Is there an error in Luke?

[Mcd249]

In Luke 3:36 it says “ 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,”

and in the Genesis 12:13-14 it says “13 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. 15 And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.”

My question is why does Luke have an extra Canaan in between Arphaxad and Shelah. It seems to appear that Luke copying from a new version of the Greek Septuigent that had this error? Can you please explain? It very much troubles to think that Gospel of Luke might have an “error” and I know there has to be a Catholic answer to this question. Thank you so much for your help!

 

[Vico]

… Luke 3:36 …

Haydock Commentary

Ver. 36. 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 Sept. Gen. x. 24. Gen. xi. 44. and 1 Paral. i. 18; though, in this last place, a Lapide says, it is wanting in one edition of the Sept. 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 S. Luke’s text, is found Cainan, because his citations are conformable to the Sept. 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. Wi.

Wi. = Witham
Robert Witham (1667–1738) was an English Roman Catholic college head and biblical scholar.

 

[BartholomewB]

Before the Masoretes established the definitive text of the Hebrew Bible, the manuscripts in circulation were by no means all identical. The names in the genealogies may have varied from one manuscript to another, though that cannot now be known for certain because very few of the variant manuscripts have survived.

 

[Mcd249]

Does this mean Luke possibility copied from a version of the Greek Sept. that inaccurately places Cainan as son of Arphaxad? If this is the case, does this have implications agaisnt the infallibility of scripture? Are there any opinions of the Church Fathers on this? I am just trying to reconcile this in my mind. I believe in the authority and truth of the Church and her scriptures, I just want to know I should believe about this.

 

[otjm]

You are looking at a brick in the wall and worrying if the whole Cathedral will fall down because of it.

If you are a scripture scholar, then you should know where to go to research the answer (and hint: that is not in this forum).

If you are not a scripture scholar, then you may want to revise what you are reading, as the source of this was likely not of your own research.

The short of it, is that to the laity in the pew, it does not matter at all.

What you should believe about it is that it is a bit of esoterica which has absolutely no impact on you, nor on the Church.

There are genealogies in Matthew and Luke and they don’t match. They don’t match because there was a different theological point being made by the two authors. If you are assuming that a genealogy is the same thing as a family tree, and one can go back and trace every last ancestor in the line, you are misunderstanding how genealogies were written several thousand years ago.

The short of it is that it doesn’t matter what is the cause of either an inclusion or an exclusion in the genealogy you are discussing, to our faith, Our faith in Christ does not hinge upon either an inclusion or an exclusion.

Scripture is not infallible in the way you are positing; it does not matter if Jonah was or was not swallowed by a fish, or for that matter, if there ever was an actual Jonah. It is not a history book (although it contains history, nor is it a parable (although it contains many parables). It is a book which tells of of God’s self revelation to us, our need for redemption, and how that occurred.

 

[BartholomewB]

Adding to what @otjm just wrote.— Have you ever looked through the footnotes in a Greek New Testament? On almost every page you will find notes giving alternative readings in different manuscripts. That was the way things were before the invention of printing. Books had to be copied by hand. Nobody’s perfect, and that includes copyists.

 

[Francis]

Think about it ,at times the father and the son has the same name,like wise, relatives and common name are used through out the bible ,so don,t get your self confused

 

[BartholomewB]

You may not know that Galileo was condemned because the Bible clearly affirms that the sun revolves around the earth.

Is that what the Bible clearly affirms? The only verse of that kind that I’m familiar with is Ecclesiastes 1:5. In the Vulgate it reads:

Oritur sol, et occidit sol et ad locum suum anhelat ibique renascitur.

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries to its place and is reborn there.

Is there anything else?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_ecclesiastes_lt.html

 

[Mintaka]

Galileo was not condemned for any such thing.

Galileo was condemned for declaring that he had the one correct Catholic interpretation of Scripture… and that his authority was being an astronomy guy.

His Biblical interpretation was scientifically and linguistically wrong, btw. Those parts of the science that he got right, he explained wrongly. His science arguments were full of holes, and he refused to confront them.

So declaring himself the only really infallible teacher of Scripture, and declaring the pope who funded him and his work to be an idiot… Yeah, pretty much your typical power-mad senior scientist.

Mike Flynn’s series of blog posts, The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown, will fill you in about the issues.

 

[ChristMyLife]

Wisdom!

Let us attend!

 

[Fauken]

No, it’s because he tried to use Scripture to prove heliocentrism before the heliocentric model was confirmed to be valid by science. And then he proceeded put his foot in his mouth by, intentionally or not, insulting the Pope.

The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers Tract

The Church can’t just let anyone use Scripture to support unconfirmed scientific theories. Galileo was a scientist, not a theologian.

 

[ChristMyLife]

The oldest text is around 400AD from memor

The oldest complete manuscripts (codex Vaticanus and Alexandrinus) are from the early 300’s.

We have fragments and pieces of papyri etc going back to the early to mid 100’s.

The New Testament was authored mainly between the years 30-70, with some being completed between 70-100.

So you see the NT was completed by 100, and our first fragments of the NT are from the early to mid 100’s.

The New Testament is the most astounding and reliable ancient document in existence.

 

[ChristMyLife]

You are calling me mistaken because I was out by around 50 years re a small percentage of the earliest known originals

When did I say you were mistaken?

You admitted you weren’t sure, so I simply piggybacked on your comment and added some extra info.

 

[ChristMyLife]

The simple point is we have no single correct version of the NT…and it doesnt matter

That’s not exactly true… And it does matter.

The vast majority of textual variants in the NT manuscript tradition are in orthography.

The NT is as reliable and more than any ancient document in existence.

 

[BartholomewB]

When you say you “believe so”, do you mean you’re not sure? Earlier today you wrote:

… because the Bible clearly affirms that the sun revolves around the earth.

And now you’re no longer sure whether the Bible does actually affirm that or not?

 

[otjm]

Now that we have gone down the rabbit hole of Galileo, perhaps we can get back on topic - the inclusion or exclusion of a name in a genealogy? (Hey, I have been guilty of the same issue…)

And while orthography might help with some issues of biblical text, I am not sure that it has anything to do with a name appearing in one text and not appearing in another.

There is a rule of law: “False in part, suspect in all” and it may be the OP has this essentially in the back of their mind. However, the text is not about sworn testimony and is not on a matter relevant to either faith or morals, so… back we go to the topic.

 

[phil19034]

ChristMyLife:

Cypress1359:

The simple point is we have no single correct version of the NT…and it doesnt matter

That’s not exactly true…

The vast majority of textual variants in the NT manuscript tradition are in orthography.

The NT is as reliable and more than any ancient document in existence.

Why then did I spend two years studying NT Greek with a classroom full of seminarians where we had to use at least three different variant copies (often more) to accurately translate every second verse accurately?

If you know of a single authentic ancient manuscript of the complete NT do tell.

@Cypress1359 I don’t think you and @ChristMyLife are talking about the same thing.

You seem to be talking about errant translations and competing translations of the same passage, while I THINK @ChristMyLife is saying we can be confident that what comprises the NT is truly Scripture.

God bless