Luke 3:36
Previous Verse < Luke 3 > Next Verse
the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Arphaxad, the [son] of Shem, the [son] of Noah, the [son] of Lamech, (ASV)
Pro
Another genealogy problem. Genesis 10 has:
Noah - Shem - Arpachshad - Shelah - Eber.
This is confirmed in Genesis 11, which even gives Arpachshad's age when he fathered Shelah: 35 years (Genesis 11:12).
However, Luke has:
Noah - Shem - Arphaxad - Cainan - Shelah - Eber.
--Robert Stevens 16:13, 25 Nov 2005 (CST)
JW: Let's expand this grievous error:
The English:
"the [son] of Serug, the [son] of Reu, the [son] of Peleg, the [son] of Eber, the [son] of Shelah the [son] of Cainan, the [son] of Arphaxad, the [son] of Shem, the [son] of Noah, the [son] of Lamech," (ASV)
The Hebrew:
1 Chronicles 1 ?? ???????????????, ????? ???-??????; ????????, ????? ???-?????. 18 And Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber.
No "Cainan" between "Arpachshad and Shelah".
The LXX:
Genesis 11:12 "??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??? ??? ????????? ??? ??????"
There's "Luke's" Cainan "??????" (last Greek word). The LXX Chronology also shows "Cainan".
Textual Variation:
WH - ??????
TR - ??????
--JoeWallack 15:02, 11 Dec 2005 (CST)
Con
PRO notes correctly that the genealogy presented by Luke disagrees with the earlier genealogies we find in Genesis through the insertion of Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah. Whether this is an error on Luke’s part cannot be determined from the scant information that we are given. When the Genesis genealogy tells us that Arpachshad begot Shelah, it does not necessarily mean that Arpachshad was the physical father of Shelah. Shelah could have been the grandson, great-great grandson or further descendant of Arpachshad. The intent of the genealogies in Genesis does not appear to have been to identify the complete line of descent from each actual father to his physical son. Many generations can be left out. Thus, it is altogether possible that there was a Cainan in the line of descent between Arpachshad and Shelah. If that were true, then the issue concerns Luke’s purpose for including that information, as it seems irrelevant. We may be perplexed about the genealogy that Luke has given us, but while it is different from that which we find in Genesis, there is no basis for us to conclude that Luke erred in his account.
Neutral
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.
JW:
"ARPACHSHAD"
Agrees to LXX.
"SEM"
Agrees to LXX.
"NOE"
Agrees to LXX.
"LAMECH"
Agrees to LXX.
--JoeWallack 19:55, 13 Dec 2005 (CST)
