Luke 3:36

Luk 3:36-37. Which was the son of Cainan — “There is no mention made of this Cainan in either of the genealogies which Moses gives, Gen 10:24; Gen 11:12; but Salah is there said to be the son of Arphaxad. Cainan must therefore have been introduced here from the translation of the Seventy interpreters, who have inserted him in both these places in the same order as we find him here; and as this translation was then commonly used, and was more generally understood than the Hebrew, it is probable that some transcriber of this gospel added Cainan from that version. Unless we suppose that Luke himself might choose, in writing this genealogy, to follow the LXX., as he appears to do in several other passages that he has quoted from the Old Testament.” The evangelist’s design was only to present us with the genealogy of Christ in its ascent to Adam, and this is equally clear, whether we reckon Salah as the immediate descendant of Arphaxad, or whether we consider him as his grandson by Cainan.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk 3:36. 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 [[37]]; 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.[38] “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 7, 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 Gen 10:24; Gen 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, [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. Act 7:14. 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, Luk 3:23, 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’).[39]

[37] Bezæ, or Cantabrig.: Univ. libr., Cambridge: fifth cent.: publ. by Kipling, 1793: Gospels, Acts, and some Epp. def.

[38] A very unjust judgment. D was presented to Cambridge University by Beza in 1531. Its readings are very peculiar, and belong to a different class from the Alexandrine MSS. Tischend. thinks it can be irrefragably proved to be as old as the sixth century.—ED. and TRANSL.

[39] Tischend. reads Καϊνὰμ with BL. Lachm. with Aabc Vulg. Rec. Text, Καϊνάν.—ED. and TRANSL.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Luk_3:36. Τοῦ Καϊνάν] In Gen_10:24; Gen_11:12; 1Ch_1:24. Shalach (שָׁלַה) is named as the son of Arphaxad. But the genealogy follows the LXX. in Gen. (as above); and certainly the name of Kenan also originally stood in Genesis, although the author of 1 Chronicles may not have read it in his copy of Genesis. See Bertheau on 1 Chron. p. 6.

REMARK.

The genealogy in Luke, who, moreover, in accordance with his Pauline universalism carries on the genealogical line up to Adam, is appropriately inserted at this point, just where the Messianic consecration of Jesus and the commencement therewith made of His ministry are related. Hence, also, the genealogy is given in an ascending line, as Luke did not intend, like Matthew, to begin his Gospel just at the birth of Jesus, but went much further back and started with the conception and birth of the Baptist; so in Luke the proper and, in so far as the historical connection was concerned, the right place for the genealogy could not have been, as in Matthew, at the beginning of the Gospel. Comp. Köstlin, p. 306.

In its contents the genealogy is extremely different from that in Matthew, since from Joseph to David, Luke has far more and almost throughout different links in the genealogy; since Matthew gives the line of Solomon, while Luke gives that of Nathan (2Sa_5:14; 1Ch_3:5), although he introduces into it from the former Σαλαθιήλ and Ζοροβάβελ. Seeking in several ways to get rid of this last-mentioned difficulty (see on Luk_3:27), many have assumed that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives that of Mary. To reconcile this with the text, τοῦ Ἡλί has been taken to mean: the son-in-law of Eli, as, following many older commentators (Luther, also Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel), Paulus, Olshausen, Krabbe, Ebrard, Riggenbach, Bisping, and others will have it; but this, according to the analogy of the rest of the links in the chain, is quite impossible. The attempt has been made to connect with this the hypothesis of Epiphanius, Grotius, Michaelis, and others, that Mary was an heiress, whose husband must therefore have belonged to the same family, and must have had his name inscribed in their family register (Michaelis, Olshausen); but this hypothesis itself, while it is equally objectionable in being arbitrary, and in going too far in its application, leaves the question altogether unsolved whether the law of the heiress was still in force at that time (see on Mat_1:17, Rem. 2), even apart from the fact that Marys Davidic descent is wholly without proof, and extremely doubtful. See on Luk_1:36, Luk_2:4. Another evasion, with a view to the appropriation of the genealogy to Mary, as well as that of Wieseler, is already refuted[79] at Luk_3:23. See also Bleek, Beitr. p. 101 f.

Hence the conclusion must be maintained, that Luke also gives the genealogy of Joseph. But if this be so, how are we to reconcile the genealogy with that given in Matthew? It has been supposed that Joseph was adopted (Augustine, de consens. evangel. Luk_2:3; Wetstein, Schegg), or more usually, that he sprang from a levirate marriage (Julius Africanus in Eusebius, H. E. i. 7), so that Matthew adduces his natural father Jacob, while Luke adduces his legal father Eli (Julius Africanus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine), or vice versâ (Ambrosius, Grotius, Wetstein, Schleiermacher). But what a complication this hypothesis, in itself quite arbitrary, involves! In this way Eli and Jacob must be taken to be mere half-brothers, because they have different fathers and forefathers! So in respect of Salathiels mother, we must once more call in the help of a levirate marriage, and represent Neri and Jechonia as in like manner half-brothers! In addition to this, the obligation to the levirate marriage for the half-brother is not authenticated, and the importing of the natural father into the legal genealogy was illegal; finally, we may make the general remark, that neither Matthew nor Luke adds any observation at all in citing the name of Josephs father, to call attention to any other than the ordinary physical paternal relationship. No; the reconciliation of the two genealogical registers, although they both refer to Joseph, is impossible; but it is very natural and intelligible that, as is usual in the case of great men, whose descent in its individual steps is obscure, no anxiety was felt to investigate his ancestry until long after the death of Jesusuntil the living presence of his great manifestation and ministry no longer threw into the shade this matter of subordinate interest. The genealogical industry of the Jewish Christians had collected from tradition and from written documents several registers, which, appearing independently of one another, must have given very different results, as far back as David, in consequence of the obscurity of Josephs genealogy. The first evangelist adopted a genealogy in accordance with the David-Solomon line; but Luke adopted a totally different one, following the David-Nathan line.[80] But that Luke, as a matter of fact, rejected the genealogy of Matthew, is according to Luk_1:3 to be regarded as a result of his later inquiries, as in general the great and irreconcilable divergence of his preliminary history from that of Matthew suggests the same conclusion. Only the motives of his decision are so completely unknown to us, that to concede to his genealogy the preference (v. Ammon, L. J. I. p. 179) remains unsafe, although the derivation of the Davidic descent of Jesus from the Nathan (therefore not the royal) line presupposes an investigation, in consequence of which the derivation of that descent through Solomon, which doubtless had first presented itself, was abandoned in the interest of rectification (according to Köstlin, indeed, in the Ebionitic interest, in opposition to the royal line stained with crime, and in opposition to worldly royalty in general).

As the genealogy in Matthew is arranged in accordance with a significant numerical relation (three times fourteen), a similar relation is also recognisable in the genealogy by Luke (eleven times seven), even although no express reference is made to it. See already Basil. M. III. p. 399 C.

[79] That Eli was the father of Mary is also inferred by Delitzsch on Hebr. p. 290, who suggests that after the premature death of his father Jacob, Joseph was adopted, namely, by this Eli as his foster son, and brought up along with Mary; that thus, therefore, Eli was Josephs foster father, but Marys actual father. What groundless devices! And yet the passage itself is as simple as possible until we want to force it to say what it does not say, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 112.

[80] This variation in the Davidic descent of the Messiah occurs also in the later Jewish theology. See Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1860, 3, p. 460 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 36. Of Cainan] This Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, and father of Sala, is not found in any other Scripture genealogy. See Ge 10:24; Ge 11:12; 1Ch 1:18; 1Ch 1:24, where Arphaxad is made the father of Sala, and no mention at all made of Cainan. Some suppose that Cainan was a surname of Sala, and that the names should be read together thus, The son of Heber, the son of Salacainan, the son of Arphaxad, c. If this does not untie the knot, it certainly cuts it and the reader may pass on without any great scruple or embarrassment. There are many sensible observations on this genealogy in the notes at the end of Bishop Newcome's Harmony.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Which was the son

of Mathusala,.... The same with Methuselah; and so he is called by the Septuagint in Gen 5:25

which was the son of Enoch, Gen 5:21

which was the son of Jared Gen 5:18,

which was the son of Maleleel; the same with Mahalaleel; who is also so called by the seventy interpreters, in Gen 5:15 as here; which was the son of Cainan, Gen 5:12.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Ver. 36. Which was the son of Cainan] This name crept, by some means, into the Greek copies after Jerome’s time, say Beza and Paraeus. Others say that St Luke herein followed the Septuagint’s translation, out of wisdom and charity to the Hellenists or Greek-Jews that had received it, and read it. 2. That writing for heathens, he followed the heathen’s Bible in his quotations. 3. That in his genealogies he was to be a copier, not a corrector.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who was of Cainan. Notwithstanding the veneration due to the Latin Vulgate, which is to be esteemed authentic, Corn. a Lapide calls it a chronological problem, whether the word Cainan be the true reading, or whether it hath slipt into the text. It is true Cainan is found in the Septuagint Genesis x. 24., Genesis xi. 44., and 1 Paralipomenon i. 18; though, in this last place, a Lapide says, it is wanting in one edition of the Septuagint by Sixtus V.; at least it is not read in all those places, neither in the Hebrew, nor Latin Vulgate. Some say that here in St. Luke’s text, is found Cainan, because his citations are conformable to the Septuagint. Others conjecture that Cainan and Sale were only different names of one and the same person, so that the sense may be, who was of Sale, who is also Cainan. Qui fuit Sale, qui & Cainan. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

36. Which was the son of Cainan—The name of this Cainan does not appear in the Old Testament catalogues. It has been inserted, both in the Septuagint and in this place, by means unknown. There seems to be some reason to suppose that it was first inserted in the Septuagint for the purpose of lengthening the chronology. It may thence have been inserted by early transcribers into Luke’s genealogy in order to make it agree with the Septuagint.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Arphaxad

Arphaxad. Gen 10:22.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad ... Adam

This is a continuation of the list of Jesus' ancestors. Use the same format as you used in the previous verses. (See: How to Translate Names)

Adam, the son of God

"Adam, created by God" or "Adam, who was from God" or "Adam, the son, we could say, of God"

translationWords

Shem

Noah

Lamech

Enoch

Seth

Adam

God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

36. Καϊνάμ] This name does not exist in our present Hebrew text, but in the LXX, Gen 10:24; Gen 11:12, Gen 11:13, and furnishes a curious instance of one of two things—either (1) the corruption of our present Hebrew text in these chronological passages; or (2) the incorrectness of the LXX, and notwithstanding that, the high reputation which it had obtained in so short a time. Lightfoot holds the latter alternative: but I own I think the former more probable. See on the whole question of the appearance of this second Cainam(n) among the ancestors of our Lord, Lord A. Hervey’s work above cited, ch. 8, in which, with much research and acuteness, he has endeavoured to shew that the name was probably interpolated here, and got from hence into the LXX. Certainly it appears not to have existed in the earliest copies of that version.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

36. Σαλὰ τοῦ Καινὰμ τοῦ Ἀρφαξάδ. In LXX this Cainan appears as the father of Sala or Shelah, and son of Arphaxad, in the genealogy of Shem (Gen 10:24, Gen 10:11:12; 1Ch 1:18). But the name is not found in any Hebrew MS., or in any other version made from the Hebrew. In LXX it may be an insertion, for no one earlier than Augustine mentions the name. D omits it here, while א B L have the form Καινάμ for Καινάν. But the hypothesis that interpolation here has led to interpolation in LXX cannot be maintained upon critical principles.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.