Who was the father of Shelah? Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12) Overview of the Question The genealogies in Genesis 11 and Luke 3 appear to present two different names as the father of Shelah. Genesis 11:12 states, “When Arphaxad was 35 years old, he became the father of Shelah.” On the other hand, Luke 3:35–36 includes an additional name surrounding Shelah: “…the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad…” This raises the question of who actually fathered Shelah: was it Arphaxad or was it Cainan? Below is a comprehensive examination of this issue, highlighting relevant texts, historical manuscript evidence, and interpretive considerations. Scriptural Citations and Variations “When Arphaxad was 35 years old, he became the father of Shelah.” “…the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah…” These two passages form the core textual data. One explicitly calls Arphaxad the father of Shelah, while Luke’s genealogy seems to indicate a “Cainan” in the line between Arphaxad and Shelah. In modern English translations, including the Berean Standard Bible, Luke’s description of ancestry clearly names Cainan before Arphaxad. Ancient Versions and Manuscript Evidence 1. Masoretic Text (Hebrew): The widely used Hebrew text (from which many Old Testament translations derive) reads Arphaxad as the direct father of Shelah in Genesis 11. This aligns exactly with the English reading in Genesis 11:12. 2. Septuagint (Greek Old Testament): Some manuscripts of the Septuagint include an extra generation, inserting a second “Cainan” in the genealogies of Genesis 10 and 11 before reaching Shelah. This would place Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah. However, certain versions and manuscript families of the Septuagint do not include that second Cainan. 3. Samaritan Pentateuch: This textual tradition sometimes provides variations in genealogical listings. In some cases, it follows the shorter reading (like the Masoretic Text), while in others it might include expansions influenced by or parallel to the Septuagint tradition. 4. New Testament Manuscripts: The earliest known Greek manuscript witnesses for the Gospel of Luke include “the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad” in Luke 3. Luke’s genealogy, therefore, has come down to us consistently with the extra name included. When combining these strands of evidence, the presence (or absence) of Cainan is tied to which manuscript tradition is being consulted. The Masoretic Text (Hebrew) does not show an additional Cainan in Genesis, while certain copies of the Septuagint and Luke 3 in the New Testament do. Possible Explanations 1. Alternate Genealogical Branch: In the biblical usage, “father” can refer to a direct father or to an ancestor. It is possible that Cainan was an ancestor further back in the chain, while Arphaxad was still recognized as Shelah’s direct physical father. Thus, the difference may reflect a generational skip or an insertion to preserve a more extended lineage in Luke. 2. Textual Transmission: Some scholars suggest that the Septuagint’s inclusion of Cainan and Luke’s genealogy might reflect a very ancient tradition. Over time, one of the traditions (the more streamlined one found in the standard Hebrew) might have omitted that extra link in the chain. Others propose that, conversely, the additional name “Cainan” was eventually introduced into certain Greek copies of Genesis and ended up in Luke’s genealogy. Because Luke’s Gospel came to us in Greek, it is understandable that Luke’s genealogy aligns with the Greek textual tradition that included a second Cainan. 3. Focused Purpose of Each Genealogy: Biblical genealogies sometimes group or telescope generations to highlight specific theological points or covenant lines. For instance, Matthew’s Gospel organizes Jesus’ genealogy into three sets of fourteen generations (Matthew 1); the writer compresses certain lines to achieve that structure. Similarly, the Old Testament genealogies often highlight key figures, sometimes skipping names that appear in other lists. Theological and Historical Considerations 1. Unity of Scripture: Though there is a nuanced difference in naming, there is no fundamental doctrinal contradiction. Both passages affirm that Shelah is a descendant in the line from Noah to Abraham, preserving the covenantal promise flowing down through the generations. 2. Reliability of the Genealogical Records: The variation is confined to one or two manuscript traditions, yet the overarching genealogical structure is consistent: Arphaxad stands as a pivotal link in bridging from Shem’s line down to Eber and beyond to Abraham. Cainan, whether a missing generation or an alternate name for the same individual, does not disrupt the broader continuity. 3. Central Focus: The ultimate purpose of Luke’s genealogy in the New Testament is to trace Christ’s ancestry back through David to Abraham, and ultimately to Adam (Luke 3:38). The mention of Cainan underscores a careful reliance on Greek genealogical source material (most likely the Septuagintal tradition). Archaeological and Genealogical Context Archaeological findings (such as ancient city records, king lists, and genealogical tablets from surrounding Near Eastern cultures) often compress long genealogies, skip lesser-known ancestors, or use variant names to refer to the same person. This phenomenon is not unique to Scripture. Consequently, the small difference in names within biblical genealogy is consistent with ancient documentation patterns. Conclusion • In the Hebrew text (Genesis 11:12), Shelah is presented as directly descending from Arphaxad. • In Luke 3:35–36, the genealogy (following a Septuagintal line of transmission) places Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah. Rather than constituting a contradiction, these passages illustrate how genealogies in Scripture can reflect varied but ancient traditions that trace the same lineage. The shorter reading (Arphaxad → Shelah) was preserved in the standard Hebrew form, while the Greek genealogical tradition used by Luke included the second “Cainan.” Both converge on the truth that Shelah is a descendant of Arphaxad through the line of Shem, linking him ultimately to Noah and establishing the ancestral line leading toward Abraham and beyond. This strengthens the continuity and reliability of Scripture’s portrayal of early humanity’s family tree, each detail pointing to the unfolding plan preserved across generations. |
    |