Soul Invictus

I'm not here to discuss the differences of the generations purported to Jesus between Matthew and Luke. I was wondering if anyone was familiar with why Jesus lineage wasn't traced through Mary? The gospel of Barnabas states that Mary was of the lineage of David, however the NT gospels do the opposite-tracing the lineage through the father...Joseph. Why is this? Barnabas was a disciple so:

a) how would this effect the validity of valuing his text over that of Matthew and Luke? ( a doctor and historian)

also, is the gospel of Barnabas older than Matthew/Luke? I would think so.

Peter Kirby

The Gospel of Barnabas, at least as we have it, is a medieval production. The earliest references to any Gospel "of Barnabas" date after Nicaea. See these sites:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html

http://home.t-online.de/home/chrislages/barnarom.htm

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Barnabas/contents.html

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/Gi...t/barnabas.htm

best,
Peter Kirby

Asha'man

Two reasons:

1. The ancient Jews never traced a lineage through a woman. While they understood the concept of a man providing "seed." they were completely unaware of the female egg. A woman provided nothing but a place to plant the seed and let it grow, they had no idea about providing any genetic material.

2. Luke (1:34-36) mentions Mary's cousin Elizabeth, identifying her as from the tribe of Levi, a descendant of Aaron (1:5). Mary and Elizabeth therefore can't be part of Luke's genealogy, since (1:34) it refers to the descendants of Judah, not Aaron.

judge

Hi there.
Matthew actually does give us the lineage of mary.
If we read the aramaic version of Matthew 1:16 Joseph is described as the gowra (father) of mary.
In Matthew 1:19 an entirely different person also called Joseph is described as the baala (husband) of mary.
Both these words were translated as aner in the greek and then in our english translations they were thought to be the same person.

Two other things clearly show this to be the case.

1. Matthew tells us there are 42 (3X14) generations. If the Joseph in verse 16 is the father of mary there are indeed 42 (3X14) generations but if it joseph the husband then there are only 41 generations!

2.Luke tells us that Heli was joseph's(Mary's husband) .
father. The father of the Joseph mentioned in Matt 1:16 is called Jacob!!!
This cannot be the husband of Mary.
It just happens that two men had the name Joseph!!

lpetrich

However, Matthew was originally written in Greek, as far as anyone can tell; "judge" is likely working from some Aramaic translation of the original Greek -- and an inaccurate one at that.

Peter Kirby

Isn't whether the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek or Aramaic a point of contention to judge? How exactly do you tell?

It is a well-known difficulty that there are only thirteen generations in the last set of "fourteen" claimed by the author of Matthew, one which is resolved by such ideas as that Jesus counts as two generations: once when born, once when called Christ! To suggest that two men were called Joseph in the family seems tame by comparison, if only a textual emendation could be made. Of course, I wonder whether that very fact could have led someone to propose the solution in the Aramaic version.

best,
Peter Kirby

judge

Hi Peter, hope you are well.

Peter Kirby:
Isn't whether the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Greek or Aramaic a point of contention to judge? How exactly do you tell?

Judge:
Well I suppose everything can be subject to contention, but there seems to be a lot of evidence supporting Aramaic and none that I am aware of supporting greek.


Many of the references to matthew having written his gospel in "the Hebrew dialect" may stem from a saying attributed to Papias.(c.125)

What we have is this (in greek)
MATQAIOS
MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TO LOGIA SUNETAKSATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS
HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS

Schollars have argued about the exact meaning of the words here but i beleive the plain reading is as follows...."that Matthew wrote his work in a/the hebrew dialect and each translated as best they could"

Now the immediate question is what was meant by "hebrew dialect".
There is some disagreement among scollars but I think the "hebrew dialect" (note not hebrew language) was the dialect of Aramaic spoken by jews at the time of Christ.
Hebrew had by this time long ago ceased to be the common tongue of jews.

This view would find support in the catholic Encyclopaedia...
…Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.”

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)




An interesting quote from this history is in Book V,
chapter 10 concerning an Egyptian father named
Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century:

"Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as
far as India, where he appears to have found that
Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the
hands of some there who had come to know Christ.
Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them
and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual
Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of
Pantaenus's mission."

Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The
History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965,
pages 213-214.

Ireneus (170 C.E.)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in
their own dialect.
(Irenaeus; Against Heresies 3:1)

Origen (c. 210 C.E.)
The first is written according to Matthew, the same
that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of
Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish
believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
(quoted by Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

Epiphanius (370 C.E.)
They have the Gospel according to Matthew
quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still
preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew
letters.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29:9:4)

Jerome (382 C.E.)
"Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be
an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of
Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the
benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained.
Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the
library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently
collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this
volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be
remarked that, wherever the evangelist... makes use of the
testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the
authority of the seventy translators , but
that of the Hebrew."
(Lives of Illustrious Men 3)

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
emissaries, had there preached the advent of our Lord
Yeshua the Messiah according to the Gospel of Matthew, which
was written in Hebrew letters, and which, on returning to
Alexandria, he brought with him."
(De Vir. 3:36)

Isho'dad (850 C.E.)
His book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine,
and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in
Hebrew...
(Isho'dad Commentary on the Gospels)

judge

The gospel of Barnabas states that Mary was of the lineage of David, however the NT gospels do the opposite-tracing the lineage through the father...Joseph. Why is this? Barnabas was a disciple so:

Judge:
What exactly does the gospel of Barnabas say on this?