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. 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 3: (ASV)

11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"

"Ahaziah" was Joram's son.

According to Matthew 1: (ASV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-9;&version=8;

8 "and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;"

"Uzziah" was Joram's son. "Matthew" appears to have omitted three names that 1 Chronicles has above, "Ahaziah", "Joash", and "Amaziah", if 1 Chronicles "Azariah" is the same person as "Matthew's" "Uzziah" as both are said to be the father of "Jotham". The combinations of original Hebrew, translated Greek, possible name variations/mispelling, genealogy and narrative descriptions make it all potentially very confusing. Keep in mind that at the time "Matthew" likely wrote there probably was no official Canon to go by and there was also no Wickied! computer sight organized by Peter (Kirby) to assist the Semitically blind.

The Greek for "Matthew" here is:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...pter=1&verse=8

"Ἀσὰφ δὲ á¼?γΪννησεν τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ Ἰωσαφὰτ δὲ á¼?γΪννησεν τὸν ἸωÏ?άμ ἸωÏ?ὰμ δὲ á¼?γΪννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν"

"Ὀζίαν" is "Uzziah" which is the last name on the right. All the major Greek families have "Ὀζίαν".

2 Kings 8:24 gives the narrative version from the Jewish Bible:

"And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead." (ASV)

Further potential confusion is caused by the Jews having two Kings at this time. One for Judah and one for Israel. Israel had its own King Ahaziah:

1 Kings 22:51

"Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel."

Now let's look at the Hebrew for "Ahaziah":

1 Chronicles 3:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm

×™×? יוֹרָ×? בְּתוֹ ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ בְתוֹ, יוֹ×?ָש×? בְּתוֹ. " 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son;"

" ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ " (Ahaziah).

2 Kings 8:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b08.htm

כד וַיִּשְ×?כַּב יוֹרָ×? ×¢Ö´×?-×?ֲבֹתָיו, וַיִּקָּבֵר ×¢Ö´×?-×?ֲבֹתָיו בְּעִיר דָּוִד; וַיִּמְלֹךְ ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ בְתוֹ, תַּחְתָּיו. {פ} " 24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. {P} "

" ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ " (Ahaziah).

1 Kings 22:52

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a22.htm

תב ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ בֶן-×?Ö·×—Ö°×?ָב, מָלַךְ עַל-יִשְׂרָ×?ֵל בְּשֹ×?מְרוֹן, בִּשְ×?תַת שְ×?בַע עֶשְׂרֵה, לִיהוֹשָ×?פָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה; וַיִּמְלֹךְ עַל-יִשְׂרָ×?ֵל, שְ×?תָתָיִ×?." 52 Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel."

" ×?ֲחַזְיָהוּ " (Ahaziah).

We can see that the Hebrew spelling for "Ahaziah" in the Jewish Bible is exactly the same.

Now for the LXX spelling (fasten your seat belts, yea!)

1 Chronicles 3:

3:11

"ΙωÏ?αμ υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ Οχοζια υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ Ιωας υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ"

"Οχοζια" (Uzziah)

2 Kings 8:

8:24

"καὶ á¼?κοιμήθη ΙωÏ?αμ μετὰ τῶν πατΪÏ?ων αá½?τοῦ καὶ á¼?τάφη μετὰ τῶν πατΪÏ?ων αá½?τοῦ á¼?ν πόλει Δαυιδ τοῦ πατÏ?ὸς αá½?τοῦ καὶ á¼?βασίλευσεν Οχοζιας υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ ἀντ αá½?τοῦ"

"Οχοζιας" (Uzziah)

1 Kings 22:

22:52

"καὶ Οχοζιας υἱὸς Αχααβ á¼?βασίλευσεν á¼?πὶ ΙσÏ?αηλ á¼?ν ΣαμαÏ?είᾳ á¼?ν ἔτει ἑπτακαιδεκάτῳ Ιωσαφατ βασιλεῖ Ιουδα καὶ á¼?βασίλευσεν á¼?ν ΙσÏ?αηλ ἔτη δÏ?ο"

"Οχοζιας" (Uzziah)

Summary of Greek name:

Matthew 1:4 Ὀζίαν

1 Chronicles 3:11 Οχοζια

2 Kings 8:24 Οχοζιας

1 Kings 22:52 Οχοζιας


Transliteration:

Masoretic וּ ×” ×™Ö¸ ×–Ö° ×—Ö· ×?Ö²

English A cha z yah who

Matthew 1:4 Ὀ ζ ί α ν

English O z i a u

1 Chronicles 3:11 Ο χο ζ ι α

English O cho z i a

2 Kings 8:24 Ο χο ζ ι α ς

English O cho z i a z


The problem for the Greek translators here was that "Ahaziah" had no existing Greek equivalent. It had to be transliterated. The next problem was that Hebrew of this time lacked the Masoretic vowels so if you were not an expert with the Hebrew bible you could be fluent in Hebrew in general but not know the proper pronunciation of a Biblical name that was no longer in use. You had to guess at the vowel sounds. Therefore, variation in Greek spelling could be a result of using different Greek letters for the same Hebrew sound and different Greek letters based on guesses for the vowel sounds. You can see the resultant variation above.

Now to try and determine the possible source of "Matthew's" omission. But was it unintentional or intentional? Did he copy the omission from the LXX?

1 Chronicles 3:11

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%...ter=3&verse=11

"ΙωÏ?αμ υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ Οχοζια υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ Ιωας υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ 12 Αμασιας υἱὸς αá½?τοῦ ΑζαÏ?ια"

ΙωÏ?αμ (Joram), Οχοζια (Ahaziah), Ιωας (Joash), Αμασιας (Amaziah), ΑζαÏ?ια (Azariah)

Presumably the LXX had the missing names so it wasn't the source of "Matthew's" omission. Let's look at a different possible source, "Matthew's" creanativity. Back to "Matthew" 1:8:

8 "...Joram begat Uzziah 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham

Now let's look at the son of Joram and the father of Jotham per the complete genealogy:

11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"

"Ahaziah" is the son of Joram and "Azariah" is the father of Jotham. Now compare the Greek:

Οχοζια (Ahaziah)

ΑζαÏ?ια (Azariah)

Now the transliteration:

Ο χο ζ ι α

O cho z i a

Α ζ αÏ? ι α

A z ar i a

My guess is that the names were close enough and as "Matthew's" theology was more important to him than literal correctness, he intentionally showed Ὀζίαν (Uzziah) as the son of Joram and as the father of Jotham, knowing they were two different persons, because the names were similar, and thus he was close to being figuratively correct. This allowed him to "complete" his pattern of fourteens.

In the Appeal To Authority category:

Brown, Page 82, Birth Of The Messiah:

"A more plausible explanation is that the omission was accidental caused by the similarity between the Greek forms of the names of Uzziah (Azariah) and Ahaziah...then the lists were already in Greek and already contained errors."

ICC, Page 176:

"One should observe that the omission of names from a genealogy, for one purpose or another...was common practice."

So Brown ((Catholic) thinks Error and ICC (Protestant) does not.

The most extreme potential error here is that "Matthew" claims groups of 14 generations:

17
"So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations." (ASV)

But according to 1 Chronicles:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Chronicles_3

Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Ahaziah
Joash
Amaziah
Azariah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jehoiakim
Jeconiah

There were 18 generations.

Let's move back to "Matthew's" possible intent. What was "Matthew's" intent for the Reader to understand here. "Matthew" starts the genealogy with:

1
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The implication here for the Reader is that this is a complete genealogy. "Matthew" ends the genealogy with:

17
"So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations"

Again, the implication here for the Reader is that this is a complete genealogy. "all the generations" is used, it's explicitly quantified as three groups of 14 and implies there is something significant about the three groups of exactly 14. So "Matthew" has communicated intent of a complete genealogy at the start and finish of the generations. If "Matthew's" intent was for the Reader to take this as a complete genealogy one wonders what exactly "Matthew" could have added, using his normal style, to make it clearer. Add to this the general observation that "Matthew's" primary objective was to persuade that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The best way to do this regarding lineage would be to give a complete genealogy.

Here's famed Internet Apologist JP Holding's defense against the original abbreviated version of my claimed error (apparently he's reading this and was alerted to the problem at his site):

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html

"Same dip, different day. See #5 about genealogy omissions. Normal stuff. Not an error."

JW:
Holding's brief response here does refer to #5 which does give some examples, authority and detailed reasoning but is still General in nature and wouldn't carry all that much weight against my detailed article here which concentrates on Specifics. Holding does mention genealogy omissions as an acceptable, non-erroneous convention of the time which seems to be the most popular "defense" here so I'll address that:

1) General arguments are evidence of course but don't allow you to ignore the Specifics of the context of the potential error.

2) Finding examples supports your General argument but you also have to consider examples that don't support your General argument if you want to conclude Probable rather than just Possible.

3) Specifically here, Chronicles from the Jewish Bible is probably the best parallel for "Matthew's" supposed genealogy and sure looks like it intends to give a complete genealogy for David's line. Even if you can demonstrate one omission in it you would still have to conclude that for any other specific sequence in it it likely intended to be complete.

4) The Greek word "Matthew" uses has a primary meaning of "begat". Greek has a separate word with a primary meaning of "father". So while Chronicles is using "his son", "Matthew" is using "begat" which is even harder to justify using with skipped generations. Perhaps Mr. Holding can provide some such examples in Greek literature.

While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error.


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" omission of three Kings at 1:8 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) The specific wording at the start and end of the genealogy and explict use of "14" indicates the Reader would understand that a complete Genealogy was being presented.

2) "Matthew" uses "begat" instead of "father/son of" indicating no omissions were intended.

3) The necessity of transliteration of no longer used Hebrew names and resultant spelling variation and similar names would make it easier for names in between two such similar names to be omitted unintentionally or intentionally.

4) We will see that "Matthew" has other omissions in his list.

5) The likely best parallel to compare "Matthew's" Genealogy too, Chronicles, appears to have intended to present a complete listing for the Davidic line.

6) We have no evidence that such omissions in Greek writings were the Rule rather than the exception.

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

8) 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.

9) And listen to this (waving arms around excitedly on sidelines ala "John" Maddin!) Bezae, Curetonian, Epiphanes and Th-Mop (I tell you the Truth, ICC mentions this but I have absolutely no idea what it refers to but it sure sounds impressive) all add the three issing Kings to "Matthew" indicating they thought the omission was an error.

10) Famed Internet Apologist JP Holding declined to argue this Error at this time indicating he understands the strength of the Pro argument.


The evidence that "Matthew's" omission of three Kings at 1:8 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) The Jewish Bible, Greek Bible and literature of the time sometimes give ancestry that contains omissions.

2) The detail genealogy in Chronicles appears to have a time gap itself between the Exodus and Conquest as there is a deficit of names for the supposed time period. This may be because of a separate Jewish tradition that the stay in Egypt was Four generations rather than Four hundred years.

3) "Matthew" may have intended to omit names.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that the omission by "Matthew" of the names of three Kings here is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Matthew's" omission of three Kings here was intentional and an accepted literary convention of the time a complete genealogy would have been a better presentation and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".


Joseph

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

pharoah

This is unquestionably an error, not so much for the omission of names, but for the fact that Matthew claimed that there were 14 generations when there were actually 18. It's at best a sloppy mistake and at worst a deliberate lie, and there's just no way to get around it it.

One question that I wonder about is did the post-Exile Jews, who were scattered all over the ancient world, keep detailed genealogical records? What were Matthew and Luke's sources for their names?

Chris Weimer

Actually, genealogical omission is not normal, and by Matthew's time everything was not oral tradition. JP Holding still goes nowhere.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Christ. You may be interested in this if you haven't looked at it before. I think "Matthew's" 14 generations was imitating some Rabbinical works such as:

Mishnah Tractate Avot

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/avot.html

"2. There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, to show how great was His patience, for every one of those generations provoked Him continually until he brought upon them the waters of the Flood.
3. There were ten generations from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His patience, for every one of those generations provoked Him continually until Abraham, our father, came and received the reward of them all."

From a Jewish standpoint "Matthew's" identification of 14 generations is deficient (comical) as Midrash because he doesn't bother to explain the significance of "14" even though presenting three supposed groups of "14" implies a divine plan.

I noticed at your site that Sumner commented that there was nothing extant supporting Rachab as marrying into the Davidic line. In the Talmud Rachab marries Joshua and creates a Prophetic line.

I like your work on "Matthew" Chris and think you are exactly right regarding the Moses connection. "Mark's" Jesus was primarily a Prophet, with Elijah as the model. "Matthew" turned "Mark" into a more Jewish product by acknowledging that Judaism of that time recognized Moses as the most important historical Jew and not Elijah. So "Matthew's" Jesus was primarily a Rescuer and Law Giver like Moses.



Joseph

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

Chris Weimer

I appreciate the link Joe. This is useful. Time for some more editing.

Actually, that was Ebla, but regardless, it is true that nothing in the Tanakh mentions Rahab (not Rachab) outside of the one particular instance in Joshua. That's the funny thing, though, is that it ought not be Rahab, but Matthew lists Rachab. It appears the CAL database is down (has anyone been able to access this in the past week?) so I am not sure here, but if the Syriac in Joshua corresponds with Matthew, then we can again safely assume that Rachab is Rahab, but if not, then this person becomes either someone lost in history or Matthew blunder.

Yes, but the ironic thing is that Jesus-Moses, gave new laws, which form Jesus' sermons starting in chapter 5, and also that Jesus-Moses rescued the Jews from Judaism, which Matthew equates with slavery of Exodus. Thus Matthew uses Judaism against itself.

lpetrich

Problem with overall concept: one composes articles verse-by-verse. I wonder what one does if several verses are most efficiently discussed as a group. Like if I wanted to discuss how Deut 7:1-5 commands genocide for the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Chris Weimer

lpetrich - I suppose you're referring to Errancy Wiki, no? In that case, I don't see how genocide can be considered an error? Do you mean to talk about an magnanimous god? In that case, it would be better to go to the verse which talks about God being all-loving and point out those verses which tells the Israelites to slaughter these groups en masse.

pharoah

The Messiah here at IIDB? :notworthy

JoeWallack

JW:
Note that in Samuel Lachs "A Rabbinic Commentary On The New Testament" he writes on Page 3:

"Another explanation is that the author intended that this fourteen-generation pattern in the genealogy imitate the fourteen generations from Moses to the rabbinic period recorded both in Mishnah Avot and in the Avot de Rabbi Nathan".

If you look at the start of Mishnah Avot for yourself you'll see the number "14" is never used and that you would have to make some assumptions to get to it (This was the Type of thing Neusner criticized Lachs for). S.C. Carlson's The Primacy Of Primary Sources, look out! It's possible though that this is something your "Matthew" had in mind since he's relatively more interested in Moses.



JW:
I don't see it that way Chris. I think Ebionites were the original "Matthew" community. Judaism of the first century was primarily based on the Law. In order to promote a Sect based on end of the Law it would need to be Explicitly stated like Paul does. "Matthew" never states that the Law ended. He seems to confirm the opposite. Jesus came to Fulfill the Law, not change it. The key to "Matthew" is that the Messiah properly Interpreted the Law and this is what rescued Judaism. Of course "Matthew" gives examples of Jesus changing the Law but I think that was mainly inherited from "Mark" and "Matthew" wasn't the Type of writer to be bothered by contradiction consequences of his theology.



Joseph

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

Chris Weimer

Oddly enough, one of my nicknames is "The Jesus".