Chris Weimer

probably because the greek says anhr "man"

Amaleq13

Thanks, Haran, on behalf of all the monolingual members.

Is my list of options comprehensive, IYO?

Haran

Sorry, I originally missed those... I'll preface my post by saying that I have never really studied the geneaologies in Matthew and Luke, so I am not very familiar with the arguments for and against.

These are simply instances of a man who happens to be a father, and they are not worded like Matthew 1:16. As spin mentioned, GBRH means man, and it is so in all? (perhaps I should say most... ) of the places that you will find it in the Peshitta.

Here are some more instances of its use in Matthew:

As you can see, in the first two examples, the man simply happens to be a son. In the third example, the man appears to be a husband. And in the final example, the man is just a man, in fact he is Matthew.

Here is my dilemma. I cannot find another example of GBRH being used as it is in Matthew 1:16. If you believe that the word is meant as "father" in that instance, then can you produce any other examples of the word being used in the same way as in Matthew 1:16 (the examples you gave are not used in the same way, grammatically speaking)? Extra points if you can find it used as the "father of {son} so-and-so"...

You might take a closer look at Spin's examples as well, especially 1 Cor 7:3, and note the interchangeablility of the two words previously mentioned. It seems more likely that Matthew 1:16 is using the word to mean husband. That said, I would like to see another example with usage identical to that in Matthew 1:16.

Just a thought, but it seems that GBRH might have been used in v.16 exactly because it is less specific. Perhaps in this geneaology, the scribe did not want it to appear as if Joseph had fathered Jesus? Anyway, just a guess... As I mentioned, I have not studied this particular topic in any serious detail.

Amaleq13

Do we need to add a new option?:

A or G) The author deliberately used an ambiguous word because he wanted to preserve the appearance of symmetry and avoid identifying Joseph as the father.

judge

GBRH seems if we look at the instances to mean man who is head of the household.
To a woman yet to be married her gowra would be her father.

To a woman who is married her gowra is her husband.

Thus GBRH could be a father or a husband.

As spin points out....
Thus to know what is meant in Matthew 1:16 whether father or husband is meant we need to look at the context.

It is clear from the reasons outlined above (points 1,2 &3) it must be her father.


All the best

Haran

Again, here is my dilemma. I cannot find another example of GBRH being used as it is in Matthew 1:16. If you believe that the word is meant as "father" in that instance, then can you produce any other examples of the word being used in the same way as in Matthew 1:16 (the examples you gave are not used in the same way, grammatically speaking)? Extra points if you can find it used as the "father of {son} so-and-so"...

judge

Unfortunately ...I don't have an example.

:crying:

Haran

Judge, I'm just curious, but do you adhere specifically to the Peshitta for theological reasons or faith? If not, then do you consider the "Old Syriac", the Sinaiticus and Curetonian, to possibly be more faithful to "the originals" than the Peshitta? Why/why not? I believe some Syriac scholars seem to believe that the Peshitta was a revision of the "Old Syriac" to make it align more closely with Greek text of their day.

Also, along the lines of the previous discussion, what do you make of the differences between the Curetonian and Sinaiticus manuscripts in verses 1:16 and 1:20? For instance, the older of the two, Sinaiticus I believe, specifically states the "Joseph begat Jesus".

Here is a great link for the text of the two manuscripts. However, it is a little tricky to get to if you haven't done it before...

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/index.html

• Click on 'Search the CAL databases' in the left frame.
• Then click 'Text Browse'.
• Next click the bubble next to 'Syriac' and then the 'Submit Query' button.
• In the top left, click the bubble for Roman (transliteration of the Syriac) or Meltho-Unicode if it works for you (for some reason the Syriac unicode appears backwards for me...anyone know why this would happen?).
• Click on '60040 OS Mt'
• In the narrow scrolling window, select:
• ----(101) for the Curetonian Old Syriac
• ----(201) for the Sinaiticus Old Syriac

Lines 10116/10120 and 20116/10120 are the verses we're looking at (in fact, the last three numbers are the chapter and verse).

Click on the line number for the lexicon entries for the words in that verse.

Here is the Syriac alphabet for those who might be interested and can get the unicode to work correctly for them.

judge

Difficult for me to objectively answer this perhaps.
My beleifs are not orthodox although they are loosely christian.
I do believe Jesus was the son of God, and I see no compelling reason to doubt that he lived died and rose again, and much to believe that he did.

Witht hat personal disclaimer out of the way, I think that the case for the peshitta being the original NT is very good, and have yet to see any reason to doubt that it is.

I think the Old syriac are in fact the translation done by Rabulla in the fourth or fifth century.[/quote]

Waht we have left of the old syriac bears the fingerprint of Rabulla. They carry the phrase "evangellion de mepharasse"

Not sure what to make of it...will come back.



Thanks for the links. I 'll check them out.

Steven Avery

Speaking about the view of the Peshitta primacists in general, their view of the Old Syriac is similar to my (King James Bible, Textus Receptus) view of the Greek alexandrian manuscripts, especially Vatican and Sinaiticus. ie. old but corrupt, junque manuscripts (one of the Syriac manuscripts is nicknamed "Old Scratch") of no real textual value (whatever the precise time of production). In fact, the older Old Syriac manuscript comes from the same monastery as Sinaiticus.

I'm not sure if that is a regular view of Peshitta origin, although neither the Peshitta Primacists or folks from my view would generally see that.

I do know that the "Peshitto" the Syrian Orthodox Church adaption of the Peshitta, is often considered a (relatively minor) a revision of the Peshitta to make it align more closely with Greek text of their day. I think that includes the Harklean manuscripts.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/