judge

But what exactly would God be blaming them with?
Which "religion" would someone be dismissing? This or that understanding of this verse seems to have little to do with what has historically gone by the name of "Christianity".

spin

..

I just wonder why judge claims that gowra means "father" when the Peshitta uses ab (alef bet).

gowra (gimel bet resh heh) is used only once to my knowledge in the Peshitta NT, ie this verse mt 1:16, but it does use gowra (gimel bet resh alef), meaning "man" several times. While there is not enough evidence from that one use of gowra (gimel bet resh heh) to be sure, doesn't the final alef in the numerous gowra (gimel bet resh alef) render the same sound as the final heh? so aren't these two forms really the one word?

This should mean, in mt 1:16, that Joseph was the man of Mary, ie her husband.


spin

judge

The clincher here is that in verse 19 joseph the husband is described as mary's baala, whilst the Joseph in verse 16 is Mary's gowra.

Why two different ways of saying man?

additionally note in Matthew Chapt 7...which gowra among you if his son asks him......

Fathers have sons but husbands don't necessarily.

spin

The linguistics is simple: gowra means "man". It doesn't mean either "father" or "husband" and we know exactly what the Syriac terms for these are.

While a man can have a son, hence he is by implication a father, a woman can have a man and he is by similar implication a husband. There are no grounds to read the explicit meaning of "father" into gowra, when the term simply means "man" in each of its NT instances.


spin

judge

So why is the joseph in verse 16 a gowra and the joseph in verse 19 is not a gowra but rather a baala.

What is your explanation?

spin

I really don't see that a special explanation, ie beyond what has already been given, is necessary. The context I have pointed out tells how "man" should be taken in Mt 1:16.

As there is no evidence to get beyond this, one can postulate all sorts of things:

1) the translator had dyspepsia;

2) the translator liked variety (not uncommon);

3) there was a change of translator to one more accurate; etc.

As father is ruled out for gowra ("man") in the context, do we need to go beyond the apparently transparent implication here?


spin

judge

Father is ruled out in the context. Really?

Can you explain how it cannot possiblty be father in verse 16??

While you are at it can you expalin whay the meaning cannot possibly be father in matthew chapter 7.

Which GOWRA among if his son asks him.

FATHER fits perfectly.