Re: Dating flood by Bible chronology vs. YEC

Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 20:17:56 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate"

    Hi Dick,

    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
    the first.

    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