Thank you for your reply. I always enjoy reading your posts. You challenge
me. You invited me to participate on this list serve, and it is mainly to
read your posts that I tune in daily.
I have read probably everything that has ever been written on the subject of
Luke's "second Cainan." (I assure you that this is only a slight
exaggeration.) From all I have read I have definitely been left with the
impression that is the consensus opinion of those who have thoroughly studied
all aspects of this matter that Luke only mentioned one "Cainan" in his
genealogy of Christ.
As I mentioned earlier, and you failed to respond to, this understanding is
supported by the fact that some ancient manuscripts, including the Bodmer
Papyrus P75 which is "the earliest known copy of the Gospel according to
Luke" (The Text Of The New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford University Press, 1992), do not
include contain this "second Cainan." As also pointed out earlier, the Bodmer
Papyrus P75, which is "the earliest known copy of the Gospel according to
Luke," is also said by scholars to clearly be among the most carefully copied
of all ancient Bible manuscripts in existence.
Rather than accept the reading of the oldest and most carefully copied
manuscript of Luke that exists, you prefer to rely on a copy of Luke which
was made 1,000 years later and chosen to be a part of the "corrupt Textus
Receptus" which "is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected
minuscule manuscripts." (ibid) Rather than accept the reading of the
Mazoretic Text, which is known to have been copied by perfectionists who went
to extreme lengths to avoid any possibility of corruption entering their
work, you prefer to rely on a translation which is widely known to be filled
with corruptions and was probably largely based upon the Samaritan
Pentateuch, which was almost certainly corrupt to begin with since most
Samaritans did not hold the Hebrew Scriptures in high regard.
You wrote: And the Septuagint was the Bible of the New Testament authors.
were the Scriptures they spoke of.
As I mentioned, if Luke referenced the LXX as he compiled his genealogy of
Christ, the evidence indicates that it did not then contain any mention of a
second Cainan. This corruption of the LXX did not exist in first century
You wrote: By the time of Josephus, the Hebrew text had the deletion, as did
Samaritan Pentateuch. Josephus was merely reading the Hebrew text. Luke did
the same thing. Only Luke read the LXX.
That's not the opinion of others. They say that "Josephus most often followed
the LXX." And they say, concerning Luke's second Cainan, "It seems certain
that his name was introduced into the genealogies of the Greek Old Testament
in order to bring them into harmony with the genealogy of Christ in St.
Luke's Gospel." (Smith's Bible Dictionary)
You wrote: Just listen to yourself. How would you believe that a "copyist"
seeing a "corrupted" copy of Luke with Cainan in it would take it upon
himself to completely invent three verses
You are kidding, aren't you? Overzealous copyists have done all sorts of
things just like that over the years in misguided attempts to help out God.
One similar example that comes to mind can be found in your King James Bible
in 1 John 5:7,8. This passage of "scripture" is widely know to be a complete
fabrication created by a copyist who thought there were not quite enough
proof texts for the Trinity doctrine in the Bible.
You wrote: Further, Bible scholars can't even agree on the date of the
Exodus, let alone the flood. Some date the Exodus at 1440 BC, and some say
1290 BC. That's why I defer to archaeologists and historians with the date of
2900 BC for the flood.
The Bible scholars who assign a late date to the Exodus do not do so because
they pay close attention to the words of Scripture. They do so because they
"defer to archaeologists and historians."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 12:00:10 EDT