judge

We have been over this before but at Peter Kirby's prodding I started a new thread.

Many, many ,many ,MANY commentators have pointed out that matthew indicates there are 3X14 or 42 generations supposed to be in chapter one of Matthew but when we read it there are really only 41.

This apparent contradiction is resolved by looking to the peshitta which seems to indicate that the Joseph in verse 16 is in fact the father of Mary and not her husband.

The peshitta distinguishes between the joseph in verse 16,gowra in Aramaic and the joseph in verse 19, baala in Aramaic.
For some reason the greek translator translated both these Aramaic words for man into aner and they were both subsequently translated as husband in the english.

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac, 1
Isaac the father of Jacob, 2
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, 4
Perez the father of Hezron, 5
Hezron the father of Ram, 6
4Ram the father of Amminadab, 7
Amminadab the father of Nahshon, 8
Nahshon the father of Salmon, 9
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, 10
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, 11
Obed the father of Jesse, 13
6and Jesse the father of King David. 14
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 1
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, 2
Rehoboam the father of Abijah, 3
Abijah the father of Asa, 4
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, 5
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, 6
Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 7
9Uzziah the father of Jotham, 8
Jotham the father of Ahaz, 9
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, 11
Manasseh the father of Amon, 12
Amon the father of Josiah, 13
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 14
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, 1
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 2
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, 3
Abiud the father of Eliakim, 4
Eliakim the father of Azor, 5
14Azor the father of Zadok, 6
Zadok the father of Akim, 7
Akim the father of Eliud, 8
15Eliud the father of Eleazar, 9
Eleazar the father of Matthan, 10
Matthan the father of Jacob, 11
16and Jacob the father of Joseph,12 the husband (should this read father?) of Mary,13 of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 14
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[b]

This also explains why luke tells us heli was joseph (Mary's husaband) father but Matthew appears to tell us that Jacob was josephs father.

Chris Weimer

Judge - We already went through this here. I don't feel we need to go over it again. Do you?

judge

Um..someone else suggested it. You may be aware of it other may not be.

Additionally in that thread you made the claim.

However the linguistic evidence does not appear overwhelming.
Your own linguistic evidence does not appear to overwhelming anyone up till now.

The evidence needs to be examined, someform of peer review would probably be best.
Western scholars have not done this up till now, so jury is not still out it hasn't even seen the case.

spin

Obviously, GBRH does not mean "father". It is the basic Aramaic word for "man". When the word is governed by a genitive it means "husband", just as the Aramaic word for woman )NTTH, when governed by a genitive, usually means "wife" - "his woman" or "her man". B(LH (coming from Baal = "lord") is often translated as husband.

If we turn to the genealogy, we find that it is a long series of X begat Y. This ends with Joseph, ie Jacob begat Joseph in 1:16 with a last use of the word "begat". "Jacob begat {)WLD} Joseph, man (=husband) of Mary, of whom (ie Joseph) was begat {)TYLD} Jesus, called the messiach."

In an effort to make sense out of the discrepancy regarding the last section of the genealogy, ie that there appears to be 13 generations rather than 14, you follow an erroneous linguistic change to bring Mary into the line to make the 14th person, choosing to baselessly change GBRH from "man" to "father". The excuse being that in Mt 7:9 the man {GBR)} has a son, so GBR) must mean "father", even though there is nothing wrong with saying that a man had a son and the word "man" doesn't mean "father" though the sentence does imply that the man is a father.

There is already a word meaning "father" in Aramaic, )B), so there is no need to invent another in order to create a missing generation for the genealogy.

GBRH is never used to mean "father", despite the fact that a sentence can be construed to imply a man is a father (as in Mt 7:9). (It's like saying "that woman has a daughter", so "woman" means "mother": the logic simply doesn't work.)

There is not sufficient motivation in the genealogical problem to consider taking the unprecedented step of redefining GBRH. Summary:

1. GBRH doesn't mean "father"
2. The text uses male names in the genealogy
3. The genealogy is constructed using the verb YLD and Mary isn't connected with the verb to the genealogy.

Bye, bye. :wave:


spin

Amaleq13

So we are still left with 13 generations that are claimed to be 14?

spin

Hwell, pipple mek misteks, daunt they? And texts get corrupted, daunt they?

Hwich is better, accepting a problem in the text or convering one up?


snip

judge

Yes, it basically means man, but matti 7 the word is used contextually in a father/son realtionship.


Yes but the alternative is that whoever wrote matthews gospel told us there were 14 generations but only wrote 13 down

Ahh but there is a need to find another word to describe the father of Mary.
Mary's father and her husband were both named joseph (not an altogether unlikely occurance) so the author decribes one as her gowra (man) and the other as her baala (man)

But there is one point still unexplained. Why would the author describe Joseph the gowra of Mary and then almost in the same breath tell us of Joseph the baala of mary?

spin

My first post was explicit on this subject. Man is man.

As I said in my last post is it better to accept a problem or to cover it up -- and by covering it up, I do mean dishonestly.

This is your conclusion when you abuse the text. I have shown that the approach of redefining GBRH is cheating. It has no linguistic or philological basis.

It refers to the same person both ways. This is not strange. Look at Romans 7:3 and tell me if GBRH can possibly mean father. Try Eph 5:23, "for the man {GBR)} is the head of the woman...", ie "for the husband is the head of the wife..."

Both are acceptible. Look at 1 Cor 7:3-14. The translator does it frequently. (7:3 man {GBRH} to woman... woman to lord {B(LH}, ie "husband" and "wife" in both cases.)


spin

Amaleq13

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" for all.

or

Matthew was originally written in Aramaic...

A1) ...and, instead of using "father" throughout, 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.


Any others?

judge

I think yuri favors a hebrew original which may be in some way related to the medieval hebrew mss. These agree with the greek as do what we have of the OS.
Which leaves the peshitta out on it's lonesome