Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Text/SMS
Answer
The genealogical records in the Bible are intricate and often debated among scholars and theologians. One such point of contention is a potential discrepancy in Luke’s Gospel, which includes two individuals named Cainan in the genealogy of Jesus. Luke 3:23–38 traces Christ’s lineage backward in time all the way to Adam. One of the Cainans named in Luke’s genealogy is absent from the Old Testament genealogies in Genesis 10 and 11 and 1 Chronicles 1.
It’s important to note that some Bible translations (ESV, KJV, NKJV, CSB) use the spelling Cainan for both persons in Luke’s genealogy, as Cainan is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Kenan. Other versions (NIV, NLT) use the Hebrew spelling Kenan for the “first Cainan.” He is considered the first Cainan because he was born chronologically before the second one, but since Luke’s genealogy moves backward through history, the first Cainan is listed after the second.
The First Cainan
The first Cainan is well documented in Scripture. He appears in Luke 3:37–38 as the father of Mahalalel, son of Enosh, and the great-grandson of Adam: “Mahalalel was the son of [Cainan]. [Cainan] was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam. Adam was the son of God” (NLT).
This same Cainan (spelled Kenan in the Masoretic Text, or the Hebrew text of the Old Testament) is mentioned in Genesis 5:9–14: “When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died. When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.”
The first Cainan also appears in 1 Chronicles 1:1–4 as part of the genealogical records from Adam to Abraham: “The descendants of Adam were Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. The sons of Noah were Shem, Ham, and Japheth” (NLT).
The Second Cainan
The second Cainan, the one included in Luke’s genealogy as the son of Arphaxad and the father of Shelah, is the problematic one because he surfaces only here in the genealogy of Christ and nowhere else in Scripture. Luke’s record states,
Nahor was the son of Serug.
Serug was the son of Reu.
Reu was the son of Peleg.
Peleg was the son of Eber.
Eber was the son of Shelah.
Shelah was the son of Cainan.
Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
Arphaxad was the son of Shem.
Shem was the son of Noah.
Noah was the son of Lamech.” (Luke 3:35–36, NLT)
This second Cainan is not mentioned in the genealogy of Genesis 10:24: “Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah was the father of Eber” (NLT). The same omission occurs in Genesis 11:12: “When Arphaxad was 35 years old, he became the father of Shelah” (NLT). In neither Genesis passage is Cainan mentioned as the son of Arphaxad and the father of Shelah. Cainan’s generation is also “skipped” in 1 Chronicles 1:18: “Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Eber” (NLT).Serug was the son of Reu.
Reu was the son of Peleg.
Peleg was the son of Eber.
Eber was the son of Shelah.
Shelah was the son of Cainan.
Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
Arphaxad was the son of Shem.
Shem was the son of Noah.
Noah was the son of Lamech.” (Luke 3:35–36, NLT)
Why is there a discrepancy between the Old Testament accounts and Luke’s account? Did Arphaxad have a son named Cainan or not? Did this second Cainan really exist, or was his inclusion in Luke’s genealogy a mistake?
Since the Bible is without error in the original writings, we know that the discrepancy is not due to a mistake on Luke’s part. A likely solution to the puzzle is that the addition of the second Cainan in Luke’s genealogy was a scribal error. This theory posits that, during the process of copying texts, a scribe mistakenly inserted Cainan’s name into the record.
It’s easy to see how the insertion of the second Cainan’s name could have happened. Ancient Greek was written in all capital letters, with no punctuation and no spaces between words. To one of the scribes copying Luke 3:35–37, the text could have appeared this way on the page:
TOUSEROUCHTOURHAGAUTOUPHALEKTOUEBERTOUSALA
TOUARPHAXADTOUSEMTOUNOETOULAMECHTOUMATHOUSALA
TOUHENOCHTOULARETTOUMALEELTOUKAINAM
If the scribe lost his place for a moment, he might have entered the end of the third line (tou Kainam, “son of Cainan”) at the end of the first line (after tou Sala, “son of Shelah”) by accident. Finishing out the passage without further error, the scribe would end up with the name Cainan in both verse 36 and verse 37. Two Cainans where there should only have been one.
It’s true that the Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, includes Cainan in the genealogies of Genesis and 1 Chronicles. For example, Genesis 10:24 in the LXX reads, “And Arphaxad begot Cainan, and Cainan begot Sala. And Sala begot Heber.” (Brenton LXX En). However, earlier copies of the Septuagint omit the name of the second Cainan. In fact, there is no manuscript evidence for the second Cainan appearing in any text of the Septuagint—or in the earliest copy of Luke—until after AD 220 (see https://creation.com/cainan-can-you-explain-the-difference-between-luke-336-and-genesis-1112, accessed 3/18/25).
So, the most likely explanation for the inclusion of the second Cainan in Luke’s genealogy is a rare scribal error. Arphaxad did not have a son named Cainan.
