Luke 3:36 and the alleged LXX
Who is Cainan in Luke 3:36?
"Answers in Genesis" is usually a very good ministry which defends creationism versus evolution. However the textual consultant, Mr. Sarfati, does the usual tap dance when discussing the inspiration of Scripture. Here are some of his comments.
Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati -
"The difference is that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. Some skeptics have used this difference to attack biblical inerrancy. However, it is important to note that Biblical inerrancy, derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21 and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and many other places, has to refer to the original autographs that God directly inspired, not to copies or translations. The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today.
1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.
So if a copyist of Luke’s gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The evidence shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan."
Mr. Sarfati starts off his "defense" of inerrancy with three huge whoppers. He says: "The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." He then assures us that the Bible's assertions are factually true in ALL THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and that they are the supreme authority in all matters of faith.
How can something that does not exit "be the supreme authority in all matters of faith"? Mr. Sarfati has never seen one of these "original autographs" a day in his life, simply because they do not exist, and he knows they don't exist when he says this. He has absolutely no way on earth of knowing for sure what or what was not "in the original autographs".
His second big lie is implying "A COPYIST of Luke's gospel is responsible for the error". The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greed copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions.
It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV,ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three.
His third big lie is telling us: "this is one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." Mr. Sarfati should be well aware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, different names, numbers, phrases and entire verses found in some copies that that are not in others. The New Testaments of such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV (none of which totally agree with each other) differ from the New Testament of versions like the King James Bible, NKJV, Young's, and the Geneva Bible, by about 5000 words! This can hardly be called "extremely few".
Mr. Sarfati also assures us that the oldest LXX manuscripts do not contain the name Cainan, though he has never seen one of these because, again, they don't exist.
Mr. Sarfati continues to make his case for "Christian Logic 101" even worse by saying: "Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy." Why not, Mr. Sarfati? IF it is an ERROR found in every Bible on the earth today, then why is it not proof that the Christian Bible is not inerrant?
Then Mr. Sarfati attempts to bolster the soundness of his arguments by quoting a certain Mr Pierce who summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that EVERY SINGLE COPY WE HAVE OF THE LXX TEXT WAS CORRUPTED SOME TIME AFTER AD 220."
Notice here that Mr. Scarlati quotes from another man who tells us that every copy of the LXX we now have is corrupted, yet Mr. Scarlati earlier referred to the oldest LXX which did not contain the name of Cainan. BUT he himself has never seen, nor can he produce for this hypothetical court of law any such evidence. Do you see how the scholar's game is played?
So there you have the thoughts of "scholars" who assume there is no way the Holy Bible can be correct as it stands today, yet they assure us there is really nothing to worry about, and that God's words were once inspired in the "originals", though they have never seen them.
In a somewhat similar fashion, we have the names of two individuals listed in the New Testament, which are not found in the Old Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:8 we read: "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith."
This is an interesting verse in light of those who criticize the Holy Bible and tell us it contains errors, isn't it? "Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concering the faith."
It seems, though we are nowhere told this directly, that Jannes and Jambres were probably two of the magicians in Pharoah's court who performed miracles imitating those God did through Moses. Where did Paul get this additional information about the specific names of these individuals? God revealed it to him. The Bible is a supernatural book.
Likewise I do not believe that the additional name of Cainan, who is listed as a "son" of Arphaxad is an error in the Holy Bible.
Those who tell us the name Cainan is not in the original have only two manuscripts of very dubious character that either do not contain the name Cainan (Manuscript D) or, to quote many scholarly articles, "appears not to contain this name" - (P75).
It should be noted that neither does manuscript D contain many other whole verses or sections of Luke's gospel, though found in the others. Manuscript D is notorious for adding large sections to the gospel of Luke which are not found in any other manuscript, and D is also well known for omitting other large portions of Luke's gospel.
One example of many that could be provided is the additional reading found in manuscript D, also known as Codex Bezae, in Luke 6:5. There our Lord says: "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath". Then D alone adds: "On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him: man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law."
Manuscript D also omits all of Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." It also alone omits Luke 24:6 "He is not here, but is risen"; Luke 24:12 "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."; Luke 24:36 "and saith unto them, Peace be unto you"; Luke 24:40 "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."; and Luke 24:51 "and carried up into heaven." These are just a very few of the many omissions found in manuscript D. Not very reliable, is it?
As for P75, not only does it "appear" to omit the name Cainan from Luke 3:36, but P75 also is missing all of Luke 3:23 to 3:33! It also is missing Luke 4:3 to 4:33; 5:11 to 5:36; 6:5 to 6:9; 7:33-34; 7:44-45; 17:16-18, and from Luke 18:19 all the way to Luke 22:3!
Such is the scant evidence for the omission of the name Cainan from the gospel of Luke 3:36.
So how do we explain who this man Cainan is? In Luke 3 we read of the lineage of the Lord Jesus from the side of Mary. There we see "Heber, which was the son of Sala (Salah), which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noah..."
In the Bible, the words "begat" and "son" do not necessarily imply a direct father to son relationship. For example: Matthew 1:8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias." Did you know that Uzziah (Ozias) is the great-great-grandson of Joram? Yet the text says, "Joram begat Ozias".
In the book of Ruth we read in 4:17 "And the women her neighbours gave it a name (the child Ruth just gave birth to), saying, There is a SON BORN TO NAOMI; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David."
Naomi was actually the grandmother of the child, yet Scripture calls the grandchild her son, and says he was BORN TO Naomi.
Likewise the gospel of Matthew 1:1 starts off saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Obviously the word "son" does not always mean a direct line from father to son.
The word "son" is also used to denote a son-in-law. King David was Saul's son-in-law, yet Saul calls David his "son" several times in Scripture. In the book of Ruth, Naomi calls Ruth her "daughter", yet in fact she was her daughter-in-law.
Among the various possibilities of who this man Cainan was are the following two.
#1. 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 #2. 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. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad's "son", even though he was in fact his son-in-law.
These are the two possibilities that make the most sense to me, and do not in any way call into question the reliability or accuracy of the Scriptures.
MORE COMMENTS ON THE LXX
John Gill's commentary of Luke 3:36. Though I do not agree with everything John Gill states about this verse, (he does not believe Cainan should be in the text at all), yet it is to be noted that he too believed that the present copies of the LXX got their reading in Genesis from the already completed gospel of Luke.
Gill says: "Which was the son of Cainan…This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in (Genesis 11:12) 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 (1 Chronicles 1:24) where the genealogy is repeated... 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... and (it was) SINCE PUT INTO THE SEPTUAGINT TO GIVE IT AUTHORITY."
Scholars are a funny bunch. Get five scholars in a room, and you will come out with seven different opinions. Some scholars emphatically tell us that Luke got his reading of 'Cainan' from the LXX itself. Others tell us the opposite, saying that the LXX got it from Luke. And then there are those that tell us that the name Cainan was not in the original LXX NOR in the original gospel of Luke! Go figure.
John Lightfoot comments on the LXX reading of 'Cainan" by saying: "I find a hundred such kind of additions in the Greek version, which the Hebrew text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.
Genesis 10:2: Elisa is added among the sons of Japhet: and, verse 22, another Cainan among the sons of Shem.
Genesis 46:20: Five grandchildren added to the sons of Joseph; Malachi 4:5, the Tishbite.
Exodus 1:11: the city On, is added to Pithom and Raamses.
2 Samuel 20:18: the city Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.
Nor can I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew copy, since some of them are put there without any reason, some of the against all reason, and all of them with no foundation at all."
Commenting on the additional 5 to 7 children added to the family of Joseph by the LXX in Genesis 46:20, Lightfoot says: "Let us add, for example's sake, those five souls which they add to the family of Jacob; numbering up five grandchildren of Joseph, who, as yet, were not in being,--nay, seven, according to their account, Genesis 46:27. Children that were born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, even NINE souls. (The Hebrew says TWO souls.)
"Now, which copy do we think it most reasonable to believe, the Greek or the Hebrew? And as to the question, whether these five added in the Greek were anciently in Moses' text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the transcribers or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Eran, were with Joseph when Jacob with his family went down into Egypt, (these are variations of the additional names added in the LXX copies), and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down? Then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a grandfather; and Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of forehead the interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed."
Lightfoot give his opinion of the LXX version saying: "Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy - AS IT IS SUPPOSED - into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, AND THOSE PRETTY MUCH DISAGREEING AMONG THEMSELVES... The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text...IT IS PLAIN ENOUGH TO ANY ONE THAT DILIGENTLY CONSIDERS THE GREEK VERSION THROUGHOUT, THAT IT WAS COMPOSED BY DIFFERENT HANDS, WHO GREATLY VARIED FROM ONE ANOTHER, BOTH IN STYLE AND WIT."
The Alleged LXX and Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him."
If Hebrews 1:6 refers not to the incarnation of Christ but rather to the second coming of Christ, then it may well be asked: Why does this appear as a quote from the Old Testament? It is a very good question and I will try to explain as best I can.
In verse 5 the tense of the verb shows it was something said in the past. "For unto which of the angels SAID he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee".
Even this verse is variously interpreted by Christians. Some think it refers to His incarnation, others to His resurrection. I believe it refers to His resurrection based on Acts 13:33.
Then when we get to verse six, "And again, WHEN HE BRINGETH IN the firstbegotten into the world, he SAITH (not said) And let all the angels of God worship him."
I personally lean towards the interpretation that this is speaking about the second coming of Christ, which has not yet happened, but this is what will be said when it occurs.
The Holy Ghost is not referring to a past event, but rather to the future and no specific quote from the Old Testament is in the mind of the writer of the book of Hebrews.
Even commentators like Matthew Henry, John Gill, and the Peoples New Testament commentary all say that this could be referring to the second coming, though they do mention other interpretations.
John Gill comments: " the bringing of him into the world may refer to his second coming, for this seems agreeable from the natural order of the words, that is, a second time,... and from the glory he shall then have from the angels, who will come with him, and minister to him; and not to his resurrection from the dead, when he was exalted above angels, principalities, and powers;"
Matthew Henry also says: "When God bringeth his First-begotten into the world, let all the angels of God worship him; that is, when he is brought into this lower world, at his nativity,,,,OR when he shall bring him again into the world, to judge the world, then let the highest creatures worship him. God will not suffer an angel to continue in heaven who will not be in subjection to Christ, and pay adoration to him; and he will at last make the fallen angels and wicked men to confess his divine power and authority and to fall before him.
Robinson's Word Pictures as well as Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentators all allow that Hebrews 1:6 may be a reference to the second coming of Christ. The meaning of this verse is by no means clear and has been variously discussed and debated for centuries.
The only other time in Scripture where Jesus is referred to as the first begotten of the dead is found in Revelation 1:5 where it obviously is one of His titles AFTER His resurrection.
So, if we apply this same name to Him here in Hebrews, then it is referring to Him as the first resurrected one, and when God brings him into the world again, He says 'Let all the angels of God worship him".. It will be part of the event when every knee shall bow, of THINGS IN HEAVEN (angels), and things in earth (men) and things under the earth (the damned).
I am not saying categorically that the other interpretation is wrong; it might be right. I'm just presenting a different way of looking at it.
The book of Hebrews contains many references to events and quotes which are not found anywhere in the Hebrew Old Testament, nor in the Greek Septuagint. I do not believe there ever was such a thing as a widespread, authoritative pre-Christian Septuagint version from which the author of Hebrews was quoting. Different people at various times attempted to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek and other languages, but I do not believe any of these were directly quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ or the apostles in the formation of the New Testament.
Most of the quotes taken from various Greek translations do not match the New Testament, but are paraphrases, though some do match more closely than others. It is important to note that not even Hebrews 1:6 in the Greek N.T. is an exact quote from anywhere in the LXX.
Some examples of things found in the New Testament book of Hebrews which are not recorded anywhere in the Old Testament are the following.
Hebrews 2:2 "For if the WORD SPOKEN BY ANGELS was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;" Nowhere are we told in the O.T. that the law of Moses was spoken by angels.
9:19 "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people acording to the law, he took the blood of CALVES AND OF GOATS, WITH WATER, AND SCARLET WOOL, AND HYSSOP, AND SPRINKLED BOTH THE BOOK, and all the people."
None of these things are mentioned in Exodus 24, except that Moses sprinkled the people. We are not told about the Book or the use of the other materials.
9:20 "Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." This is not a direct quote from either the Hebrew or the LXX texts, though it is a loose translation.
9:21 "he sprinkled with blood both THE TABERNACLE, and all the vessels of the ministry." We are told about sprinkling the altar, but not the tabernacle.
11:10 Abraham "looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." This fact is not specifically recorded in the O.T. either in Hebrew or Greek.
11:11 Sarah "judged him faithful who had promised". The O.T. account in fact tells us the opposite; that Sarah did not believe God.
11:13 Referring to Abraham, Sarah and possibly Abel, Enoch and Noah, "they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" yet this exact confession is not found recorded in the Old Testament.
11:19 tells us that Abraham was "accounting that God was able to raise him (Isaac) up, even from the dead" yet none of this is revealed in the O.T.
11:21 "Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, LEANING UPON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF." We are not told about this in the O. T. Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, one of the proofs that the so called LXX was actually written after the New Testament is that the LXX places this in the wrong context and is followed by the NIV using the LXX rather than the Hebrew texts.
11:26 Moses esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompence of reward." None of this is mentioned in the O.T.
11:37 some of God's people were "sawn asunder" - Again, this is not mentioned in the O.T.
12:21 "And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake." This whole quote in this context is not recorded in the O.T.
13:5 "For he hath said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Again, this exact quote is not recorded in the Old Testament either in Hebrew or Greek, though the general idea can easily be extracted.
Neither are we told the names of Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses - 2 Timothy 3:8, nor that it rained not for the space of three years and six months when Elias prayed - James 5: 17, nor that Michael the archangel disputed with the devil about the body of Moses and said "The Lord rebuke thee" - Jude 9
So, what we see are a whole series of quotes and events mentioned in the book of Hebrews and elsewhere for which we have nothing recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, neither in Hebrew nor a Greek LXX. They are presented as additional details and expansions revealed to the writer of the book of Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
I am suggesting that Hebrews 1:6 refers to what God will say at the second coming of Christ, and that it is not a direct quote from the Hebrew or the LXX.
It is also possible to take the expression found in Psalms 97:7 "worship him, all ye gods" as being interpreted by the writer of Hebrews to mean the fallen angels, who along with the devils and unclean spirits, are the driving force behind all false religions. The same word is variously translated as "gods, God, angels (Psalm 8:5), magistrates, mighty ones, and judges".
The view that purports that the writer to the Hebrews is using "the LXX" and not the Hebrew texts, is nothing more than an assumption. It is not a proveable fact and the text can be explained in a very different manner.
John Owen's commentary on Hebrews 1:6
John Owen clearly states that the LXX reading was placed into a Greek translation AFTER the apostle had penned his words in the New Testament.
"Our first inquiry must be whence this testimony is taken. Many of the ancients, as Epiphanius, Theodoret, Euthymius, Procopius, and Anselm, conceived the words to be cited from Deuteronomy 32:43, where they expressly occur in the translation of the LXX. “Rejoice ye heavens with him, and let all the angels of God worship him.”
BUT there are two considerations that put it beyond all pretensions that THE WORDS ARE NOT TAKEN FROM THIS PLACE OF THE LXX.: — (1.) Because indeed there are no such words in the original text, nor any thing spoken that might give occasion to the sense expressed in them; BUT THE WHOLE VERSE IS INSERTED IN THE GREEK VERSION quite beside the scope of the place... To cite that from the Scripture as the word and testimony of God which indeed is not therein, NOR WAS EVER SPOKEN BY GOD, BUT BY HUMAN FAILURE AND CORRUPTION CREPT INTO THE GREEK VERSION, is not to be imputed unto them. And INDEED I NO WAY QUESTION BUT THAT THIS ADDITION UNTO THE GREEK TEXT in that place WAS MADE AFTER the apostle had used this testimony."
Owen continues: "The Father, upon the account of the work of Christ in the world, and his kingdom that ensued it, gives a new commandment unto the angels to worship him, his glory being greatly concerned therein. And that,- VII. Great is the church’s security and honor, when the head of it is worshipped by all the angels in heaven. As also that,- VIII. It can be no duty of the saints of the new testament to worship angels, who are their fellow-servants in the worship of Jesus Christ."
Additionally, Thomas Hewitt, writes, " There is no Hebrew equivalent for Let all the angles of God worship him in our existing text. It may be derived from Psalm xcvii. 7 'worship him, all ye gods' (Heb. elohim). The LXX has 'angels' instead of 'gods'. The quotation, however, is found in Deuteronomy xxxii. 43 (LXX), THOUGH THIS MAY BE AN ADDITION BY A LATER HAND." (Tyndale NT Commentaries in Hebrews, p. 55). It is interesting that Hewitt states that the passage found in Deuteronomy 32:43 of the LXX may have been added by a later hand. If this is true, there very well may be additional places where the LXX simply adds to the OT by citing the NT.
Will Kinney