Chris Weimer

Amaleq - the Greek actually has "man" - not husband. The word is anhr.

Amaleq13

Was that mentioned? I thought spin was talking about the Aramaic version the whole time.

Let me try again.

1) Both the Greek and the Aramaic have "man of Mary" with the standard implication being he was her husband. This doesn't change whether the text was originally written in Greek or Aramaic and subsequently translated into the other.

2) judge argues that the Aramaic "man of Mary" should read "father of Mary" even though there is another Aramaic word for "father" and, according to spin, such an interpretation is not legitimate.

3) The author claims to have 14 generations but the list only has 13 in both languages.

4) This entire argument has been a complete waste of time.

Chris Weimer

Sorry - I had misread A2. Mea culpa, you are exonerated.

judge

It is clearly not Mary's husband though because Mary's husband is the baala(man) mentioned in verse 19.

How can you argue that there are only 13 generations in the Aramaic unless you are arguing that the Joseph inverse 16 is the husband of Mary?

If it were mary's husband it would be her baala because her husband is described as her baala three verses later.

Do you see that Joseph the gowra is different from Joseph the baala?

judge

However contextually in matthew there are three occaisions where it is used of a father rather than a husband. Fathers have sons.


Matthew 7

matthew 21

Matthew 22


Why not look how the word is used by Matthew? these usages may mean a husband but definitely mean a father.

Amaleq13

I'm still confused about whether A2 is correct.

I know I screwed up the options because I got Luke's list of "fathers" confused with Matthew's list of "begats".

So our options are:

Matthew was originally written in Greek...

G1) ...and the author simply screwed up by not including enough generations.

G2) ...and a "begat" has somehow disappeared from the last group.

G3) ...and an Aramaic translator, reading one of the two above, recognized the error and attempted to create a fix by using the generic "man of Mary" so that it could now be read that the Joseph mentioned was her father.

or

Matthew was originally written in Aramaic...

A1) ...and, instead of using "father" to refer to Joseph in the last generation, chose to use a generic "man" for some unknown reason.

A2) ...and a later Greek translation replaced the last "man" with "husband" even though that resulted in destroying the numerical symmetry. ?

Amaleq13

It is not that clear if I understand spin correctly. Taken outside the context of this list, would you interpret the Aramaic sentence to be identifying Joseph as Mary's husband?

That is my understanding of spin's explanation.

I see that it is a different word but, according to spin IIUC, they mean the same thing.

Why didn't your Aramaic author use the word for "father" instead of the more generic "man of Mary"?

Haran

I'll just say that I believe that Spin is correct in his assessment of the word in question, and this can be backed up by the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testment (HALOT) among other resources.

I will just add that if "gowra"/GBRH can mean 'father', then examples of such usage would help the case, if they can be found....

judge

I not only gave three examples above, but I gave three examples above from the very same book, i.e. Matthew.

These are examples of how this word for man (protective family elder more seems to be the common usage) can mean a father.

We have at least three good reasons to think father is implied.

1. This gives us the correct number of generations.

2. By comparing this geneology with Lukes geneology. Luke tells us that Heli is Joseph (the husband of Mary's) father.
Thus the Joseph in mathew 1:16 cannot be the same man.

3. Joseph the husband of Mary is referred to not as the gowra of Mary but as the baala of Mary, just three verses later.


Against this we have no reason to assume husband is meant, except that it makes it unintelligible.

I suppose we can posit that the author of matthew so so stupid :huh: he couldn't count to 42.

judge

I've got to admit this is an excellent question. :huh: