Hi Mike, you wrote:
>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.
No, I presume that Luke got his information directly from the LXX,
and that a copyist not finding Cainan in the Hebrew due to its
elimination by a careless scribe, decided to eliminate it from Luke
as he was making copies, thus the variant texts. Dating texts is
certainly no easier than dating flood sediments which you reject out
of hand. To say that a copy is older than another does not
automatically mean that it is closer to the original or has fewer
errors. Copies went all over the place. There easily could have
been older texts that have long sense perished containing the second
Cainan. We'll never know for sure.
Yours in Christ,
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 00:06:20 EDT