Q. Should Cainan be included in Luke 3:36?
Luke
3:35-36 …the son of Sala, which was the son of
Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad…
A. Me? I am
fully prepared to live with the idea that (1) the name Cainan belongs in Luke
3:36, and that (2) I may not able to (a) completely understand it or (b) satisfactorily
explain it. That does not suffice for most folks, and I will attempt some
discussion of it.
What is the problem?
The
problem, succinctly stated, is that Cainan appears as the son of Arpahaxad and
father of Sala in Luke 3:35-36, while he is not mentioned in the Old Testament
genealogies of Genesis 10:24, 11:12, or 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24. Luke includes a
person in Shem’s genealogical line not found elsewhere in Scripture.
- Genesis 10:24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.
- Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
- 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24 And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. … Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah,
Why does
Cainan appear in Luke 3:36?
The range of explanations.
I will
limit the range of explanations to those maintained by Christians who believe
in the inspiration of the Bible. The unbeliever and critic may simply say that
Luke made a mistake. Bible believers do not have that option.
Cainan was in Genesis and 1 Chronicles originally, but was later omitted.
This explanation
would exonerate Luke by blaming a Hebrew scribal error much earlier than Luke
wrote his Gospel. A scribe omitted Cainan through parablepsis: that is, in this
case a scribe accidentally skipped from Arphaxad down to Salah, thereby
omitting Cainan from the genealogy. This view is extremely problematic, even
from a merely human standpoint. A scribe or scribes would have missed Cainan’s name
twice in Genesis 10 (Arphaxad begat Cainan;
and begat Salah), and four times in Genesis 11 (Something like: “And Arphaxad
lived five and thirty years, and begat Cainan and Arphaxad lived after he begat
Cainan four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Cainan
lived X-number years, and begat Salah: and Cainan lived after he begat Salah X-number
years, and begat sons and daughters…”). Additionally, a scribe or scribes would
have missed him again in 1 Chronicles chapter 1. This seems unlikely. Andrew E.
Steinmann highlights the problem:
“in order to defend Cainan as original to the text one is forced to propose a fairly complicated series of events that may have involved both accidental and purposeful changes to the text” and “the unlikely occurrence of three parallel cases of parablepsis at the identical generation in all three genealogies.”[i]
Cainan was in Luke originally.
- Luke included Cainan following the Septuagint reading
Both
critics and supporters of the Bible propose this explanation – simply that Luke
was using the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as the basis of his genealogy. Cainan is
in the Septuagint. Therefore, Cainan is in Luke. That nevertheless still leaves
open the question of whether Cainan should
be in the Septuagint.
- Luke included Cainan through a revelation of the Spirit
And, if
so, then Moses excluded him for the same reason (a revelation of the Spirit). “The Apparent Cainan Contradiction in Luke 3.36,” by Larry Brigden, Editorial
Consultant for the Trinitarian Bible Society, represents a form of this
argument. He writes, “Genealogies in Scripture are for specific purposes and it
is important to understand the purpose in each case.” According to Brigden, “the
genealogies in Genesis and 1 Chronicles do not record Cainan since their
purpose is to trace the godly seed, and Cainan has no part in that genealogy
because of his ungodliness.” On the other hand, “the purpose of the genealogy
in Luke…is not to distinguish the godly from the ungodly seed, nor to look
along that godly line in hope of the Saviour to come…Instead, Luke’s aim is to
trace a genealogical line to confirm the credentials of a Saviour already come,
as ‘son of David’, ‘son of Adam’ and ‘son of God’, for which purpose the
godliness or ungodliness of the members of the line was not so important.”
The
writing of scripture is often explained in human terms – as in Luke using the
Septuagint to record the genealogies of the descent of Jesus. Nevertheless, for
all those who hold to the divine inspiration and infallibility of the original
text of Scriptures, in whatever way the writer came to the completion of his
text it was under the guiding hand of the Spirit of God, a revelation of the
Spirit.
Cainan was not in Luke originally,
but was later added.
This is a “mistakes
of the scribes” explanation. John Gill and Andrew Steinmann represent past and
present authors who believe Cainan was inserted between Arphaxad and Shelah in
the LXX of Genesis 10-11 and 1 Chronicles 1 into order to harmonize the LXX
them with the Gospel of Luke.[ii] Gill writes:
“Ver. 36. Which was the son of Cainan. This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in Genesis xii.12 nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in I Chronicles i.24 where the genealogy is repeated; nor is it in Beza’s most ancient Greek copy of Luke:[iii] it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence, but seems to be owing to some early negligent transcriber of Luke’s Gospel, and since put into the Septuagint to give it authority: I say ‘early’, because it is in many Greek copies, and in the Vulgate Latin, and all the Oriental versions, even in the Syriac, the oldest of them; but ought not to stand neither in the text, nor in any version: for certain it is, there never was such a Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, for Salah was his son; and with him the next words should be connected…”[iv]
In the
minds of Gill and Steinmann, scribes inserted the name Cainan by homeoteleuton, that is, a scribe skips
to another word with same ending (or in this case, the same word: τοῦ καϊνὰν τοῦ αρφαξὰδ τοῦ σὴμ τοῦ νῶε τοῦ
λάμεχ τοῦ μαθουσαλὰ τοῦ ενὼχ τοῦ ιάρεδ τοῦ μαλελεὴλ τοῦ καϊνὰν). Commentator Matthew Poole seems to take a similar but
reverse view – a scribe deliberately added Cainan to Luke’s text to harmonize
it with the scribal error in the LXX genealogies of Genesis 10:24 and 11:13. To
Gill, the scribal error occurred in Luke, and scribes of the LXX did the
harmonizing.
The
problem with the idea of a scribal error in Luke 3:36 is that the reading is so
ubiquitous.[v] It pervaded almost the
entire Greek manuscript tradition (at least the ones currently available to us
today), and is in the early versions.[vi]
A textual variant.
In this
case, those who carry water for either the so-called “oldest and best” manuscripts
or the majority of manuscripts, as well as those who believe the Textus
Receptus represents the preserved word, will all likely end up holding to
Cainan in the text of Luke 3:36. Only one extant Greek manuscript omits Cainan
– Codex D/Bezae (aka GA05, Cantabrigiensis, and Stephani β), a fifth century
majuscule and Greek-Latin diglot. (For the reason I do not mention P75, see “The Tyranny of the Experts.”) According to Steinmann, “D’s Greek text is very idiosyncratic” and it “has quite a few remarkable omissions…”[vii] Additionally, Ehrman and Metzger tell us:
“No known manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the normal New Testament text. Codex Bezae’s special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences, and even incidents.”[viii]
The manuscript
evidence for removing Cainan is so thin that almost all Bible translations keep
“Cainan” in Luke 3:36. Every English 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).
Cainan mentioned elsewhere.
Cainan is
mentioned elsewhere in a few sources, though not everyone considers these
reliable. Here are two.
The
Alexandrine manuscript of the LXX includes Cainan in Genesis 10:24, 11:12-13 and
1 Chronicles 1:18 – but not 1 Chronicles 1:24-25.
- Genesis 10:24 And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.
- Genesis 11:12-13 And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Cainan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
- 1 Chronicles 1:18, 24-25 And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala, and Sala begot Eber. … 24 Sala, Eber, Pheleg, Ragan…
The Book
of Jubilees (circa 2nd century BC) in 8:1–5 inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and
Shelah. Thus, that genealogical chronology has been around awhile (but see
Steinmann, footnote ii). The
Jubilees account, which I see as somewhat dubious, introduces a story of Cainan
(Kâinâm in R. H. Charles’s translation), who sinned in transcribing omens of “the
Watchers” concerning the sun, moon, and stars. Some take this as an independent
uninspired historical account of the person mentioned in Luke 3:36, while
others reject it as a person derived from the LXX.[ix]
A possible but less common suggestion
In his comments on Luke 3:23, Johann Bengel writes:
“this clause, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, no less than that one to which it is immediately attached, ὢν υἱός, extends its force to the whole genealogical scale; and that too, in such a way as that the several steps are to be understood according to what the case and relation of each require and demand. Jesus was, as He was accounted, son of Joseph…He was, as he was accounted, Son of Heli…So in ver. 36 it was said, Sala was, as he was accounted, son of Cainan; whereas the Hellenistic Jews, following the lxx. interpretation reckoned him among the series of fathers after the flood. Therefore as far as concerns Joseph and Cainan, Luke, by the figure προθεραπεία [See Append.] or anticipatory precaution, thus counteracts the popular opinion, as Franc. Junius long ago saw…”[x]
Bengel here takes a different approach, which, if others have done so, I have overlooked. He thinks that since Luke was writing to Greeks, he referenced what
they knew by the LXX. Doing so does not endorse the presence of Cainan in the
genealogy, but simply recognizes he was by them generally supposed to be in the genealogy. Therefore, Luke flags his genealogical
statement with a “prefatory observation, as
was accounted, Luke 3:23...” (i.e., the Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles would
be following the LXX, which accounted Sala as the son of Cainan).[xi]
Concluding thoughts
The entire
question seems to proceed from the belief that either
the Masoretic text is right in omitting Cainan, or Luke is right in including Cainan – that both texts cannot be
right. This, however, ignores the fact seen within the testimony of the Bible
itself that genealogies are not always complete. It can be both/and rather than either/or.
In Matthew
1:1, Jesus Christ is the son of David, the son of Abraham – many generations are skipped. Even as the chapter continues and Matthew fills gaps, he does no fill all of
them. To see this, compare Matthew 1:8 and 1 Chronicles 3:10–14.[xii] Additionally, neither
son of (Matthew 1; Luke 3) nor begat (Genesis 5; 11) necessarily signifies
immediate parent-child relationship (cf. 2 Kings 20:18; Isaiah 39:7). Both Jacob
the Pharisees of Jesus’s day called Abraham “father,” when he was,
respectively, a grandfather (Genesis 32:9) and distant ancestor/ progenitor (John 8:39).
Shawn Brasseaux writes:
“Since Matthew skipped some names to provide only three sets of 14 generations in his genealogical records, surely, we can: (1) permit Moses and the Chronicler to intentionally skip one name in their respective Books, and (2) allow Luke to insert that name not found in the Old Testament in order to show Jesus’ perfection.”
At the conclusion, I am in much the same place I began.[xiii] I accept the idea that (1) the name Cainan belongs in Luke 3:36, and that (2) I may not able to (a) completely understand it or (b) satisfactorily explain it. I can live with this ambiguity.
[ii] Steinmann, ibid., p. 711. Gill commentary on Luke 3:36. Steinmann also believes Cainan’s mention in the Book of Jubilees is a late addition, p. 711. Some see Cainan as an addition influenced by the LXX. Jubilees 2:23 states there were 22 heads from Adam to Jacob. The presence of Cainan increases the number to 23. On the other hand, he could be deliberately excluded from the “heads” count for the same reason he is excluded from the Masoretic Text.
[iii] Despite Beza writing that about the absence of the name in an old codex, he kept “Cainan” (Καϊνὰν) in his Greek text. See 1598 Beza Greek Latin New Testament, p. 251.
[iv] Luke 3 Exposition by John Gill.
[v] Another variant is included in some manuscripts and translastions – the name “Admin” is inserted between Aminadab and Aram (aka Arni). See, for example, the ESV, NASB, NET, and RSV translations. The NET version note says “The number and order of the first few names in this verse varies greatly in the mss.”
[vi] For examples: Coptic Sahidic NT (circa 3rd century AD), Syriac Peshitta (circa 3rd century AD), Latin Vulgate (4th century AD), Gothic Wulfila (probably 4th century AD), and Armenian (circa 5th century AD; v. 34 in linked version). The proximity of the two Cainans in Luke 3:36-37 makes it seem likely that, if it were an error, it could have been caught and corrected by any number of scribes. Yet the extant manuscript tradition presents a very different scenario. I found one Reformation era translation that removes Cainan, the Diodati Italian version (1607), Luke 3:35b-36a “...figliuolo di Sala; Figliuolo d’Arfacsad, figliuolo di Sem...”
[vii] Steinmann, p. 702.
[viii] The Text of New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th Edition, Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 71.
[ix] “This extra generation does, however, appear in the 2nd century BCE work of the Book of Jubilees, a book that in other chronological respects owes little to the LXX. The existence of this second, independent source should suggest some caution in treating the extra generation of Cainan as merely a later interpolation made by LXX chronographers.” Jeremy Northcote, “The Schematic Development of Old Testament Chronography: Towards an Integrated Model,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2004, p. 8.
[x] Gnomon on the New Testament, Volume II, John Albert (Johann Albrecht) Bengel, translated by Andrew R. Fausset, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877, pp. 45-46. On verse 36: Τοῦ Καϊνὰν, Kainan) Let some, as best they can, furnish out a plausible array of some MSS. which are without the name Cainan: one is without it, viz. Cantabrigiensis, called also Stephani β, and also codex Bezæ [D]; which, as being a MS. containing the Latin as well as the Greek, deserves the title, not so much of a codex, as of a rhapsody comprising various readings of fathers. “Even supposing that in countless copies of the New and Old Testaments,” as Voss rightly remarks, “the name of this Cainan were wanting, which however is not the case, yet no argument could be derived from that circumstance. For the reason of the omission would be evident from the fact that the Church approved of and followed the calculation of Africanus and Eusebius; and therefore I wonder that more copies are not found, in which the name of Cainan is expunged.”—c. Horn., p. 13. Nevertheless so many in our time disapprove of the Cainan here, that there is a risk of its being ere long thrust out from Luke; a judgment which betrays great rashness, as Rich. Simon on this passage properly remarks, and so also Gomarus. Besides Cainan is retained in Luke by J. E. Grabius, John Hardouin, Jac. Hasæus, G. C. Hosmann, to whom are to be added thes. phil. p. 174 of Hottinger, Glassius, etc. Among the ancients is Ambrose, who, on Luke vii., says, “The Lord was born of Mary in the seventy-seventh generation.” That this Cainan was mentioned in the lxx. Version made before the nativity of Christ (See Genesis x.24; Genesis xi.12; 1 Chronicles i.18, [in which passages Cainan’s name is passed over]) the Chronicon of Demetrius in Eusebius, B. ix. præp. Ev. page 425, proves. Moreover many documents attest that Theophilus, to whom Luke wrote, was at Alexandria. There is no doubt but that ‘Cainan’ was read at least in the lxx. Version at Alexandria, that I may not say that it was in that city the insertion of his name took place. Wherefore it was not suitable that ‘Cainan’ should already at that early time [the first sending of the Gospel to Alexandria] be either omitted by Luke or marked openly with the brand of spuriousness. Elsewhere also Luke made that concession to the Hellenistic Jews, that he followed the lxx. translators in preference to the Hebrew text. Acts vii.14. And so here he did not expunge ‘Cainan,’ whose name was inserted in their version. And yet he did not thereby do any violence to truth; for the fact of the descent of Jesus Christ from David, though some fathers have been passed over in Matthew, and similarly on the other hand Cainan has been retained in Luke, still remains uninjured. Nay, even he took precaution for the exactness of the main truth by that prefatory observation, as was accounted, ver. 23, where see the note. In fine, it is not the province of those who discuss the New Testament to warrant the infallible accuracy of readings of the lxx. translators. In the chronology the question concerning Cainan is of especial moment. Therefore we have said something concerning that person in the Ordo Temporum, p. 52 (Ed. ii., p. 44, 45), Lightfoot read Cainan in the Accusative form (‘Cainanem’). Gnomon, pp. 47-48.
[xi] At risk of possibly forfeiting my “KJVo card,” I must say I find this solution appealing. J
[xii] Ozias is Uzziah, also called Azariah. Matthew skips 3 generations – Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah – related to God’s purpose of creating three groups of fourteen. Hilary of Poitiers (circa AD 310–368) adds this explanation in his commentary on Matthew: “It was done in this way because Joram begot Ahaziah from a pagan woman, that is, from the household of Ahab, and it was declared by the prophet that not until the fourth generation would anyone from the household of Ahab sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel.” Augustine and others have found significance in Luke including 77 generations (though Luke, unlike Matthew, does not mention a numerical significance). “But Luke, who ascends up through the generations from the baptism of the Lord, makes up the number seventy-seven, beginning to ascend from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through Joseph, and coming through Adam up to God.” (Augustine of Hippo, Sermon on the agreement of the evangelists Matthew and Luke in the generations of the Lord.)
[xiii] In all the discussion of Cainan, there is one difficulty that troubles me (that is, one that I would prefer to resolve in a better way than I have). I take the Genesis chrono-genealogies in a literal way of measuring time and understanding the age of the world. That being true, then, though there is a gap of a generation in Genesis 11, there is not a gap in time – which the LXX tries to fill in a quite bungling way, giving Cainan exactly the same figures as his son Salah. Maintaining my “status quo,” then Arphaxad and Cainan must have begotten children when they were about 18 and/or 17 years of age. Not impossible, but quite distinct from the rest of the begetting ages in Genesis 11.
No comments:
Post a Comment