Gordon wrote: I thought that you had said earlier that a copyist of Luke had
inserted 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.
I responded: That certainly would be a circular argument. ... That has been
Dick's position, not mine.
You wrote: Mike, I don't think you intended to say this.
You are right. I did not. I understand your position. I certainly did not
mean to say that it amounts to a circular argument. Or that you believe
copyists ever added a second Cainan to Luke. When I said, "That has been
Dick's position," I had in mind your belief that Luke himself included a
second Cainan in his genealogy of Christ because he found the same in the
LXX," not that a copyist of Luke had improperly done so. Sorry about the mix
Since some of the earliest copies of Luke, including the very earliest copy
of Luke that exists, do not contain a second Cainan, I assume you must
believe that this was the result of either an accidental oversight or a
deliberate corruption by these early copyists. That certainly is possible.
But due to the great attention to detail evident in the Papyrus Bodmer (P75),
the oldest copy of this portion of Luke in existence, I doubt that was the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 13 2002 - 20:00:07 EDT