Luke 3:36 "Cainan" contradiction. Greek Scholars Help

[fhnl13f]

I came across this while I was studying a few months ago and its a clear contradiction. I know that there are no contradictions in the bible. Every place that I've ever found a contradiction and studied it, I've found that it was either a misinterpretation or worded in a way that makes you take notice so that you can notice what it points to for example the 400 years that Paul says Israel was in Egypt and the 430 years that Genesis says Israel was in Egypt.

I have to admit that LK 3:36 has me stumped and I am wondering if anyone out there understands why it says Arphaxad, Cainan, Salah, Eber but Genesis 11 says Arphaxad, Salah, Eber. I know that Cainan is the father of the Canaanites which had nothing to do with the line of Abraham and were clear enemies of God. I have a feeling that this name must have been added to the greek text after the original was written but I'm not a greek scholar and I can't prove it. I have studied one pastors work, where he found that the book of John had the words "passover a feast of the Jews was nigh" added to the text sometime before the KJV was translated and that there were greek text found after the KJV (NA27) that doesn't have the phrase. I'm currently studying Hebrew but I don't know the first thing about Greek. So if there are any Greek scholars out there that might be able to confirm or deny that Cainan is found in the lineage of Jesus.

My NET notes tell me that Cainan is omitted from 2 keys text but I don't understand which texts its referring to and then it goes on to say that it may be motivated reading. Either way I'm stumped and could use some help. Like I pointed out with the 400 and 430 years in Egypt, the differences pointed me to an interpretation of the war in heaven of Rev 12 and I would like to know if Lk 3 is an addition or pointing us to something else.

 

[B-A-C]

This is from an article I read a while back. Maybe it will help.

Luke 3:36 is the only verse in the Bible where one can read of the patriarch Arphaxad having a son named Cainan. Although another Cainan (the son of Enosh) is mentioned seven times in Scripture (Genesis 5:9-10,12-14; 1 Chronicles 1:2; Luke 3:37), outside of Luke 3:36, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, is never mentioned. He is omitted in the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11, as well as in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1-28. When the son of Arphaxad is listed in these genealogies, the name always given is Salah (or Shelah), not Cainan. According to some skeptics, either Cainan’s omission from the genealogies in Genesis and First Chronicles represents a genuine mistake, or Luke was in error when he wrote that Arphaxad had a son named Cainan.


One important thing that we learn from the various genealogies throughout Scripture is that sometimes they contain gaps—gaps that are intentional and legitimate. Thus, just because Luke 3 contains a name that is not recorded in Genesis 10 or 11, or in First Chronicles 1, does not necessarily mean that someone made a mistake. The fact is, terms such as “begot,” “the son of,” and “father”—which often are found in genealogies—occasionally have a much wider connotation in the Bible than might be implied when such words are used in modern-day English. Jacob once called Abraham “father,” even though Abraham was really his grandfather (Genesis 32:9). About 2,000 years later, the Pharisees also referred to Abraham as their “father” (John 8:39). The term “father” in these passages obviously means “ancestor.” In the first verse of the New Testament, Matthew wrote of Jesus as being “the son of David, the son of Abraham.” Obviously, Matthew knew that Jesus was not an immediate son of either David or Abraham;

 

[fhnl13f]

I appreciate your answer but it doesn't really sit well with me. I understand everything you're saying, but then my question is where did Luke get the information. In the mouth of two witnesses a thing is established so First Chronicles establishes the genealogy of Genesis as correct. There is not another witness to support the genealogy of Luke so I have to assume that it was either added by scribes at a later date or that it's there to point to something else for revelation. So far just from my notes in the NET it looks like it was added because there are supposedly two key text that don't contain the name in NA27. I was just hoping that someone might have a revelation about what it could be pointing to if it was there for that reason, like the gospel message in the names of Genesis 5.

Adam	Man
Seth	Appointed
Enosh	Mortal
Kenan	Sorrow;
Mahalalel	The Blessed God
Jared	Shall come down
Enoch	Teaching
Methuselah	His death shall bring
Lamech	The Despairing
Noah	Rest, or comfort.

<tbody>
</tbody>

Like I said though I do appreciate your response, I'm just fishing for answers here though lol.