In recent years, I have worked through the whole New Testament text for a new Swedish translation to come out next year (NT2026), as I am the textcritical consultant on the project. I have now completed all books apart from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (I saved Matthew since the ECM edition will soon appear).
This morning I looked into the complicated variation in Luke 3:33. I thought I would give blogreaders a taste so here is an English translation of my treatment:
Luke 3:33
TW: reading A
Proposed long footnote:
Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni — The manuscripts show considerable variation here. Many read Aram as the father of Amminadab (cf. Matt 1:3–4) and omit his son Arni, sometimes adding Joram, while others have Adam in place of Amminadab (probably via the spelling Amminadam).
Proposed short footnote:
Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni — Some witnesses read Adam instead of Amminadab; others have Amminadab, son of Aram or Amminadab, son of Aram, son of Joram.
Text-critical discussion
A. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – ℵ² L ƒ¹³ bo
B. τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – 𝔓4vid ℵ* 1241 sa
C. τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – B
D. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ (Αμιναδαμ 1424) τοῦ Ἀράμ – D 33. 565. 1424. ℓ 2211 pm lat syp.h (et om. τοῦ Φαρές A)
E. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωράμ – K Δ Ψ 700. (892). 2542 pm b e
F. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ (Αμιναδαμ 1) τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶ (Αλμι 1) τοῦ Ἀρνί – Θ 1
G. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ (Αλμιν Γ) τοῦ Ἀρνί – N Γ
H. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀράμ – 0102
A large number of variants are listed in NA28 (and many more exist in the broader textual tradition). The Byzantine tradition is divided between readings D (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀράμ) and E (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωράμ). The former follows the sequence of the Matt 1:3–4 parallel. As Hugh Houghton notes in his Textual Commentary, it may also have developed from reading E through haplography (omission of τοῦ Ἰωράμ). In these readings, τοῦ Ἀρνί is entirely omitted.
In all the earliest witnesses, the sequence τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί is present (readings A, B, and C), and this can be taken as virtually certain. Reading A also has the name τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, which appears in Matt 1:4, while reading B has the unique τοῦ Ἀδάμ, which may have dropped out through haplography in reading C. As Houghton points out, the appearance of another Adam (other than the first man) is problematic and does not match any king in the Septuagint—reading B seems to be the most difficult reading, and no editors (NA/UBS, SBLGNT, THGNT) have adopted it.
On the other hand, the support for Ἀδάμ is slim and incoherent (minuscule 1241 has a mixed text and numerous scribal errors). When we examine the earliest witness, 𝔓4vid, the names τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμίν are unclear, as the papyrus clearly has more letters and at least one correction appears to have been made on the two lines in question. Interestingly, the other early witness to reading B, Codex Sinaiticus, has a beta–mu confusion in the same name in Matt 1:4, where two of the lines read ΑΜΙΝΑΔΑΒΑΜΙΝΑ // ΔΑΜΔΕΕΓΕΝΝΗCΕΝ. It is evident that Ἀμιναδάμ was also in circulation in the Lukan textual tradition, since the archetype (a majuscule) of Family 1 clearly had Ἀμιναδάμ (as in 1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582), and it is easier to see how the well-known name Ἀδάμ (reading B) could arise from this spelling.
In sum, the sequence τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί is virtually certain, while τοῦ Ἀράμ likely entered from the Matthean parallel. The name Ἀδάμ most likely arose from Ἀμιναδάμ at an early stage. Thus, I prefer reading A (=NA28). Finally, I note in Houghton's Textual Commentary that this textual problem has moved from a letter-rating of C in UBS5 to a D-rating in UBS6. For future editions I recommend a B- or C-letter rating.
