spin

Which naturally is not the language of the Syrians. Yours is a red herring.

The text we have of Matthew is a Greek source which often shows itself to have been written in Greek, which often quotes the LXX and related Greek sources, and which is dependent on the Greek source Mark.





Under your method of counting there are only 13 generations from Abraham to David:

Abraham/Isaac, Isaac/Jacob 2, Jacob/Judah, Judah/Perez 4, Perez/Hezron, Hezron/Aram 6, Aram/Aminadab, Aminadab/Nahshon 8, Nahshon/Salmon, Salmon/Boaz10,
Boaz/Obed, Obed/Jesse 12, Jesse/David 13

Sorry, you can't eke an argument here to support your attempt to redefine GOWRA.

Both GOWRA and BA`ALA make good translations of ANER according to the context.

Joseph was Mary's man (ANER) in 1:16 and that's how it was translated into Syriac, though it could have been translated as "husband", which is the case in v.19.

Here's a test for you: try your hardest to turn GOWRA into "father" in 1 Co 7:3, 14, & 16. Each of these texts are apparently talking about husbands, which should suggest that your notion of GOWRA being an alternative to AB and able to mean "father" is not viable. (In fact, try to turn any other example of GOWRA, besides your attempt at Mt 1:16, into "father".)

GOWRA simply means "man" as ANER does, but both can imply "husband", as even "man" can ("My man comes home and ignores the kids," says woman), despite the fact that Syriac has a dedicated word for "husband".


spin

Vorkosigan

All the greek witnesses tell us that Matthew wrote a gospel in a hebrew dialect. However, none of them tell us that the current gospel we have is the one he wrote. The one we have was not written by Matt; that name was appended later.

Vorkosian

spin

And that too.

Mumble, mumble, but weren't all the names added later? Oh, I guess one can't assume that xians understand that. But then, they'll want proof that Matthew didn't write that text in the Hebrew dialect which was later translated into Greek. Eusebius, citing Papias, indicates that Matthew did it that way, so it must be true. You atheists are just trying to pull the wool over unsuspecting people's eyes. Of course Matthew wrote his gospel. We have his name on it and Papias says he wrote it. What more do you need? Shite, perhaps we should have a rethink. Perhaps Gulliver did write that book of travels.

spin

Vorkosigan

Nonsense. That was written by his traveling companion, a physician....

judge

Spin why do you ignore the uses of gowra within Matthew itself?
Why not compare the use of the word gowra with the way the word gowra is used in matthew?

judge

Spin I understand from previous posts that you admit your knowledge of Aramaic is pretty poor? Is that correct?
Becuase it seems it has long been known that the language used in the peshitta is the same as that spoken by Christ.

"Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place."

Remains of a very ancient recension of the four gospels in Syriac' William Cureton Publ.: John Murray, London 1858



But Matthew also goes against the LXX. Do we just ignore these instances because they don't fit your theory?

judge

Come on Spin The first group you mention has three generations! Abraham Isaac and jacob! That is not two but three.
The second group has two, Judah and Perez and so on.


And further comment on your thoughts on matthew.


Not so according to Siegfried H. Horn, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.'
I seems that some scholarship sees things a little more complicated, why should we favor your view?

spin

So you think you can have it both ways. Sorry, but you can't.

Do to the first 14 exactly what you did with the third. Please, stop and think before you post yet again.


Why did you choose a professor of archaeology? Was he moonloighting as a textual scholar or something?

As for your other posts:

As you should have noticed, I have dealt with Matthew. It is you who are ignoring the significance of the word GOWRA as used everywhere in order to plead a special meaning in Mt 1:16.

Please read Mt 19:5 to understand your problem:

... a man (GOWRA) shall leave his father (ABWHY, ie AB-WHY his father) and his mother ...

The linguistics of the situation are simple: look at how the word is used in other situations and see how that applies to the specific case you are analysing. GOWRA means "man" always has, and doesn't mean "father". Your one attempt in the past is to forget that GOWRA means "man" in order to attempt to force a second word for "father" because a verse talks about a man (GOWRA) and his daughter.

You ignore every other use of GOWRA. That's why I asked you to look at them in order to check your premises for your wayward analysis of Mt 1:16. So you ignored my comments on Mt 1:16. Funny, judge, very funny.


Grin, this is total rubbish. No such thing is "known". The whole assumption-laden position has been brought undone due to the texts from the period found at Qumran, Murabba`at and Nahal Hever which show that Hebrew was in productive use along with Aramaic and Greek. Anything written before the 1950s on the subject is bound to be working with insufficient data.

As to my knowledge of Aramaic, I at least admit my lack of knowledge. You don't. You not only don't know it, but usually use other people's work, cutting and pasting it, and I have seen some of your sources. I do have a knowledge of Hebrew, which is a substantial help.

This is a double-edged sword as I am aware of it. The writers of Matthew use LXX and other biblical sources, some Greek, some not. As I said, Mt "often quotes the LXX" (which doesn't mean that the Matthean writers always quote from it); it is a fact that needs to be dealt with. You haven't done so. My understanding is that Matt was redacted at least twice, once by a redactor who used LXX and related Greek sources (and set them in a specific context), another who used clearly non-LXX sources. This scenario means however that Mt was obviously written in Greek, especially considering that the principal source for the first redaction was Greek Mark.


spin

judge

Thanks again for your input Spin. I think will return later and do thread on this bearing in mind all you have raised. If no one argued with me I might never learn anything.
You have however You seem to be exagerating as in the past I have mentioned Matthew 7:9
"Which gowra among you if his son ask him for a loaf[/b]
here the man is clearly also a father.

In other words a gawra can be a father.

As for the 14 generations Jeconiah is part of the second group of 14. You can't therefore include him in the third group as well.
Here I will lay it out for you.
First group: fourteen
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab,Nahshon,Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, King David.

Second group: fourteen

Solomon Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, *Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah

Third group: can only be fourteen if gawra means father of mary not husband
1.Shealtiel,2.Zerubbabel, 3.Abiud, 4.Eliakim, *5.Azor, 6.Zadok, 7.Akim, 8.Eliud, 9.Eleazar, 10.Matthan, 11. Jacob, 12 Joseph, the husband (should read father) of 13Mary, 14Jesus, who is called Christ.

You have tried to include jeconiah in both groups!

Now as we know that matthew verse 19 tells us that the husband of Mary is her baala one must ask who is the joseph in verse 19 who is her gowra?
If this is the husband of Mary then why is this man not referred to as her baala?

Thirdly it is all very well to hypothesise that mattew was written in greek but your argument would carry a lot more weight if you provded some references.


here is another one from eusebius Church history book V chapt 10

Book V,
concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214..

As our earliest witnesses tell us mattew did not write in greek isn't it reasonable that you provide some reference to back up your argument that he did write in greek?

Thanks again for your time.

spin

Sorry, perhaps I was wrong. I said daughter. It should have been son in the following:

Your one attempt in the past is to forget that GOWRA means "man" in order to attempt to force a second word for "father" because a verse talks about a man (GOWRA) and his daughter.

In other words, rubbish. I have explained this already, in the previous incarnation of your erroneous argument and in this. Look again at Mt 7:9,

Or what man (GOWRA) is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone?

As always, GOWRA means "man", as every translation (except that of your bunch) has it. A man can have a son, though this doesn't imply that GOWRA can in itself mean "father". You think "Father" because of the contextual pointer "son" (BAR). When you read Mt 1:16 you read "the man (GOWRA) of Mary" and nearly everyone thinks "husband" because of the contextual pointer "Mary", ie the man of Mary implies husband.

On the generations cafuffle, you are still trying to have it both ways.

Actually no. I'm just using the same logic for the first and third lists.

The first is a literal translation of the Greek, the second an interpretive translation.

We have a Greek gospel of Matthew which for which there are no tangible signs of a Semitic Vorlage. A fortiori, Matthew is apparently a Greek text. The onus is on anyone disagreeing to demonstrate that it wasn't. Some questionable writer's musings from the 4th century don't count for anything.


spin