This is a styled follow up to Serpent Seed of Satan theorist on the original text of Genesis 4:1 part 1 and part 2
Serpent seedline of Satan pop-researcher Zen Garcia has published The Aramaic and Palestinian Targums which he “edited.” With all due regard and discretion, his only qualifications for handling ancient Aramaic in editing such ancient texts is that he has an internet connection. The Aramaic Targum is Onkelos circa 200 AD and the Palestinian is the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel aka more accurately as Pseudo-Jonathan circa 600 AD.
Within his edition he notes “This information represents work that is found and part of the public domain [sic.]…This book is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered.” He also states that these texts are “what I consider to be priceless accounts of the original antiquated translations of the Hebraic Torah no longer available to us as world. [sic.]”
Lastly, “In producing this book I have attempted to minimize edits to his original work and mostly only formatted the transcript…” with the “his” referring to J.W. Etheridge. In other words, Zen simply copied and pasted Etheridge’s translation and now sells a hardcover for an astonishing $45.00, an equally high priced paperback for $31.99 or a PDF for $9.99—or just get Etheridge’s original version for free in about 1,001 different websites—for example, this site provides the texts of Onkelos (“ONK”), Pseudo-Jonathan (“PAL”) and the Masoretic (“JPS”) for each verse.
Zen Garcia did a styled combo job of Pseudo-Jonathan and Onkelos so that for any given text he provides Pseudo-Jonathan sometimes accompanied by Onkelos. He has various occasions of virtually entire chapters in both versions. Notably this is not the case with the one and only key text upon which, for some odd reason, serpent seedline of Satan theorists build their theory. Genesis 4:1 makes the very clear statement that Adam impregnated Eve and the resulting offspring was Cain.
However, here is how Zen Garcia’s / J.W. Etheridge’s version reads:
And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.
Clearly, this is very, very different than any other rendering of these verses in any language at any point in history. Zen Garcia has claimed in many forums that this is the “original” text/reading/version which is something that is obviously not accurate. In fact, the reason that he has to appeal to a text from over half a millennia after the time of Jesus is that there is no prior text in any language which even hints at such a rendering.
In fact, Pseudo-Jonathan is well known to 1) be like various Targumim which means that they are not only translations but paraphrases but 2) is one that particularly includes much added material from Rabbinic folklore.
Now, consider the rendering that Zen Garcia did not include in his edition of both Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan: he did not include Onkelos at this point, but why not? I certainly do not know but here is the Onkelos rendering:
And Adam knew Hava his wife, and she conceived, and gave birth to Kain; and she said, I have acquired the man from before the Lord. And she added to give birth to his brother, Habel…
That is correct, it reads just as any and every version in any language at any point in history including prior to 600 AD. I am merely guessing but it may be that Garcia did not include it as it would evidence 1) the unwarranted nature of Pseudo-Jonathan which 2) would do away with the main serpent seed of Satan theory text.
In his edition Garcia notes, “These translations provide insight into the original scriptural meaning which otherwise would be lost to tradition and current understanding.” Yet, the fact is that Pseudo-Jonathan provides insight into Rabbinic folklore and only provides insight into the original scriptural meaning by showing us just how far away from the original Pseudo-Jonathan went.
But how does, for example, the Masoretic text render it? This text, as published by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), derives from the Masoretes who produced the translation between circa 800 AD:
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Furthermore, consider that the Encyclopædia Britannica notes that the Aramaic Peshitta was the “Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century ad.” In his book The Bible in the Syriac Tradition Sebastian Brock notes that “The Peshitta Old Testament was translated directly from the original Hebrew text” circa the 2nd century AD (St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1988 AD, p. 17). How, pray tell, does this text which is centuries older than Pseudo-Jonathan render Genesis 4:1?
Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”
Again, this is the common reading through all of history with the sole exception of Pseudo-Jonathan.
What of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Well, Genesis 4:1 was not preserved however, 4:2 was and since it reads just as is commonly known then it is safe to assume that 4:1 did as well—it is an argument from silence in either direction.
Scroll 4Q2 Genesisb has 4:1 as “Again she gave birth, to Cain’s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
Compare with the JKV’s “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
But what of the Septuagint aka LXX which dates to circa 300 BC? Here are some examples:
The Septuagint LXX: Greek and English trans. By Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton in 1851 AD:
And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.
A New English Translation of the Septuagint published by Oxford University Press in 2009 AD:
Now Adam knew his wife Heua, and after she had conceived she bore Kain and said, “I have acquired a man through God.”
Septuagint Bible w/ Apocrypha LXX
And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.
The 2001 Translation – An American English Bible: With Old Testament based on the Greek Septuagint:
Well thereafter, Adam had [sexual relations] with Eue, his woman, so she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. And she said, “I have gained a man through God.” [Brackets in translation]
Again, textual evidence is not even in question as to the original reading and again, Zen Garcia insists on the one, one and only, one single unreliable is the original because it states, or so he thinks, that which he presupposes he wants to hear—this is a classic case of isogesis.
He wants the text to read that Adam is not Cain’s dad but that Satan is thus, “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain.” But note that even this reading does not help him since it merely notes that “Adam knew Hava his wife” even though she “had desired the Angel.”
Also, in various forums Zen Garcia has noted that a semicolon within the KJV is very important (yes, he actually argues from a grammatical mark with an English translation, see here). The KJV has:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
Did you catch the momentous grammatical point? Well, Zen Garcia asserts that “This semicolon will be key to understanding…why it” merely “seems” mind you “to cite Adam as Cain’s father” since “Once understood the reasoning for its location…distinctly separate[s]…the children born of Adam and Eve.” He argues that the semicolon is having us read the text (the original Hebrew text) as “And Adam knew Eve his wife” sure, however “and she conceived, and bare Cain” who was conceived when Satan knew Eve. He really thinks that the semicolon is drawing our attention to the supposed fact that Satan is Cain’s dad and Adam is Abel’s dad.
But now, what happens when we apply his very own “logic” to his preferred rendering? Recall that it reads, as he himself edits it, “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain.” Thus, we must conclude that “Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel” sure, however, “and she conceived, and bare Kain.” Thus, his entire reason for arguing from a semicolon discredits his own edition since it reads, as per his (mis)interpretation that Eve had sex with “the Angel” but that “she conceived, and bare Kain” is unrelated to “the Angel.”
But what Angels is that?
Well, Pseudo-Jonathan reads as follows at Genesis 3:6,
And the woman beheld Sammael, the angel of death, and was afraid; yet she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was medicine for the enlightenment of the eyes, and a desirable tree by means of which to understand. And she took of its fruit, and did eat; and she gave to her husband with her, and he did eat.
Does this not sounds familiar? Only partially? Indeed, that is because this is merely another unwarranted, otherwise unknown, late dated, insertion of Rabbinic folklore.
Here is Onkelos which the editor did not bother including in his edition:
And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and that it was salutary to the eyes, and a tree desirable to contemplate; and she took of its fruitage (aiba) and ate; and she gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Here is the Masoretic:
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
Here is the Peshitta:
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was
desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Need I go on?
Thus, to paraphrase Zen Garcia’s view of Genesis 4:1, it is stating that Adam knew Hava his wife even though she had desired the Sammael the Angel of death; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man who, by the way, is the Angel of the Lord. Indeed, this is a mess and not to mention (okay, mentioning) that Satan is not the Angel of death and in fact, is not an Angel but is a Cherub (Isaiah 14:12).
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #Targum, #SeedofSatan, #ZenGarcia
Facebook: #Targum, #SeedofSatan, #ZenGarcia
Continue reading →