ELEVENTH DISPUTATION. Upon those words, Genesis 11: Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Sale. Whether between Arphaxad and Sale the generation of Cainan is to be interposed — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

ELEVENTH DISPUTATION. Upon those words, Genesis 11: Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begot Sale. Whether between Arphaxad and Sale the generation of Cainan is to be interposed.¹

UNDECIMA DISPUTATIO. Super illis verbis, Genes. 11: Arphaxad vixit triginta quinque annis et genuit Sale. Utrum inter Arphaxad et Sale interponenda sit generatio Cainan.

ARDUUM hic locus, et quorundam doctorum hominum iudicio plane inexplicabilem quaestionem affert: an generatio Cainan interponenda sit inter Arphaxad et Sale. Namque eam generationem nec habet Scriptura Hebraica, nec paraphrasis Chaldaica, nec Latina editio vulgata; at eam commemorant hoc loco Septuaginta Interpretes, et B. Lucas eam ponit capite 3 Evangelicae historiae, genealogiam Domini nostri describens. Alterutram porro scripturam esse mendosam necessarium videtur: illam quidem, si desit haec generatio, mancam ac mutilam; hanc vero, si ea redundet, non supervacaneam modo sed etiam mendacem: utraque certe vera esse non potest. Neque enim fieri potest ut Arphaxad, cum esset triginta quinque annorum, genuerit Sale, et eo ipso tempore genuerit Cainan patrem ipsius Sale: ut, quo anno Cainan natus est, eodem ipso anno genuerit filium Sale.

This place is arduous, and, in the judgment of certain learned men, brings a question plainly inexplicable: whether the generation of Cainan is to be interposed between Arphaxad and Sale. For that generation neither the Hebrew Scripture has, nor the Chaldaic paraphrase, nor the Latin Vulgate edition; but the Septuagint translators record it in this place, and Blessed Luke puts it in the third chapter of the Evangelical history, describing the genealogy of our Lord. It seems necessary that one or the other Scripture is faulty: the one, indeed, if this generation be lacking, maimed and mutilated; but the other, if it be redundant, not only superfluous but even false: certainly both cannot be true. For it cannot be that Arphaxad, when he was thirty-five years old, begot Sale, and at that very time begot Cainan the father of Sale himself — so that, in the year in which Cainan was born, in that same year he begot his son Sale.²

QUINQUE modis nodum hunc solvere conatos esse video scriptores Ecclesiasticos: quos ego modos hic breviter exponendo perstringam. Primus modus propositae difficultatis explicandae is est quem sequitur Eugubinus. Hunc non puduit dicere Septuaginta duos Interpretes, addendo generationem Cainan, errasse, eorumque errorem secutum esse B. Lucam. Quam vocem, cuius (obsecro) pii aut etiam Christiani hominis aures non perhorrescant? Si enim in Scripturis canonicis quicquam, quale quale illud sit, falsum esse concedimus, amplam profecto fenestram ad omnem divinae scripturae firmitudinem et auctoritatem labefactandam aperiemus. Certum enim est Spiritum Sanctum non affuisse B. Lucae in eo quod ille falsum scripsit. Cur igitur non itidem merito vereamur ne, in aliis quoque rebus quas scriptis prodidit Lucas, Spiritus sanctus eum deseruerit atque in errorem labi passus sit?

In five ways I see that ecclesiastical writers have tried to loose this knot: which ways I shall here briefly run over by setting them forth. The first way of explaining the proposed difficulty is that which Eugubinus follows. He was not ashamed to say that the seventy-two Translators, by adding the generation of Cainan, erred, and that Blessed Luke followed their error. At which word, I pray, whose ears — of a pious, or even of a Christian, man — would not shudder? For if we concede that in the canonical Scriptures anything whatsoever is false, we shall surely open a wide window for undermining all the firmness and authority of the divine Scripture. For it is certain that the Holy Spirit was not present to Blessed Luke in that which he wrote falsely. Why, then, should we not likewise rightly fear lest, in other matters too which Luke set forth in writing, the Holy Spirit deserted him and suffered him to slip into error?³

NEQUE vero translatio Septuaginta Interpretum tam fastidiose respui aut tam facile contemni debet, cum affirmasse Origenem legamus, apud Eusebium libro 6 Historiae Ecclesiasticae capite 23, id pro vero in divinis scripturis habendum esse quod Septuaginta Interpretes transtulerunt, cum et Apostolica id firmatum sit auctoritate et longo Ecclesiae usu comprobatum. Quid quod illam generationem Cainan, cum Eusebius in exordio sui Chronici multique scriptores Graeci, tum de Latinis B. Augustinus libro 16 de Civitate Dei capite 10 aliique agnoscunt et recipiunt?

Nor indeed ought the translation of the Septuagint translators to be so fastidiously rejected or so easily despised, since we read that Origen affirmed — in Eusebius, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 23 — that that is to be held for true in the divine Scriptures which the Septuagint translators rendered, since it is both confirmed by Apostolic authority and approved by the long use of the Church. What of the fact that that generation of Cainan both Eusebius (at the opening of his Chronicle) and many Greek writers, and among the Latins Blessed Augustine (book 16 of the City of God, chapter 10) and others, acknowledge and receive?⁴

ALTER modus expediendae huius quaestionis placuit Caietano. Is enim, verba illa explanans Lucae „Qui fuit Sale, qui fuit Cainan,“ dupliciter respondet ad propositam difficultatem. Primum ait (id quod proxime ostendimus sensisse Eugubinum) generationem illam Cainan esse supervacuam, immo nullam; quare Septuaginta Interpretes eam addendo errasse, B. vero Lucam propterea excusari ab errore, quia id sequi voluit quod scriptum repererat in translatione Septuaginta Interpretum, quae id temporis ubique gentium pervulgata et recepta erat: scilicet veritus ne, si contra communem hominum sensum atque inveteratam opinionem secus quam esset apud Septuaginta quicquam scriberet, minus vulgo scripta sua proba[rentur]…

Another way of dispatching this question pleased Cajetan. For he, explaining those words of Luke, „Who was [the son] of Sale, who was [the son] of Cainan,“ answers the proposed difficulty in two ways. First he says (which we just now showed Eugubinus to have held) that that generation of Cainan is superfluous, nay, non-existent; wherefore the Septuagint translators erred in adding it, but Blessed Luke is for this reason excused from error, because he chose to follow what he had found written in the translation of the Septuagint translators, which at that time was everywhere among the nations widespread and received — namely, fearing lest, if he wrote anything against the common sense of men and the inveterate opinion, otherwise than it was in the Septuagint, his writings should be less approved by the common people…⁵

…rentur. Huic etiam responso Iansenius & Genebrardus adhaerescunt: sed hoc Caietani responsum perquam leve est. Non enim decebat B. Lucam in scribendo Evangelio maiorem existimationis vulgi, falsae praesertim, quam veritatis habere rationem: & à sacris & Canonicis scriptoribus scriptisque omnem erroris vel imprudenter vel scienter admissi suspicionem propulsare oportet.

…approved. To this answer also Jansenius and Genebrardus adhere; but this answer of Cajetan is exceedingly weak. For it was not fitting that Luke, in writing the Gospel, should have greater regard for the esteem of the common people — especially a false esteem — than for the truth; and from sacred and canonical writers and their writings one ought to repel every suspicion of error admitted, whether imprudently or knowingly.⁶

ILLVD praeterea respondet Caietanus, verè addendam esse generationem Cainan: non enim esse credibile Septuaginta Interpretes, viros nempe cùm sapientes, tum etiam pios, aliquid de suo divinae scripturae ausos affingere, conniuente Eleazaro summo eius temporis Iudaeorum pontifice, à quo illi ad regem Philadelphum missi fuerant; & dissimulantibus Synagogae doctoribus, quorum est iudicio atque suffragio illorum probata translatio. Verisimilius igitur putat Caietanus codices Hebraeos quibus usi sunt Septuaginta Interpretes, & in quibus erat generatio Cainan, fuisse veros & integros: quos autem B. Hieronymus nactus est, quique ad nos pervenere, mancos & mutilos esse. Siquidem etiam ipsi Hieronymo explananti tertium caput Epistolae ad Galatas non est visum incredibile, codices Hebraeos multa secus habuisse ante passionem Domini, Hebraeosque vel invidia vel odio Christianorum, aliqua vel detraxisse vel addidisse.

Cajetan responds besides that the generation of Cainan is truly to be added; for it is not credible that the Seventy Translators — men both wise and also pious — would have dared to forge anything of their own into the divine Scripture, with Eleazar, the high priest of the Jews of that age, conniving (he by whom they had been sent to King Philadelphus), and the doctors of the Synagogue dissembling, by whose judgment and vote their translation was approved. Cajetan therefore thinks it more likely that the Hebrew codices the Seventy used — in which the generation of Cainan stood — were true and intact, whereas those Jerome obtained, and which have come down to us, are maimed and mutilated. For even to Jerome himself, expounding the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, it did not seem incredible that the Hebrew codices had many things otherwise before the Lord's Passion, and that the Hebrews, out of either envy or hatred of Christians, had either taken away or added some things.⁷

SED hoc ut credam vix possum in animum inducere. Cui enim persuaderi queat omnes sacrae Scripturae libros ab Hebraeis, nemine reclamante, fuisse corruptos? in ea praesertim re, quae ipsis adversus Christianos decertantibus nec prodesse quicquam nec obesse poterat. Atque haec ipsa est Beati Augustini in libro decimo quinto de Civitate Dei sententia. Iosephus certè, qui recens fuit ab obitu Domini nostri, in enumeratione priorum generationum quae fuerunt ante diluvium, secutus erat Septuaginta Interpretes; in descriptione autem posteriorum generationum, scripturam Hebraicam sequens, generationem Cainan praetermisit.

But I can scarcely bring my mind to believe this. For who could be persuaded that all the books of sacred Scripture were corrupted by the Hebrews, with none protesting? — especially in a matter which, while they contended against the Christians, could neither profit them at all nor harm them. And this very same is the opinion of blessed Augustine in book fifteen of the City of God. Josephus certainly, who lived close to the death of our Lord, in enumerating the earlier generations which were before the flood, had followed the Seventy Translators; but in describing the later generations, following the Hebrew scripture, he omitted the generation of Cainan.⁸

TERTIVM modum ad eandem quaestionem enodandam, hunc nonnulli adinvenerunt: aiunt illi Cainan & Sale non fuisse duos homines sed unum, binomium tamen, id est, qui & Sale & Cainan appellaretur: quare putant isti apud Beatum Lucam mendosè legi, Quis fuit Sale, qui fuit Cainan, sed legi debere, Qui fuit Sale, qui & Cainan; ut sint posita duo eiusdem hominis nomina. Haec est opinio Ioannis Lucidi in libro primo de emendatione temporum capite sexto, & libro septimo capite primo: eademque fuit ante illum & Naucleri & Hermanni Contracti in Chronicis.

A THIRD way of unravelling the same question some have devised: they say that Cainan and Sale were not two men but one — yet of two names, that is, one who was called both Sale and Cainan; wherefore these think that in blessed Luke it is read corruptly, 'who was Sale, who was Cainan,' but ought to be read, 'who was Sale, who [was] also Cainan,' so that two names of the same man are set down. This is the opinion of Ioannes Lucidus in book one On the Emendation of Times, chapter six, and book seven, chapter one; and the same was, before him, the opinion of both Nauclerus and Hermannus Contractus in their Chronicles.⁹

VERVM istorum sententia tribus refellitur argumentis. Etenim omnes codices tam Graeci quàm Latini, & qui olim fuerunt, & qui nunc sunt, habent hoc loco apud Lucam eam lectionem quam isti mendosam censent. Vnde igitur isti probant illam esse mendosam, non satis apparet, ni id esse ab istis temerè confictum, quod aliud ipsi…

But the opinion of these is refuted by three arguments. For all the codices, both Greek and Latin, both those that once were and those that now are, have in this place in Luke that reading which these judge corrupt. Whence, then, these prove it to be corrupt does not sufficiently appear — unless it be rashly contrived by them, because they themselves [found] no other…¹⁰

…ipsi propositae difficultatis effugium non invenirent? Deinde, qui sit credibile B. Lucam unius illius hominis tantùm duo nomina exponere voluisse, & nullius aliorum quos ibi recenset, cùm eorum non paucos & binomios & trinomios fuisse constet? Ad haec, isti non adverterunt ad translationem Septuaginta Interpretum quae est hoc loco, & quam secutus est B. Lucas: in hac enim ponitur Cainan ut genitor & pater ipsius Sale: quo fit ut Cainan & Sale duos fuisse homines inter se diversos necesse sit.

…they themselves found no escape from the proposed difficulty? Next, how is it credible that Luke wished to set forth two names of that one man only, and of none of the others whom he there recounts — when it is established that not a few of them were of two and even three names? Besides, these did not advert to the translation of the Seventy in this place, which Luke followed: for in it Cainan is set as the begetter and father of Sale himself; whence it must be that Cainan and Sale were two men distinct from each other.¹¹

QVARTVS modus eiusdem dissolvendae quaestionis videtur nonnullis facilior & planior ceteris adhuc expositis, ob idque probabilior. Hunc modum tenent recentiores quidam scriptores, ut Lippomanus in Catena in Genesim super undecimum caput eius libri, & Canus lib. 2 de Locis Theologicis cap. 18. Censent isti generationem Cainan re vera inter Arphaxad & Sale intercessisse; eamque Septuaginta vel ex certa maiorum traditione, vel ex historiis fide dignis cùm haberent compertam, merito suae translationi inseruisse: quam Moses sciens prudensque praetermisit. nimirum voluit Moses seriem generationum ab Adamo usque ad Diluvium, & à Diluvio usque ad Abraham, in duas decades distinguere, ob aliquam certe causam, mysticam illam quidem, sed nobis occultam; quemadmodum B. Matthaeus in genealogia Salvatoris nostri, quam in exordio sui Evangelii descripsit, generationes ab Abraham usque ad Christum dominum, duas & quadraginta duntaxat, compluribus aliis praeteritis, recensuit.

A FOURTH way of resolving the same question seems to some easier and plainer than the others so far set forth, and for that reason more probable. This way certain more recent writers hold, as Lippomanus in the Catena on Genesis on the eleventh chapter of that book, and Canus, book 2 On Theological Topics, chapter 18. These judge that the generation of Cainan truly did intervene between Arphaxad and Sale, and that the Seventy, having ascertained it either from a sure tradition of the elders or from histories worthy of belief, rightly inserted it into their translation; which Moses knowingly and prudently passed over. For Moses wished to distinguish the series of generations from Adam to the Flood, and from the Flood to Abraham, into two decades, for some cause certainly mystical but hidden from us — just as blessed Matthew, in the genealogy of our Saviour which he set down at the opening of his Gospel, recounted the generations from Abraham to Christ the Lord as only forty-two, several others being passed over.¹²

HAEC ab istis acutè cogitata & probabiliter dicta non inficior. Verùm ne sic quidem omnino excussum & demptum esse scrupulum video. nam esto, potuerit generatio Cainan sine ullo vitio & à Mose praetermitti, & à Septuaginta Interpretibus commemorari: illud certè nullo modo fieri potuit, ut quo tempore Cainan genitus est ab Arphaxad, eodem ipse tempore generaret filium suum Sale. At enim secundum scripturam Hebraicam, Arphaxad cùm esset triginta quinque annorum genuit Sale; secundum verò translationem Septuaginta Interpretum, eo ipso tempore Arphaxad genuit Cainan patrem ipsius Sale. Si igitur utraque scriptura vera est, necesse fuerit eodem anno generatum esse Cainan & Sale, id est patrem & filium, quod plane absurdum est; si tamen quod est impossibile, absurdum dicere convenit.

These things acutely thought out and plausibly said by these I do not deny. But not even thus do I see the scruple wholly shaken out and removed. For granted that the generation of Cainan could, without any fault, both be passed over by Moses and be commemorated by the Seventy: this certainly could in no way come about — that at the time Cainan was begotten by Arphaxad, at that same time he himself should beget his son Sale. For according to the Hebrew scripture, Arphaxad, when he was thirty-five years old, begot Sale; but according to the translation of the Seventy, at that very same time Arphaxad begot Cainan, the father of Sale himself. If, then, both scriptures are true, it must be that in the same year both Cainan and Sale were begotten — that is, father and son — which is plainly absurd; if indeed it is fitting to call absurd what is impossible.¹³

CETERVM dicere aliquis posset pro istius modi expositionis defensione: cùm in scriptura Hebraica dicitur Arphaxad natus annos triginta quinque genuisse filium Sale, non id esse intelligendum quasi tunc actu genuerit, sed tantùm virtute ac potentia; quia eo anno genuit Cainan patrem ipsius Sale, in quo ipse Sale, ut in patre filius, virtute ac potestate continebatur. Nec verò modus hic loquendi insolens est in sacris literis: namque in genealogia Salvatoris nostri quam tradit B. Matthaeus, dicitur Ioram genuisse Oziam; non sanè…

But someone could say, in defence of this kind of exposition: when in the Hebrew scripture Arphaxad is said at thirty-five years to have begotten his son Sale, it is not to be understood as if he then begot him in act, but only in virtue and potency; because in that year he begot Cainan, the father of Sale himself, in whom Sale — as a son in a father — was contained in virtue and power. Nor indeed is this manner of speaking unusual in the sacred letters: for in the genealogy of our Saviour which blessed Matthew hands down, Joram is said to have begotten Ozias; not indeed…¹⁴

…actu sed virtute, quia Ioram genuit proximè Ochoziam proavum Oziae. Verum nos hoc dissimulemus, & sine examine praetereamus.

…in act but in virtue, because Joram begot, in the nearest line, Ochozias, the great-grandfather of Ozias. But let us dissemble this, and pass it by without examination.¹⁵

ILLVD certè mihi videtur inextricabile: sic enim cum animo meo reputare soleo: aut haec generatio Cainan ignota fuit Mosi, aut nota: ignotam fuisse Mosi, quae perspecta fuerit & cognita Septuaginta Interpretibus, quis audeat dicere, cùm Moses tanto propior quàm illi fuerit illi aetati, solusque illorum temporum Historiam tanta cum diligentia & cura conscripserit? Sin autem ea generatio nota fuit Mosi, cur igitur eam praetermisit? praesertim autem cùm eius generationis vel adiectio vel detractio non parùm variet Chronologiam quae inter Diluvium & Abraham à Mose describitur: quam quidem Chronologiam voluisse Mosem integrè, exactè ac perfectè tradere, illud est clarissimum indicium, quod seriem generationum quae fuerunt inter diluvium & Abraham distinctè & accuratè percenset, & suos cuique generationi annos subtiliter computatos propriè assignat. qui sit igitur credibile, Mosen, generatione Cainan praetermissa, vitiosam nobis Chronologiam aut voluisse tradere, aut cùm minimè vellet, inscienter tamen tradidisse?

This certainly seems to me inextricable; for I am wont to reason thus with myself: either this generation of Cainan was unknown to Moses, or known. That it was unknown to Moses — which was clearly perceived and known by the Seventy — who would dare to say, since Moses was so much nearer to that age than they, and alone wrote the History of those times with such diligence and care? But if that generation was known to Moses, why then did he pass it over? — especially since the addition or subtraction of that generation varies not a little the Chronology which is described by Moses between the Flood and Abraham: that Moses wished to hand down this Chronology whole, exactly, and perfectly is shown by the clearest indication, namely that he recounts the series of generations between the Flood and Abraham distinctly and accurately, and properly assigns to each generation its own years subtly computed. How, then, is it credible that Moses, the generation of Cainan being omitted, either wished to hand down to us a faulty Chronology, or — when he by no means wished it — nevertheless unknowingly handed it down?¹⁶

EQVIDEM diu multùmque cogitans nullam rationem (quae mihi animum expleret) reperire adhuc potui, cur Moses generationem Cainan, siquidem ea inter Arphaxad & Sale intercessit, praeterire debuerit aut potuerit. Nam quod aiunt quidam voluisse Mosen generationes quae fuerunt ante & post diluvium, ad duas tantùm decades redigere; id nec probari ab istis potest, & leve ac futile est, nec tale ut propter id debuerit Moses Chronologiam (cuius exacta cognitio magni erat momenti) perturbare atque confundere. His adde, quod saltem in libris Paralipomenon, in quibus supplentur quae alibi in sacris literis derelicta fuerant, unde nomen etiam illi habent, commemorata fuisset generatio haec Cainan: siquidem in exordio prioris libri Paralipomenon series generationum quae fuerunt ante & post diluvium similiter atque hic recensetur, nec ullum tamen verbum fit de generatione Cainan.

Indeed, thinking long and much, I have so far been able to find no reason (that would satisfy my mind) why Moses ought, or could, have passed over the generation of Cainan, if indeed it intervened between Arphaxad and Sale. For what some say — that Moses wished to reduce the generations before and after the flood to only two decades — this can neither be proved by them, and is light and futile, nor is it such that on its account Moses ought to disturb and confound the Chronology (whose exact knowledge was of great moment). Add to these that at least in the books of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), in which the things left out elsewhere in the sacred letters are supplied — whence indeed they have their name — this generation of Cainan would have been commemorated; for at the opening of the first book of Paralipomenon the series of generations before and after the flood is recounted just as here, and yet not a single word is made about the generation of Cainan.¹⁷

RESTAT quintus & ultimus modus, quem ad hanc quaestionem profligandam quidam expeditiorem atque aptiorem esse arbitrantur. Aiunt inter Arphaxad & Sale nullam intercessisse generationem; nec generationem Cainan esse vel à Septuaginta Interpretibus proditam, vel à B. Luca positam in genealogia Salvatoris, sed ab aliquo, nescio quo, eam mendosè adiectam esse, primùm quidem translationi Septuaginta Interpretum hoc loco; hinc autem postea in genealogiam Domini nostri quae est apud Lucam, fuisse transfusam. hoc isti non probant. Sed ad eius tamen opinationis confirmationem triplex coniectura, nec ea sanè levis aut contemnenda, afferri potest. Prima coniectura haec est; Beatus Hieronymus in Traditionibus Hebraicis in Genesim omnem dissonantiam lectionis quae est in libro Geneseos inter codices Hebraeos & Septuaginta Interpretum…

There remains a fifth and last way, which some judge more expeditious and apt for dispatching this question. They say that no generation intervened between Arphaxad and Sale; and that the generation of Cainan was neither produced by the Seventy Translators nor set by Luke in the genealogy of the Saviour, but was corruptly added by someone — I know not whom — first, indeed, to the translation of the Seventy in this place, and thence afterward transfused into the genealogy of our Lord which is in Luke. This these do not prove. Yet for the confirmation of that opinion a threefold conjecture — and that truly not light or to be despised — can be brought. The first conjecture is this: blessed Jerome, in the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis, curiously investigating and diligently noting every dissonance of reading which is in the book of Genesis between the Hebrew codices and the Seventy Translators…¹⁸

…curiosè pervestigans ac diligenter annotans, dissonantiam hanc quae est circa generationem Cainan adeo insignem & notabilem, ne verbo quidem attigit. Ex quo licet intelligere non fuisse eam generationem in libris Septuaginta Interpretum quos tunc habuit Hieronymus.

…curiously investigating and diligently noting [them], did not touch even with a word this dissonance about the generation of Cainan, so signal and notable. From which one may understand that that generation was not in the books of the Seventy which Jerome then had.¹⁹

ALTERA coniectura est, Iosephum qui ferè sequi solet Septuaginta Interpretes, primo libro Antiquitatum percensentem generationes quae fuerunt à diluvio usque ad Abraham, in iis hanc generationem Cainan minimè commemorasse: nec Epiphanium disputantem contra 55. haeresim, id est, contra Melchisedechianos, cùm secundum translationem Septuaginta Interpretum exponat annos singularum generationum quae fuerunt inter diluvium & Abraham, mentionem generationis Cainan nullam planè facere. Tertia coniectura est in exordio prioris libri Paralipomenon, ubi series generationum à diluvio usque ad Abraham, similiter atque hoc loco commemoratur: antiqui & emendati codices Septuaginta Interpretum (qualis est qui Romae nuper auctoritate & cura Illustrissimi Cardinalis Carafae prodiit) non habent generationem Cainan.

The second conjecture is that Josephus, who is wont almost always to follow the Seventy, in the first book of the Antiquities, reviewing the generations from the flood to Abraham, by no means commemorated this generation of Cainan; nor does Epiphanius, disputing against the 55th heresy — that is, against the Melchisedechians — when according to the translation of the Seventy he sets out the years of the several generations between the flood and Abraham, make any mention at all of the generation of Cainan. The third conjecture is at the opening of the first book of Paralipomenon, where the series of generations from the flood to Abraham is commemorated just as in this place: the ancient and emended codices of the Seventy (such as the one that lately came out at Rome by the authority and care of the most illustrious Cardinal Carafa) do not have the generation of Cainan.²⁰

EX his rectè concluditur generationem Cainan non fuisse in omnibus libris Septuaginta Interpretum. Vnde probabiliter etiam coniicitur eam non fuisse traditam à Septuaginta Interpretibus: atque eos libros qui ea generatione carebant, ut qui cum Hebraeis codicibus congruerent, veros & integros esse iudicandos: eos autem qui generationem Cainan habebant, ut corruptos atque mendosos esse abiudicandos ac reiiciendos. facile autem fuit aliquem nactum libros Septuaginta Interpretum in quibus erat generatio Cainan, inde eam transtulisse in Evangelium Lucae: quod à principio non animadversum, non solùm inhaesisse in uno eo libro, sed in eos posteà qui usque ad hanc diem exscripti sunt esse derivatum.

From these it is rightly concluded that the generation of Cainan was not in all the books of the Seventy. Whence it is also probably conjectured that it was not handed down by the Seventy; and that those books which lacked that generation, as agreeing with the Hebrew codices, are to be judged true and intact, while those which had the generation of Cainan are to be condemned and rejected as corrupt and faulty. It was easy, moreover, for someone, having got hold of books of the Seventy in which the generation of Cainan was, to transfer it thence into the Gospel of Luke; which, not noticed at the beginning, not only stuck in that one book but was derived into those that, down to this day, have been copied out.²¹

AT enimvero, si quod de veritate librorum Septuaginta Interpretum circa generationem Cainan satis benè probatum est, idem quoque de libro Evangelico B. Lucae probaretur, equidem sententiam hanc toto assensu complecterer. Verùm neque hac aetate ullus est liber B. Lucae qui in genealogia Salvatoris non habeat generationem Cainan, nec legi fuisse unquam aliquem, qui diceret vel à se, vel ab aliis visum esse codicem ullum B. Lucae qui tali generatione careret. Quocirca coniectura istorum, ut in libris Septuaginta Interpretum minimè infirma est, sic in Evangelio Lucae videtur levissima atque temeraria: quin potiùs, propter auctoritatem B. Lucae qui secutus est Septuaginta Interpretes, eos libros Graecos in quibus fuit generatio Cainan integros atque incorruptos, eos autem qui generationem Cainan non habuerunt vitiatos & mendosos fuisse existimare oportet.

But indeed, if what about the truth of the books of the Seventy concerning the generation of Cainan has been well enough proved were also proved about the Gospel book of blessed Luke, I would for my part embrace this opinion with full assent. But in this age there is no book of Luke that in the genealogy of the Saviour does not have the generation of Cainan, nor have I ever read that anyone said that, either by himself or by others, any codex of Luke was seen that lacked such a generation. Wherefore the conjecture of these — as it is by no means weak in the books of the Seventy — so in the Gospel of Luke seems most light and rash; nay rather, on account of the authority of blessed Luke (who followed the Seventy translators), one ought to judge those Greek books in which the generation of Cainan was to be sound and uncorrupted, but those which did not have the generation of Cainan to be faulty and corrupt.²²

QVAENAM igitur est nostra sententia? illud quod, si quibus hic modus non probabitur lectori, ex iis dictis quatuor modis…

What, then, is our opinion? This: that, if to any reader this way [the fifth] shall not be approved, of those four ways stated…²³

…modis quartum ego ceteris minus improbabilem minusque reprehensioni obnoxium esse iudico, ac mihi, quamvis in hac disputatione iam acciderit, contentiùs quod sibi obtigit scribit Venerabilis Beda in Praefatione Commentariorum suorum in Acta Apostolorum his verbis: Lucas in primis Graecis visus est credere magis quàm Hebraeis: Ex quo accidit quod maximè miror, & propter ingenii tarditatem vehementissimo stupore perculsus, nescio perspicere qua ratione, cùm in Hebraica veritate à diluvio usque ad Abraham decem tantùm generationes inveniantur, ipse Lucas qui, Spiritu Sancto calamum regente, nullatenus falsum scribere potuit, undecim generationes iuxta Septuaginta Interpretes, adiecto Cainan, in Evangelio ponere maluit. Sic eo loco Beda.

…of the [four] ways, I judge the fourth less improbable and less liable to censure than the rest; and to me, although it has already happened in this disputation, [there befalls] more vexingly what befell the Venerable Bede, who writes in the Preface of his Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles in these words: 'Luke in the first place seemed to trust the Greeks rather than the Hebrews. From which arises what I most wonder at — and, struck with most vehement astonishment by reason of the slowness of my wit, I cannot perceive by what reason — that, whereas in the Hebrew verity from the flood to Abraham only ten generations are found, Luke himself, who, with the Holy Spirit guiding his pen, could in no way write anything false, chose rather to set in his Gospel eleven generations according to the Seventy Translators, Cainan being added.' Thus Bede in that place.²⁴

Translator’s notes

Liber XVI, Disputation 11 (title; Gen 11:12 lemma): whether Cainan is to be interposed between Arphaxad and Sale. ↩
§163. Disp. 11. The hard question: is Cainan to be interposed between Arphaxad and Sale? The Hebrew, Chaldee, and Vulgate lack him; but the LXX have him, and Luke (Lk 3, the Lord's genealogy) puts him in. One Scripture seems faulty — the one maimed (if Cainan is missing), the other false (if redundant); both cannot be true (Arphaxad could not at 35 beget both Sale and Cainan, Sale's father). ↩
§164. Five ways to loose the knot. (1) Eugubinus: the LXX erred in adding Cainan, and Luke followed their error. Pererius recoils: any pious ear shudders — to concede anything false in canonical Scripture opens a window to undermine all its authority; for the Holy Spirit was not with Luke in what he wrote falsely, and we would then fear the Spirit deserted him elsewhere too. Margin: a remark on Eugubinus. ↩
§165. Nor should the LXX be despised: Origen (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History bk. 6 ch. 23) held the LXX rendering to be true in Scripture, confirmed by Apostolic authority and the Church's long use. And the generation of Cainan is acknowledged by Eusebius (Chronicle), many Greeks, and among Latins Augustine (City of God 16.10) and others. Margins: Origen's authority on the Septuagint; Eusebius; Eusebius; Augustine. ↩
§166. (2) Cajetan (on Lk 3, ‘who was of Sale, who was of Cainan’) answers two ways. First (like Eugubinus): the Cainan generation is superfluous, indeed non-existent — the LXX erred in adding it, but Luke is excused, having chosen to follow the LXX (then everywhere received), fearing that writing against the common opinion would make his work less approved (continues next batch). Margin: Cajetan on Luke 3. ↩
§166 (concl.). Jansenius and Genebrardus adhere to Cajetan's second answer (that Luke followed the received LXX to avoid discrediting his work); but Pererius judges it very weak — Luke could not have valued the (false) opinion of the crowd over truth, and all suspicion of error must be repelled from canonical writers. Margin: 'The Gospel concord'; 'Genebrardus in his chronology.' ↩
§167. Cajetan's further argument that Cainan IS genuine: the LXX, being wise and pious and approved by the high priest Eleazar (who sent them to Ptolemy Philadelphus) and the Synagogue, would not have invented it; so the Hebrew codices they used (which had Cainan) were sound, and those Jerome had — our present ones — are mutilated. Cajetan cites Jerome on Galatians 3 admitting the Hebrews may have altered codices before the Passion out of hatred of Christians. Margin: 'Jerome.' ↩
§168. Pererius's rebuttal: incredible that ALL Scripture was corrupted by the Hebrews with no protest, in a matter useless to their anti-Christian polemic — so Augustine holds (City of God, bk. 15). Josephus, near the Lord's time, followed the LXX for the pre-flood generations but the Hebrew for the post-flood, omitting Cainan. Margin: 'Josephus, bk. 1 of the Antiquities.' ↩
§169. Third solution: Cainan and Sale were one man with two names, so Luke 3 should read 'who was Sale, who [was] also Cainan' (two names, one person), not two persons. Held by Ioannes Lucidus (On the Emendation of Times, bk. 1 ch. 6, bk. 7 ch. 1), and earlier by Nauclerus and Hermannus Contractus in their Chronicles. Margin: 'Ioannes Lucidus; Nauclerus; Hermannus.' ↩
§170 (begins). Pererius refutes the third solution with three arguments. First: ALL codices Greek and Latin, ancient and modern, have in Luke exactly the reading these call corrupt — so they cannot prove it corrupt; their claim looks rashly invented because they found no other escape (continues next page). ↩
§170 (concl.). Second argument: why would Luke give two names only of this one man and of no other, when several of those listed had two or three names? Third argument: the solution ignores the LXX (which Luke followed), where Cainan is the FATHER of Sale — so they must be two distinct men. ↩
§171. Fourth solution (held by Lippomanus in his Catena on Gen 11, and Melchior Cano, Loci Theologici bk. 2 ch. 18): Cainan really did intervene between Arphaxad and Sale; the LXX rightly inserted him from sound tradition or trustworthy histories, while Moses deliberately omitted him to fit the generations into two decades (Adam→Flood, Flood→Abraham) for a hidden mystical reason — just as Matthew (Mt 1) reduced Abraham→Christ to 42 generations, omitting several. Margin: 'Lippomanus; Melchior Cano.' ↩
§172. Pererius grants the fourth solution is clever but says it leaves a scruple: the Hebrew has Arphaxad beget Sale at age 35, while the LXX has Arphaxad at the same age beget Cainan, the father of Sale. If both are true, Cainan (father) and Sale (son) were begotten in the same year — plainly absurd/impossible. ↩
§173 (begins). A possible defense of the fourth solution: the Hebrew 'Arphaxad at 35 begot Sale' means not actually but in virtue/potency — that year he begot Cainan, Sale's father, in whom Sale was virtually contained. Such speech is not unusual in Scripture: Matthew says Joram begot Ozias, not actually (continues next page). Margin: 'Matthew 1.' ↩
§173 (concl.). The Matthew parallel explained: Joram begot Ozias only 'in virtue,' since he immediately begot Ochozias, Ozias's great-grandfather (Mt 1 skips three kings). Pererius sets this defense aside without pressing it. ↩
§174. Pererius calls the matter inextricable: either Cainan was unknown to Moses (incredible — he was nearer the age than the LXX and wrote so carefully) or known (then why omit him, when adding/subtracting him alters the Flood→Abraham chronology?). Moses clearly meant the chronology to be exact, assigning precise years to each generation, so he would neither deliberately nor unknowingly hand down a faulty one. ↩
§175. Pererius can find no satisfying reason Moses would omit Cainan if he existed. The 'two decades' motive is unproven, light, futile, and not worth confounding an important chronology for. Moreover Chronicles (Paralipomenon) — whose very purpose is to supply what was left out elsewhere — recounts these same pre- and post-flood generations at the start of 1 Chronicles and says nothing of Cainan. ↩
§176 (begins). Fifth and last solution: no generation came between Arphaxad and Sale; Cainan was produced neither by the LXX nor by Luke, but corruptly inserted by some unknown hand — first into the LXX here, then carried over into Luke's genealogy. Unproven, but supported by a threefold conjecture. First conjecture: Jerome, in his Hebrew Traditions (Quaestiones) on Genesis, who carefully noted every reading-difference between the Hebrew and the LXX… (continues next page). Margin: 'Beroaldus in his Chronicle'; 'St. Jerome.' ↩
§176 (concl.). First conjecture concluded: Jerome, who noted every Hebrew-vs-LXX difference in Genesis, never mentioned so notable a difference as the Cainan generation — which shows the LXX copies Jerome had did not contain it. ↩
§177. Second conjecture: Josephus (Antiquities bk. 1), who usually follows the LXX, omits Cainan from the flood-to-Abraham generations; and Epiphanius, against the 55th heresy (the Melchisedechians), expounding the LXX years between flood and Abraham, never mentions Cainan. Third conjecture: at the start of 1 Chronicles, the ancient corrected LXX codices (e.g. the recent Roman edition under Cardinal Carafa) lack Cainan. Margin: 'Josephus; Epiphanius.' ↩
§178. Conclusion from the three conjectures: Cainan was not in all LXX books, so probably not handed down by the LXX at all; the books lacking it (agreeing with the Hebrew) are sound, those having it corrupt. Someone with a corrupted LXX easily transferred Cainan into Luke, where, unnoticed, it spread into all later copies. ↩
§179. Pererius would fully accept the fifth solution IF the same were proved of Luke as of the LXX. But no copy of Luke in this age lacks Cainan in the genealogy, nor has anyone ever reported seeing a codex of Luke without it. So the interpolation-conjecture, though by no means weak for the LXX books, is ‘most light and rash’ for Luke; rather, given Luke's authority (he followed the LXX), one ought to judge the Cainan-bearing Greek codices sound and the Cainan-lacking ones corrupt. (Pererius's own verdict follows in §180.) ↩
§180 (begins). Pererius states his own view: if the reader will not accept this (fifth) way, then of the [other] ways stated… (continues next page). Margin: 'A very notable opinion of Bede.' ↩
§180 (concl.). Pererius's verdict: of the ways laid out, he judges the FOURTH (Cainan really intervened; LXX inserted, Moses omitted) least improbable and least open to censure. He confesses the same perplexity that befell the Venerable Bede, quoted from the Preface to his Commentary on Acts: astonished that, though the Hebrew gives only ten generations from flood to Abraham, Luke — who under the Holy Spirit could write nothing false — chose to put eleven, with Cainan added per the LXX. Margin: 'Bede's opinion, very notable.' ↩