There is a popular opinion that the LXX is the most accurate because it has been compiled and used since the time of Christ. However, the Bible we have in our hands is based on the Massoretic text, the Hebrew manuscripts. In this article, I will write about the problems with the Septuagint of the Bible.
The extra Cainan of Luke 3:36
Genesis 10:22-24, “ The sons of Shem were Elam and Asshur and Arpachshad and Lud and Aram… 24 Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and Shelah became the father of Eber.”
Genesis 11:10-14, “ … Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad… 12 Arpachshad lived thirty-five years, and became the father of Shelah… 14 Shelah lived thirty years, and became the father of Eber ”.
I Chronicles 1:18, “ Arpachshad became the father of Shelah and Shelah became the father of Eber.”
I Chronicles 1:24-25, “ Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, 25 Eber… ”.
Luke 3:35-36, “ … the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan , the son of Arpachshad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech ”.
Luke 3:36 states that Arpachshad’s son was Cainan, not Shelah (also spelled Sala) and that this Cainan (also spelled Kenan) was the father of Shelah, not Arpachshad (also spelled Arphaxad). The Old Testament genealogies never make any mention of this Cainan.
What does this mean? Is this one of the contradictions that compel those who believe in the old earth theory to reject the biblical timeline of 6,000 years?
After studying this at length by examining multiple theories and some of the ancient manuscripts, I have come to the conclusion that it is a simple copyist error that was compounded by the passage of time and further manuscript reproduction.
The basis for this conclusion is the testimony regarding these passages currently found in the available historical witnesses.
Old Testament Records genealogies
- no Hebrew manuscript ever records the Cainan mentioned in Luke 3:36,
- ancient Jewish witnesses, such as Philo and Josephus, do not mention this Cainan,
- the Septuagint versions of the 1st – 4th centuries A.D. do not appear to contain this Cainan,
- this Cainan is mentioned in neither the Samaritan Pentateuch [1] nor the Jewish Targumim. [2] , [3]
Josephus is believed to have relied upon the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. He specifically states, “Sala was the son of Arphaxad: and his son was Heber; from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews.” [4]
There is no evidence from the Old Testament records that Arpachshad ever had a son named Cainan. However, amongst those who are adamant defenders of their favorite Bible version and defend the inclusion of Cainan in Luke 3:36, one rebuttal I found stated:
Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his “father”. Remember, the word “beget” does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship. Or Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad’s daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having “begotten” Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. [5]
It is perfectly understandable why the genealogy of Luke includes a name that never appeared in any Jewish genealogy, including Genesis, Chronicles and Josephus. Previous Jewish genealogies focused on biological sonship. However, the genealogy of Luke clearly focuses on sonship by adoption. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son of Joseph” despite Joseph having no biological connection to Jesus. Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph… If this pattern continues in the genealogy, it would not be surprising to find an adopted son who had previously been omitted from biological genealogies. We can reasonably accept that Cainan was the adopted son of Arphaxad, and that Cainan raised Sala, who was the biological son of Arphaxad. [6]
One potential problem for these defenses is the multiple occasions of multiple named sons throughout the Genesis genealogies. In Genesis 10, for example, Japheth has 7 sons listed, Ham has 4, Shem has 5, Cush has 6, and Mizraim has 7 sons listed. Arpachshad simply has 1 son listed.
Genesis 11:13 does say that Arpachshad had other sons and daughters. Arpachshad’s grandson Eber has 2 sons listed in Genesis 10:25, and his great-grandson Jocktan has 13 sons listed in Genesis 10:26-29! They were not all part of Jesus’ lineage. If the names of descendants who do not belong to the Messianic lineage were to be listed, Cainan, Joseph's ancestor, would have appeared in the Old Testament even more so.
And that’s the other thing regarding Arpachshad’s genealogy – in every single ancient translation and version of Genesis 10 & 11 and I Chronicles 1 (the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Jewish Targumim, and presumably the Septuagint of the 1 st – 4 th centuries A.D.), Shelah is ALWAYS listed as the son of Arpachshad and not the son of a man named Cainan.
This means our attention must be turned towards the Luke text as the Genesis and I Chronicles texts appear to be soundly established with reliable genealogies.
What did Luke actually write?
Why does Luke list a genealogy in Luke 3:36 inconsistent with all other records? Two options present themselves: 1.) Luke purposefully listed his genealogy as recorded with a Cainan previously unknown and contradictory to Genesis and I Chronicles or 2.) the current reading of Luke 3:36 with the extra Cainan is not true to Luke’s original record. [7]
To resolve which option is most plausible, we must consult the ancient manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel. Those supporting the current reading point to Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 300-325), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 330-360), and Codex Alexandrinus (A.D. 400-440) amongst many others as all having the current reading of Luke 3:36. These ancient manuscripts appear to support the first option that Luke originally included the extra Cainan in his Gospel.
Incidentally, Kenan and Cainan, Enosh's sons in Genesis, are spelled exactly the same in Hebrew. Could all these manuscripts be the result of a copyist error predating them?
Note that the Greek New Testament was originally written without punctuation or spaces between words. So Luke 3:35–38 would have been originally written as below. In this manuscript, ΤΟΥΚΑΙΝΑΝ (the son of Cainan) could have been on the end of the third line:
But suppose an early copyist of Luke’s Gospel was copying the first line, but his eyes glanced at the end of the third line at ΤΟΥΚΑΙΝΑΝ. Then he would have written it on the first line as well:
ΤΟΥΣΑΡΟΥΧΤΟΥΡΑΓΑΥΤΟΥΦΑΛΕΓΤΟΥΕΒΕΡΤΟΥΣΑΛΑΤΟΥΚΑΙΝΑΝ
ΤΟΥΑΡΦΑΞΑΔΤΟΥΣΗΜΤΟΥΝΩΕΤΟΥΛΑΜΕΧ
ΤΟΥΜΑΘΟΥΣΑΛΑΤΟΥΕΝΩΧΤΟΥΙΑΡΕΔΤΟΥΜΑΛΕΛΕΗΛΤΟΥΚΑΙΝΑΝ
ΤΟΥΕΝΩΣΤΟΥΣΗΘΤΟΥΑΔΑΜΤΟΥΘΕΟΥ
the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,the son of Cainan(Kenan),the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan(Kenan),
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
It is certainly possible, and to confirm more so, a manuscript predating these other manuscripts would need to be found that does not include the extra Cainan.
The Bodmer Papyri was discovered in Egypt in 1952. It contained 22 papyri dating to A.D. 200. [9] Large portions of the Gospel of Luke are amongst the pieces of papyri. A few fragments contain passages from Luke 3. [10] According to some scholars, the fragment containing Luke 3:34-35 indicates that the extra Cainan found in later manuscripts is not included. [11] This is possible evidence that Luke did not originally include this Cainan in his record.
Codex Bezae is a manuscript of the four Gospels and Acts written in both Greek and Latin. It dates to the A.D. 400s. It, too, does not include the extra Cainan. [12] Thus we possibly have two ancient manuscripts of Luke that agree with the Old Testament records.
Early Church Writings
Additionally, early church leaders also excluded the extra Cainan and agree with Genesis and I Chronicles. Sextus Julius Africanus, a 3 rd century A.D. Christian historian, composed his 5 volume Chronographiai around A.D. 221. Using the Septuagint version of his day, [13] he wrote, “And after the flood, Sem begat Arphaxad. Arphaxad, when 135 years old, begets Sala in the year 2397. Sala, when 130 years old, begets Heber in the year 2527.” [14]
Likewise, Christian theologian and historian Eusebius of Caesarea composed his 2 volume Chronicon around A.D. 325. He stated, “Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, who was the father of Eber”. [15] Eusebius proceeded to list the differences between the recorded ages of the Septuagint, Samaritan, and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament chronologies. In all three, Eusebius recorded them as saying, “Arphaxad fathered Shelah… Shelah fathered Eber”. [14]
This is of great significance as Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius testify that the copies of the Septuagint from the 1 st through 4 th centuries A.D. did not include the extra Cainan. To argue otherwise is very difficult considering the oldest Septuagint copy of Genesis 10 and 11 is found in the Codex Alexandrinus dating to the mid-5 th century A.D. [16]
If the Alexandrian Codex, which is claimed to be the one of the oldest, dates from the mid-fifth century AD, we can conclude that Cainan was added.
Conclusion and reference
It has been shown above how a copyist error may have happened with Luke 3:36. [17] But even if this did occur, it was not a universal mistake in the 5 th century A.D., as indicated by the Codex Bezae manuscript. According to the lack of the extra Cainan in both the Bodmer Papyri (A.D. 200) and Africanus’s chronology (A.D. 220) and its inclusion in the Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 300-325), it appears the origin of the mistake can be traced to the 3 rd century A.D.
The pure Septuagint text of the first century did not exist, and even in later generations, though the Cainan was excluded, it was bulky in age, and so on, and no uniformity was maintained. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to go back to the Masorah text and simply revise it.
The most likely reason that Luke 3:36 will not be corrected would be its insistence on the extant authoritative Greek manuscripts. When Biblica released its 2011 update of the New International Version, it could have very easily corrected Luke 3:36 to reflect Luke’s original record. They, however, did not.
Rather than placing our allegiance to a particular Bible version, let us be simply committed to the perfect, inerrant Word of God. It alone presents to the world the love of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is “ the power of God unto salvation ” (Romans 1:16).
[1] Genesis 10 & 11, Samaritan Pentateuch translated into English, accessed 2/5/2020, https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=SPE|reference=Gen.11
[2] Genesis 10 & 11, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translated into English, accessed 2/5/2020, http://targum.info/pj/pjgen6-11.htm
[3] Genesis 10 & 11, Targum Onkelos translated into English, accessed 2/5/2020,
[4] Antiquities of the Jews , I:6:4, translated in English, accessed 2/5/2020, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html
[5] Will Kinney, “Luke 3:36 Who was Cainan?”, accessed 2/5/2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20140221193323/https://brandplucked.webs.com/luke336cainanlxx.htm
[6] “Should Cainan be in the genealogy in Luke 3:36?”, accessed 2/5/2020, http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/should-cainan-be-in-the-genealogy-in-luke-336
A third option I have seen mentioned once is that Luke accurately referenced the pseudepigraphal work Jubilees 8:1-5. It states that Arpachshad took a wife named Rasu’eja and had a son named Kainam. Kainam married Melka and had Shelah, who then had Eber ( https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/8.htm ). If it stated that Arpachshad had Shelah, but Shelah was raised by Kainam, it may then be plausible as Shelah would still be Arpachshad’s son and Eber his grandson. The Book of Jubilees, however, contradicts not only the Old Testament, but also its contemporaries: Josephus and the Septuagint.
[8] Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., “Cainan”, accessed 2/5/2020, https://creation.com/cainan-can-you-explain-the-difference-between-luke-336-and-genesis-1112
[9] Neha Patil, editor, “Bodmer Papyri”, 21 June 2018, accessed 2/6/2020, https://alchetron.com/Bodmer-Papyri
[10] Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana digital library, Bodmer Papyri, accessd 2/6/2020, https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Hanna.1(Mater.Verbi)
[11] Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., “What about Cainan?”, Journal of Creation
18(2):41-43, 2004,
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_41-43.pdf
[12] University of Cambridge Digital Library, Codex Bezae, accessed 2/7/2020, https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/373
[13] The ages of the Patriarchs in the Septuagint differ from the ages in Hebrew manuscripts.
[14] A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., Fathers of the Third Century , Vol. IV, p. 131,
http://oll-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/1973/1333.06_Bk.pdf
[15] Robert Bedrosian, Eusebius’ Chronicle , “The Hebrew Chronicle”,
translated from Classical Armenian, accessed 2/7/2020,
https://web.archive.org/web/20090511101347/https://rbedrosian.com/euseb7.htm
[16] “Septuagint manuscripts”, Wikipedia , updated 16 December 2019, accessed
2/7/2020,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint_manuscripts
[17] Another possibility is a purposeful insertion of the extra Cainan by a copyist who believed the Book of Jubilees.
The Septuagint, nine people after the Flood!
It is easy to show which chronological list is correct, the Septuagint or the Hebrew Old Testament text. The majority of the manuscripts in the greek translations place the birth of Methuselah's son Lamech at the age of 167 years, while the Masora text is unified at 187 (Genesis 5:25). There are cases where we can get answers in the chat gpt, such as the existence of a Greek manuscript that is also 187 years old, but it is a copy of the Masora text, not the 70 translation.
However, if Methuselah was 167 years old when he gave birth to Lamech and Lamech was 188 years old when he gave birth to Noah, as recorded in the Seventy Testaments, and Noah was 600 years old at the time of the Flood, then Methuselah would have been 955 years old at the time of the Flood. (167+188+600=955)
Because Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (the number of years given in both texts), the Septuagint absurdly allows Methuselah to survive another 14 years after the Flood!
The human lifespan seems to have changed dramatically after Noah's Flood, but it also seems to be mixed with evolutionary philosophical thought, which was slowly shortened in the Greek manuscripts. Compared to the Masorah text, the Septuagint manuscripts show considerable variation in the number of years of genealogical rule, whereas the Hebrew Masorah text is relatively uniform.
It is unlikely that any pure Greek manuscripts from the first century exist today. Rather than rejecting the Masorah text out of hand simply because it was utilized by Jews who did not accept Christ, it is more reasonable to consider its accuracy in historical fact up to the end of the Old Testament period.
The Masoretic Text was finalized around the ninth century, making it newer than the Septuagint which was translated in the BCE era. Because of this, some critics have viewed the Masoretic Text as a later corruption. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls actually revealed the proto-Masoretic text type dating back to the BCE era, sharing the exact same strict, unplena spelling style without extra vowels. This proves that first-century Jewish Christians, including James and the twelve disciples, used this authentic Hebrew text as their foundation, while simultaneously utilizing the Septuagint for global ministry. Just like today, the early church flexibly utilized multiple textual traditions depending on the context.
Using the Greek manuscripts, which vary in numerical value from one type to another, the period from Adam to Christ greatly exceeds 4,000 years. If we believe the wrong manuscripts and add 2,000 years from the first coming of Christ, we will of course exceed the sixth day of the second coming, which is the sixth millennium.
What is the LXX?
Is the Septuagint Accurate?
Is the Massoretic text trumpeting Shem to Melchizedek?
Although several such inferences can be found on English-speaking sites, Paul states throughout the context that after the birth of Levi, there is no need to adhere to the Jewish idea that the priestly office is valued by the Aaronic family of the Levitical line.
Even though Shem was Melchizedek, he did not produce a lineage only of Levi. Since Jesus is of the tribe of Judah, belonging to Shem's lineage, and since Shem, who had no beginning, no end, and no parentage as high priest before the birth of Levi, could have performed the work of Melchizedek, it seems logical that Jesus, who existed before Melchizedek and Abraham, could have performed the high priest's work. Christians are also described as the spiritual children of Abraham, the descendants of Shem, and therefore serve as priests beyond racial boundaries.
I think that if we consider the accuracy of the chronological ruling year notation before saying that the Masorah text was fabricated and falsified to make Shem Melchizedek and to emphasize the priestly office by the Levitical lineage, we can consider it from multiple angles without being critical and make inferences that make sense.
Paul’s Intent in Saying Not to Be Preoccupied with Jewish Genealogies
This is merely a critique of the Jewish custom of fixating on Abraham’s lineage or priestly descent; it is not intended to discourage the study of God’s seven-thousand-year plan or the chronology of the genealogies in the Bible. If that were the case, genealogies and chronological data would not have been recorded in the Bible in the first place. Since God has implied that we should investigate these matters—that is, since He has left us clues—it is inevitable that revelation will come to light in due time.
Both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text have their respective strengths and weaknesses. The Septuagint served as a powerful tool for evangelizing the Gentiles throughout the first century. On the other hand, it is believed that the Twelve Apostles used the originals of the Masoretic Text. And in the 21st century, the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament—inherited by the Jews who did not accept Christ—has become widely available, making it possible to use it alongside the Septuagint. To “listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit” means not to serve the letter of the text, treating it as absolute and idolizing it, but rather to keep an open mind so that consistency can be achieved flexibly, thereby constructing sound doctrine.
At this stage, I find it more theoretical to use the Masoretic text (the popular Bible) to conclude that the end times are exactly 4,000 years from Adam to Christ, with the second coming 2,000 years later, rather than accepting the Greek manuscripts' description of the sixth day, which greatly exceeds 6,000 years. (Of course, I respect the opinions of those who defend the translation of the Septuagint.)
No comments:
Post a Comment