05-06-2008, 04:49 PM
Shlama akhi Distazio,
Sorry I got the name of the king wrong. I was reading and writing too quickly. But I still think you are incorrect:
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
about the time they were carried away to Babylon,
which is not to be connected with the word "begat": for Josiah did not beget Jeconiah and his brethren at that time, for he had been dead some years before; nor with Jechonias, for he never was carried away into Babylon, but died in Judea, and slept with his fathers, (2 Kings 24:6) but with the phrase "his brethren": and may be rendered thus, supposing (touv) understood, "which were at", or "about the carrying away to Babylon", or the Babylonish captivity.
But what about the Aramaic? Paul Younan is going in literal word order which can create confusion, so let me clarify with other versions:
Hezekiah begat Manasseh, Manasseh begat Amon, Amon begat Josiah, Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers about the captivity of Baylon.
(Lamsa)
So Lamsa says it is about the time of the captivity, not the exact time. The beyt proclitic carries this meaning which can be "in" also means "about", "around" etc. Now let's see another way to express this, from Etheridge:
Ahaz begat Hezakia, Hezakia begat Menasha, Menasha begat Amun, Amun begat Jushia, Jushia begat Jukania and his brethren at the exile of Bobel.
See, this is the proper use of the beyt prolcitic. Not IN BABYLON but "about the time of Babylon"
Again, sorry for writing quickly and not ascertaining your point at first. But now I trust you see the Aramaic reads the same as the Greek does when it is properly understood. Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Sorry I got the name of the king wrong. I was reading and writing too quickly. But I still think you are incorrect:
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
about the time they were carried away to Babylon,
which is not to be connected with the word "begat": for Josiah did not beget Jeconiah and his brethren at that time, for he had been dead some years before; nor with Jechonias, for he never was carried away into Babylon, but died in Judea, and slept with his fathers, (2 Kings 24:6) but with the phrase "his brethren": and may be rendered thus, supposing (touv) understood, "which were at", or "about the carrying away to Babylon", or the Babylonish captivity.
But what about the Aramaic? Paul Younan is going in literal word order which can create confusion, so let me clarify with other versions:
Hezekiah begat Manasseh, Manasseh begat Amon, Amon begat Josiah, Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brothers about the captivity of Baylon.
(Lamsa)
So Lamsa says it is about the time of the captivity, not the exact time. The beyt proclitic carries this meaning which can be "in" also means "about", "around" etc. Now let's see another way to express this, from Etheridge:
Ahaz begat Hezakia, Hezakia begat Menasha, Menasha begat Amun, Amun begat Jushia, Jushia begat Jukania and his brethren at the exile of Bobel.
See, this is the proper use of the beyt prolcitic. Not IN BABYLON but "about the time of Babylon"
Again, sorry for writing quickly and not ascertaining your point at first. But now I trust you see the Aramaic reads the same as the Greek does when it is properly understood. Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth