The Tyranny of the Experts

Trust but verify.

(Somewhat related to yesterday’s “Genesis 5, Genesis 11: Primeval Chronology.”) In a recent online discussion, an internet acquaintance argued against the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36. He emphasized Bodmer papyrus P75 as the best support for his position, writing:

“P75 of the Bodmer Papyri collection is the earliest copy of the Book of Luke, dating from 175AD to 225AD. It has virtually the entire book of Luke and is the oldest copy of the book of Luke on record. It does NOT have Cainan as mentioned in the KJV of Luke 3:36.”

In doing so, the writer fell prey to the tyranny of the experts. He trusted, but did not verify. Since I was aware that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has scans of Greek manuscripts online, I decided to look for P75. I found it there.

A bit of history.

𝔓⁷⁵ (according to the Gregory-Aland numbering)[i] was discovered in the 1950s and was published in 1961 by Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser.[ii] Martin and Kasser thought they identified a fragment that contained a few letters of Luke 3:36. They “reconstructed” Luke 3:35-36, conjecturing this would have had “σαλα του αρφαξαδ” (Sala [the son] of Arphaxad) – without the intervening “του καιναν” ([the son] of Cainan).[iii]

The claim of Martin and Kasser made its way into the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Probably from that foundation – which many scholars, researchers, translators, and commentators have and use (Martin and Kasser, not so much) – “Cainan is not in P75” has evolved into a veritable “Christian urban myth.”

“Proving” and promoting an error.

This P75 factoid led Edward D. Andrews, chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version (2022), to bracket the words [the son of Cainan,] in Luke 3:36. This footnote excerpt explains the reasoning.

P⁷⁵ and D do not contain “son of Cainan,” in agreement with Gen. 10:24; Gen. 11:12, 15; 1Ch 1:18. Some manuscripts contain a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad and Shelah. (Lu 3:35-36; compare Gen 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this same position in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Samaritan texts, nor the Targums, but it is found in the Greek Septuagint (Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E.)...P⁷⁵ is the absolute best Greek NT manuscript, the weightiest of them all. It is for this reason that the Updated American Standard Version has placed [the son of Cainan] in square brackets, which indicates that there is some doubt as to its originality.

The New English Translation (2017) Bible contains this note:

“Luke 3:36 tc It is possible that the name Καϊνάμ (Kainam) should be omitted, since two key mss, P^75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of the Hebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Gen 11:12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L ƒ1 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 ƒ13 M (Καϊνάν, Kainan). The translation above has adopted the more common spelling ‘Cainan,’ although it is based on the reading Καϊνάμ.” [That is, the NA has Καϊνάμ. The TR has Καϊνὰν. rlv]

In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke (1994), Darrell L. Bock writes,

Καϊνάμ (Cainan)—This name lacks a Hebrew equivalent in the MT. It is, however, present as Καϊνάν in the LXX of Gen. 11:12 and 10:24 and in manuscript A of 1 Chron. 1:18. Most take this as evidence that Luke is using the LXX (Marshall 1978: 165; Schürmann 1969: 201 n. 101). More difficult is the order of names in the LXX, for there Cainan appears as the father of Sala, not his son, as here (Plummer 1896: 104). Plummer regards the name in the LXX text as possibly a late insertion, since it is not attested independently until Augustine. However, he is clear that the LXX addition cannot find its source in Luke, since the order differs. The possibility that Luke had access to a different source containing this name in a different order cannot be excluded. There is good possibility that the name should be omitted in Luke, since 𝔓⁷⁵ and D omit the name here and it reappears in 3:37. If it is omitted, then the eleven groups of seven noted in the translation include Joseph. Again, there is too little evidence to make a clear decision.[iv]

I have read a number of scholars claim Cainan in Luke 3:36 inauthentic based on, primarily, P75. General descriptions of P75 often state concerning Luke that it contains most of the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53. However, when I looked at the scan of P75 at Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts site, the actual picture makes the story clearer. In its present state, it provides no witness on verse 36. Even the description of the text at CSNTM is – “Text: Luke 3.18, Luke 3.19, Luke 3.20, Luke 3.21, Luke 3.22, Luke 4.4.”

Two links to P75.

Take a look for yourself:

• Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
• DVL, Digital Vatican Library

Making sense of it.

The note about P75 placed in Nestle-Aland apparatus really should not even be there, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it should give pause. P^75vid (i.e., videtur) in this context means “it seems to be but is uncertain.” Good reason not to propose this “variant” as certain proof! Some academics, if they took the time to look at P75, must not have wanted to question “the experts.” Maybe they were like me. (And realize, P75 was not readily available for inspection until recent years.) Initially I thought I must be wrong about something. The more I looked, however, I thought “no” mine eyes deceive me not. I felt better when I found that others more knowledgeable than I had concluded the same. Recently Kris Udd, Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Archaeology of Grace University, has provided a new look at this fragment in “Luke 3:36 in P75 -A Misidentified Fragment?” His conclusion, better attested than that of Martin and Kasser, is that P75 does not preserve any portion of Luke 3:36. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove either the absence or presence of “Cainan” in that verse. Moreover, he shows that more likely the fragment in question comes from the first chapter of Luke instead of the third.

Interestingly, every single English Bible translation at Bible Gateway (about 60) has Cainan in Luke 3:36 (most with the traditional spelling, but a few otherwise, such as Ca-i′nan, Kainan, Keinan). See Luke 3:36 on Bible Gateway. The fact of the matter is that most Bible translations keep “Cainan” in Luke 3:36 because it is in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Truth be told, once P75 is removed from equation, contra Cainan, only D (GA 05, Codex Bezae) remains of those I have seen mentioned.

Codex Bezae, in Greek and Latin, does not have “Cainan”

Images,: P75 and Bezae: Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Used in accordance with federal fair use doctrine.

In whatsoever manner the “problem” of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is to be resolved, the resolution is not to try to harmonize that verse with Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12, 15, and 1 Chronicles 1:18 by removing the name from Luke 3. It belongs there.

Trust but verify.

---

[i] Other names used for identifying this manuscript are Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV and Hanna Papyrus 1. Currently this manuscript is in the Vatican Library in Vatican City, Rome, Italy.
[ii] Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV. Évangile de Luc, chap. 3-24, Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961. See, for example “The Bodmer Papyri: An Inventory of ‘P.Bodmer’ Items ,” by Brent Nongbri.
[iii] Martin dated P75 to the early third century, and possibly most often we will see the claim of AD 175 to AD 250. In “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, Issue 2, June 2016, pp. 405–437), Brent Nongbri has argued that both “paleographically and codicologically” P75 fits in the fourth-century.
[iv] Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, Volume 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994, pp. 358–359.