You wrote: Now how did Cainan get into the LXX when he is missing in action
the MT? Try looking at Luke 3:36. There is Cainan nestled in the New
Now you have the MT in disagreement with the SP, the LXX, New Testament
author, Luke, and all the historians, Sumerologists, and archaeologists, none
of whom place the flood as recent as 2350 BC.
I addressed this concern in my response to similar comments by Glen which
have probably not been sent out by the post screener yet. In it I wrote:
Glenn wrote: If you compare Luke 3:36 with the genealogies in Genesis, you
find a guy
named Cainan who isn't in Genesis. Why wouldn't that make one wonder if the
genealogies are incomplete?
Because nearly all scholars who have thoroughly studied this subject matter
understand Luke's "second Cainan" to be a copyist's error.
I say "second Cainan" because Luke 3:37 also lists "Cainan" in his normal
position as the son of Enosh and the father of Mahalalel. In many English
translations "second Cainan" is called "Kenan" to avoid confusing the
supposed "two Cainans." Scholars refer to this "Cainan" as Luke's "first
Cainan" since, if there were two Cainans, this "Cainan" was chronologically
In the Old Testament "Cainan" is not found in the relative position Luke
seems to have assigned him in any of its genealogical listings, in either the
Hebrew or the Samaritan texts. There it can be found only in the Greek
Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures. And apparently it was found
only in the copies of the Septuagint which came into use after the time of
the first century Jewish historian Josephus. For though Josephus almost
always followed the Septuagint, he tells us that "Sala was the son of
Arphaxad," not Cainan. (Ant. I, 6:4) The same is said of many early Christian
writers who are known to have used the LXX. When referring to the Old
Testament genealogies they made mention of only one "Cainan." For this reason
some scholars tell us that it was almost certainly late Christian copyists of
the LXX, influenced by corrupted copies of Luke, who inserted a "second
Cainan" into Genesis 11, not copyists of Luke who were influenced by the
LXX's mention of a "second Cainan." For it seems no mention of a "second
Cainan" existed in early copies of the LXX for them to have been influenced
It was probably for these reasons that Church Fathers Irenaeus, Africanus,
Eusebius, and Jerome all rejected Luke's "second Cainan" as being an
interpolation, either an accidental or a deliberate insertion (most likely a
copyist's accidental duplication) into a late copy of Luke's original work.
It is probably most important that this understanding is supported by the
fact that some of the very oldest manuscripts of Luke do not include mention
of this "second Cainan." This includes the copy of Luke called the "Papyrus
Bodmer" or "P75" which has been dated to AD 200 and even earlier. Besides
being probably the oldest copy of Luke in existence, it is also said by
scholars to have been among the most carefully copied. They tell us it's
letters were clearly copied "one by one," while most other ancient
manuscripts appear to have been copied at least two letters at a time, or
syllables at a time, or even several words at a time.
The evidence clearly shows that the "Cainan" you referred to was not
originally a part of Luke's gospel.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 01:21:47 EDT