Lukas 3:31-33

3:31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, ¹  the son of David, ²  3:32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, ³  the son of Nahshon, 3:33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, ⁴  the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,

[3:31]  ¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

[3:31]  ² sn The mention of David begins a series of agreements with Matthew’s line. The OT background is 1 Chr 2:1-15 and Ruth 4:18-22.

[3:32]  ³ tc The reading Σαλά (Sala, “Sala”) is found in the best and earliest witnesses (Ì⁴ א* B sy^s sa). Almost all the rest of the mss (א² A D L Θ Ψ 0102 [Ë^1,13] 33 Ï latt sy^p,h bo) have Σαλμών (Salmwn, “Salmon”), an assimilation to Matt 1:4-5 and 1 Chr 2:11 (LXX). “In view of the early tradition that Luke was a Syrian of Antioch it is perhaps significant that the form Σαλά appears to embody a Syriac tradition” (TCGNT 113).

[3:33]  ⁴ tc The number and order of the first few names in this verse varies greatly in the mss. The variants which are most likely to be original based upon external evidence are Amminadab, Aram (A D 33 565 [1424] pm lat); Amminadab, Aram, Joram (K Δ Ψ 700 2542 pm); Adam, Admin, Arni (Ì^4vid א* 1241 pc sa); and Amminadab, Admin, Arni (א² L X [Γ] ˹³ pc). Deciding between these variants is quite difficult. The reading “Amminadab, Aram” is the strongest externally since it is represented by Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine witnesses, although it is significantly weaker internally because it disrupts the artistic balance of the number of generations and their groups that three names would preserve (see TCGNT 113, fn. 1 for discussion). In this case, the subtle intrinsic arguments that would most likely be overlooked by scribes argues for the reading “Amminadab, Admin, Arni,” although a decision is quite difficult because of the lack of strong external support.