Andrew, More on Gowra Question

Akhi Andrew,

I just recently got around to reading your essay "More on the Gowra Connection." It is a well written informative essay, and I admit that I am leaning toward your and Paul's basic premise. However, I think there are at least two points which need to be clarified.

1. You and Paul imply that the use of the word hl9b, "ba'lah," "literally "her-lord," in verse 19 is solely to distinguish Joseph the husband from Joseph the father. I disagree. The context in which Joseph appears in verse 19 is as Mary's lord and judge, with the power of life and death over her. Not as her protector, which, as you have shown, is the essential meaning of "gawra." Therefore, the use of the term "lord" in this context stands on its own merits, regardless of how it may or may not tie into the previous section.

That Joseph's form of righteousness does indeed protect Mary, even before the intervention of God's messenger, would certainly be a very powerful play on the two words "gawra" and "ba'la." But, even if your theory is correct, the two words are a very clever linking of two separate literary sections which can inherently stand by themselves. Therefore, your explanation of the use of "lord" as a proof that "gawra" must mean "father" in verse 16 doesn't work. "Gawra" must stand on its own merits within the context of the genealogy section.

2. Another issue we need to look at is the use of the word 0ttn0, "antta," literally "woman," in this chapter. "Gawra" and "antta" form a pair in Aramaic. Both literally mean "man" and "woman," and both words imply the married state of life. Thus both are regularly used to mean "husband" and "wife." In verse 6 the word "antta" is clearly used to mean the "wife" of Uriah.

Furthermore, in all the clauses where Matthew introduces women in the genealogy prior to Mary, he uses the sentence structure (man) fathers (son) from (woman). Because the man is the subject of each clause and the son and wonam are the objects of the clause, he is necessarily introducing each wonam as the man's wife, even though he doesn't explicitly use that term.

When we take together the way Matthew introduces the women of the genealogy and how he uses the term "antta," we see he is setting up a pattern of expectation. By the time the reader gets to verse 16, he expects that 'gawra" will be used as "husband." If your theory is correct, when he gets to verse 16 he of necessity breaks this pattern and startles the reader into attention. A literary device very common in Semitic writing. The problem is that if that is what Matthew is really doing here, shouldn't there be something in this clause which makes the reversal of this pattern immediately clear to the reader?

Your remarriage explanation does show some promise, but is it enough by itself to alert a first century Aramaic speaking Jew to your proposed mening of "gawra" in verse 16?

This would hardly be the only place where the Evangelists make obscure remarks about Jesus' relatives and followers. For example:

Matt. 27:56 "And many women were there, looking on from a distance; the same who had followed Jesus from Galilee, and had ministered to him. 56 One of them was Mary of Magdala, also Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children."

Mark 15:40 "And there were women looking on, from a distance, Mary Magdalena, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; 41 who, when he was in Galilee adhered to him, and ministered to him; and many other women, who had come up with him to Jerusalem."

John 19:25 "And there were standing near the cross of Jesus, his mother, and the sister of his mother, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalena."

Depending upon how you interpret this profusion of Mariys and where you break up the clauses, these same passages have been cited by various authors on both sides of the ever virginity of Mary debate as proof for their cause. Nevertheless, the Evangelists at least attempt to distinguish between the Marys in these passages in a way that is not apparent in the genealogy and nativity narratives, if we assume two Josephs.

Since I would really like to accept this theory, I hope you can come up with some convincing answers to these questions.

Shlama,
John

In reply to message #0
 
>Akhi Andrew,
>

AKHI JOHN! GREAT QUESTIONS AS USUAL! I'LL DO MY BEST AND I AM SURE PAUL WILL WANT A CRACK OR TWO AT THIS AS WELL.

>I just recently got around to
>reading your essay "More on
>the Gowra Connection." It
>is a well written informative
>essay, and I admit that
>I am leaning toward your
>and Paul's basic premise. However,
>I think there are at
>least two points which need
>to be clarified.

THANK YOU AND YES, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES WHICH ARE CLEARLY IN A STATE OF FLUX AS WE CONTINUE TO STUDY THIS IN DETAIL.
>
>1. You and Paul imply that
>the use of the word
>hl9b, "ba'lah,"
>"literally "her-lord," in verse 19
>is solely to distinguish Joseph
>the husband from Joseph the
>father. I disagree. The context
>in which Joseph appears in
>verse 19 is as Mary's
>lord and judge, with the
>power of life and death
>over her. Not as her
>protector, which, as you have
>shown, is the essential meaning
>of "gawra." Therefore, the use
>of the term "lord" in
>this context stands on its
>own merits, regardless of how
>it may or may not
>tie into the previous section.

IT IS TRUE THAT ALL BAALIS ARE GOWRAS BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. ALL GOWRAS ARE NOT IPSO FACTO BAALIS, WHICH IS THE MAIN THRUST OF MY ARGUMENT.

YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THEY SHARE CERTAIN BASIC MEANINGS-- ANOTHER POINT BOTH ASKHI PAUL AND I HAVE MENTIONED. AFTER ALL, IT IS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ROOTS THAT THEY BOTH HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED AS "HUSBAND" ON MANY OCCASIONS.

MY POINT ON GOWRA IS THAT, IN SPITE OF THIS PLACE WHERE IT AND BAALI MEET LEXICALLY, THE JUXTAPOSITION OF BOTH OF THE TERMS SO CLOSE TOGETHER RAISES CURIOSITY. I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER INSTANCE OF THIS HAPPENING IN FACT IN ANY ARAMAIC LITERATURE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS NOT.

>
>
>That Joseph's form of righteousness does
>indeed protect Mary, even before
>the intervention of God's messenger,
>would certainly be a very
>powerful play on the two
>words "gawra" and "ba'la." But,
>even if your theory is
>correct, the two words are
>a very clever linking of
>two separate literary sections which
>can inherently stand by themselves.

AH, BUT YOU SEE IT IS THE LITERARY STRUCTURE WE ARE DISCUSSING. THE WAY THE ARAMAIC READS, IT STARTS WITH THE PAST GENEAOLOGY AND SUMMARIZES ITS CONLCUSIONS (1-17). THEN IT GETS INTO THE PRESENT (NOW THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH HAPPENED THIS WAY...) IT'S A NEW SECTION, AND THAT IS THE CONTEXT PAUL AND I ARE LOOKING AT. MARY HAS HER GOWRA IN THE PAST AND HER BAALI IN THE PRESENT.

>Therefore, your explanation of the
>use of "lord" as a
>proof that "gawra" must mean
>"father" in verse 16 doesn't
>work. "Gawra" must stand on
>its own merits within the
>context of the genealogy section.

GOWRAS USE AS "FATHER" IS ALMOST SUBLIMINAL. GOWRA IS A PROTECTIVE MALE FIGURE, CLARIFIED BY THE CONTEXT OF THE RELATIONSHIP MENTIONED IN THE REST OF THE PHRASE. LOOK AT JOB 3:3-- WHERE EVEN A MALE INFANT IS A GOWRA. LOOK AT HOW FATHERS ARE MENTIONED ALL THORUGHOUT THAT FIRST SECTION, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY TO LINK GOWRA TO THAT PORTION OF ITS MEANING RATHER THAN HUSBAND WHICH STARTS THE NEXT SECTION.
>
>
>2. Another issue we need to
>look at is the use
>of the word , "antta," literally "woman,"
>in this chapter. "Gawra" and
>"antta" form a pair in
>Aramaic. Both literally mean "man"
>and "woman," and both words
>imply the married state of
>life. Thus both are regularly
>used to mean "husband" and
>"wife." In verse 6 the
>word "antta" is clearly used
>to mean the "wife" of
>Uriah.
>

YES. AND IT WORKS IN ENGLISH TO. "I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU MAN AND WIFE" OR "I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU HUSBAND AND WIFE", BUT I AM SUGGESTING THAT 2000 YEARS AGO THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD IN THE WAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW. 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-2 IN GREEK READS "ANTHROPOS" FOR MAN BEFORE THE RELATIONSHIP IS QUALIFIED AND "ANER" FOR HUSBAND AFTERWARDS, AND YET THROUGHOUT GOWRA IS USED SINCE THE ARAMAIC SPEAKER IS EXPECTED TO GET THE INTENDED MEANING.

>Furthermore, in all the clauses where
>Matthew introduces women in the
>genealogy prior to Mary, he
>uses the sentence structure (man)
>fathers (son) from (woman). Because
>the man is the subject
>of each clause and the
>son and wonam are the
>objects of the clause, he
>is necessarily introducing each wonam
>as the man's wife, even
>though he doesn't explicitly use
>that term.

NOT SURE ABOUT THIS. PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIFY. IS THIS IN GREEK OR ARAMAIC THAT YOU BELIEVE THIS HAPPENS? I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE PAUL TO WEIGH IN ON THIS IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT POINT. I WILL SIMPLY SAY THAT THE FIRST UMPTEEN NAMES WERE PROBABLY NOT A LEVIR, BUT WHEN ONE HAPPENED, THIS SHIFT OCCURRED.

I WILL RESPOND TO THE REST OF YOUR POST SHORTLY.

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH
>
>When we take together the way
>Matthew introduces the women of
>the genealogy and how he
>uses the term "antta," we
>see he is setting up
>a pattern of expectation. By
>the time the reader gets
>to verse 16, he expects
>that 'gawra" will be used
>as "husband." If your theory
>is correct, when he gets
>to verse 16 he of
>necessity breaks this pattern and
>startles the reader into attention.
>A literary device very common
>in Semitic writing. The problem
>is that if that is
>what Matthew is really doing
>here, shouldn't there be something
>in this clause which makes
>the reversal of this pattern
>immediately clear to the reader?
>
>
>Your remarriage explanation does show some
>promise, but is it enough
>by itself to alert a
>first century Aramaic speaking Jew
>to your proposed mening of
>"gawra" in verse 16?
>
>This would hardly be the only
>place where the Evangelists make
>obscure remarks about Jesus' relatives
>and followers. For example:
>
>Matt. 27:56 "And many women were
>there, looking on from a
>distance; the same who had
>followed Jesus from Galilee, and
>had ministered to him. 56
>One of them was Mary
>of Magdala, also Mary the
>mother of James and Joses,
>and the mother of Zebedee's
>children."
>
>Mark 15:40 "And there were women
>looking on, from a distance,
>Mary Magdalena, and Mary the
>mother of James the less
>and of Joses, and Salome;
>41 who, when he was
>in Galilee adhered to him,
>and ministered to him; and
>many other women, who had
>come up with him to
>Jerusalem."
>
>John 19:25 "And there were standing
>near the cross of Jesus,
>his mother, and the sister
>of his mother, and Mary
> of Cleophas, and
>Mary Magdalena."
>
>Depending upon how you interpret this
>profusion of Mariys and where
>you break up the clauses,
>these same passages have been
>cited by various authors on
>both sides of the ever
>virginity of Mary debate as
>proof for their cause. Nevertheless,
>the Evangelists at least attempt
>to distinguish between the Marys
>in these passages in a
>way that is not apparent
>in the genealogy and nativity
>narratives, if we assume two
>Josephs.
>
>Since I would really like to
>accept this theory, I hope
>you can come up with
>some convincing answers to these
>questions.
>
>Shlama,
>John

In reply to message #1
 
>
OKAY AKHI JOHN! I'M BACK FOR THE REST.

>>When we take together the way
>>Matthew introduces the women of
>>the genealogy and how he
>>uses the term "antta," we
>>see he is setting up
>>a pattern of expectation. By
>>the time the reader gets
>>to verse 16, he expects
>>that 'gawra" will be used
>>as "husband."

IN MOST CASES, YES, I WOULD AGREE. IT CERTAINLY, IF PAUL AND I ARE RIGHT, WAS ABLE TO THROW THE EARLIEST ARAMAIC TO GREEK TRANSLATORS OFF BECAUSE 95% OF THE TIME, THE WORDS MEAN THE SAME THING! HOWEVER, THE PROXIMITY OF THE TWO TERMS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE.

If your theory
>>is correct, when he gets
>>to verse 16 he of
>>necessity breaks this pattern and
>>startles the reader into attention.

OH YES! AND FOR A VERY GOOD REASON-- THE LEVIR (GA'AL)!

>>A literary device very common
>>in Semitic writing. The problem
>>is that if that is
>>what Matthew is really doing
>>here, shouldn't there be something
>>in this clause which makes
>>the reversal of this pattern
>>immediately clear to the reader?

WE HAVE TO PUT OURSELVES BACK IN THAT TIME FRAME, AND IN THAT SITUATION I BELIEVE WE ARE GETTING CLOSER TO SHOWING THAT A GA'AL BECOMES A GOWRA AND NEVER A BAALI. THAT IS WHY I THINK JOSEPH IS GOWRA (FATHER) TO MARY AND GOWRA (HUSBAND) TO ANNA, MARY'S MOTHER.
>>
>>
>>Your remarriage explanation does show some
>>promise, but is it enough
>>by itself to alert a
>>first century Aramaic speaking Jew
>>to your proposed mening of
>>"gawra" in verse 16?

2400 YEARS OF ARAMAIC TRADITION ON KETUBAHS IS, IF NOT ENOUGH, THEN A MOST PROMISING START, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? GA'AL SPECIFICALLY MEANS PROTECTOR, STRONG MAN, AND SO DOES GOWRA BEING DERIVED FROM GBR, (GEBURAH), AS YOU WELL KNOW. BAALI KIND OF IMPLIES STRENGTH AS "LORD" BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN STRENGTH. THAT'S A CRITICFAL DIFFERENCE IN MY VIEW. GA'AL'S BECOME GOWRAS BECAUSE THEIR MEANINGS ARE CLOSER TOGETHER
>>
>>This would hardly be the only
>>place where the Evangelists make
>>obscure remarks about Jesus' relatives
>>and followers. For example:
>>
>>Matt. 27:56 "And many women were
>>there, looking on from a
>>distance; the same who had
>>followed Jesus from Galilee, and
>>had ministered to him. 56
>>One of them was Mary
>>of Magdala, also Mary the
>>mother of James and Joses,
>>and the mother of Zebedee's
>>children."
>>
>>Mark 15:40 "And there were women
>>looking on, from a distance,
>>Mary Magdalena, and Mary the
>>mother of James the less
>>and of Joses, and Salome;
>>41 who, when he was
>>in Galilee adhered to him,
>>and ministered to him; and
>>many other women, who had
>>come up with him to
>>Jerusalem."
>>
>>John 19:25 "And there were standing
>>near the cross of Jesus,
>>his mother, and the sister
>>of his mother, and Mary
>> of Cleophas, and
>>Mary Magdalena."
>>
>>Depending upon how you interpret this
>>profusion of Mariys and where
>>you break up the clauses,
>>these same passages have been
>>cited by various authors on
>>both sides of the ever
>>virginity of Mary debate as
>>proof for their cause. Nevertheless,
>>the Evangelists at least attempt
>>to distinguish between the Marys
>>in these passages in a
>>way that is not apparent
>>in the genealogy and nativity
>>narratives, if we assume two
>>Josephs.

THE VIRGINITY OF THE MESSIAH SHOULD NOT BE A DEBATE FOR ANYONE WHO TAKES THE TEXT AT FACE VALUE-- AND CERTAINLY MATTI BELIEVED IT WHEN HE WROTE IT DOWN! THE LINEAGE THOUGH IS A CRITICAL ISSUE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO MESSIANIC INHERITANCE WITHOUT IT, AND THE FACT IS, WE ARE STILL MISSING THAT GENERATION AND CONTRADICTING MATTI'S OWN WORDS OTHERWISE. MATTI I BELIEVE IS BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE SURE HIS STATEMENTS STAND THE TEST OF BEING CHALLENGED, AND THE ONLY WAY I THINK HE CAN DO THIS IS TO GIVE THE BEST WORD FOR "FATHER"" THAT IS IN CONTEXT WITH A LEVIR HAPPENING.
>>
>>Since I would really like to
>>accept this theory, I hope
>>you can come up with
>>some convincing answers to these
>>questions.
>>
>>Shlama,
>>John

I HOPE THIS IS SOMEHWAT HELPFUL. I WANT TO HEAR PAUL EXPLAIN IT FAR BETTER THAN I CAN.

SHLAMA W'BURKATE
ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH

In reply to message #1
 
One other point, Akhi John that I don't think I quite covered completely.

BAALI does have the power of life and death as her LORD, but is also her GOWRA.

These are two sides of the same coin and essentially refer to strength in their own ways. If I have the POWER of life and death over you, then I have STRENGTH to protect you from death.

What I think needs to be a bit clearer is that WOMEN ALWAYS HAVE THEIR GOWRA. When they are small, it is their father, and when they marry, it is their HUSBAND, hence the parrallelism you mention.

My point also though is that since GOWRA CAN MEAN father, THAT PERHAPS MATTI DID NOT WANT THE READER TO THINK SHE HAD MARRIED HER GUARDIAN, which would more than explain the unusual step of calling a Joseph a BAALI when GOWRA was just used to describe another man named Joseph.

This is a cultural usage therefore by Matti, and an accurate one, since also in this scenario Joseph could not be AWA because he was GA'AL.

Did I do okay explaining that? Sometimes I lose track myself!

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #3
 
Akhi Andrew,

Thank you for your reply. You asked whether I was referring to Greek or Aramaic in regards to the sentence structure of say "Salmon begot Boaz of Rahab." I meant Aramaic. While Paul will correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that grammatically the women in such sentence structures are secondary objects.

Secondly, in my quotes of the Marys at the crucifixion, I meant that, in the argument over whether or not Mary had children after Jesus, these same verses are quoted by both sides to prove the opposite point of view. I was NOT referring to people who question the virgin birth of Jesus. I quoted them to show that even in verses which are today obscure, the Evangelists included pointers such as "sister of," "wife of" or "from the town of" which must have been sufficient in their day to clarify different people of the same name. What I am questioning is whether there is a similar pointer in the first chapter of Matthew which distinguishes a Joseph the guardian from a Joseph the husband.

All of the ancient Christian witnesses testify to the fact that Matthew wrote his gospel for Jewish Christians in the language of the Jews. Greek misinterpretation is therefore outside of my question. What I am questioning is whether there are sufficient literary cues in the Aramaic text of Matthew chapter 1 to make your theory of two Josephs a reading which would be unambiguous to the first century Aramaic speaking Jewish Christian. While you have gone a long way toward proving this point, I think your at least fifty percent there, I don't think you have yet proved it. Keep trying, and if I am still unclear, please let me know.

Shlama,
John

In reply to message #0
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Aug-27-2001 at 10:54 PM (CT)

Shlama Akhi John!

I just recently got around to reading your essay "More on the Gowra Connection." It is a well written informative essay, and I admit that
I am leaning toward your and Paul's basic premise. However, I think there are at least two points which need to be clarified.

Thanks Akha. I've just posted the revised version of Andrew's article - the previous one was missing some important footnotes. Please check the new one out.

1. You and Paul imply that the use of the word
hl9b, "ba'lah," "literally "her-lord," in verse 19 is solely to distinguish Joseph
the husband from Joseph the father. I disagree. The context in which Joseph appears in verse 19 is as Mary's lord and judge, with the power of life and death over her. Not as her protector, which, as you have shown, is the essential meaning of "gawra." Therefore, the use of the term "lord" in this context stands on its
own merits, regardless of how it may or may not
tie into the previous section.

That Joseph's form of righteousness does indeed protect Mary, even before the intervention of God's messenger, would certainly be a very
powerful play on the two words "gawra" and "ba'la." But, even if your theory is correct, the two words are a very clever linking of two separate literary sections which can inherently stand by themselves. Therefore, your explanation of the use of "lord" as a proof that "gawra" must mean "father" in verse 16 doesn't work. "Gawra" must stand on its own merits within the context of the genealogy section.

I agree here that the scenario which you have proposed is possible, and may explain the difference in the terms used.

I don't contend that since 2 terms are present, that it necessarily must mean that Matthew was trying to distinguish between 2 possible Josephs.
Only that it is, as circumstantial evidence, potentially supportive of the "2 Joseph" theory - when taken as a whole with the other pieces of circumstantial evidence presented thus far.

I feel by far that the most supporting evidence is that the two terms are being used in a different context. I can't stress this point enough.

If we break out the first 16 verses into a contextual genealogy, and the remaining verses into a contextual betrothal/marriage - then it becomes necessary for Matthew to make some sort of distinction between the 2 Josephs.

2. Another issue we need to look at is the use
of the word 0ttn0, "antta," literally "woman,"
in this chapter. "Gawra" and "antta" form a pair in Aramaic. Both literally mean "man" and "woman," and both words imply the married state of life. Thus both are regularly used to mean "husband" and "wife." In verse 6 the
word "antta" is clearly used to mean the "wife" of Uriah.

I agree.

Furthermore, in all the clauses where Matthew introduces women in the genealogy prior to Mary, he uses the sentence structure (man) fathers (son) from (woman). Because the man is the subject of each clause and the son and woman are the objects of the clause, he is necessarily introducing each woman as the man's wife, even
though he doesn't explicitly use that term.

I agree here, too.

When we take together the way Matthew introduces the women of the genealogy and how he
uses the term "antta," we see he is setting up
a pattern of expectation. By the time the reader gets to verse 16, he expects that 'gawra" will be used as "husband."

I understand completely what you're saying - but can't the same thing be said of the alternate theory...i.e.,

When we take together the way Matthew introduces the children of the genealogy and how he uses the term "awld," we see he is setting up a pattern of expectation. By the time the reader gets to verse 16, he expects that 'gawra' will be used as "parent" - since the context is that of genealogy.

I think the important thing here is this - it would be an abrupt and unnatural change of context for Matthew to switch so quickly from a context of genealogy to one of marriage/betrothal.

Two very important questions are:

Why didn't Matthew, like Luke, simply say 'who begat Joseph, who was supposed to be the father of Jesus?' Why mention Mary at all? Luke didn't.

If your theory is correct, when he gets to verse 16 he of necessity breaks this pattern and startles the reader into attention. A literary device very common in Semitic writing. The problem is that if that is
what Matthew is really doing here, shouldn't there be something in this clause which makes
the reversal of this pattern immediately clear to the reader?

I think the reversal begins in verse 17.

Your remarriage explanation does show some
promise, but is it enough by itself to alert a
first century Aramaic speaking Jew to your proposed mening of "gawra" in verse 16?

It's tough - and a very good question that I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for.

Nevertheless, the Evangelists at least attempt
>to distinguish between the Marys in these passages in a way that is not apparent in the genealogy and nativity narratives, if we assume two Josephs.

I agree - Matthew could have been much clearer.

It's a tough one, I know. I'm still struggling with it myself - and trying to find more evidence from outside sources.

Since I would really like to accept this theory, I hope you can come up with some convincing answers to these questions.

Great question, Akha. I just hope we can get to the point of better answering them in the future.

This theory makes too much sense - it explains many more questions, I believe, than it raises.

In the meantime, I'm still searching.....

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama back to both of you--

Akhi John, our points here are of a subtle nature to be sure. If it were clear cut, then the issue would have been dealt with many centuries back. I would love it if Matti spelled out a levir situation here, but that is something we in the modern world desire, as opposed to how the text might have been perceived back then.

I think what we are attempting to do is describe a mindset whereby one word has such a multiplicity of meanings, that they are intuitively UNDERSTOOD, as opposed to Greek and English where each shade of meaning has a nice precise word to fit it.

However, I am trying to apply the famous Occam's Razor here, the simplest theory that best explains the most evidence (not necessarily ALL THE EVIDENCE) is generally the best one. In that sense, look at what has happened. Unless you believe that the medieval Hebrew Matthew mss are originals (Dutillet, Shem Tob, Munster), there is no other possible explanation for the missing generation that has tainted all mss since the second century. I really think I have proven that you cannot count Jeconiah twice, because David is mentioned oonce in each of the first two sets, but is only counted ONCE. I therefore believe Matti is consistent with the rules he lays down, which would extend to the fact that when he intends to show fourteen generations textually, that they should somehow be there.

If GOWRA is not father in 1:16, then what other explanation takes into account MORE EVIDENCE (again not necessarily ALL) than that? Yes it is easy to say, "That USUALLY means 'husband' and USUALLY people talk of one Joseph and not two." But again, what is easy appears to have more problems than what is not.

You are right though that it will take a lot more workd to PROVE it absolutely, and know that I respect (AND IN FACT REQUIRE OF YOU) this type of sincere and respectful challenge. I appreciate your candor and your thoroughness more than you can know right now. However, I also think that all great things start of like this has: small, a bit unclear, and controversial. For now, we will continue the search and wait for a clearer answer.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

In reply to message #6
 
Akhay Paul and Andrew,

Great responses! I am not an enemy here. As I said, I find this a very elegant and attractive theory. However, for what it's worth, I received fairly good training in literary criticism when I was in college, and I think I can guess how and where a professional Biblical scholar would attack this theory. Isn't it better to hear the weak points from a friend than get crushed by an enemy?

If you are stuck and need a new avenue of research to pursue, consider this; as you have shown, in other passages in the New Testament, including in Matthew, the Greek translators correctly differentiate between "man" and "husband" when translating "gawra." So why do they get it wrong in Mt 1:16? This leads me to ask if first century Hellenistic diaspora Jews practiced the levirate remarriage in the same way Aramaic speaking Jews in Palestine did. Is the levirate remarriage mentioned in the Greek writings of Philo of Alexandria or Josephus? If so, how do they phrase it and talk about it in Greek? What Greek terminology do they use to describe it? If there is anything in these works, you might be able to show how misunderstanding occurred in Matthew's genealogy, but not elsewhere. Good luck!

Shlama,
John

In reply to message #7
 
>Akhay Paul and Andrew,
>
>Great responses! I am not an
>enemy here. As I said,
>I find this a very
>elegant and attractive theory. However,
>for what it's worth, I
>received fairly good training in
>literary criticism when I was
>in college, and I think
>I can guess how and
>where a professional Biblical scholar
>would attack this theory. Isn't
>it better to hear the
>weak points from a friend
>than get crushed by an
>enemy?

ABSOLUTELY 100% RIGHT AKHI JOHN. I COULD NEVER ASCRIBE ANYTHING LESS NOBLE TO YOU. YOU ARE AKHI B'HAYMANUTHA TO ME.
>
>If you are stuck and need
>a new avenue of research
>to pursue, consider this; as
>you have shown, in other
>passages in the New Testament,
>including in Matthew, the Greek
>translators correctly differentiate between "man"
>and "husband" when translating "gawra."
>So why do they get
>it wrong in Mt 1:16?

POSSIBLY-- THOUGH NOT ABSOUTELY OF COURSE-- BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE LANGUAGES. ARAMAIC HAS FEW WORDS WITH MANY MEANINGS WHEREAS GREEK HAS MANY WORDS WITH FEWER MEANINGS. IN SUCH A CASE, MAJORITY CONVENTIONS OF TRANSLATION WOULD CLEARLY ARISE THAT WOULD BE RIGHT MOST OF THE TIME, BUT PERHAPS NOT IN EVERY CASE.

>This leads me to ask
>if first century Hellenistic diaspora
>Jews practiced the levirate remarriage
>in the same way Aramaic
>speaking Jews in Palestine did.

PRETTY SURE THEY DID. THEY WOULD HAVE OF COURSE READ THE LXX VERSION OF DEUTERONOMY 25:5, AND I WILL CHECK TO SEE IF THERE IS A MAJOR TEXTUAL DISCREPANCY BETWEEN LXX AND MT. PERHAPS IAKOV COULD EVEN LEND A HAND.

>Is the levirate remarriage mentioned
>in the Greek writings of
>Philo of Alexandria or Josephus?

ANOTHER GREAT AVENUE. I WILL CHECK THESE ON PTHE PERSEUS PROJECT SITE AND SEE. THIS IS A TERRIFIC SUGGESTION BTW.

>If so, how do they
>phrase it and talk about
>it in Greek? What Greek
>terminology do they use to
>describe it? If there is
>anything in these works, you
>might be able to show
>how misunderstanding occurred in Matthew's
>genealogy, but not elsewhere. Good
>luck!

ALSO, HOWEVER, THE GREEK OF THE INFANCY JAMES GOSPEL WHICH I QUOTE IN THE ARTICLE MIGHT PROVE INSTRUCTIVE AS WELL. IT MAY BE THAT WILL BE THE BINDING TIE. I STILL THINK THOUGH THAT VERSE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-3 IS IMPORTANT FOR SHOWING HOW A DUALITY EXISTS WHICH THEY HAPPENED TO GET RIGHT AND GREEK MATTI GOT WRONG. BUT WE NEED MORE STUDY.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE GREAT IDEAS AND BE WELL.

SHLAMA W'BURKATE

ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH
>
>Shlama,
>John