Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What's the Deal with Matthew's Genealogy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Um, wouldn't Aaron be coming in by the matrilineal line? Or did I misunderstand him?
    The matrilineal line wouldn't count; it's a patriarchal society.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      The matrilineal line wouldn't count; it's a patriarchal society.
      Got that - but it looked like Aaron (accepting the thing purely for the sake of clarity) was being interjected into the patrilineal line via the matrilineal.

      Maybe I should just read it again....
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        I had wondered about that - I knew it was a translation from Hebrew so I was wondering about it. Is it a compromised translation, as this thesis would seem to imply (the author made no such direct statement, FYI) or if there's some other reason for the variance the author seems to see?
        I didnt read the whole thing--did I miss anything major? I only noted mostly minor spelling variations between the Hebrew and the LXX; Salathiel in the LXX is presumably based on a later correction meant to harmonize with the other books of the Hebrew. Matthew clearly cites the LXX elsewhere so this is not controversial.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Um, wouldn't Aaron be coming in by the matrilineal line? Or did I misunderstand him?
          There are a couple of Levis in Luke’s genealogy and maybe a few other typically priestly names, so some do speculate about some Levite marriages among Jesus' ancestors, and, of course, Zechariah in Luke’s gospel is a priest.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I didnt read the whole thing--did I miss anything major? I only noted mostly minor spelling variations between the Hebrew and the LXX; Salathiel in the LXX is presumably based on a later correction meant to harmonize with the other books of the Hebrew. Matthew clearly cites the LXX elsewhere so this is not controversial.

            Not sure anything major - the Uzziah thing would be the only one.

            Originally posted by Rob
            There are a couple of Levis in Luke’s genealogy and maybe a few other typically priestly names, so some do speculate about some Levite marriages among Jesus' ancestors, and, of course, Zechariah in Luke’s gospel is a priest.
            Ah, okay, thanks.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              So Matthew had to fudge things a little bit to make things work. Leave off a few generations to make the middle group consist of 14 and double count the Babylonian deportation generation to make the third group equal 14 generations. I think this is probably the best explanation.
              It's a lot easier to believe than the idea Matthew couldn't count.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                It's a lot easier to believe than the idea Matthew couldn't count.
                If you happen to be reading one of the only Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that was not written as an anti-gospel polemic but was actually in use by Jews before it was confiscated during the Inquisition (the so-called DuTillet Matthew), you'll find that Matthew can count quite well and that there is nothing to fudge at all... that there are, in fact, 14 generations in the final list where the Greek has 13. The extra genealogical line appears here in brackets: "Abihud [fathered Abner, Abner] fathered Eliakim." The line was probably dropped from manuscripts by a simple scribal mistake in which the eye of the scribe left the page to copy "Abihud," then went back to copy "fathered," but landed on the second "fathered" after Abner instead of the one before. And so Abner vanishes from New Testament history.

                (I am currently translating this manuscript. It is fascinating. Already in the first chapter of Matthew alone, it diverges from all the Greek mauscripts in about 20 places. For example, it begins "These [are] the ancestors" instead of (as in both the Greek and Aramaic) "The book of the ancestors." If you'd like to read more, you can view my on-going translation here.)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bibletranslator View Post
                  [...] written as an anti-gospel polemic [...]
                  That's a strong accusation. I won't dismiss it out of hand, but it's not a question that can safely be begged.

                  As ever, Jesse

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I find it interesting that Jews would be motivated to translate the gospel into Hebrew. I would not be surprised if such translations would tend to translate the text in the least favorable light possible. Be that as it may, if this is a translation from the Greek, it can hardly be used to establish a putative Hebrew original. It would be nice to have confirmation from a reputable source (i.o.w., not wiki) of the manuscript's provenance.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The names of the kings God omitted being named in Christ's lineage.

                      In Matthew 1:8, ". . . Joram begat Ozias; " three evil kings and a wicked queen are omitted. Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:26) is advised by his evil mother who was the daughter of Jezebel. After he was killed, she ruled as queen (2 Chronicles 22:10-12). One grand son which she was not able to kill, Joash (2 Kings 11:12, 21) became the next king. He in turn follows idolatry [of his grandmother] and in turn He murders the high priest (2 Chronicles 24:17-22) who was the son of the high priest who protected him from his grandmother. And after he is killed (2 Chronicles 24:23-27), his son Amaziah becomes king. And he killed those who killed his father, (2 Kings 14:1-21; 2 Chronicles 25) and allowed the idolatry in Judah. All three kings were omitted because of the sin of idolatry. God's judgement is against sin of idolatry for the third and fourth generations of those who hate Him (Exodus 20:5).

                      And the fourth king omitted in Matthew 1:11, ". . . Josias begat Jechonias . . ." one king is omitted being appointed by the king of Egypt (2 Kings 24;34).
                      Last edited by 37818; 09-28-2014, 02:18 AM.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by bibletranslator View Post
                        (I am currently translating this manuscript. It is fascinating. Already in the first chapter of Matthew alone, it diverges from all the Greek mauscripts in about 20 places. For example, it begins "These [are] the ancestors" instead of (as in both the Greek and Aramaic) "The book of the ancestors." If you'd like to read more, you can view my on-going translation here.)
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I find it interesting that Jews would be motivated to translate the gospel into Hebrew. I would not be surprised if such translations would tend to translate the text in the least favorable light possible. Be that as it may, if this is a translation from the Greek, it can hardly be used to establish a putative Hebrew original. It would be nice to have confirmation from a reputable source (i.o.w., not wiki) of the manuscript's provenance.
                        This particular Hebrew manuscript is very late, and not one of the better ones. Even the earlier ones show evidence of at least correction to late Koine text. Those who attempt to defend an ancient Hebrew version of Matthew (not necessarily older than Greek Matthew) argue from a putative text well behind any of the current 'corrected' Hebrew texts of Matthew. The strongest recent case for such is made by George Howard in his 1987 book, part of which is available on the Internet here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62926694/G...-George-Howard

                        If I recall correctly, he does not defend the view that Matthew Greek is a translation of Matthew Hebrew, but rather both would have been two essentially parallel versions. One would have been used by the other as a type of literary model, and he may want to believe that Matthew Hebrew is older, but he dose not defend that view because it is untenable and he does not contest the consensus that Matthew Greek primarily used Mark's Greek text.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Kinda funny I was thinking about 42 as time, times, and half a time like in Daniel and Revelation, which if Abraham was born 2018 BC and Jesus born 4 BC, it would be 2014 years between their births. Just trivia...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            <still thinks of 42 as the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything...>

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Heero Yuy, 06-11-2021, 05:23 PM
                            0 responses
                            14 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Heero Yuy  
                            Started by 37818, 08-15-2015, 07:47 AM
                            83 responses
                            21,964 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X