You wrote: I thought that you had said earlier that a copyist of Luke had
Cainan because he was in the LXX. Now you say that a copyist of the LXX
inserted his name because it was in Luke. This is circular. It must have
begun somewhere. The question of most interest is how it got into either
document in the first place.
That certainly would be a circular argument. And I never made it. I challenge
you to reread my posts on this subject and show that I did. I did not. That
has been Dick's position, not mine. I have steadfastly maintained that first
century copies of the LXX did not contain any mention of a second Cainan and
that mentions of two Cainans in Luke's genealogy of Christ was the result of
a late copyist's error since a second Cainan does not appear in the earliest
existing copies of Luke's Gospel. I have also said more, a few times now, and
quoted well respected reference works agreeing with me, that late corrupted
copies of Luke influenced LXX copyists to add a second Cainan to the LXX in
order to bring it in line with their copies of Luke.
You wrote: Whether or not Admin was in the ancestral line of Jesus, there is
still reason to believe that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke omit some
generations between Abraham and David.
I have no problem with this. I freely admit that several genealogies in the
scriptures, after those in Gen. 5 and 11 which were clearly written to serve
as chronologs, have been abbreviated since they were only written only for
the purpose of demonstrating lineage. However, much of the chronological
information contained in the Genesis genealogies would be rendered useless if
they contain gaps. I say there is no credible evidence that they do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 11 2002 - 23:09:35 EDT