Peshitta Forum
genealogy, Mary the rightful king? - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: genealogy, Mary the rightful king? (/showthread.php?tid=508)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


genealogy, Mary the rightful king? - drmlanc - 10-16-2003

Since Matthew gives Mary's genealogy, and we assume that Jesus was the rightful king of Southern Israel (phyically as well as spiritually) it MUST have come through Mary and NOT Joseph as has been said so often. Mary is the one with Jeconaiah in her bloodline, the rightful king of Southern Israel, deposed unjustly by Nebuchanezzar. But then both Mary and Joseph have Jeconiah's grandson Zerubbabel, who led the Judeans, in their lines.

It seems then that "on Mary's side" Zerubabbel's FATHER, (seeing as Jeconiah is in the line on Mary's) side is involved and on Joseph's side, the mother is involved. Hence, going through the son, Mary's line has the rightful king.

The only problem is that Mary is a woman, but if Mary's father had no sons, this is okay right? And Jesus is therightful King right? Didn't one of you guys have something about Mary's father having no sons?


- Dave - 10-16-2003

LOL, you guys.


Old Syriac C; Jacob begat Joseph, he to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin,...

Jan Wilson translation.


It's crystal clear. The only translation that specifically states it for all to see. In this particular area, it leaves nothing to dought. This is more refined than guessing on a word that has a double meaning.

I don't know why GOD would be so worried about Joseph marrying Mary?

The Kingly title is passed down from father to son, how is it you are the only guys around that don't see this? Didn't we understand that the title came down through Jesus because he was rightfully adopted to Joseph? Hell why have Joseph around then if he wasn't needed?


. - drmlanc - 10-16-2003

Enough with that, there were threads that dealt with that issue, as well as a very comprehensive article from Akhan Paul. This thread is for discussing through whom the kingly title went to Jesus, with the basic assumption (shared by th eregulars here) that Matthew gives Mary's genealogy.


- Dave - 10-16-2003

what do you mean enough with that?

what truth is not allowed?

Come on guys, your guessing here on this. You have no substantial backing on it. You said it yourself, assumption. Craig and all of us looked into it that night, and it was agreed that Jesus was rightful heir through adoption

It's funny how it was stated so clearly in this section of the Old Syriac also, read it again, it is crystal clear for everyone to see, there is no mistake about it.

Like I said, why even have Joseph around if he wasn't needed? He didn't get to name it, nor be the actual father of it, hell anyone could have been the father of Him if he didn't provide anything.


. - drmlanc - 10-16-2003

And so my question stands...

As for you Dave, if it was agreed that Joseph gave Jesus the kingly title, it may have been wrong. The Matthew genealogy most probably contains the kingly line, as it has Jehoiachin, the rightful Judean king.

If you and your corrupt Old Syriac garbage is correct then Matthew talks of Mary.

If the Peshitta Original is correct, then Mary gave Jesus the kingly line, and that would sort of make sense of "she came from princes and rulers"

Joseph provided a loving father, the guy rocked! He was SO nice, he didn't want to embarass Mary. What a guy <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


- Dave - 10-16-2003

Look, I could care less what anyone thinks of me, I'm not here to justify myself, I'm not trying to prove a point and make someone else wrong, I just pointing out common sense and what we found. I don't listen to someone else, I let GOD show me.

GOD's word speaks truth, and it is extremely clear when it speaks, GOD's word is infallible, and here we see an extremely clear truth:


Old Syriac C; Jacob begat Joseph, he to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin,...

How about the other copy of the Old Syriac from Sinai:


Jacob begot Joseph, the Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin,..

again Jan Wilson translation.

It's there. The truth speaks in it.


- Dave - 10-16-2003

Here I'll quote you:

'Right. And Jesus was then rightful king of Judea, as the adopted son of Joseph. Lots of "cerebrality" going on there, but at least there is a non-contradictory solution.'


Why the shift back to this Mary lineage thing again? Come on Chris, it is confusing, but it was clear as glass as Craig and us looked at it that night.


. - drmlanc - 10-16-2003

Dave: ...

Everyone else:

Right gang, now BOTH lines end up in Zerubabbel. So, regardless of the Jehoiachin issue, it could go either way. It all depends on which of Z's son's was older... Do we know of this? Is there some old Jewish document or whatever that tells us about his sons and who was oldest etc? It would make sense if it did go through Joseph, as why have two genealogies? But some sort of evidence is nice too.

I want to make a genealogy article in the far future covering ALL possible questions, so such info would be greatly appreciated.


- Dave - 10-16-2003

Heh ok bro.


Re: . - Craig - 10-16-2003

drmlanc Wrote:Right gang, now BOTH lines end up in Zerubabbel.

Both lines converge for two generations: Shilathi'el and Zerubabel. Both were the rightful kings of their generation, if only there there had been a throne for them to rule.

Quote:So, regardless of the Jehoiachin issue, it could go either way. It all depends on which of Z's son's was older...

Yes. But for various subtle and logical reasons we have to assume it came through Yosip. There are big problems with kingship passing through a female, because if Maryam had any younger brothers then they would inherit not Y'shu through her, or if her father had died before Y'shu was born or even old enough to reign then any surviving uncles or male cousins would be an issue.

Another problem for both genealogies is that neither Awiud (Mattai) or Riza (Luqa) are listed as sons of Zerubabel in 1 Chronicles 3:19-26. Do the genealogies not match with I Chronicles because of both Mattai and Luqa being abbreviated? Or perhaps they weren't born yet at the time I Chronicles 3:19-26 was recorded. Unfortunately, this another place where we are forced to rely more on faith than evidence.

Finally, why I'm convinced the genealogy in Mattai HAS to be that of Maryam NOT Yosip. Mattai says there are 14 generations "from the captivity of Babel until Meshikha, fourteen generations." If the genealogy is that of Maryam we only have 13 generations:

1. Shilathi'el
2. Zerubabel
3. Awiud
4. Eleakem
5. Azor
6. Zadoq
7. Akhen
8. Eleud
9. Eleazar
10. Matan
11. Yaqob
12. Yosip the husband of Maryam
13. Y'shu who is called Meshikha

Wrong number in the Greek and the "Old" Syriac translations of the Greek.

However, if <i>Gowra</i> refers to Maryam's father and this is her genealogy:

1. Shilathi'el
2. Zerubabel
3. Awiud
4. Eleakem
5. Azor
6. Zadoq
7. Akhen
8. Eleud
9. Eleazar
10. Matan
11. Yaqob
12. Yosip the <i>gowra</i> (as in father) of Maryam
13. Maryam
14. Y'shu who is called Meshikha

To show why the counting has to start at Shilathi'el and not Yokhanea:

1. Awraham
2. Iskhaq
3. Yaqob
4. Yehuda
5. Pares
6. Khisron
7. Aram
8. Amenadab
9. Nikhshon
10. Salmon
11. Baz
12. Awbed
13. Aeshe
14. Dawid

1. Shlemon
2. R'khebam
3. Abea
4. Asa
5. Yahoshapat
6. Yoram
7. Awazea
8. Yotham
9. Akhaz
10. Khizaqea
11. M'nashe
12. Amon
13. Yoshea
14. Yokhanea

Thus, Yokhanea has to be in the middle set of 14 in order to arrive at the required three sets of 14 with the resulting total of 42. Only the Peshitta can be used to arrive at exactly 42 generations.

Quote:I want to make a genealogy article in the far future covering ALL possible questions, so such info would be greatly appreciated.

You aren't going to be able to address ALL possible questions, so it may be counterproductive to raise questions that simply aren't answered by the texts. We only have the answers that we come up with using Hermeneutics and logic to fill the gap of what we aren't told, which is why I deal with these things as quickly as possible in my footnotes of Paul's translation such as:

"The curse that was placed upon Yokhanea in Yirmeyahu 22:24-30 was lifted because of his later repentance as recorded in Sanhedrin 37a and implicitly shown in I Diwrei HaYamim 3:17-18 and Melakhim 25:27-28."

And move on to avoid creating the impression that these are things that people should be concerned about and thus avoid raising doubts in people whose faith may not be that strong.

Shlama, Craig


- Guest - 10-16-2003

Hmm, now you change your tune Craig.

"Finally, why I'm convinced the genealogy in Mattai HAS to be that of Maryam NOT Yosip."

trying to make something say something it doesn't is bad. That word is a dual meaning (possible dual meaning I think the wording was used), but changing it to say that it goes from so and so fathered this son and so and so fathered this son,...to end up with Mary doesn't fit the context. Also, it's a guess, an assumption, a hypothesis,...no one is certain on it.

What proof do you have? You don't since the word is a "possible" dual meaning.

Not to rattle cages, but you need proof beyond a shadow of a dought. GOD's word is clear, crystal clear, it leaves no confusion whatsoever within it's text.

Also, if this was the intent and possbile meaning, look in the Greek, wouldn't the meaning come through there since most of the Greek is tranlated from a Semetic?

You can't make things up along the way, that is a lie. As it stands, it shows a mistake, that got copied down in the Greek and others. And a mistake means this was a copy from something else.

I wish the Peshitta was the original, would make things much easier, but It's not proving itself to me, at least in the first chapter of Matthew.


- Guest - 10-16-2003

Honestly, I don't look to find fault here with you guys. Plenty of others to do that who argue with you and you with them, I'm really not part of that crowd.

I just look for clear and consise truth.


- Craig - 10-16-2003

Anonymous Wrote:Hmm, now you change your tune Craig.

When was my tune something else?

Quote:"Finally, why I'm convinced the genealogy in Mattai HAS to be that of Maryam NOT Yosip."

trying to make something say something it doesn't is bad.


Trying to make something not say something it does say is just as bad.

Quote:That word is a dual meaning (possible dual meaning I think the wording was used), but changing it to say that it goes from so and so fathered this son and so and so fathered this son,...to end up with Mary doesn't fit the context. Also, it's a guess, an assumption, a hypothesis,...no one is certain on it.

One of these genealogies has to be that of Maryam. If the abnormal step of creating a genealogy for a woman could be taken , then it is not a big step to include a woman in her own right in her own genealogy. By your reasoning we would have to reject the entire New Testament because we have no "proof" only "assumption" and "hypothesis" that the two genealogies aren't both for Yosip, and thus we would have a direct contradiction in the most foundational parts of the NT, and thus Y'shu was a false Messiah, and since the book of Dani'el required the Messiah to appear in a timeframe around the lifetime of Y'shu then that means the Tanakh is uninspired as well and there is no God.



Quote:GOD's word is clear, crystal clear, it leaves no confusion whatsoever within it's text.

Exactly so the Peshitta is the original.

Quote:You can't make things up along the way, that is a lie.

I'm not making things up. You are refusing to accept the meaning of the word gowra that fits the internal evidence which lays out 42 generations.

Shlama, Craig


- Paul Younan - 10-16-2003

Well said, Akhi Craig.

Dave - give it up man! There's no intentional lying going on here.....it's just common sense. We are trying to defend the scripture - and all you seem to be doing is looking for places to poke holes and ridicule.

Luke says "Yosef bar-Heli"......there is no other way to interpret that except that it's Yosef's genealogy! Yosef's is the son of Heli.

Mattai lists Maryam's genealogy....and the only way to get 14 generations is by using the alternate, admittedly rare, meaning of Gawra. Her father was named Yosef, too.

'Nuff!


- Dave - 10-16-2003

Ok Paul, if you guys are completely sure about this then change the text in the interlinear to reflect your stance,..that is if your completely sure. If your just gonna list it as you have as,..."there is no way to know,..." then I don't buy it, and nobody else will either fellas.

Oh craig,.......

drmlanc wrote:
Okay, so perhaps Mary and Joseph shared lineages through Zerubabel. But, who was the rightful king? Joseph, or "Mary"?


Yosip. If he was not, then why bother to record a genealogy for him at all?
Shlama, Craig

Remember this?

I'll stop here Paul.