You wrote: You can't disprove the existence of the second Cainan merely by
questioning the overall quality of the LXX.
I think in my attempt to disprove the existence of a second Cainan I have
questioned far more than just the overall quality of the LXX. Dick has been
arguing that Luke referenced the LXX when writing his Gospel and, he has
said, that is why Luke included a second Cainan in his genealogy of Christ.
But I have cited much historical evidence, and I can cite more, that copies
of the LXX which existed at the time of Luke did not anywhere mention a
second Cainan. That being the case, it is the opinion of most who have
thoroughly studied this matter 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) If these things are so, then the mention of a second Cainan in
Gen.11 of the LXX is meaningless.
You wrote: You seem to imply that the presence of Cainan in Luke's genealogy
is due to the Textus Receptus, which I agree is very unreliable. Most modern
translations are not based on the Textus Receptus but on much better
researched versions of the Greek
text, but even they include Cainan in Luke 3:36.
I realized I had worded that poorly as soon as I sent off that post. I wrote,
"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." I should have added, "and also unwisely included in other
manuscript collections from which most modern Bibles are translated."
You wrote: Incidentally, there is also another interesting but probably
textual problem in Luke 3. That is the presence of Admin in 3:33 in a number
of Greek manuscripts but not in others. Some translations include him, and
others omit him. Admin occurs in neither the MT nor the LXX of the
corresponding genealogy in Ruth 4, which may explain why a copyist might have
omitted him in Luke 3.
You wonder why some copyists "might have omitted him [Admin] in Luke 3."
However, It seems to me that it makes much more sense to wonder why some late
copyists included him. For I just checked my copy of the Papyrus Bodmer, "the
earliest known copy of the Gospel according to Luke," which has been dated as
early as AD 175 (The Text Of The New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption,
and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford University Press, 1992). "Admin"
is not there. I also checked my copy of the Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis,
which was written a little after AD 500. Again, "Admin" cannot be found. How
"Admin" found his way into some late copies of Luke's gospel is anybody's
guess. Mine would be that sometime about a thousand years ago a man with the
name "Admin," and a very big ego, was busy making a lot of copies of Luke.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 02:23:49 EDT