Chris Weimer

How dare you defy my divinity! I send you to hell! (when you die...)

Christ Weimer :devil:

JoeWallack

JW:
I've been arguing with you guys for 2,000 years now so I Am familiar with Apologetics. This time you don't get to write my Lines for me. I'm not going to let you distract from The Problems I pointed out by trying to shift the focus to related and even unrelated issues. Here are your problems (again):

Here I did make a mistake (where the hell is Christ when you really need him). I should have said:

1) "Matthew" used "Begat" which is never used in a non Linear, immediate Greek Genealogy.

See how easy that was Lee?

JW:
Oi. Your Hebrews' example is not a Genealogy. Even if it was a Genealogy it's not a Genealogy that "Skips". Even if it was a Genealogy that skips it's just a Genealogy that skips. Even "Matthew" used "Father of" at the start for the Skipping so I Am petty sure he knew the difference between the two. There's no Logic to your argument anyway. Using a word that can have the proper meaning can't be as good as using the word that does have the proper meaning.

Here's a better Apology Lee. I have Faith that you'll like it. Why not argue that most of "Matthew's" "begats" are technically correct and that he uses "begat" exclusively just to maintain the literary rythym? (Form over substance).

2) "Matthew" Explicitly says there were 14 Generations 3 times.

JW:
That is a tough one to answer isn't it. I mean numbers are so Objective. I guess Holding had to watch Narnia a Third Time.

3) "Matthew" describes the Generations as "All" (still waiting for you to look up the Greek word).

JW:
If you agree to look up the meaning of the underlying Greek word than I promise to read All of Isaiah 53.

4) Brown, who wrote The Book so to speak sez "Matthew" did not intentionally skip.

JW:
Sure, you know better than Brown.

5) No Early Church Father (you know, the guys who selected "Matthew" in the first place and who you believe are a direct link to you know who) claimed skipped Generations.

JW:
Your as bad as me with the double negative! Here's what I first said:

"All Fathers above indicate an attitude that they considered the Genealogies Historical and Accurate and Intentional and I'm not aware of any Early Church Father who said otherwise (Africanus has some implication though above that there were)."

Take your pick of what to disagree with, what I said first or second, but how about an emphasis of what you disagree with and why rather than the number of disagreements to choose from. Meanwhile, I'll go watch the Python, "I came here for an Argument." "No you didn't." sketch.

6) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" at the Beginning of the Genealogy Implies that this is intended to be a Complete Genealogy.

The Implication is primarily from "The book/record". Placing this at the beginning gives an "official" sense.

7) Jesus' complete Genealogy isn't listed anywhere else so why abbreviate?

JW:
Your best answer.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's also throw some Internal "diffiCulties" in "Matthew's" Genealogy Lee's way because to the extent it can be demonstrated that there are Errors or at least potential problems within "Matthew's" genealogy it becomes more Likely that "Matthew" will conflict with External Sources such as "Luke".

To My Honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides from:

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

I have a Detailed critique of The Genealogies here in Progress. Kind of like the Death Star of David. Not finished but still lethal. I also have Christ Weimer as Greek Grand Admiral (Isn't there a minimum age requirement here for Moderators?). Enjoy!:

(All ASV)

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/human/bible/mgene.html) 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 Septuagint for 4:19:

"ΕσÏ?ων δὲ á¼?γ�*ννησεν τὸν ΑÏ?Ï?αν καὶ ΑÏ?Ï?αν á¼?γ�*ννησεν 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?τ�*χθησαν 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-עַמִּי�*ָדָב; וְעַמִּי�*ָדָב הוֹלִיד ×?ֶת-�*ַחְש×?וֹן, �*ְשִׂי×? בְּ�*Öµ×™ 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:

×™×– בְּ�*Öµ×™ 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.

Raymond Brown does refer to "Matthew's" use of "Aram" as "a variant form of "Ram". 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.


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

"Behind this contorted complaint there lies a host of idiocies. "Ram" and "Aram" are nothing more than legitimate variations of spelling on the same name -- much like "Joe" and "Joseph" or "James" and "Jim." The LXX does indeed use Aram and this is an acceptable, non-erroneous spelling variation, of the sort we also find in Josephus. The idea that Matthew was not fluent in Hebrew flounders on the simple fact that Matthew regularly uses the Hebrew version of the OT text; it is simply a ridiculous and unsupported assertion to make based on a spelling variation, which appears in the LXX -- composed by persons who were themselves fluent in Hebrew! The "LXX was changed" idea is a throwaway without substantiation, of the sort that Wally loves to throw out without documentation or critical examination, much less showing relevance."


JW:
Let me say in general that Holding's brief response primarily consisting of assertions rather than evidence such as examples, authority and detailed reasoning wouldn't carry much weight against my detailed article here with examples, appeal to authority and detailed reasoning. Holding does mention "acceptable, non-erroneous spelling variation" and "spelling variation" seems to be the most popular "defense" here so I'll address that.

1) The first consideration for possible "spelling variation" is was there spelling variation in the original language of Hebrew for "Ram"? My detailed article above indicates no evidence for this in the Jewish Bible, in contemporary Jewish writings and from Biblical Hebrew language experts. If Holding wants to make an argument here he's reduced to the secondary argument of demonstrating that similar but different names in the Jewish Bible had this type of variation and still referred to the same person. Good luck.

2) The second consideration for possible spelling variation is was there spelling variation in the translated language of Greek for "Ram"? Consider that Greek had no existing equivalent of "Ram" as a Greek name. When it was used in Greek it was transliterated. Therefore, the only potential spelling variation would be based on letters which had the same sound. Let's look at the related sounds in tortuous detail (read right to left):

Hebrew Masoretic: רָ ×?

English Sound: M Ra

Greek (1:4): μ Ï?α Α

English Sound: M Ra A


Note that the Greek transliteration used by "Matthew" is a different sound ("A" at the start) and not simply a spelling variation for the same sound. I levy it to Mr. Holding to prepare a convincing analysis based on examples that this type of sound variation in a transliterated name from the Hebrew Bible would likely not be an error.

In any case Holding is still stuck with the problem that the last time I checked, the Jewish Bible was still part of the Christian Bible and most Christian English translations have "Ram" for this genealogy place in the Jewish Bible while I've likely demonstrated that "Matthew" used "Aram". According to the Christian Bible then, at a minimum this would be a mistransliteration of not just the same name but the name of the same person. Error.


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 original Hebrew name "Ram" was transliterated into Greek. "Matthew's" "Aram" would be an incorrect transliteration based on sound.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10) 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.

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

12) 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".

Lee, start your Engineering of excuses.



Joseph

"You've Been Wikied!"

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

Kosh

For Lee:

OK, I guess when you quoted Origen/Eusebius as an authority:

To to back up your claim of the Hebrew gospel, I must have misunderstood that you were also accepting his claim that Mathew wrote first. WHich is why I commented that it is obvious, as laid out by the two source hypothesis, that Mathew copied from Mark.

To which you replied:
But then you write:

Of course, nowhere did I state that Mathew copied ONLY Mark, just that it is obvious that Mathew copied Mark, rather than Mark copying Mathew (which is what is implied by claiming that Mathew wrote first.

So if I understand your position (and hoping it doesn't move around anymore),

you:

1. Believe Origen/Eusebius regarding the claim of GMt written in Hebrew
2. DO NOT believe Origen/Eusebius' claim of GMt being written first
3. Have an affection for cherries.

Chris Weimer

Good lord, Joe, you're requiring me to read through this...again?! And by the way, there are both moderators and at least one admin who are younger than me.

Heck, at least my genealogy chart is coming into use here
Not only is it possible, it's likely.

If I may quote myself on the issue:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

It's only easy if I understand what you mean by non-linear and immediate, which I don't...

Right. Let's not move the goalposts, though. If I were to come up with a genealogy example, would the objection then be that it's not a genealogy in Matthew? But the point at issue was whether the word always means direct descent, and it doesn't.

Unless the word can have that different meaning in Matthew, which you have yet to prove that it can't. You are the one who is insisting that you have a proof! So I will insist on seeing said proof.

Are you asking me if the word means all? Yes, it does:

"Without the article each, every (pl. all); every kind of; all, full, absolute, greatest" (USB)

I agreed that it means all here, and this fits with my interpretation.

Who would Brown be, may I ask, and what was his book?

And I agreed! Do you not recall? "Historical and accurate and intentional" need not imply exhaustive, without gaps.

And a record, listing descendants must never have a gap? An official record must have no gaps?

Then a list of poems by Shakespeare in a scholarly book must leave no poems unmentioned?

Lots of names had variants in the OT, though, "Jeconiah" is sometimes called "Coniah," etc. etc. But let's not start other topics here, please.

No, I don't actually insist that Matthew was necessarily written in Hebrew first, I do consider that comment to be evidence that the gospel was for Jewish people, though. And I don't mind if Matthew was written first! Or Mark. But I only need insist that Matthew and Mark could have quite early material from the same source, I think, to make my case here.

I almost don't remember why we are discussing this, that happens sometimes in these extended threads...

Regards,
Lee

pharoah

Well Lee, let's review here:

You've been shown that Matthews omitted several generations and then lied about the number of generations, apparently because he had a fetish for the number 14. Your response has been to claim that he only did "significant" generations, without giving any criteria for significance.

You've been shown that the Coniah line was cursed by God. Your response has been an outlandish but futile attempt to twist the plain meaning of the verses in question.

You claimed that both geneologies are paternal and that Joseph was adopted. Naturally you have no scriptural backing for this desperate claim whatsoever.

Let me throw another monkey in the wrench.

Hmmm. I wonder what the writer was referring to? Surely the only ones that would have mattered to the early church was Jesus'. Could it be that the church disagreed about the merits of the Lukan and Matthean genealogies, among others (possibly)? Did the writer consider these genealogies to be "fables"? Give us the scoop here Lee!

youngalexander

I recently sent this very question to the biologists at EC, but it seems to have stumped even they.
"kata sarka" - Biology re: 'virgin birth'?

Julian

I cannot be completely sure but I suspect that the author and book referred to here is Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
Reasons why "Matthew" intended a Complete Genealogy:

1) "Matthew" used "Begat" which is never used in a Greek Genealogy known to Skip Generations:

The definition of γεννάω from BDAG: (emphasis mine saith The Lord)

"γεννάω fut. γεννήσω; 1 aor. á¼?γ�*ννησα; pf. γεγ�*ννηκα. Pass.: fut. pl. γεννηθήσεσθε Sir 41:9; 1 aor. á¼?γεννήθην; pf. γεγ�*ννημαι (Pind., Hdt.+).—See ARahlfs, Genesis 1926, 39. Gener., to cause someth. to come into existence, primarily through procreation or parturition. �* become the parent of, beget â“? by procreation (oft. LXX, fr. Gen 4:18 on) Mt 1:2–20 (cp. Diod. S. 4, 67, 2–68, 6, the genealogy of the Aeolians: 67, 4 ἌÏ?νη á¼?γ�*ννησεν Αἰόλον κ. Βοιωτόν; 67, 7 Ἱππάλκιμος á¼?γ�*ννησε �*ην�*λεων; 68:1 Σαλμωνεὺς á¼?γ�*ννησε θυγατ�*Ï?α … ΤυÏ?ÏŽ; 68, 3 �*οσειδῶν á¼?γ�*ννησε �*ελίαν κ. Î?ηλ�*α; 68, 6 Î?ηλεὺς παῖδας á¼?γ�*ννησε δώδεκα. Interchanged with á¼?γ�*ννησε are á¼?τ�*κνωσε, ἦν υἱός, παῖδες á¼?γ�*νοντο, etc.; cp. PMich 155, 7. The continuity is not formalized to the degree in Mt, but in Diod. S. 4, 69, 1–3 á¼?γ�*ννησε is repeated six times in a short space, and 4, 75, 4f á¼?γ�*ννησε occurs four times with the names of fathers and sons; Did., Gen. 144, 27); Ac 7:8, 29. á¼?κ w. gen. of the mother (Hdt. 1, 108, 2; Diod. S. 4, 2, 1; 4, 62, 1; Palaeph. 44; PLond V, 1730, 10 οἱ á¼?ξ αá½?τῆς γεννηθ�*ντες υἱοί; Tob 1:9; 2 Esdr 10:44; Demetr.: 722 Fgm. 2, 2 Jac.; TestJob 1:6; Jos, Ant. 12, 189) Mt 1:3, 5f.—Pass. be fathered (Orig., C. Cels. 8, 66, 23) á¼?κ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάÏ?κα w. the slave-woman, according to the flesh (i.e. in line with human devising; opp. δι᾽ á¼?παγγελίας) Gal 4:23. á½? κατὰ σάÏ?κα γεννηθείς he that was fathered by human design, opp. á½? κατὰ πνεῦμα he that was fathered by the Spirit’s design, i.e. in keeping with the divine promise, vs. 23) vs. 29. τὸ á¼?ν αá½?τῇ γεννηθὲν á¼?κ πνεÏ?ματός á¼?στιν that which is conceived in her is of the Spirit Mt 1:20 (τὸ γεννηθ�*ν of that which is yet unborn: Diod. S. 17, 77, 3). Here the male principle is introduced by á¼?κ (Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20, 14 á¼?κ κÏ?κνου γεγεννημ�*νη; Phlegon: 257 Fgm. 36, 2, 4 Jac.; Ps-Callisth. 1, 30, 3 á¼?ξ Ἄμμωνος á¼?γεννήθη; TestSim 2:2) as J 1:13 (á¼?γενήθ. P75et al.); but in 3:6 the imagery is complex, involving a maternal aspect in vs. 4. W. ἀπό (En 15:8 οἱ γίγαντες οἱ γεννηθ�*ντες ἀπὸ Ï„. πνευμάτων κ. σαÏ?κός) ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς á¼?γεννήθησαν they were fathered by one man Hb 11:12 (numerous edd. á¼?γενήθησαν). á¼?κ ποÏ?νείας οá½? γεγεννήμεθα (v.l. á¼?γεννήθημεν) J 8:41 (cp. StudPal XX, 4, 30 á¼?ξ ἀγÏ?άφων γάμων γεγεννῆσθαι). á¼?ν á¼?μαÏ?τίαις σὺ á¼?γεννήθης ὅλος you’re a born sinner, totally! 9:34.—Lk 1:35 (where mng. 2 is also prob. [as in τὸ γεννώμενον Philo, Plant. 15]. S. AFridrichsen, SymbOsl 6, 1928, 33–36; HAlmqvist, Plut. u. d. NT ’46, 60f). â“‘ by exercising the role of a parental figure, ext. of 1a (Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 58 μᾶλλον αá½?τὸν τῶν γον�*ων γεγ�*ννηκα), of a teacher on pupils á¼?ν Χ. Ἰ. διὰ τοῦ εá½?αγγελίου ὑμᾶς á¼?γ�*ννησα I became your father as Christians through the gospel 1 Cor 4:15; Phlm 10 (s. Ltzm. and JWeiss on 1 Cor 4:15; ADieterich, Mithraslit. 1903, 146ff).—Pass. á¼?κ (τοῦ) θεοῦ γεννᾶσθαι J 1:13 (on the rdg. of the Lat. ms. b, s. JPryor, NovT 27, ’85, 296–318); 1J 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. On γεννᾶσθαι á¼?ξ ὕδατος κ. πνεÏ?ματος J 3:5 cp. 1QS 4:20–22 and s. YYadin, JBL 74, ’55, 40–43. Also ἄνωθεν γ. J 3:3, 7. πᾶς á½? ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ τὸν γεγεννημ�*νον á¼?ξ αá½?τοῦ everyone who loves the father (=God) loves the child (=Christ or one’s fellow Christian) 1J 5:1 (on γεννᾶσθαι á¼?κ θεοῦ s. Hdb. on J 3:3 and 1J 3:9 and the sources and lit. listed there; s. also παλιγγενεσία). Cp. σήμεÏ?ον γεγ�*ννηκά σε (Ps 2:7) 1 Cl 36:4; GEb 18, 37; Ac 13:33 (held by some to have been the orig. rdg. Lk 3:22 v.l.; s. JHillmann, Die Kindheitsgesch. Jesu nach Lucas: Jahrbücher f. Protestantische Theologie 17/2, 1891, 192–261; HUsener, D. Weihnachtsfest2 1911, 38ff); Hb 1:5; 5:5. â‘¡ to give birth to, bear (Aeschyl., Suppl. 48; X., De Rep. Lac. 1, 3; Lucian, Sacrif. 6; Plut., Mor., 3c; Ps.-Callisth. 1, 9, 2 á¼?κ θεοῦ γεννήσασα παῖδα=a woman who has borne a child to a god; BGU 132 II, 5; Judg 11:1 B; Is 66:9; 4 Macc 10:2) Lk 1:13, 57; 23:29; J 16:21 w. τίκτειν; AcPl Ha 8, 28 εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα who bears children for slavery Gal 4:24. Pass. be born (á¼?κ παÏ?θ�*νου Did., Gen. 96, 13) á¼?γεννήθη Μωϋσῆς Ac 7:20; cp. Hb 11:23. γεγεννημ�*νος á¼?ν ΤαÏ?σῷ Ac 22:3; μήπω … γεννηθ�*ντων Ro 9:11; Ï€Ï?ὶν ἡμᾶς γεννηθῆναι before we were born 1 Cl 38:3. εἰς τὸν κόσμον come into the world J 16:21; Mt 2:1, 4; 19:12; 26:24 (=1 Cl 46:8); Mk 14:21 (cp. En 38:2); Lk 1:35 (1a is also prob.; a v.l. adds á¼?κ σοῦ, which can be rendered ‘the child to whom you give birth’). á¼?κ ΜαÏ?ίας á¼?γεννήθη AcPlCor 1:14; 2:5 (cp. Mt 1:16); J 3:4; 9:2, 19f, 32; IEph 18:2; ITr 11:2; ἀληθῶς γ. be in fact born (in opp. to Docetism) 9:1. γεγεννημ�*να (v.l. γεγενημ�*να) εἰς ἅλωσιν 2 Pt 2:12. εἰς τοῦτο for this purpose J 18:37. διάλεκτος á¼?ν ᾑ á¼?γεννήθημεν the language in which we were born i.e., which we have spoken fr. infancy Ac 2:8. á¼?γὼ δὲ καὶ γεγ�*ννημαι but I was actually born a Roman citizen 22:28. οὗτος á¼?γεννήθη βασιλεÏ?Ï‚ born a king GJs 20:4 codd. γεννῶνται και γεννῶσιν Lk 20:34 v.l. â‘¢ to cause someth. to happen, bring forth, produce, cause, fig. of various kinds of production (Pla. et al.; Polyb. 1, 67, 2 στάσις á¼?γεννᾶτο; Philo, De Jos. 254; Jos., Ant. 6, 144) 2 Ti 2:23.—γ. καÏ?πόν produce fruit (Philo, Op. M. 113) ITr 11:1. Forged writing γεγεννημ�*νον for γεγενημ�*νον GJs 24:3.—B. 280. DELG s.v. γίγνομαι p. 222. M-M. TW."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW: Note that the priMary definition from BDAG is immediate parent procreation and this is how BDAG has classified Matthew 1.2-20. I don't believe there is a single example above of γεννάω being used with "telescoping" (deliberate omissions) of generations.

So "Father of " would have been the proper choice if Generations were Intentionally Skipped. Again, the Hebrews example is not a Genealogy.


2) "Matthew" Explicitly says there were 14 Generations 3 times.


3) "Matthew" describes the Generations as "All" (still waiting for you to look up the Greek word).

Now the Greek of 1:17:

"πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ ἈβÏ?αὰμ ἕως Δαυὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ ΧÏ?ιστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατ�*σσαÏ?ες"

Note that "πᾶσαι" (all) is the first word on the left.

Now for usage in the Christian Bible: {el}"�*ᾶσαι"{/} 46 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., with GRAMCORD(TM) Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database and McReynolds English Interlinear (16 occurrences in 14 articles)

Chapter 1 �*[Matthew 1:17]‬ 1

Chapter 10 �*[Matthew 10:30]‬ 2

Chapter 13 �*[Matthew 13:56]‬ 3

Chapter 24 �*[Matthew 24:30]‬ 4

Chapter 25 �*(2)‬ �*[Matthew 25:5]‬ 5

Chapter 1 �*[Luke 1:48]‬ 6

Chapter 12 �*[Luke 12:7]‬ 7

Chapter 3 �*[Acts 3:25]‬ 8

Chapter 9 �*[Acts 9:39]‬ 9

Chapter 16 �*[Acts 16:26]‬ 10

Chapter 27 �*[Acts 27:37]‬ 11

Chapter 16 �*(2)‬ �*[Romans 16:4]‬ 12

Chapter 1 �*[Revelation 1:7]‬ 13

Chapter 2 �*[Revelation 2:23]‬


JW: Most of the uses of "πᾶσαι" above are literal with identification of individual components and their complete and unified inclusive relationship to the total. A few uses are figurative qualifying the relationship to only those individual components that are present.

Now on to BDAG (it's my BDAG Baby):

"πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν gen. παντός, πάσης, παντός (dat. pl. πᾶσι and πᾶσιν vary considerably in the mss.; s. W-S. §5, 28; cp. Rob. 219–21; on the use of the art. s. B-D-F § 275) (Hom. +). �* pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any â“? adj., used w. a noun without the art. α. in the sing. emphasizing the individual members of the class denoted by the noun every, each, any, scarcely different in mng. fr. the pl. ‘all’: πᾶν δ�*νδÏ?ον Mt 3:10; Lk 3:9. πᾶσα φυτεία Mt 15:13. πᾶσα φάÏ?αγξ, πᾶν ὄÏ?ος Lk 3:5 (Is 40:4). πᾶς τόπος 4:37. πᾶς ἄνθÏ?ωπος J 1:9; 2:10; Ro 3:4 (Ps 115:2); Gal 5:3; Col 1:28abd; Js 1:19. πᾶσα γυνή GJs 11:2. πᾶν ἔθνος Ac 17:26a. πᾶσα ψυχή (Pla., Phdr. 249e) 2:43; 3:23 (cp. Lev 23:29); Ro 2:9; Jd 15. πᾶσα ἡμ�*Ï?α Ac 5:42; 17:17. πᾶν σάββατον 18:4. πᾶσα á¼€Ï?χὴ καὶ πᾶσα á¼?ξουσία 1 Cor 15:24 (cp. Just., D. 111, 2 οὗ τὸ ὄνομα πᾶσα á¼€Ï?χὴ δ�*διεν). πᾶσα συνείδησις 2 Cor 4:2. πᾶς ἅγιος Phil 4:21. πᾶς οἶκος Hb 3:4 (GJs 7:3). πᾶσα ἀντιλογία 7:7. πᾶσα παιδεία all discipline 12:11. πᾶς ὀφθαλμός Rv 1:7a. πᾶν κτίσμα 5:13a.—Mt 23:35; Lk 2:23 (Ex 13:2); 4:13; 21:36; 2 Th 2:4 (Da 11:36). πᾶσα κτίσις every creature Col 1:15; á¼?ν πάσῃ κτίσει to every creature vs. 23. πᾶσα γÏ?αφή 2 Ti 3:16 (s. γÏ?αφή 2a).—πᾶσα σάÏ?ξ (שָׂרבָּ־לךָּ; used in the OT, also En 1:9; TestGad 7:2; GrBar 4:10; but not in EpArist, Philo, nor Joseph.) all flesh Lk 3:6 (Is 40:5); AcPlCor 2:6 and 16 (s. also 3b below). Mostly w. a neg. (so also En 14:21; 17:6) οá½? (or μή) … πᾶσα σάÏ?ξ no flesh = no one Mt 24:22; Mk 13:20; Ro 3:20; 1 Cor 1:29; Gal 2:16 (cp. GrBar 8:7 οá½?κ ἂν á¼?σώθη πᾶσα πνοή). Other sim. neg. expressions are also Hebraistic (s. B-D-F §302, 1; Mlt-H. 433f) οá½? … πᾶν ῥῆμα not a thing, nothing Lk 1:37 (cp. PRyl 113, 12f [133 a.d.] μὴ … πᾶν Ï€Ï?ᾶγμα). οá½?δ�*ποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινόν I have never eaten anything common Ac 10:14. Cp. Rv 7:1, 16; 9:4; 21:27. Also in reverse order, πᾶς … οá½? or μή (Ex 12:16; Sir 8:19; 10:6, but s. also GLee, ET 63, ’51f, 156) 18:22; Eph 4:29; 5:5; 2 Pt 1:20; 1J 2:21; 3:15b.—Only rarely is a ptc. used w. πᾶς in this way: παντὸς ἀκοÏ?οντος when anyone hears Mt 13:19. παντὶ ὀφείλοντι Lk 11:4 (Mlt-Turner 196f). β. w. a noun in the pl., without the art. πάντες ἄνθÏ?ωποι all people/men, everyone (Lysias 12, 60; Andoc. 3, 25; X., Cyr. 7, 5, 52, Mem. 4, 4, 19; Demosth. 8, 5; 18, 72) Ac 22:15; Ro 5:12a, 18ab; 12:17, 18; 1 Cor 7:7; 15:19; 2 Cor 3:2; Phil 4:5; 1 Th 2:15; 1 Ti 2:4; 4:10; Tit 2:11. πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ Hb 1:6 (Dt 32:43; cp. Demosth. 18, 294 πάντες θεοί). â“‘ adj. used with a noun or ptc. with the art. α. in the sing. Oft. πᾶς á½?, πάσα ἡ, πᾶν Ï„ÏŒ is used w. a ptc. (B-D-F §413, 2 and 3) every one who, whoever πᾶς á½? (Soph., Aj. 152; Demosth. 23, 97; Sir 22:2, 26; 1 Macc 1:52; 2:27) πᾶς á½? á½€Ï?γιζόμενος Mt 5:22. Cp. vss. 28, 32; 7:8, 26 (=πᾶς ὅστις vs. 24; s. below); Lk 6:47; 11:10; 14:11; 16:18; 18:14; 19:26; J 3:8, 15f, 20; 4:13; 6:40; 8:34; 18:37; Ac 10:43b; 13:39; Ro 2:1, 10; 10:4, 11; 1 Cor 9:25; Gal 3:13; 2 Ti 2:19; Hb 5:13; 1J 2:23, 29 al.; 2J 9; Rv 22:18.—πᾶν Ï„ÏŒ everything that (1 Macc 10:41): πᾶν τὸ εἰσποÏ?ευόμενον Mt 15:17; Mk 7:18. πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον Mt 18:34. πᾶν τὸ πωλοÏ?μενον 1 Cor 10:25; cp. vs. 27. πᾶν τὸ φανεÏ?οÏ?μενον Eph 5:14. πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημ�*νον 1J 5:4.—An equivalent of this expr. is πᾶς á½…Ï‚ (or ὅστις), πᾶν á½… every one who, whatever (s. above and s. B-D-F §293, 1; 413, 2; Rob. 727; 957), masc.: Mt 7:24; 10:32; 19:29; Lk 12:8, 10 (RHolst, ZNW 63, ’72, 122–24), 48; 14:33; Ac 2:21 (πᾶς ὸ̔ς á¼?άν, s. Jo 2:32); Ro 10:13 (πᾶς ὸ̔ς ἄν, s. Jo 3:5); Gal 3:10. Neut. (Jdth 12:14.—Jos., Ant. 5, 211 πᾶν á½… = πάντες οἱ): J 6:37, 39; 17:2b; Ro 14:23; Col 3:17 (πᾶν á½… τι á¼?άν). β. w. a noun in the pl., w. the art. all ×? . w. substantives: πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί Mt 1:17; Lk 1:48; Eph 3:21; GJs 6:2 al. πάντας τοὺς á¼€Ï?χιεÏ?εῖς Mt 2:4. Cp. vs. 16; 4:8; 11:13; Mk 4:13, 31f; 6:33; Lk 1:6; 2:51; 6:26; J 18:20; Ac 1:18; 3:18; 10:12, 43a; 14:16; Ro 1:5; 15:11 (Ps 116:1); 16:4; 1 Cor 12:26ab; 2 Cor 8:18; 11:28; Eph 4:10; 6:16b; Col 2:13; 1 Ti 6:10; Hb 4:4 (Gen 2:2 and 3); 9:21; Js 1:8; Rv 1:7b; 7:11; 15:4 al.—Used w. a demonstr. pron.: πᾶσαι αἱ παÏ?θ�*νοι á¼?κεῖναι Mt 25:7. πάντας τοὺς λόγους τοÏ?τους 26:1. πάντα Ï„á½° ῥήματα ταῦτα Lk 1:65; 2:19.—Somet. following the noun: Ï„á½°Ï‚ πόλεις πάσας Mt 9:35; Ac 8:40. οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες the disciples, one and all Mt 26:56. αἱ θÏ?Ï?αι πᾶσαι Ac 16:26a. Cp. Ro 16:16; 1 Cor 7:17; 13:2a; 15:7; 16:20; 1 Th 5:26; 2 Ti 4:21; Rv 8:3. οἱ ἹεÏ?οσολυμῖται πάντες Mk 1:5.—On the position of á¼?κεῖνος, ἕνεκα, πᾶς s. NTurner, VetusT 5, ’55, 208–13."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW: Note a primary general meaning of "pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any". Specifically, BDAG has categorized 1:17 as "β. w. a noun in the pl., w. the art. all ×? . w. substantives: πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί Mt 1:17".

JW:
Can you repeat that Lee?


4) Brown, who wrote The Book so to speak sez "Matthew" did not intentionally skip.

JW:
If this was a Trial at this point I would be saying, "I rest my case your honor." The late great Raymond Brown, author of "The Birth Of The Messiah". Jesus Christ, where are your Apologies coming from, Gleason Archer who has long since died and fossilized in The Apologists' Hall Of Fame?


5) No Early Church Father (you know, the guys who selected "Matthew" in the first place and who you believe are a direct link to you know who) claimed skipped Generations.

Please make a clear response to this Lee.


6) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" at the Beginning of the Genealogy Implies that this is intended to be a Complete Genealogy.

An "official" record is more likely to be complete than a list with no claim or Implication of being official.

The best parallel to 1:1 in the LXX is Genesis 5:1. Let's take a look at the Greek:

Matthew
The book (βίβλος)
of the generation (γεν�*σεως)

Genesis
This is the book (βίβλος)
of the generations (γεν�*σεως)

Of all the Genealogies in the Jewish Bible Genesis 5:1 gives the strongest appearence of intending to be a complete Genealogy with all the information included with the Names. The Implication is that "Matthew" likewise Intended a complete Genealogy.


7) Jesus' complete Genealogy isn't listed anywhere else so why abbreviate? Wouldn't a Believer Reader prefer a Complete list?


8) Many Individual Errors can be demonstrated in "Matthew's" Genealogy such as the use of "Aram" at 1:4.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:4

making it Likely that "Matthew" either had an Intentional disregard for accuracy or at least was Negligent in scholarship.


9) There are many General reasons to Doubt Accuracy in "Matthew's" Genealogies -

- 1) "Matthew" primarily consists of Impossible claims so making an Inaccurate genealogy would be relatively unimportant to the Author.

- 2) Christianity "discouraged" Critical Commentary until relatively recently.

- 3) Lack of supposed X-Hand/Foot Witness Testimony for Genealogies compared to main narrative describing people who knew Jesus Christ once he was Jesus Christ. "From Moses unto Moses there Arose None unto Moses. From Jesus unto Christ, there arose none."

- 4) Lack of coordination between the Remarkable claimed circumstances of The Genealogy/Infancy and the Un-remarkable description of Jesus' origin/origins in the rest of The Gospel.

- 5) "Jesus Christ" as a name is only used by "Matthew" in the Genealogy/Infancy. Using "Jesus Christ" as a name is generally thought of as a Later development in Christianity. So its use in the Genealogy suggests that the Genealogy is from a later Christianity than the rest of the Gospel.

Are you an Apologist Lee?



Joseph

"God I love the sound of Psalms in the morning!" - Apologist

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