Subject: Question on Canaanite or Cananaean

From: "Matt Bell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:07:54 +0100

Hi all

I am new to both Textual Criticism and this list so hope you will forgive
the simplicity of my initial post which I hope is relevant to this list.

I need the following information:

 The AV/KJV in Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18 translates the Gk. word
Kananites/Kananiten as 'Canaanite'. Modern versions however translate this
as Cananaean. Is one more correct than the other? What are the reasons for
the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of
'Cananite'?

Apologies again if this is not relevant to this list and thank you in
advance for your responses

Matt Bell

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:36:35 -0500

> the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use

    The Aramaic q)n) "qana" was a "zealous one" or zealot with a qof and
not a kaf (cough).
Simon was apparently a member of the Qanaim and Canaanite was a
mistranslation.

--
D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon ([email-masked])

 http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:02:29 -0500 (CDT)

>the change from Canaanite to Cananaean? Is the AV mistaken in it's use of

There are two possible problems here, textual and translational. The
textual one is relevant. :-)

I'll give Matthew 10:4 the full treatment, and then summarize Mark 3:18.

The reading "Canaanite" (Greek KANANITHS), as found in the AV, is
supported by the clear majority of manuscripts, including
Aleph W Delta Theta Family 13 28 565 579 700 Byz hark.
The reading "Cananaean" (KANANAIOS) occurs in most early manuscripts:
B C (D CANANAIOS) L N Family 1 33 892 ol vg

Thus "Cananaean" is the reading of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts
(plus probably the "Caesarean" if it exists); "Canaanite" is
Byzantine. Most would agree that the evidence of the manuscripts supports
"Cananaean."

But you'll notice that I didn't cite much versional evidence here. I
believe a few versions have something like "Judas of James," but the
reason is that the reading "Cananaean" is difficult; many translators
must have been tempted to render it "Canaanite." Thus we cite only
the Harklean Syriac (which is very literal) as supporting "Canaanite."

Modern translators might be tempted to do the same thing. I suspect
that all modern translations, except the NKJV, actually have a text
that renders "Cananaean." But some may have interpreted this as
"Canaanite."

The situation is similar in Mark. Here we find the following:
Canaanite (KANANITHN) supported by
   A Theta fam1 fam13 28 892 Byz hark
Cananaean (KANANAION) supported by
   Aleph B C D Lvid (W) Delta 33 565 579 1241 1342 2427 ol vg bo

Although it's possible that the "Caesarean" text has shifted to
supporting "Canaanite" here, the evidence still points to
"Cananaean" as original. (Though I would consider the matter
much less certain; it is possible -- though hardly likely --
that the two texts originally differed, and were conformed.
In this case, it is more likely that Matthew originally
read Cananaean and Mark read Canaanite.)

I hope this helps.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)