New Article.

Shlama Akhay,

A new article - Exploding the Myth of a Flawed Genealogy in Matthew by Andrew Gabriel Roth, has been posted in B�th-G�z�.

Enjoy!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 
wrdn0w lwp yx0 0ml4,

Akhi Andrew in set #1 of the Matthean geneology, in your article 'Exploding the Myth of a Flawed Geneology in Matthew' under the subtitle, 'Sketching out the problem', you list Joseph's name. I fail to see that in any Gr. ms.

There are 14 generations beginning Abraham and ending with David. The second grouping begins with Solomon and ends with Yekhonia. Again that is 14 generations. The final group includes Salathiel and ends with Y'shua. That is only 13 generations.

Since Matthew made his living by counting, it is HIGHLY doubtful he miscounted, double counted, or left on eshort on purpose. As we know Mathew a master of numbers. Obviously there is some validity in these arguments. I'm not so sure modern Aramaic has ANY bearing on the ancient usage though. English has evolved far beyond its origins. What IS important then is what were all the possible uses of 0rbg in the first century near east.

What is found in the Talmuds,Mishnah,Midrash etc.?
This is where consideration needs to be given.

Also akhi Adnrew you state under subheading 'Man...I feel like a Father' that 0rbg is ALWAYS rendered "anthropos" in Greek.

That is incorrect. In fact the passage in question, Matt. 1:16 & 19 both have 'anhr' from whence comes the name 'ANDREW'. The name comes from the genetive form of the word 'andros'. There are adverbial and adjectival forms of the word as well all pertaining to manliness, strength, courage and bravery. Wow, Andrew, you have quite a name. We all knew you were a MAN.

BAG lists several possible definitions for 'anhr'. They include all the qualities detailed above and pertain the the male gender. The term stands opposite to the feminine 'gunh'. The genetival form is 'gunaikos' giving us the professional designation of our wives' physicians 'gynacologists'.

The TDNT and NIDNT offer several uses of the term, 'anhr'. TDNT meaning #5 renders the term "..an adult man as distinct from a boy...". Definition #6 as used in Attic Gr. refers to the term as one who has reached "...full manhood...".
In the GNT 'anhr' is used in 1Cor 13:11.

'Anhr' is used to refer to a husband as 'gunh'is to a wife. Moreover 'anhr' is the regular translator of 'gbr' in the LXX.

The Gr. translator of Matt. ,however, does tend to use 'anthropos' where Mark uses 'anhr'. 'Anthropos' is used in the LXX to translate 'adam'. Therefor one would expect it would carry the generic meaning mankind, as the nature of man, and indeed it does.As in the 'B'rashit' account 'adam' stands in contrast to animals, birds and fish and even 'Elohim'.
This is the way Greeks use 'anthropos' as opposed to their pantheon of gods and godesses.

Therefore to use akhi Paul's logic that we should let the usage determine the meaning, we may also render 'anhr' as father. However there are serious problem's with that but let's consider the following.

In 1Chron 23:3,24,27 the men over 30 are referred to as the 'gebariym'. The younger men over 20
are not numbered with the 'gebariym'. The curse of Jehoihakhin (Jer.22:30}shows that an 'ish' is an unsuccessful 'gbr' if he is childless.

Rabinnic Hebrew furthers this meaning of procreation using it in reference to a man's verility where as the generic term for a male was retained as 'ish'.TDOT.

The etymology of this ancient Aramaic word mat stem from the Akkadian 'gpru' and appears in Ethiopic having the connotation of 'doing or making something'

The common thread surrounding the root appears to be procreation. If this connotation is retained in Matt. 1:16, that this Joseph is the father of Mary, it solves the mathematical dilema.
The problem arises, however, that if there were two Joseph's why didn't Matthew use 0b0 ?

Admittedly, it appears Matthew subsequently uses
l9b
to distinguish between the Joseph in v.16 and the other in v.19. Still since the two Josephs could cause confusion why wouldn't Matthew clarify and use 0b0 in v.16 and l9b in v.19.

The proposal Paul offers IS POSSIBLE but is it PROBABLE? Was Matthew being vague intentionally? Was he just using good writing technique offering a synonym in the latter verse so as to avoid redundancy?

I want to buy this explanation as it answers the criticisms but this is not solid enough yet.

What can be found in first century Aramaic to support this theory? If it was common usage there should be available evidence.

bwq9y 0ml4

In reply to message #1
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Jul-17-2001 at 09:53 AM (CT)

Bwq9y Yx0 0ml4

You said:
The proposal Paul offers IS POSSIBLE but is it PROBABLE? Was Matthew being vague intentionally? Was he just using good writing technique offering a synonym in the latter verse so as to avoid redundancy?

I want to buy this explanation as it answers the criticisms but this is not solid enough yet.

What can be found in first century Aramaic to support this theory? If it was common usage there should be available evidence.

I'm working on something. Please give me a few days. This piece of evidence will be called, henceforth, THE SLEDGEHAMMER.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

You said:

The problem arises, however, that if there were two Joseph's why didn't Matthew use 0b0

I agree that Matthew could have been more clear here. But there are several possible reasons why he wasn't. Maybe this word had this common usage in his dialect, but not in others. Maybe the paternal Yosef was a mighty and respected man, so the term of respect would be Gbra.

A quick clarification on my main point:
(For full impact, you have to think "outside" of English here.)

0rbg does not mean "father", per se. It means "man."

But depending on context, it can be understood to mean "husband" or even "father."

That means, if Gbra is present in a sentence where the word "wife" is present, then it can be understood to mean "husband". Likewise, if Gbra is present in a sentence where the word "child", "son" or "daughter" is present, then it can be understood to mean "father".

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #3
 
� Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Jul-17-2001 at 12:19 PM (CT)

Evidence is coming Akhi Iakov...just wait and you will be amazed. Joseph's name IS MENTIONED as the son of Jacob and the GOWRA of Mary (Matti 1:16), and the evidence that is coming will establish the proper context that GOWRA goes from the general usage of "man" to the most specific term when other information clarifies such a relationship. This is not only POSSIBLE, it is COMMON. In fact, the usage is so common that it is almost unconsciously done. Mya rticle has already been revised once, and developments in this area are literally changing daily.

Wait and see. I have not gone out on a limb here.

BTW...BOTH my first and middle names mean MAN and STRENGTH.

Comforting, no?

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew (ANDROS=strong, manly) GABR(strength)I (my) EL (God) Roth

In reply to message #4
 
� Last edited by Paul Younan on Jul-17-2001 at 12:31 PM (CT)

My first name means "Little" and my last name means "Dove"- what's UP with THAT?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #3
 
lwp yx0 0ml4,

You wrote
0rbg does not
mean "father", per se.
It means "man."

But depending on context, it can
be understood to mean "husband"
or even "father."

That means, if Gbra is present
in a sentence where the
word "wife" is present, then
it can be understood to
mean "husband". Likewise, if
Gbra is present in a
sentence where the word "child",
"son" or "daughter" is present,
then it can be understood
to mean "father".

Exactly, but nothing in the context refers to a son, only a different form of 'yalad' is used pertaining to Mariam. If Mariam were referred to as a daughter there would be stronger evidence.
Paul isn't it Matthew's intention, in the using the passive voice of 'yalad', to indicate that it was not by human procreation? Other women are mentioned in an active role in Matthew's geneology. Tamar,Rahab,Ruth and Uriah's wife are all referred to as mothers but not included in the count of 14 in the geneology. Since this passive role demands that there must be another father isn't it possible that Matthew may be referring, in Mariam, to God?

bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #6
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

The explanation to your question actually brings an excellent point that I failed to address in the article - but I will revise it to include this information.

Akhi, the verb dly (#9112) means:

• to bear fruit
  
• to produce offspring
  
• to beget
  

This is the PEAL form - the base form of the Aramaic verb.

So the spelling we find in Mattai 1 is dlw0 - why? Because this is not the PEAL form, but an irregular form used to convey the concept of a "Masculine-begetting." (the PEAL form has a Feminine connetation to it)

You can notice this in action in Acts 7:8, which is the only other place dlw0 is used apart from Mattai 1.

Anyway, what does this have to do with Maryam? Well, Matthew could not say that Myrml dlw0 Pswy (Joseph begot Maryam) because that sounds very, very odd.

So he used Myrmd hrbg Pswy (Joseph the elder of/father of/parent of Maryam)

Then we have the next phrase:

(w4y dlyt0 hnmd (from whom was born Eshoa)

Do you see how it reverts again to dly again? That's because MARY-YLD-ESHOA. But it cannot be YOSEF-YLD-MARY (because YLD is feminine in connetation) and it cannot be YOSEF-AWLD-MARY (because that is masculine in connetation.)

Matthew was stuck. He didn't have any good choice here.

Bad choice? Maybe. Perhaps it could've been done better with 0b0 - but still, in his dialect maybe it was more common to say 0rbg to mean the father of an unmarried virgin living in her father's house.

The "Sledgehammer" is coming......

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #7
 
lwp yx0 0ml4 ,

You wrote:

Akhi, the verb
dly (#9112) means:

• to bear fruit
  
• to produce offspring
  
• to beget
  

So the spelling we find in
Mattai 1 is
dlw0 - why?
Because this is not the
PEAL form, but an irregular
form used to convey the
concept of a "Masculine-begetting." (the
PEAL form has a Feminine
connetation to it)

So you are saying the Peal form differs from the irregular form in that it is unatural? The other peal forms refer to a father begetting a son through a woman, right? Abraham begat Itzak. Is that why you translate it in passive voice?

You can notice this in action
in Acts 7:8, which is
the only other place face="Estrangelo (V1.1)" size="5"]dlw0 is used
apart from Mattai 1.

So the significance is that God had to intervene in Itzak's conception?

Anyway, what does this have to
do with Maryam? Well,
Matthew could not say that
Myrm
l
dlw0 Pswy (Joseph begot Maryam) because that sounds
very, very odd.

Why? Isn't there some indication in Aramaic that a Father can beget a daughter?

So he used
Myrmd hrbg Pswy
(Joseph the elder of/father
of/parent of Maryam)

Is this because she is a woman?

Then we have the next phrase:
>
>
>(w4y dlyt0 hnmd (from whom was born Eshoa)

Do you see how it reverts
again to
dly again? That's because
>MARY-YLD-ESHOA. But it cannot
>be YOSEF-YLD-MARY (because YLD is
>feminine in connetation) and it
>cannot be YOSEF-AWLD-MARY (because that
>is masculine in connetation.) Matthew was stuck. He didn't have any good choice here.

So the only way to say a man can beget a daughter is to say 'gawra d'-'?

>Bad choice? Maybe. Perhaps
>it could've been done better
>with 0b0
>- but still, in his
>dialect maybe it was more
>common to say
0rbg to mean the
>father of an unmarried virgin
>living in her father's house.

I understood that during betrothal the man is referred to as the woman's 'gawra'. Is this not accurate? Then how can her father be referred to as her 'gawra'?

bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #8
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

You wrote:
So you are saying the Peal form differs from the irregular form in that it is unatural? The other peal forms refer to a father begetting
a son through a woman, right? Abraham begat Itzak. Is that why you translate it in passive voice?

Just that YLD is feminine in nature (think of "give birth to" in English) and it cannot, as a verb, be the action of a masculine noun (subject.)

AWLD would be the male counterpart to YLD.

So the significance is that God had to intervene in Itzak's conception?

No...see above clarification.

Visually, imagine it as:

1. FEMALE > YLD > FEMALE CHILD
   
2. FEMALE > YLD > MALE CHILD
   
3. MALE > AWLD > MALE CHILD
   
4. MALE > ? > FEMALE CHILD (I've never seen this case)
   

I've never seen #4 (genealogies normally exclude females) - and I'm proposing that's the problem Matthew had as well.

Why? Isn't there some indication in Aramaic that a Father can beget a daughter?

Apparently, not a very common way of speaking.

How many times do we say, in English even, "He begat her?" We can say "He Fathered her" - but then again, it's much more common in English to enumerate female descendants.

I've spent the past few nights (till 10 PM) in a library trying to find clues. Very time-consuming and frustrating.

So he used Myrmd hrbg Pswy (Joseph the elder of/father of/parent of Maryam)

Is this because she is a
woman?

That's the thesis. Whether I can prove it or not, we'll have to wait and see.

So the only way to say a man can beget a daughter is to say 'gawra d'-'?

No, but in a series of "begets" (AWLD) I think the only 2 choices were "ABBA d-" or "GWRA d-".

Matthew made a rare choice - certainly not the clearest - and not the one I nor 99.9% of the people who I know would've used.

I understood that during betrothal the man is referred to as the woman's 'gawra'. Is this
not accurate? Then how can her father be referred to as her 'gawra'?

Think of GWRA as a "protective male" because of the connetation of the root meaning - "mighty, brave, warrior, protector."

BAAL is the normal Semitic word for 'Husband.'

Before a virgin is married off, her "father" is her "protective male" - after she is married, her "husband" is her "protective male."

I don't mean to sound sexist - but we are talking about 2,000 years ago in the middle east.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #9
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

Does that last part make sense? It's very crucial to understanding where I'm going with this.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #9
 

lwp yx0 0ml4 ,

Just that YLD is feminine
in nature (think of "give
birth to" in English) and
it cannot, as a verb,
be the action of a
masculine noun (subject.)

AWLD would be the male counterpart
to YLD.

Exactly. Fathered as compared to gave birth to.., right?

1. FEMALE > YLD > FEMALE CHILD
   
2. FEMALE > YLD > MALE CHILD
   
3. MALE > AWLD > MALE CHILD
   
4. MALE > ? > FEMALE CHILD (I've never seen this case)
   

I've never seen #4 (genealogies normally
exclude females) - and I'm
proposing that's the problem Matthew
had as well.

Now I think I understand what you are trying to say. There is no precedent for #4, I see.

I understood that during betrothal the
man is referred to as
the woman's 'gawra'. Is this
not accurate? Then how can her
father be referred to as
her 'gawra'?

Think of GWRA as a
"protective male" because of the
connetation of the root meaning
- "mighty, brave, warrior, protector."

BAAL is the normal Semitic word
for 'Husband.'

Before a virgin is married off,
her "father" is her "protective
male" - after she is
married, her "husband" is her
"protective male."

I don't mean to sound sexist
- but we are talking
about 2,000 years ago in
the middle east.

I understand the covering aspect as several of my Arabic clients have filled me in on husbands duties and rights.

I did read somewhere though that while the woman is betrothed, the man to whom she is betrothed, is referred to as her 'gawra'. I will find the source and get that for you.

bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #11
 
Better yet - if you have the desire and time, go to the nearest University or Seminary library and HELP ME!

I'm off to the Wheaton Theological Seminary library again.....been kicked out twice in the past week because I stayed past 10PM....only thousands more books and articles to read...I miss my wife and daughter...talk to you all later......

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #12
 

lwp yx0 0ml4 ,

Alfred Edersheim refers to the betrothal as a binding contract where consideration is given. The relationship must be terminated by divorce and not simply breaking an engagement. This is what he writes in 'Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah'. The sources he refers to are from early CE contracts. Also NIDNT states that the man is referred to as the husband of the woman during betrothal. I'm trying to locate the source on that and see what word for husband is used.

bwq9y Fk^rwbw 0ml4

In reply to message #13
 
If you find "Gawra" there it will be very conclusive.....

In the meantime, I have established the word use as far back as 800 B.C. in an Aramaic inscription described in "Biblical Archaeology".......it appears to have been used in the sense of "Brave/Warrior" - which is exactly what we need to demonstrate so early on....

That it later came to be thought of as "protective male" should become easier to demonstrate.....once we establish a clear timeline and what is has been used to mean during the various ages.....

The primary sources I'm researching right now are "The Journal of Semitic Studies", "Biblical Archaeology" and "The Journal of New Testament Study" - there are literally thousands of articles to scour through......

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #14
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I have yet to find an English translation of Strack & Billerbecks work on the Talmud & Midrash.

In German however when refering to the Aram. or Heb. word the Heb. script is used. There is no sign of 'gbr' or 'ish'. The true source then would probably be the marriage contracts of the first century, wouldn't you say?

Oh yeah, your comment about 'Yokhanan' in John 1 is accurrate I think. Although perhaps it is possible some later scribes subbed John for Jonah thinking it was the same as it is difficult to miss the khet.

Shlama,
Iakov.

In reply to message #15
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

I see some scanned-in JPG's of Ketubahs (marriage contracts) at www.e-ketubah.com .... I'm going to read them and see if the term gbra is there....

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #16
 
Shlama Akhi Paul,

I have recently acquired Strack's english translation of "Intro to Talmud & Midrash". Perhaps there is some info there.

Also I have Neusner's Mishnah Engl translation. In the Seder on Nashim there are several statements about a woman being under her father's authority until she is married. I am still reading the section and will compare it to the online Hebrew version as Neusner only has English translation in this monstrous work.

Shlama w'burkate
Iakov.

In reply to message #17
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

God bless you! Keep looking there - our answer is there somewhere. I'm still at the library everyday photo-copying articles.....mostly circumstanstial evidence, but interesting nontheless.

Also, check out Akhi Andrew's latest article on Beth-Gaza - it's right on this topic.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org