A Question for James.

Shlama Akhi James,

Let's move on to a topic where we might actually agree on something - I'm tired of arguing Luke 2:22.

OK - I have a question for you.

Let's assume a counter-missionary (a traditional Orthodox Jew) asks you the following question - how would you respond? :

How can Yosef, the husband of Miriam, count both sons of King David as his ancestors? Your scriptures (Mattai and Luqa) say so. Mattai says he descends from Solomon, while Luqa says he descends from Nathan.

How can someone descend from 2 brothers?

What would your answer be? I'm not being argumentative - I'm struggling with my own issues that are related to this and thought we could have an educated, friendly discussion on this topic and actually construct a reasonable solution.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 

Sure. From my comentary to Luke 3:23:

Yosef, the son of Heli � The Aramaic �bar� like the Hebrew word "ben" normally means �son of� but is very ambiguous and can also refer to a �son in law a step son a servant a student or a follower." as is the case here (Yosef was the son of Ya�akov see Mt. 1:16) (The Greek has only "of" which is why the KJV has "son of" in itallics, thus the Greek can also refer to a son-in-law). The Jerusalem Talmud mentions a certain Miriam who, in context, appears to be the mother of Yeshua, who is said to be the daughter of �Eli� (j.Hag. 77d & j.San. 25c) pointing to the fact that Luke 3 presents the genealogy of Miriam while Mt. 1 presents the genealogy of Yosef.

Trimm

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi James,

A few more questions for you based on your above explanation:

• We have very specific words in Aramaic for "son-in-law" and "daughter-in-law" - and they are not Bar or Bat. Do you have references to where "Bar" definitely is used to mean "son-in-law" other than this instance?
  
• Is "Eli" the same name as "Heli"? I thought it is was a shortened form for "Elijah." Is there any other instance where Elijah the prophet, for instance, is called "Heli?"
  
• What exactly, is the context of the reference in the Jerusalem Talmud? How sure are you that it's a reference to Miriam the mother of Meshikha?
  

Thanks.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi James,

One other question - I consulted the Greek and the word "of" is there for all the generations - it does not contain the phrase "son of" like the Aramaic.

So my question is: If all the generations as recorded in the Greek have "of" in between them, how do we know that for "Joseph of Heli" it means "son-in-law" and not for the rest?

In other words, why is verse 23 linguistically special?

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #3
 
Akhi Paul,

>
>One other question - I consulted
>the Greek and the word
>"of" is there for all
>the generations - it does
>not contain the phrase "son
>of" like the Aramaic.

You are exactly right about the Gr. construction. In fact the gen. form of the definite article appears everytime throughout the geneology as it must. You see it is bad Gr. to repeat the original formula 'uios tou'-"son of____".

Isn't it possible Luke uses Mary's line as Heli is her father according to folklore and her line bypasses the accursed Jeconiah's line?

Shlama
Iakov

In reply to message #5
 
Shlama Akhi Iakov,

Thanks for the confirmation on the Greek - I'm no Greek expert but I can read it and understand it ok.

>Isn't it possible Luke uses Mary's
>line as Heli is her
>father according to folklore and
>her line bypasses the accursed
>Jeconiah's line?

Perhaps. But why not mention her by name? Mattai, at least, does - yet we consider his record to be that of Yosef's and Luke, who doesn't even mention her, that of Mary's!

It very well may be exactly the opposite!

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #1
 
Shlama Akhi James,

More questions raised by this hypothesis:

Why does Mattai even mention Maryam? I mean, Luke only mentions Yosef. Why mention Maryam at all?

Doesn't that kinda fit in weird with the hypothesis that Luke is giving Mary's lineage and Mattai is giving Yosef's ?

I mean, wouldn't you think that Luke would mention Maryam and Mattai would not ?

Could it be that Mattai is, in fact, speaking of Maryam's lineage while Luke is speaking of Yosef's - exactly opposite of the currently proposed hypothesis ?

Again - I'm not trying to start controversy. I'm looking for the answer myself. For the truth. And I'd love to have the Peshitta solve it all. Just so that my intent here is known to all.

Once again - please reference my article here:
https://www.peshitta.org/BethGaza/Gabra.htm

I'm missing one piece of critical evidence to create a very elegant solution to all of this mess that would definitely slay the Greek dragon. It would also slay the OS and would look very bad for Dutillet - but that's my main intent. To show how the Aramaic of the Peshitta clears all this up.

That critical piece of evidence is a reference anywhere, on paper and ink - or on stone, that uses GBRA to mean 'father.' Anywhere in that time period or before.

Thanks.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org

In reply to message #0
 

1. No frankly I cannot show any place where "BAR" is used to mean "son-in-law" although some place may exist. The term "son-in-law" never occurs in the NT. It does appear in the Tanak Peshitta but is not BAR. The same is true of the Talmud.

2. However the Aramaic word BAR is used just as the Hebrew word BEN is and the Hebrew word BEN can be used so broadly as to refer to a male offspring, a descendant, a citizen, a member, a student, a follower or a servant. So I would not be surprised with the broad usage of this word to find a "son in law" refered to as a BAR.

3. Frankly the theory I propose here was built in the Greek and I have transplanted it to the Aramaic. Messinaic Jewish commentators have noted that: a) The Jerusalem Talmud identifies Miriam's father as "Eli"; b) The Greek of Luke 3 is ambiguous saying only "of" and c) this would resolve the "Jeconiah problem" (discussed below).
My basis for the transplantation was that while the Aramaic DOES have BAR and not just "of" the Aramaic word BAR is sufficiently broad that it could concievably have been used to describe a "son in law".

However I did NOT translate "BAR" as "son in law" in the HRV in Luke 3:23 It is one thing to say that the word might be broad enough to include a "son in law" rather than an actula "son" but it is quite another to translate the word as "son in law" so as to imply that that is an actual meaning of the word. In other words a BAR might refer to a family member of the newer generation even if he were actually a "son in law"

One MJ commentator offers a variation of this theory that might suit the Aramaic better.

He takes Luke 3:23 to mean:

...he was thought to be the son of Yosef the grandson of Heli.

i.e. that Yeshua was the grandson of Heli the father of Miriam his mother.

Perhaps that meaning would best be set forth by translating BAR as "descendant" throughout this geneaology.

Admittedly the Aramaic grammar would work better woth a VAV/WAW to incicate an "and" for "and the grandson".

Now while researching the "Church Fathers" on this I found a toytally different answer proposed by Africanus. He proposed that Joseph was adopted by Heli so that Luke gives the geneology of his father by adoption and Matthew gives his geneology by his biological father.

Then there is the "Jeconiah" problem.

There was a curse placed upon Jeconiah by YHWH that none of his seed would sit upon the throne of David (Jer. 22:30).

This would seem, on the surface to disqualify any descendant of Jeconiah from being the Messiah.

But Jeconiah IS in the geneology of Yeshua given in Mt. 1 (see Mt. 1:11).

A solution to this problem has been that Matthew gives Yeshua's geneology by Joseph (who was NOT his father but his ADOPTED father).

Yeshua was not the SEED of Jeconiah because he was only Yosef's step-son and adopted soon. As such he was heir to the throne without inheriting the curse of Jeconiah.

Then Miriam's genmeology in Luke 3 reveals that Messiah still fulfills prophecies that he be an actual descendant of David.

The concept is that this offers the perfect solution to a serious problem that would seem to otherwise bar anyone from being Messiah. (that is that Messiah must be in line for the throne of David through Solomon and through the line of the inheritance of the throne, so he must be an heir of Jeconiah, yet Jeconiah's seed are cursed from the throne. Yeshua's virgin birth allows him to be David's heir to the throne through Jeconiah on his step-fathers side without being under Jeconiah's curse, and STILL be the physical descendant of David throuhgh the uncursed house of Nathan on Miriam's side.

Trimm

In reply to message #7
 
Shlama Akhi James,

>
>1. No frankly I cannot
>show any place where "BAR"
>is used to mean "son-in-law"
>although some place may exist.
>

Sure the possibility exists. I just asked because I've never encountered that phrase used in that manner.

That's where I'm struggling with GBRA - except that I can show modern usage to mean 'elder' and 'father.'

Now I have to find similiar ancient usage. Thanks to Akhi Iakov for pointing out this requirement - because otherwise I would be fine with the modern usage. But he's correct - to be absolutely sure we must find that this term was used back then to mean 'father.'

> The term "son-in-law" never
>occurs in the NT.
>It does appear in the
>Tanak Peshitta but is not
>BAR. The same is
>true of the Talmud.

So don't you think Luke should have used "son-in-law" instead of "Bar?"

These are the types of questions that will be hurled at both of our theories by the Metzgers of the world. Might as well hash them out here and know what to expect.

>2. However the Aramaic word
>BAR is used just as
>the Hebrew word BEN is
>and the Hebrew word BEN
>can be used so broadly
>as to refer to a
>male offspring, a descendant, a
>citizen, a member, a student,
>a follower or a servant.
> So I would not
>be surprised with the broad
>usage of this word to
>find a "son in law"
>refered to as a BAR.

Neither would I - but like I said we have to find precedent.

I'm researching GBRA - you should continue to try and find a place where BAR means son-in-law.

Either find would be explosive.

>3. Frankly the theory I
>propose here was built in
>the Greek and I have
>transplanted it to the Aramaic.

Are you open to changing your mind - if shown that the Peshitta reading can be read "father of Mary" in Mattai?

> Messinaic Jewish commentators have
>noted that: a) The Jerusalem
>Talmud identifies Miriam's father as
>"Eli";

Yeah - but I'd love to know the reading and the context. Do you have the Jerusalem Talmud? Please post for us the passage. I've never heard of this and I think that atheistic people who doubt the historicity of the events in question need to be confronted with this evidence.

>b) The Greek
>of Luke 3 is ambiguous
>saying only "of" and

Yeah - but in our mindset who cares what the Greek says? We are trying to slay that dragon - remember? Why appeal to it?

>c) this would resolve the
>"Jeconiah problem" (discussed below).

Akhi Andrew - didn't you write something about this ?

>My basis for the transplantation was
>that while the Aramaic DOES
>have BAR and not just
>"of" the Aramaic word BAR
>is sufficiently broad that it
>could concievably have been used
>to describe a "son in
>law".

I completely understand your position. But like the GBRA theory - it's circumstanstial evidence unless it is concretely demonstrated that the term BAR has such usage. I don't think your theory, without that evidence, will hold up to scrutiny.

I know mine won't.

>However I did NOT translate "BAR"
>as "son in law" in
>the HRV in Luke 3:23

That's great - I haven't changed my Interlinear yet, either. I'd love to get to that point, though.

>Admittedly the Aramaic grammar would work
>better woth a VAV/WAW to
>incicate an "and" for "and
>the grandson".

Yup - it would not only work better - it would be a must.

>
>Now while researching the "Church Fathers"
>on this I found a
>toytally different answer proposed by
>Africanus. He proposed that
>Joseph was adopted by Heli
>so that Luke gives the
>geneology of his father by
>adoption and Matthew gives his
>geneology by his biological father.
>

You should read the Eastern Church Fathers. There are about as many opinions as there are Church Fathers.

That's why this question is so important. You want to slay the Greek Dragon - this topic is the jugular vein. And I think I can demonstrate that the Peshitta is the sword (to the exclusion of the "OS" and medeival Hebrew manuscripts.)

>
>Then there is the "Jeconiah" problem.
>

Akhi Andrew - I'd love for you to comment on this again - I don't remember what the solution was.

Fk^rwbw 0ml4

Peshitta.org