard.
Gen 9:21 He drank of the wine and became
drunk and uncovered himself in the midst of his tent.
Gen 9:22 Cham, the father of Kanaan, saw
the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
Gen 9:23 But Shem and Yapheth took a
garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered
the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they
did not see their father’s nakedness.
Gen 9:24 When Noach awoke from his wine,
he knew what his youngest son had done to him.
LXX:
Gen 9:20 And Noe began to be a
husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and
was drunk, and was naked in his house. Gen 9:22 And Cham the father of Chanaan saw the nakedness of his father, and he
went out and told his two brothers without.
Gen 9:23 And Sem and Japheth having
taken a garment, put it on both their backs and went backwards, and covered the
nakedness of their father; and their face [was] backward, and they saw not the
nakedness of their father.
Gen 9:24 And Noe recovered from the
wine, and knew all that his younger son had done to him.
There is no difference in the LXX and
Masoretic text on this account and hence we must turn to Turah to understand
what must have happened.
The Turah portion which came later
reveals what the dabar of Yahuah already held man accountable for uncovering
the nakedness of one’s father and mother
Lev 18:7 You shall not uncover the
nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother.
Lev 18:8 You shall not uncover the
nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.
Lev 18:9 The nakedness of your sister,
the daughter of your father, or daughter of your mother, whether she be born at
home, or born abroad, even their nakedness you shall not uncover.
Lev 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's
daughter, or thy daughter's daughter, their nakedness thou shalt not uncover;
because it is thy nakedness.
Lev 18:11 Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of the daughter of thy father's wife; she is thy sister by the same
father: thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 20:11 As for a man who lies with his
father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall
surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Deut 27:20 Cursed is he who lies with
his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt. And all the
people shall say, Aman.
Luke records Cainaan the son of
Arphakshad tying his lineage to Shem and his name is spelled as Qaynan
Lu 3:35 Saruch, Ragau, Phalec, Heber, Sala: (full stop)
Lu 3:36 Qaynan, Arphaxad, Sem, Noe, Lamech: (full stop)
There could be 2 possibilities in the Luke 3:35-36 translation, #1: in stating ' Shelach, Cainaan, Arpakshad', the translation was merely documenting that Shelach was a son of both Cainaan and Arphaxad. The ban/son of was added by the translators in Luke 3 genealogy#2: The Luke translation was picked up from LXX which we already saw the contradiction of it in comparing Gen 10:24 with 1 Chron 1:18. The former seems to be true.
The Masoretic text adds sof pasuq (:) which is
actually done for a melody or a period/full stop. The sof pasuk (and not sof
pasuq)/colon which means a period was copied over by English as a colon and
means ‘the end is not over yet’
Luk 3:35-36
שרוג רעו פלג עבר שלח׃ קינן ארפכשד שם נח למך׃
Thus, Luke is rendering that Shalach was of Qaynan and Arphaxad
LXX:Gen 11: 10 And these [are] the generations of Sem: and Sem was a hundred years old when
he begot Arphaxad, the second year after the flood.
Gen 10:11 And Sem lived, after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot
sons and daughters, and died.
Gen 10:12 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan.Gen 10:13 And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begotsons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala;and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sonsand daughters, and died.LXX again records Cainaan to be the son of Arphaxad in Gen 11The Masoretic text again omits Cainaan hereMasoretic text:Gen 11:11 And Shem lived after he begat את eth-Arpakshad five hundred years, and begatsons and daughters. Gen 11:12 And Arpakshad lived five and thirty years, and begat את eth-Shelach: Gen 11:13 And Arpakshad lived after he begat את eth-Shelach four hundred and three years,and begat sons and daughters.Now with this back ground we can see what may have happened. Noach was a vinedresser and drunk wine and slept. He didn’t sleep naked as the first blush meaningstates but slept drunk unable to prevent a grievous sin in his household.In comparison to Turah we see 2 possibilities: 1) Either Cainaan slept with his grand step mother (Noach’s another wife) or 2) Cainaan slept with one of the daughters/granddaughters/daughter in law of NoachIt is unlikely that Cainaan would have slept with his grand step mother, for if he did Shelachwould be accounted as Noach’s direct son but instead it says ‘Arpakshad begat Shelach;and Shelach begat Eber’Hence, it’s evident Shelach was the son of Cainaan, Cainaan who defiled his father’sbed.For the Turah portion says:Lev 18:9 The nakedness of your sister,the daughter of your father, or daughter of your mother,whether she be born at home, or born without/chuts H2351, even their nakedness youshall not uncover.The Abary word chuts H2351 is translated as abroad but chuts also means out/outsideas in outside of the tent walls or without. Since here its speaking of the nakedness of one’ssister who is the daughter of one’s father or mother but not from the same womb as in blood sister. Lev 18:9 lists both ‘whether she be born at home’ (from the same womb) OR‘born outside/without’ (not from the same womb)Hence,the one born outside could mean a direct daughter of Noach, a granddaughteror a daughter in law. All these are the possibilities of the one who is born outside/without but yet a daughter of the house.The whole earth was populated by Noach through his 3 sons and hence Noachthough was the grandfather of Cainaan was a direct father because everyone elsedied in the great flood except for Noach and his family and the earth was populatedor overspread by him through his sons and daughters.Gen 9:19 These three were the sons of Noaḥ, and all the earth was overspread fromthem.Hence, here the uncovering of the father’s nakedness was of a daughter of the house.Hence, it’s evident that Cham’s son Cainaan uncovered his father Noach’s bed.The word yalad/begat H3205 also means to ‘bring up/be the son of/ specifically to showlineageWe get the English word ‘lad’ for a child from the Abary ‘Ulad/lad’, with a yod beforethe ‘lad’ it shows the hand guiding/bringing up the child.Qaynan H7018 means ‘fixed’ and is from the root word ‘qan’ H7064 ‘which meanschamber/nest/room’After the curse his name was changed to Cainaan H3667 which means ‘humiliated’. It’s from the root word H3665 cana which means ‘vanquish/humiliate/bend the knee’Gen 9:24 And Noach awoke from his wine, and knew את eth what his younger sonhad done unto him.Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Kena`an; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.The curse reveals that his name was changed from Qaynan (fixed) to Cainaan (humiliated). The nan in the names shows a sprouting/continuity. He remained fixed continually until he uncovered his father’s nakedness and now he would be humiliated continually.Gen 9:22 And Cham, the father of Kena`an, את eth saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren outsideGen 9:23 And Shem and Yapheth took את eth-a garment/shamlah H8071, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered את eth the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.It is evident that this was a humiliating of the daughter of the house by Cainaan which Chaminstead of covering her went and told his brothers who were outside. Whereas, Shem andYapeth took a garment/shamlah and laid it upon their shoulders and went backward andcovered the woman who was humiliated which scripture depicts as ‘nakedness of their father’.We already saw the Turah defining what the nakedness of the father means. Therefore,the child born of the woman was brought up in the lineage of Shem as its evident thedaughter of the house was given to be wife of Arphaxad as this would be the true meaning ofcovering the nakedness of the father rather than Cainaan for Noach had already cursed himafter finding out what his son Cainaan had done to him. The daughter was not given toCainaan so that she shouldn’t be part of the curse he would carry along with him in his descendants and so was her seed named after the clan of Shem and not Cham as Shem was blessed by Noach for covering the nakedness of his father.If you notice Noach first blessed Yahuah Alahay of Shem and stated Cainaan would be his servant, thus indicating that Shem was the one who accommodated the son Shalach inhis lineage. Noach then went on to bless Yapeth and stated Aluahym will enlarge Yapeth andhe shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Cainaan would be his servant.Gen 9:24 And Noach awoke from his wine, and knew את eth what his younger son had done unto him.Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Kena`an; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be YAHUAH ELOHAI of Shem; and Kena`an shall be hisservant.Gen 9:27 ELOHIYM shall enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Kena`an shall be his servant.Shalach H7974 from H7973 & H7971: a branch or send away or send or shoot/off shoot or spreadHis name indicates he was a branch or an offshoot as his mother was humiliated by Cainaan but the nakedness covered by Arphaxad son of Shem who yalad/brought him up as one of his sons. Shalach is a picture of Yasharal in pagan nations as sons of humiliation by the adultery of the fathers against Yahuah and against his commands, escaping the curse by being named in the clan of Shem, just as Noach blessed Yahuah by saying ‘Blessed be YAHUAH ELOHAI of Shem’ because it was Yahuah who would bring back his people from the pagan nations back to Himself with his name called on us. Shem means ‘NAME’ H8034. Yahusha is our Yahuah who makes this possible and covers the father’s nakedness as he marries us and clothes our nakedness.
No comments:
Post a Comment