I'm comparing both Matthew and Luke's genealogy of Jesus.

Matthew wrote this:

Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon... - Mat 1:3 (NASB)

And Luke wrote this:

the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram... - Luke 3:33 (NASB)

Matthew didn't mention Admin. Maybe either one of them made an error while attempting to construct Jesus' linage from David?


4 Answers 4


This must be strictly an NASB issue. King James has them as identical.

Matthew 1:3-4

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Luke 3:33

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,


This is not strictly an NASB issue, but the name Admin, as well as the name Arni, are variants in the following Greek texts of Luke:

Nestle GNT 1904 Westcott and Hort 1881 Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]

and the Codex Sinaiticus

However, the textus receptus doesn't have these names in Luke, nor does the Greek Orthodox Church 1904, RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005, or the Tischendorf 8th Edition.

The NLV, ESV, BSB, BLB, CEV, ISV, NET Bible all translate this variant.

The OT source for this portion of the ancestry is Ruth 4:19 and I Chron. 2:9, which the Septuagint translated in both cases without these extra names:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/08-routh-nets.pdf http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/13-1suppl-nets.pdf

So why does Matthew aways have Ram in 1:3, while Luke in certain codices have Admin and Arni in some codices, and not Ram? Perhaps the answer is found in the other sons of Hezron:

I Chron 2:18 (KJV) The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai.

Perhaps Arni/Armi is a corruption of Jerahmeel?

Whatever the case, the issue seems to be in the 2 generations after Hezron. Indeed, Hezron was an active progenitor:

1 Chron. 2:21-24 And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was threescore years old; and she bare him Segub. And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead. And he took Geshur, and Aram, with the towns of Jair, from them, with Kenath, and the towns thereof, even threescore cities. All these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead. And after that Hezron was dead in Calebephratah, then Abiah Hezron's wife bare him Ashur the father of Tekoa.

So, Hezron was quite the procreator and settler in his later life. This could help explain some of the strange variations we find concerning the two generations directly after him.

So if Ram's brother gets switched in in Luke, or corruptions of Hezron's later children's names, then why doesn't Matthew have any of these variants?

I believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew:

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.

— Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1 [c.175-185 A.D.]

The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.

— Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25

Luke however, may be originally written in Greek, as there are no such statements to suggest otherwise, and as his writing style, audience, and name suggest. Therefore, he was forced to craft his transliteration of Ruth 4 and 1 Chron. 2 (Joseph's ancestry) being a non-native speaker. The majority of Luke is eye-witness accounts, which he is brilliant at recounting. However, it is to be expected that he falls short in the area of OT Hebrew genealogy transcription/transliteration.

This is why I believe these corrupted names are found in Luke and not in Matthew.


Mattai (Matthew) & Lucas (Luke) both wrote their Gospels in Hebrew (the language of the Hebrews); which was the spoken language Aramaic at the time. It wasn't called "Aramaic" because "Aramaic" was a word that referred to "the language of the Arameans [citizens of Aram]." They were different dialects of Aramaic.

Luqa (Lucas) was probably one of the seventy other disciples of Yeshua (Lk. 10:1, 17). He was likely a Jew living in Judea (Judah) because he says that he was among the eyewitnesses and servants of the Word (Lucas 1:2). Then he is mentioned later in the NT.

The original Aramaic P'shitta of (Lucas 3:33) says: "the son of Amminadaḅ, the son of Aram (Ram), the son of Ḥeẓron, the son of Pereẓ, the son of Yehudah (Ihuḏah)." Aram [ארם] is also equivalent to Ram [רם] (see Ruth 4:19 Aram/Syr, LXX). The Bible has different name spellings of people, abbreviated spellings, surnames, etc. within its contents. Like "Matthew" who can go by "Matt."

The [so-called] Old Syriac Text, Greek text of the Textus Receptus (Received Text: used for KJV Translation) & the Latin Vulgate text all support the above P'shitta reading. (Ruth 4:12, 18-19; 1 Chron. 2:9-10; etc.) also support that reading. Those are the original words. The name "Admin (Αδμιν or Αδαμειν [Sah. Coptic])" is a corruption of the name "Aram (Αραμ)" in the NU Greek Text [based on ONLY two old Greek manuscripts - which are corrupt in some regards & sometimes disagree with each other]. Apparently very early, the words: "the son of Yoram [Arni]" were added to this verse. The majority of the Greek texts have the name "Yoram" while the NU Greek text & Sahidic Coptic read: "Arni (Αρνι)" instead.


There are some significant differences in the genealogies found in Matthew (Matt. 1:3-4) and Luke (Luke 3:33). First, Matthew lists Hezron as the father of Aram (Matt. 1:3; note that the Aramaic Peshitta and the Greek version of Matthew have Aram) and Aram as the father of Amminadab (Matt. 1:4), while Luke lists Arni as the son of Hezron, and he adds an add Admin before Amminidab. The additional name in Luke is found in the old variant Greek NT manuscripts of Luke, which is why it's not in the KJV or NKJV, as they are based upon the Textus Receptus.

The genealogies of these two passages are constructed from Genesis 46:12; Ruth 4:18-20; and 1Chronicles 2:9-10.

In the Hebrew and Aramaic OT, Hezron only had three sons, Yerahme'el, Ram and Kaleb. However, in the Greek Septuigent (LXX), a fourth son named Aram is included (1CHr. 2:9).

In the next verse, Ram (Heb.)/Aram (Greek AND Aramaic) fathered Amminadab (1Chr. 2:10). Therefore, in the Greek, it appears that the fourth son fathered Amminadab, not the second.

Further confusion arises from the Greek version of Ruth 4:19, which lists Arran as the son of Hezron and the father of Amminadab, while the Hebrew and Aramaic still list Ram.

In addition, when the the sons of Hezron's firstborn son, Yerahme'el, are listed (1Chr. 2:25), they are Ram (named after his uncle), Bunah (Heb.)/Baana (Greek), Oren (Heb.)/Aran (Greek), Ozem (Heb.)/Asom (Greek), and AhiYaH (not listed in Greek).

Matthew was a Hebrew, and he built his genealogy from either the Hebrew OT, or more likely the Aramaic, which is why he uses Aram as opposed to Ram, and whoever translated Matthew from Aramaic to Greek transliterated it to Aram (Matt. 1:3-4).

Luke constructed his geneology from the LXX. It could be that Luke made a mistake, confused by Matthew's use of the Aramaic Aram, which made it appear to be Hezron's fourth son, or possibly even one of the sons of Yerahme'el, Ram, Oren/Aran, or Aniyah. Or, it may be simply that a name has been accidentaly omitted when copying from the manuscripts over the years.

However, what is most likely, is that Hezron's fourth son Aram/Arran died, and his brother Ram acted as his kinsmen-redeemer and had a son in his place for him. Therefore, Ruth, Matthew, and the LXX of 1Chronicles used the legal lineage, while the Hebrew version of 1Chronicles listed Amminadab's actual father.

Therefore, Luke's use of Arni is a corrupted form of Arran/Aram, and then Admin is either a name that has been lost or Admin was a corrupted form of Amminidab that was in the original Greek manuscripts of Luke. If that is the case, it may be that early church fathers didn't understand the variant name, assumed it was an omitted name, and added in Amminadab from Matthew in an attempt to harmonize the two lists.

  • Hey Christian, welcome to BHSE, glad to have you with us! We're a little different from other sites that you may know, so if you have time make sure you take our tour (hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/tour). Thanks!
    – sara
    Commented Sep 14, 2019 at 6:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.