John 1:1 in Sinaiticus

The following is the text copied from the Codex Sinaiticus website (with a picture below), regarding John 1:1.

[I am unable to type exactly in the style of the uncial, especially the macron or line above the nomina sacra. The last two letters in the last line are the first two letters of the word in verse 2.]

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟC 
ΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟCΗΝ 
ΠΡΟCΤΟΝΘΝΚΑΙ 
ΘCΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΟΥ

Which we read in modern printed texts as:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

I have read and heard some claims that that the differences in John 1:1 (e.g., a god instead of God) are because of Codex Sinaiticus. I am no fan of Sinaiticus; I think it is a bad manuscript that should not be followed. However, as far as John 1:1 is concerned, Sinaiticus appears to have the same text in that verse as the Stephanus, Scrivener, Westcott-Hort, NU, SBLGNT, etc.

If someone is translating this verse differently, it is a translation issue rather than textual.

Spirit or Light? Ephesians 5:9

It is to be expected that when we write polemically, we try to put our own position in the best light. Some Bible translations write their text-critical notes to put their position in the best light. While I expect them to believe what they produce, nevertheless it seems that text-critical notes should be aimed more at education than disputation. What am I talking about?

This is often seen in comments on Mark 16:9-20, where it is pointed out that this text is “not in the oldest and best manuscripts.” They most often do not clarify they are only talking about two manuscripts, both of which have quirks at the end of Mark. See, for example, Odd Features at the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus.

This type of diversion can be seen in the text-critical note on Ephesians 5:9 in the New English Translation (NET) by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. The traditional reading is “Spirit,” while most modern translations have “light” instead

• NET: for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth—
• KJV: for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;

The Textus Receptus and Critical Texts differ in one word.

• CT: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
• TR: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ

Excerpted from the NET Bible®:

Ephesians 5:9 tc Several mss (P⁴⁶ D² Ψ 1175* 1505 M) have πνεύματος (pneumatos, “Spirit”) instead of φωτός (phōtos, “light”) ... Further, the external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling (P⁴⁹ א A B D* F G P 33 81 1175^c 1739 1881 2464 latt co).

Notice how that, according to the NET, “Several mss” have “Spirit” (6 are listed), but the “external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling” – and over twice as many MSS are listed in support of that reading. This could impress the uninitiated that the majority of manuscripts support the reading φωτός/light. Nevertheless, the majority of extant manuscripts actually support the traditional reading – πνεύματος/Spirit. See, for example, the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont, which agrees with the Textus Receptus:

ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ —

In my opinion, Critical Text advocates often find their tales in cracks and try to skew the evidence polemically toward their viewpoint rather than educationally pointing out the facts for readers to consider and make a choice. Again, I am not opposed to disputation in polemical fields of discussion. Nevertheless, text-critical notes in Bibles are not the place for such sleight-of-hand magic tricks!

Fulgentius of Ruspe and Comma Johanneum

Fulgentius of Ruspe (circa AD 465 – 530) was a bishop in the 6th century in the city of Ruspe, in the Roman province of North Africa, in what is modern day Tunisia. His doctrinal writings include the polemic against the Arian doctrines of the Vandal rulers of Africa.

Responsio contra Arianos, or Against the Arians, replies to ten questions proposed by the Arian ruler King Thrasamund. Part of his response, below, seems to (1) say that John the apostle wrote, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one,” and (2) that Cyprian believed that was authoritative Scripture.

In the Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we acknowledge unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons.

For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth. And that he might shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the scriptures; The Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” And again, “of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one.’ (1 John 5:7).”

In the book on the Lord’s Prayer as well, to show that the Trinity is of one divinity and does not have any separateness among itself, he mentioned Daniel and the three boys who would say a prayer every three hours. Thus, by the course of three hours and the service of one prayer, he evidently showed that the Trinity is one God. We, therefore, do not worship one God, [consisting] of three parts; but retaining without beginning, of the perfect and eternal Father, not unequal in power, and equal in nature; and we also confess, that the Holy Spirit is no other than God, neither different from the Father, nor the Son, nor confounded in the Son, nor in the Father. (Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne,1825; Horne, “IV. Sect. V. On the First General Epistle of John” in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1825, Volume 4, page 448.

In Latin:

In Patre ergo et Filio et Spiritu sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus.

Beatus enim Ioannes apostolus testatur, dicens: Tressunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt (I Ioan. V, 7) . Quod etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus, in epistola de Unitate Ecclesiae confitetur, dicens: Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Atque ut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, haec confestim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum: De Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Ettres unum sunt. 

Nam et in libro de Oratione dominica, ut ostenderet Trinitatem unius deitatis,esse nec inter se aliquam diversitatem habere, Danielem et tres pueros, ternarum horarum circulis revolutis, orationem fundere solitos memoravit. Ubi et in trium horarum curriculo, et inunius orationis officio, unum Deum esse Trinitatem evidenter ostendit. (0224C) Non ergo extribus partibus unum colimus Deum, sed apostolicae fidei regulam retinentes, perfectum et consempiternum Filium, de perfecto et sempiterno Patre, sine initio genitum, et potestate non imparem, et natura fatemur aequalem. Sanctum quoque Spiritum non aliud fatemur esse quam Deum, nec a Filio nec a Patre diversum, nec in Filio nec in Patre confusum. (Fulgentius, Responsio contra Arianos; Migne Latina, PL 65.224)

De Trinitate ad Felicem, or, Of the Trinity to Felix, also mentions the three heavenly witnesses.

See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another, in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard He says: “The Father and I, we are one.” He teaches us that “one” refers to Their nature, and ”we are” to Their persons. In like manner it is said: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one.” Let Sabellius hear “we are” [plural], let him hear “three", and let him believe that there are three Persons.

Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in Himself as the Son is the same in Himself and as the Holy Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could beget Himself, or in some way proceed from Himself. Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said of that, the nature of which is different.” (Fulgentius, On the Trinity, chapter 4; Translated by William A. Jurgens, 1970, vol 3, p. 291-292)

In Latin:

En habes in brevi alium esse Patrem, alium Filium, alium Spiritum sanctum: alium etalium in persona, non aliud et aliud in natura; et idcirco Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus (Ioan. X, 30). Unum, ad naturam referre nos docet, Sumus, ad personas. Similiter et illud: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et hitres unum sunt (I Ioan. V, 7). Audiat Sabellius sumus, audiat tres, et credat esse tres personas, et non sacrilego corde blasphemet, dicendo ipsum sibi esse Patrem, ipsum sibi Filium, ipsum sibi Spiritum sanctum: tanquam modo quodam seipsum gignat, aut modo quodam a seipso ipse procedat; cum hoc etiam in naturis creatis minime invenire possit, ut aliquid seipsum gignere valeat. Audiat scilicet et Arius, Unum, et non differentis Filium dicat essenaturae, cum natura diversa unum dici nequeat. (Fulgentius, De Trinitate, chap iv; Migne Latina, PL 65.500)

Other notes about Fulgentius of Ruspe.

• Fulgentius wrote frequently against Arianism and Pelagianism.
• Eight of the doctrinal treatises ascribed to him are solidly considered to be authentic (i.e., ascribed correctly).
• Pseudo-Fulgentius, by an anonymous Nicene author, was incorrectly attributed to Fulgentius of Ruspe in the17th century.
• De fide ad Petrum was formerly attributed to Augustine, but now understood to be by Fulgentius.

The important point to take away from Fulgentius of Ruspe is not whether he was “doctrinally sound all around,” but that he, in the 6th century, knew of and is witness to Scripture (manuscripts) that contained what we call the Johannine Comma, Comma Johanneum, or the Three Heavenly Witnesses.

Frankenstein Greek text

Frankentext (or Franken-text), noun. Reconstructed textual readings which can be found in no extant manuscripts; that is, textual units (e.g., a verse) of a printed Greek New Testament whose exemplar cannot be found in any extant Greek manuscript (a portmanteau of Frankenstein and text).[i]

Thomas Ross talked about this problem in his debate with James Whiteout R. White. White seemed somewhat unable to comprehend it. (Listen to the opening statement of Ross, starting about 50:14 through 52:25. Ross lists 41 examples from Matthew and Mark alone. His statements are based on the work of Reuben Swanson and others in New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus, Matthew; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1995.)

The following comments are by Robert Adam Boyd from the Dwayne Green YouTube Channel, slightly edited for print medium (and used with Green’s permission). I do not believe I have changed any meaning with the lite editing, but to get the exact statements of Adam Boyd, please listen to “The Byzantine text is BETTER THAN the Critical Text” at about 7:38 to 8:49.

A great example is Matthew 19:29. The English Standard Version translation reads:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.

There are two variants here. The first one is “houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands.” The only manuscript that says it that way is Vaticanus (Codex Vaticanus). All of the other manuscripts add the word “wife” – “or wife or children or lands.”

The other variant is “hundredfold.” There are a lot of manuscripts that say “hundredfold,” but Vaticanus is not one of them. Vaticanus says “manifold.” When you put those two variants together, you do not have any manuscript whatsoever that reads the way the ESV translation reads. So the ESV is translating, as you call it, a “Frankentext.” It’s not actually translating from any manuscript for the entirety of the verse.

[Note 1: Adam Boyd says he finds it “quite implausible that the original text of the Greek New Testament would not be preserved in at least one manuscript, and that that would happen more than a hundred times over the course of the Greek New Testament. I don’t believe that.” At about 6:25, Boyd says that are about 105 verses in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that, when you string together the variants, you cannot find any manuscript whatsoever that has that exact reading. See 105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament Without Any Manuscript Support, by Maurice Robinson.]

[Note 2: Robert Adam Boyd is an ordained minister, a linguist/translator with Wycliffe Bible Translators in Papua New Guinea, and the translator & editor of The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version. To be clear, Adam Boyd is a Majority Text proponent, while Thomas Ross and I are Textus Receptus proponents. Nevertheless, we agree about “Frankentext,” and Boyd does a good job giving a succinct singular example here.]

---

[i] “Frankenstein” technically refers to the scientist Victor Frankenstein in Mary W. Shelley’s novel by that same name; but in common parlance a “Frankenstein” is a monstrous creature stitched or spliced together from various odd sources. In the story, the creator (Dr. Frankenstein) loses control of his creation and that ultimately destroys Victor Frankenstein. Correspondingly, a “Frankentext” is a monstrous creature stitched or spliced together out of various odd parts of Greek manuscripts to create a new, previously unknown, Greek text.

Erasmus on Vaticanus

Erasmian scholar H. J. De Jonge comments on this subject. Here are some excerpts and a link.

“Erasmus believed that the Ecumenical Council of Ferrera and Florence (1438-45), whose chief object had been the reunion of the Latin and Greek churches, had decided in favour of adapting the Greek manuscripts to the Vulgate.”

“‘It should be pointed out here in passing, that certain Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been corrected in agreement with those of the Latin Christians. This was done at the time of the reunion of the Greeks and the Roman church. This union was confirmed in writing in the so-called Golden Bull…We too once came across a manuscript of this nature, and it is said that such a manuscript is still preserved in the papal library (  ) written in majuscule characters.’

“The manuscript to which Erasmus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus par excellence, now Gr 1209, designated as B. Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as influenced by the Vulgate and therefore inferior. For the same reasons he had earlier, in 1515/6, also excluded Gregory I as an inferior manuscript, from the constitution of the Greek text of his own Novum Instrumentum although this manuscript is now generally regarded as more reliable than the Codices which Erasmus preferred and made use of. Erasmus passed the same verdict on the Codex Rhodiensis (minuscule Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52) from which Stunica cited readings in his polemic against Erasmus.”

de Jonge points out that the Golden Bull did not mention Latinizing Greek texts. Later, Erasmus would clarify that he had heard that it had done so. He nevertheless continued to maintain that the latinizing of Greek manuscripts was done.

Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 1980, pp. 381-389

Should Cainan be included in Luke 3:36?

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 Cainan 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).

Codex D/Bezae with red line where Cainan should be

Cainan mentioned elsewhere.

Cainan is mentioned elsewhere in a few sources, though not everyone considers these reliable. Here are two.

The Septuagint

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

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.

---

[i] “Challenging the Authenticity of Cainan, Son of Arpachshad,” Andrew E. Steinmann, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2017, p .699. Such an idea is also problematic from a standpoint of providential preservation.
[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.

“the KJV has 1,000 different words...”

Several days ago, a member on the King James Bible/Textus Receptus Defenders Facebook group posted a link and wrote:

“I’m looking for sincere and respectful discussion if possible. King James only folks, how would you respond to this information?”

His sincerity is questionable, since he only seemed to engage with those with whom he could start an argument, or wanted to start an argument with him. Those who were “sincere and respectful” did not rate replies, apparently. After too much pushback, he took the post down. I am saving my reply by posting it here.

The statements to which he sought discussion is this below, which originated HERE.

“What do you do with the fact that the KJV has 1,000 different words that do not mean today what they meant in 1611, even having the opposite meaning? Our understanding of Hebrew and Greek has astronomically improved since 1611. There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611, and we now have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts and numerous ones dating within decades of the originals. And the 1611 KJV translators said in the 1611 PREFACE that a new revision should be made upon such circumstances. So, why reject efforts to do so with the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV), the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the 1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV), and the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version (UASV)? Are not these revisions simply following the instructions of the 1611 KJV translators?”

1. “What do you do with the fact that the KJV has 1,000 different words that do not mean today what they meant in 1611, even having the opposite meaning?”

A. First, I would ask from whence this number comes? It sounds excessive and doubtful. I have an Excel file of “hard/difficult” words in the KJV (so-called archaic, obsolete, and “false friends”) compiled from the works of Mark Ward and others. I have only 123 words in that file – far off from 1000! Another inaccuracy is saying that the words “do not mean what they meant in 1611.” This is a loose way of stating something that often does not agree with the facts. For example, take the word “suffer.” Many people would say it has “changed meaning.” However, it is not hard to search for the word “suffer” in the KJV and find there it can mean either “allow” and “to endure pain.” Look it up on Dictionary.com and definition 7 is “to tolerate or allow” (the same meaning some claim no longer exists!). Possibly what people mean is that we seldom use it that way anymore. That is not the same as it no longer carrying that meaning in its semantic range.

Another is the word “let.” The meaning of “let” has not evolved from “to hinder” into “to allow” over the course of 400 years since the KJV was produced. Search the King James Bible and we will find that “let” has the meaning of “to allow” which was in use in 1611 (even in the same chapter, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, e.g.). The varying or opposite meanings of the word “let” is not a case of a word altering its meaning over time. The etymology of these words show that the “let” that means “to allow” and the “let” that means “to hinder” are homonyms – two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different. The words each have a different origin or entrance into the English language.

2. “Our understanding of Hebrew and Greek has astronomically improved since 1611.”

A. To this assertion, I would ask, “Has it really improved?” Perhaps in some ways, yes, but even if so astronomical is a ridiculous adjective to use. However, even if it has improved in some ways (there are always new discoveries) it clearly has not in others.

Let me quote Bart Ehrman, a recognized top-notch text critic (and specifically referenced since he is obviously not KJV-even, much less KJVO). Speaking of the KJ translators, he says, “...the best answer is that there were forty-seven translators, who were all skilled, highly skilled, in Greek and Hebrew. Today when somebody is highly skilled in Greek, like Jeff Siker and me, we’re considered highly skilled – that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a good dictionary sitting next to us. These guys, including King James, could speak Greek and did speak Greek to each other when they felt like it. They could read Hebrew like the newspaper. These were serious serious scholars. They didn’t have TV – no ESPN. So what did they do? They sat around and studied Greek. This is what they did. And Latin, and Hebrew...” (From Ehrman’s keynote address at the “Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible” exhibition at the William H. Hannon Library at Loyola Marymount University in 2013.)

Daniel R. Streett passed out a Greek quiz at the Evangelical Theological Society in November 2008. He summarized the experience this way, “...my audience was made up of mostly Greek professors and doctoral-level students who had probably taken, on average, 4-7 years of Greek by now and some of whom had been teaching Greek for 20-30 years by now. After the audience had finished, I collected their quizzes. The average ‘grade’ was 0.4 out of 10 correct.” That doesn’t sound astronomical, or even good, to me.

For more information on these, see “Do they know Greek?”

3. “There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611, and we now have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts and numerous ones dating within decades of the originals.”

A. I understand that many manuscripts have been discovered. I assume “thousands” would be an accurate representation (although, something recently “discovered” may have been known to those in prior times, and the exact total number we have today is a matter of continuing debate). It is worth mentioning that thousands of manuscripts have been lost from the 1st century until now. So those were accessible to others but not to us.

Interestingly, the primary Greek text promoted today often ignores the thousands (majority) and go with the minority (especially Sinaiticus & Vaticanus). The “embarrassment of riches” of thousands of manuscripts are embarrassingly disregarded in favor of two older manuscripts that have many disagreements just between themselves. An interesting way to look at this is to notice that the majority texts of Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpoint, and Pickering exhibit much closer agreement with the Textus Receptus than with the Critical Text. Why? Because the “embarrassment of riches” of thousands of manuscripts usually, though not always, favor the readings in the TR. The “thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611” usually support the TR rather than the CT. Further, the KJV translators and others even before their time knew about the variants most commonly cited today.

4. “And the 1611 KJV translators said in the 1611 PREFACE that a new revision should be made upon such circumstances. So, why reject efforts to do so with the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV), the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the 1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV), and the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version (UASV)? Are not these revisions simply following the instructions of the 1611 KJV translators?”

A. To what statement in the 1611 does this refer? It is hard to address unidentified assertions, that is, whether I think they are following the instructions of the translators without inspecting the statement. Even if they were, which is doubtful, the specific efforts mentioned (ERV, ASV, RSV, NASB, UASV) are based on different Greek texts.

Too often “The Translators To The Reader” by Miles Smith (the 1611 Preface) is bone-picked by both sides to see what meat they can find for their arguments, with really trying to understand it in context. Some people think the King James translation is a poor translation and try to convince others so. Some of these same people, when they write about the preface in the King James, then act as if everything in it must be taken as if it were inspired! It would be comical if not such as serious issue.

[Note: this version has been slightly modified, with typographical and grammatical corrections, and formatting not available in the Facebook group.]

The apographa or copies of the originals

apograph, noun. A copy. The apographs or apographa (plural), in reference to the Bible, refer to copies as opposed to the original media (autographs or autographa) as first penned by the original writers.

The apograph of the book of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth is scripture.

Luke 4 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written…And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down...And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

The apograph which Jesus asked the chief priests and elders whether they had read is scripture.

Matthew 21 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching…Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The apograph to which the Jews at Jerusalem had access is scripture.

John 5 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem… Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him…Then answered Jesus and said unto them…Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 10 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

The apograph the eunuch of Ethiopia carried with him from Jerusalem is scripture.

Acts 8 … a man of Ethiopia…was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet… The place of the scripture which he read was this… Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture…

The apograph of the law at the the synagogue at Antioch Pisidia is scripture.

Acts 13 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets...

The apograph in possession of the synagogue Thessalonica is scripture.

Acts 17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures

The apograph in possession of the synagogue at Berea is scripture.

Acts 17 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The apograph available to Timothy is scripture.

2 Timothy 3 and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God…

All scripture is given by inspiration of God

2 Timothy 3 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Additionally, these texts suggest a valid copy of scripture is scripture.

• The copy of the book of the law made for the king of Israel is authoritative scripture (Deuteronomy 17:18-19).
• The copy of the law of Moses written by Joshua upon stones at mount Ebal is authoritative scripture (Joshua 8:32).
• The copy of the book of the law read by Ezra in Jerusalem is authoritative scripture (Nehemiah 8).
• The proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah copied out is authoritative scripture (Proverbs 25:1).
• The copy of the book of the law to which a certain lawyer and certain Pharisees had access is is authoritative scripture (Matthew 12:5; Luke 10:26).

Text critical “re”verses

In the spirit of irony, Bible verse “translations” consistent with modern text critical views of the preservation of Scripture. (Select the blue links to see what the scriptures really say.)

Matthew 21:42 - Jesus saith unto them, I know ye never read in the scriptures, since ye only have copies with errors instead of the autographs.

Matthew 22:29 - Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not having the scriptures, nor even perfect copies thereof.

Mark 15:28 - And the scripture might have been fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors (that is, if the copy that recordest those words be accurate).

Luke 16:29 - Abraham said to the rich man, I know that thy brothers do not have Moses and the prophets, since the autographs have not been kept pure in all ages. However, they do have manuscript copies, which they can accept as mostly correct, since Moses and the prophets are probably scattered in these various manuscripts. They can check that out.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, and had to explain, because they were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, but have not been accurately preserved until this time in history.

John 5:39 - Search for the scriptures; for ye think ye have them: but ye have them not. Ye have only inaccurate copies.

John 7:42 - Hath not the scripture said? (We really dost not know, since the inspired autographs have not been preserved.)

Acts 8:35 - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and showed the eunuch he could not be sure what Isaiah wrote or meant, since there were variants in all the copies.

Acts 17:11 - These acted differently than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all sorts of questions in their minds, and searched the manuscripts daily, whether they had the word of God or no.

Romans 4:3 - For what saith the scripture? Without the autographs we cannot be sure, but we think that maybe Abraham believed God, and hope that it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 15:4 - For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning. However, since God didst not preserve them pure in all ages, we through the scriptures do not know how much hope to have, or whether we have hope.

2 Timothy 3:15 - And that from a child thou hast thought thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are really only inaccurate copies and poor translations, unable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture was given by inspiration of God, and would be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, hadst God chosen to preserve them pure in all ages.

James 4:5 - Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? Yea, probably so, since thou canst never be sure it was copied accurately.

Wow! What a difference in how Jesus and the apostles described the scriptures versus how the modern text critics and the scholars and teachers who depend on them describe the scriptures!

This little exercise in irony is intended to stress that the old approach to the scriptures as true is wildly different from the new approach to the scriptures as uncertain. Jesus, his apostles, and the inspired writers neither criticized nor corrected Scripture (even though they had copies and did not possess the original autographs, i.e., those written in the hands of the original authors). The focus is always “the scriptures say this,” “the scriptures are true,” “believe what the scriptures say.” We need to drink from the pure well of Jesus and the apostles, not the poisoned well of modern textual criticism.

The Codex Sinaiticus

Live and Learn. I thought the Codex Sinaiticus Greek manuscript was in the British Library, but actually parts of it are located in four different places!

• Most of it (347 leaves) is in the British Library in London, England.
• 43 sheets (what Tischendorf removed from the Monastery) are at the University of Leipzig Library in Leipzig, Germany.
• Parts of 6 leaves are in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, Russia.
• 18 leaves and fragments are at St. Catherine’s Monastery at St. Catherine, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt.

It can be found together, virtually, online here:

• See the Manuscript

See also History of Codex Sinaiticus and Is Constantine Tischendorf a hero or thief?