JoeWallack

JW:
Peter Kirby has created a new site:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

primarily to cut down on my posts here but also for polite determination of whether there are Errors In The Bible. There are some (many?) who ask me what is the purpose of trying to determine Error in the Bible (and usually not politely). I could respond by asking what is the purpose of analyzing any part of the Bible. Some would respond that analyzing parts of the Bible helps us determine what was likely meant and evaluate the possible value to the Past and Present. Determination of Possible/Probable Error assists us in this determination and evaluation.

In my opinion, up to now, public determination of Error in the Bible has been generally restrained out of politeness to Christianity. To the credit of Christianity, the atmosphere of tolerance has improved to the point where the Public is now ready for Public critique. Inevitably, this will weaken the Institution of the Churches but strengthen the Institution of the Governments.

I present to the Unfaithful here my own Ram offering of Potential Error in the Christian Bible. Everyone is welcome to critique except for Harvey Dubish. Enjoy!:


JW:
According to 1 Chronicles 2:10:

"And Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;"

it was Ram that begat Aminadab. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts though have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. In the big picture UBS has "Aram" as likely original. Raymond Brown confirms in "The Birth Of The Messiah" that "Aram" was likely original. The International Critical Commentary also confirms "Aram". This apparent error by "Matthew" can be relatively easily explained by the observation that the early Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible (often referred to as "LXX") have "Aram" in the genealogy instead of "Ram" so "Matthew" likely copied an error that already existed in the Greek.

Here (http://neonostalgia.com/bible/Geneal...Comparison.pdf) is an interesting genealogy chart from Chris Weimer.

"Aram"/"Ram" is the seventh name on the list (coincidence?). An observation which ranks relatively low on the evidence scale is that Peshitta Old has "Ram" and Peshitta New has "Aram" (Judge, look out!).

I think most Apologists would agree here that "Aram" is likely original so the question becomes is using "Aram" instead of "Ram" an error? First let me say that if this is an error it certainly isn't a serious error. Even if they are different names they only differ by one letter and it's possible that they were variants of the same name so either could be used to refer to the same person. On the other hand minor errors like this aren't commonly discussed so most people don't even realize that there is an issue here or consider that this is evidence that "Matthew" was not fluent in Semitics and therefore not the best person to be explaining Semitics to non-Semitics.

I think though that "Ram" and "Aram" were two different names in Biblical Hebrew for the following reasons:

1) Both names are used in the Jewish Bible.

2) There is nothing explicit or implied outside of "Matthew" that "Ram" and "Aram" were anything other than two distinct names.

3) A one letter difference is a big difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew.

4) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" and "Aram" as sons of Hezron.

5) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

6) Origen testifies that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john6.html

Quote: 24. "THE NAME OF THE PLACE WHERE JOHN BAPTIZED IS NOT BETHANY, AS IN MOST COPIES, BUT BETHABARA. PROOF OF THIS. SIMILARLY "GERGESA" SHOULD BE READ FOR"GERASA," IN THE STORY OF THE SWINE. ATTENTION IS TO BE PAID TO THE PROPER NAMES IN SCRIPTURE, WHICH ARE OFTEN WRITTEN INACCURATELY, AND ARE OF IMPORTANCE FOR INTERPRETATION."

"In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes; "and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons. Now, the meaning of Gergesa is "dwelling of the casters-out," and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places, who "besought Him to depart out of their coasts." The same inaccuracy with regard to proper names is also to be observed in many passages of the law and the prophets, as we have been at pains to learn from the Hebrews, comparing our own copies with theirs which have the confirmation of the versions, never subjected to corruption, of Aquila and Theodotion and Symmachus."


JW:
I think we've established that "Matthew" likely wrote "Aram" here while based on the original Hebrew genealogy it should be "Ram". Let's look at some additional details.

Ruth 4:19 gives the narrative version from the Jewish Bible:

"and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab," (ASV)

This is further confirmation that "Ram" is likely original. I don't believe that Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia gives any variation here. Now lets look at the "LXX" (early Christian Greek translations) for 4:19:

"ΕσÏ?ων δὲ á¼?γΪννησεν τὸν ΑÏ?Ï?αν καὶ ΑÏ?Ï?αν á¼?γΪννησεν τὸν Αμιναδαβ"

The relevant word is "ΑÏ?Ï?αν" which translates as "Arran". This should give the reader some idea of the textual problems facing "Matthew" as he had to deal with name variation in the Greek and presumably could not read the original Hebrew.

1:Chronicles 2:9 provides further potential confusion for "Matthew". According to the Jewish Bible:

"The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him: Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai." (ASV)

Hezron had three sons, one of which was "Ram".

According to the LXX though:

"καὶ υἱοὶ ΕσεÏ?ων οἳ á¼?τΪχθησαν αá½?Ï„á¿· á½? ΙÏ?αμεηλ καὶ á½? Ραμ καὶ á½? Χαλεβ καὶ ΑÏ?αμ"

Hezron, had four sons, ΙÏ?αμεηλ (Jerahmeel), Ραμ (Ram), Χαλεβ (Chelubai) and ΑÏ?αμ (Aram).

Of course it's possible that the LXX was edited to add "Aram" here to make it agree with "Matthew".

Now let's look at "Ram" and "Aram" in original language Hebrew to see if the Hebrew Bible distinguishes the two. First, 1 Chronicles 2:10:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a02.htm

×™ וְרָ×?, הוֹלִיד ×?ֶת-עַמִּיתָדָב; וְעַמִּיתָדָב הוֹלִיד ×?ֶת-תַחְש×?וֹן, תְשִׂי×? בְּתֵי יְהוּדָה. 10 And Ram begot Amminadab; and Amminadab begot Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah;

Note that the first word on the right for the Hebrew is the Hebrew word for "Ram", " רָ×? " (Ram), " וְ " (and).

Now 1 Chronicles 1:17:

×™×– בְּתֵי שֵ×?×?--עֵילָ×? וְ×?ַשּ×?וּר, וְ×?ַרְפַּכְשַ×?ד וְלוּד וַ×?ֲרָ×?; וְעוּץ וְחוּל, וְגֶתֶר וָמֶשֶ×?ךְ. {ס} 17 The Sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Meshech.

Note that the fifth word from the left for the Hebrew is the Hebrew word for "Aram", " ×?ֲרָ×? " (Aram), " וְ " (and).

So we can see that Hebrew had two separate names for the English "Ram" and "Aram". I already mentioned that I don't believe there is any evidence in Biblical Hebrew that the two names were used to refer to the same person. Having an aleph, ×?Ö² , "a" at the beginning gives the name a different meaning in Hebrew.

Keep in mind that Raymond Brown referred to "Matthew's" use of "Aram" as "a variant form of "Ram". Since Justin is now an Administrator I'll just say that I think Brown was expressing Christian kindness towards "Matthew's" translation.

Now let's consider differences and similarities between the Hebrew names for "Ram" and "Aram". According to:

http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/title.html

Aram = highness, magnificence, one that deceives; curse

Ram = elevated; sublime

so the names have differences and similarities.

So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Aram" at 1:4 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) According to the Masoretic text "Ram" was the correct name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present.

2) The detailed narrative from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Ram" as correct.

3) The LXX has "Aram" here in the genealogy which would explain "Matthew's" error. He copied it from the LXX.

4) "Aram" and "Ram" are two different names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible.

5) There is no evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Ram" and "Aram" were anything other than two distinct names.

6) A one letter difference is a big difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew.

7) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" and "Aram" as sons of Hezron indicating they were two separate names in Greek as well.

8) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

9) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

10) Some Christian English translations use "Ram" for 1:4 implying that "Aram" was a mistake.

11) The meaning of "Aram" and "Ram" in Hebrew is different.


The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Aram" at 1:4 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) "Aram" and "Ram" differ by one letter so it's possible they could refer to the same person.

2) The LXX has "Aram" here in the genealogy which supports "Matthew's" "Aram" as original and the extant LXX is older than the extant Masoretic. This weight is reduced by the LXX use of "Arran" in the detailed narrative.

3) The meaning of "Aram" and "Ram" in Hebrew is similar.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that "Ram" is the correct name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Aram") is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Aram" and "Ram" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Ram" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".



Joseph

"I thought I made a mistake once but it turned out I was wrong." - Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page