Aminadab-Aram/Adam-Admin-Arni in Luke 3, 33 129 reading derived thereof, an option followed by Hodges-Farstad (Aminad- ab-Aram-Ioram, depending of the Majority Text)8; others opt for a read- ing derived from Aminadab/Adam-Admin-Arni, such as Tischendorf, Nestle-Aland, and Bover-O’Callaghan9, based on three arguments: a) it is the lectio difficilior; b) it conserves an Alexandrian text-type, which must have been in use in Egypt by the third century10; c) the adoption of three names instead of two would allow for the genealogy to be arranged into a numerical logic based on multiples of seven11. It is difficult to know which option would correspond to the primitive form of the text. Nevertheless, taking into account the variant readings registered in the documents, it is clear that there was verifiable movement towards one of these two directions: a) the original may have contained Aminabad-Aram, which would have suffered a process of corruption due to misunderstanding on the copyists’ part; b) the original may have con- tained Adam-Admin-Arni, which, due to the very fact that it deviated from the OT tradition, suffered a process of correction with the objective of reintroducing the names Aminadab and Aram into the text. No mat- ter which of the two alternatives one may opt for, what I consider to be important is the understanding of how they are related, in other words, how one may have generated the other or vice-versa, creating two textual traditions that, differently from appearances, remain connected, as is proved by the codices which have preserved the results of their conflation throughout the centuries. Although p4 does not allow for an absolute certainty of the occurrence of two of the names in the third century, it is important to show that even in very early times Admin was a part of the genealogy (conjectures regarding Am[inadab] and Ar[am] or Ar[ni] should be made with due caution, given the difficulty of reading). In the fourth century, two wit- nesses again confirm the presence of Admin as well as Arni (A and B). Adam, which is registered in A, presents a serious problem. If we consider that Aminadam appears as a variant of Aminadab, even though only in more recent documents, the oldest of which are from the ninth century, it is tempting to consider that Adam originated from 8 E. Z. C. Hodges and A. L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament according to the Majo- rity Text (Nashville – Atlanta – London –Vancouver 1985). 9 J. M. Bover y J. O’Callaghan, Nuevo Testamento trilingüe (Madrid 1994). 10 In addition to being the lectio difficilior, the divergent variant was chosen by the editors of UBSGNT, according to B. Metzger, for being “the least unsatisfactory”, preser- ving a text type used in the Alexandrian Church from very early on (cf. Champlin, O Novo Testamento, 3, 33; Heater, “A textual note”, 28). 11 Cf. B. M. Metzger, A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart 1971) 136.