A Textual Note on Luke 3.33

http://jnt.sagepub.com

the New Testament Journal for the Study of

DOI: 10.1177/0142064X8600902803 1986; 9; 25 Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Homer Heater, JR A Textual Note On Luke 3.33

http://jnt.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Testament Journal for the Study of the NewAdditional services and information for

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

unauthorized distribution.© 1986 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or

by Ilie Chiscari on November 13, 2007 http://jnt.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


25

A TEXTUAL NOTE ON LUKE 3.33

Homer Heater, JrDallas Theological Seminary

3903 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75204, USA

The genealogy of Christ in Luke presents an interesting variationbetween Esrom and Aminadab. Lk. 3.33 in the various mss has

Adam, Admin, Arni, Arei, Aram, Almei, Joram, Armin, Anmei,Donei, Neri, Melchi, and Addi, while Mt. 1.3, 4 has only one name,Aram. The two questions which confront the textual critic are: (1)how did such confusion arise; and (2) which is the correct reading forLuke? .

The genealogy of the Old TestamemThere are two contexts in the Old Testament which underlie thissection of the genealogy. The Hebrew for both passages is as follows:

There are no variants in the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew witnessesto only one name between Hesron (Esrom) and Aminadab and thatname is Ram. Matthew’s version agrees with the Hebrew text,

spelling Ram as ’Aram’. There are no textual variants in Matthew.The basic genealogy, then, is clear. There should be only one namewhere some of the witnesses in Luke have two, three or more. Whiteit is always possible that Luke used a different genealogical list andthus has a different name sequence between Esrom and Aminadab,another solution is more likely.




26

The Old Testament genealogy in the Septuagint. ’

Working from the Cambridge edition of the LXX and ignoringvariation in spelling, we find that there is only one name in Ruth 4.19between Esrom and Aminadab. It is spelled variously in the mss:’Arran’, ’Aran’ or ’Aram’. The Cambridge edition follows BA with’Arran’.

The LXX text of 1 Chr. 2.9, 10 also provides only one name betweenEsrom and Aminadab. Again it appears as ’Ram’, ’Aram’, ’Arran’ or’Aran’. However, the LXX actually contains a dittography whichmaintains both spellings of Ram. The Hebrew text reads: 7&dquo;in E*&dquo;’

(10) ~:’~:-j’~’ ~~-j’~’ ~~~!&dquo;1~~-rï~ ir-7bi> rwx J’~~!&dquo;1 ~21 ;7>’ri- r;, TheLXX lists the sons as 6 ’IpafJ£~À Kai o ’Pap Kai 6 Xa@tX Kai ’Apdp.(10) Kai ’Appdv tyytvtlor-v rov ’AfJ£lVa8á~. The Greek text ofChronicles has now introduced three variations of the same name:

’Ram’, ’Aram’ and ’Arran’. The original subject of v. 10 was Kai’Apap, who now is found in v. 9 as an additional son of Jerahmeel.The new subject for v. 10, Kai &dquo;Appáv, is secondary and is probablybased on the spelling in Ruth 4.19. The stage has now been set forsome of the confusion in the textual history of Lk. 3.33.

The text of Luke 3.33The following list, cited from the UBS Greek New Testament (1966;hereafter, UBSGNT), shows the readings and their support:

(1) ’of Aminadab of Admin of Arni’ (the reading in UBSGNT,Nestle-Aland, 26th edn): p4Vld = 3rd c.; mc = 6th c.?; L = 8th c.; X =10th c.; (£13 ’Arei’ for ’Ami’) Coptic&dquo;

(2) ’of Aminadab of Aram’ (the genealogy of Ruth, Chronicles andMatthew): A = 5th c.; D = 6th c.; II = 9th c.; 33 = 9th c.; 565 = 9thc.; (892 = 9th c., ’Joram’); (1071 = 12th c., ’Aminadam’); 1079 =10th c.; 1230 = 1124 AD; 1253 = 15th c.; ByzP’; }IR4 = 1319 AD; itaaur c d f H2 I q rl; Vg; Syrp; Goth; Geo-’ 2

(3) ‘of Aminadab of Aram ofJoram’: K = 9th c.; A = 9th c.; ‘Y = 8-9th c.; (28 = 11 th c., 1242 = 13th c., 1344 = 12th c., ’Aminadam’);700 = 11 th c.; 1010 = 12th c.; 1195 = 1123 AD; 2148 = 1337 AD;4i,zP’- Lect; it~; (Sy1rl’ ’Aminadam’) Paschal Chronicle

(4) ’of Aminadam of Aram of Almei of Arni’: P = late (13th c.);1365 (add ’of Joram’) = 12th c.

(5) ’of Aminadab of Aram of Almei of Joram of Donei’: 11127 =12th c.




27

(6) ’of Aminadab of Aram of Admin of Ami’: 0 = 9th c.;

Armenian; Georgiani(7) ’of Aminadab of Admin of Aram’: 0102 = 7th c.; (1216

Aminadam = 11 th c.); 1646 = 1172 ~n; 2174 = 14th c. (both add ’ofJoram’)

(8) ’of Aram of Aminadab of Armin of Arnin’: Syrpal ml, ~&dquo;’S~

(Syriac can confuse the ’d’ and ’r’)(9) ’of Aminadam of Joram of Aram’: 1009 = 13th c.(10) ’of Adam of Admin of Arni’: rc’ = 4th c.; 1241 = 12th c.;

Copticsa(11) ’of Aminadab of Joram of Anmei of Donei’: po = 12th c.;

. (fIR5 = llth c.); (~’’° = 1289 AD)(12) ‘of Neri of Aminadam of Nielchi of Aram of Addi’: 1546 =

1263 AD?

(13) ’Admin of Arni’: B = 4th c.; (Syrs ’Adam’)

Suggesciolls for the z,aria?itsIn an effort to explain how some of the variants came about, thefollowing suggestions may be helpful.

Aminadam confusion of the labials b/m.Adam comes from the last four letters of Aminadam

(cf the correction in ,t).Admin a variant of Adam.

Aram the article may have been assimilated into the

name: 6 pap ’ 6ptp apap. Note, e.g., at LXX 1Chr. 2.9 the Armenian Oram and the Syro-hexaplar ’au,ra??i. On the other hand, it mayhave come from a confusion of the name C7

with that of D7X which is vocalized in Greek as

Apap (cf. Gen. 10.22-23).Ami comes from Aran, Arran. The first occuri ence

of the name Ram in LXX Ruth 4.19 is an

accusative. This may explain the ’n’. The secondoccurrence is in the nominative, but the first

spelling prevailed and then affected Chronicles.Joram probably comes about in the same way as

Aram, i.e. the assimilation of the article and a.

misreading as ’Joram’ (cf the Syro-hexaplar’a2uram).

Neri, Melchi, Addi come from reading across two columns ratherthan down one:




28

27-28 iou Nqpt 33 zou ApLvct6aprou M£ÀXl Too Paprou A661

This mis-reading occurs in 1546 (13th c.). The same mistakeoccurs in the 14th-century Codex 109, according to Metzger (BruceM. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 195).The last three names, Almei, Anmei, Donei, are the most difficult

to trace. All three occur in lectionaries: 70 = Anmei, Donei; 185 =

Anmei, Donei; 950 = Anmei, Donei; 1127 = Almei, Donei. Almeialso appears in f and 1365. Almei probably comes from reading a Aas a A. Perhaps then AAMI was read ANMI. I see no way to explainthe Donei. It appears to be a corruption occurring only in these fourlectionaries.

Consequently, the variants in the mss can be tentatively explainedas coming from either Aminadab or Aram (Donei being the onlyexception).

C<~/C/~!0~Two names (Admin and Arni) instead of one (Aram) were chosen bythe UBSGNT editors, Metzger says, as the least unsatisfactory formof text, a reading that was current in the Alexandrian Church at anearly period. Fitzmyer says the two names have been preferred in themodern critical editions of the Greek New Testament because theyrepresent the lectio difficilior (AB; Luke, p. 502). However, amongthe confused data in Lk. 3.33, there is a strong body of evidencesupporting the single name Aram. Furthermore, Ruth, Chroniclesand Matthew agree that Aram alone is the correct reading. Finally,all the variants can be tentatively explained as coming from Adminidaband Aram. (The only exception is Donei, which, since it appears onlyin four late lectionaries, should not receive much consideration.)Therefore, the textual evidence in Luke, coupled with the three otherpassages, should settle the issue in favor of one name: Aram.

Metzger also defends the two names with an argument from aschematic arrangement in Luke (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual

Commemaryon the Greek Neu> Testament, p. 136):

Although the reading rou ’A pwa6t@ coo ’aran is supported by animpressive range of witnesses (A D 33 565 1079, many versions),with a reading that involves three names (such as that adopted bythe Committee) Luke’s entire genealogy of Jesus falls into an

artistically planned pattern, even more elaborate than Matthew’s




29

(cf Mt. 1.17); thus, from Adam to Abraham, 3 y 7 generations;from Isaac to David, 2 x 7 generations; from Nathan to Salathiel(pre-exilic), 3 x 7 generations; from Zerubbabel (post-exilic) to

Jesus, 3 x 7 generations, making a total of 11 x 7 or 77 generationsfrom Adam to Jesus. [N.B. This citation is from the correctededition of the Commetitary.]

Impressive evidence should not be ignored in favor of a supposedschematic plan of the genealogy. Furthermore, Luke’s genealogy(with Aram as the only name between Esrom and Aminadab) followsthe same time segments as Matthew’s with even less artificiality,since Matthew counts David and Jechoniah twice. It is instructive tocompare Matthew’s scheme with Luke’s:°

Luke Matthew

God to Terah None

(21 names, 3 x 7)Abraham to David Abraham to David

(14 names, 2 x 7) (14 names)Nathan to Salathiel David to Jechoniah(21 names, 3 x 7 to (14 names to the captivity)the captivity)Zerubbabel to Christ Jechoniah to Christ(21 names, 3 x 7) (14 names)Total: 77 names

This pattern allows for 77 names in Luke and still has only the nameAram. Therefore, a pattern cannot be decisive in selecting a reading.The Admin of Arni reading is followed by ASB, Rsv’, NAB and NASB.

The NEB has only Ami. The Nm, having only Ram, has chosen thebetter reading.




Documents

A Textual Note on Luke 3.33