Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An interesting variant from the OS
#1
While reading different sections, I happened to be in Mark when this particular section of text caught my eye:

Mark 1:14

And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came to Galilee, and He was preaching the gospel of GOD, saying:

"The time is accomplished and the kingdom of GOD hath arrived; repent ye, and believe in HIS gospel."

This stuck out like a sore thumb to me. I looked at all the other versions, nothing. All of them had "the" gospel instead of "HIS, including Paul's on here."

This reading is correct! Jesus stated that He spoke nothing of Himself.

As abitrary as I may be, thanks Paul, I am being shown this every day. GOD continues to witness these bits and pieces to me, and I continue to watch and listen to HIM.

This was changed because it made distinction within the GODHEAD. Here we see again, the peshitta has doctrinal issues, and this carried over into the standardized greek texts. How lucky we were to find this particular syriac text!

Look at how careful this change was made in the text of the aramaic to witness to the monotheistic view. Very, very interesting!
Reply
#2
I was reviewing and working with the different texts last night and had this particular mistake brought back to my memory again.

In Matthew 1:18, we read how mary was betrothed to joseph, but in the next line we read:

"Now Joseph her husband,..."

This is incorrect! Mary and Joseph were not married yet!

Ok, which ones were correct in this? None, except C of the OS and the Leige manuscript. Even Mister Trimms hebrew manuscripts have the addition in it, so he cannot claim originality on his either.

Here we see again, that one has to have a discretionary an eye for this sort of work. If any group of scholars just group the manuscripts together and vote on which word should be included in what sentence, or they go with whatever is the majority text of each word, they will be wrong, dead wrong.

In the same light, is the OS without mistakes? Of course not, but they along with all the texts can be utilized together. But that method does not fit the current idea of standing by one particular language.
Reply
#3
Dave Wrote:I was reviewing and working with the different texts last night and had this particular mistake brought back to my memory again.

In Matthew 1:18, we read how mary was betrothed to joseph, but in the next line we read:

"Now Joseph her husband,..."

This is incorrect! Mary and Joseph were not married yet!

From a Jewish perspective, betrothal=marriage. If you are betrothed and want to break off the engagement, you require a get, a certificate of divorcement.

Besides, "husband" and "man" can mean the same thing. If you check, the Hebrew cognate (baal) is translated or can be translated as "man" 6 times in the Hebrew Tanakh: Exodus 24: 14; Leviticus 21: 4; 2 Kings 1: 8; Proverbs 22: 24; Proverbs 23: 2 and Proverbs 29: 22.

Blessings and peace,
Wayne
Reply
#4
Wayne, that very well may be, and I can easily admit wrong on that marriage part, but then I still have this being pointed out to me from The Lord as not belonging there.

Since I provide the arbitrary aspect in this (which really is ok with me, I'm starting to see the advantages of that position), my direction has to come from above on it. No matter what any language says, If HE is not happy with it, then it is wrong. The LORD continues to be my witness, I'm not gonna say HE is wrong either.

Looks like an addition to me. The first part describing Joseph and Mary states the conditions there were in (which is betrothed/married), this next particular section about Joseph is describing his charactor and his desires/troubles:

"Now Joseph was an upright man, but unwilling that he should denounce Mary,..."

Without that "her husband" part in there, the sentence structure flows better. It's tricky here, real tricky in this part for some reason, but I will follow whatever HE wishes to show me.

There is no reason for the distinction that he was her betrothed/husband to be made here again, in this section, it was stated in the following section already.

I will stand by whatever HE reveals to me.
Reply
#5
Dave Wrote:There is no reason for the distinction that he was her betrothed/husband to be made here again, in this section, it was stated in the following section already.

Ah, but I do see a reason for this distinction (i.e. for baalah to be in the text), and it is the one that Andrew Gabriel Roth has pointed out -- namely to show that this Joseph who is the baalah is a different Joseph than the Joseph who is the gowra (Matt 1: 16), and so the 14-14-14 generations really lines up.

Wayne
Reply
#6
Hey now Wayne, just remember you opened this can of worms hehe.

I have read mister Roth's summary of the use of "gowra" for this particular section of scripture. This has been debated before here.

Biggest problem I see with it is the english wording means "father." So, what we have at the end of the record of genealogies would be this:

"Joseph the father of Mary, who brought forth Jesus, The Anointed King"

Ok, what is wrong with this picture folks? Where did Joseph the "husband" of Mary, the son of David go to? We just effectively booted Joseph the husband out of the food chain here in attempts to add another person in there to make up for the "13" only kings listed.

I don't buy it. No one should buy that.

It was just a theory at one point on here and now it's being touted as the truth by a few people. In fact, mister Roth's summary of this points out that instances of genealogies that include women are "rare" although he does not show any genealogies that actually include women in them on his site. The use of the word "rare" here is loosely implied by mister Roth to instill the idea that there really were genealogies that did include women in them at some point. Again though, there are none listed on his site that do.

Let's look at this:

Here is line 18:

18 "Now the birth of Jesus The Messiah happened in this manner: When as His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they drew near, one unto the other, she was found to be with child of The Holy Spirit."

Now I'm already given the understanding by the writer that we are talking about Joseph the betrothed/husband of Mary. There's no dought in this. Now, why would there be a need to give me further understanding of this when it was pointed out clearly to me ahead of time within the imagery of 18? Was the writer worried that I was going to associate Mary with her father? Yea ok. Looks like someone added this in to witness to the preversion that was added in back in the genealogy section.

Here we have a freeze-frame shot of a preversion that carried through the majority of manuscripts of greek or whatever, cause it's in the hebrew matthew also.

Another tip-off to the truth in this can found in the early church fathers. On here if your not quoting eastern church fathers than just forget it, your automatically thrown in left field by default, thats just the way it is. I just happened to run across a quote from one of the big dogs in the eastern field, the other day, Aphraates:

"and Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph was called father to Jesus The Messiah."

This is in Burkitts translation of the OS, in volume 1 page 5 under the notes section.

What is going on here? Why didn't Aphraates make the distinction with the "gowra" terminology here in relation to Mary?

Burkitt seems to be paying attention here. Maybe this was one of the tip-offs he had when he concluded the peshitta was developed later on in the centuries. At any rate, this is like detective work, if your not paying strict attention to the clues available to you, then you will miss out and possibly allow harm to another by your ignorance.

Wayne, it's not my idea to start up old arguements. I do think the peshitta is quite useful, but I would never subscribe to the idea that it was the original, there's no way, the clues from GOD say different. And that's the ability of the abitrary position, to remain unbiased in your formulation of evidence.

But everything hinges on having The Spirit of Truth inside you to guide you in this. Without Him there unveiling it, you will remain misguided in it.

And that ends todays sermon.

EDIT: I wanted to post the quote information from Burkitts book just incase anyone wanted to follow-up on it:

A= Aphraates' Homilies, cited by the pages of Wright's edition.
Aa= Wright's Codex A (=B.M. Add. 14619, saac. vi).
Ab= " " B (=B.M. Add. 17182, foll. 1-99, A.D.474).
Ac= " " B (=B.M. Add. 17182, foll. 100-175, A.D. 512).
Reply
#7
Dave Wrote:It was just a theory at one point on here and now it's being touted as the truth by a few people. In fact, mister Roth's summary of this points out that instances of genealogies that include women are "rare" although he does not show any genealogies that actually include women in them on his site. The use of the word "rare" here is loosely implied by mister Roth to instill the idea that there really were genealogies that did include women in them at some point. Again though, there are none listed on his site that do.

Hi Dave, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Matthew 1: 5, which lists two women in it.

Dave Wrote:Now I'm already given the understanding by the writer that we are talking about Joseph the betrothed/husband of Mary. There's no dought in this. Now, why would there be a need to give me further understanding of this when it was pointed out clearly to me ahead of time within the imagery of 18? Was the writer worried that I was going to associate Mary with her father?

It shows that that Joseph the baali was about to send her away. If he wasn't considered to have the same status as "husband" there would be no need to send her away.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Dave Wrote:What is going on here? Why didn't Aphraates make the distinction with the "gowra" terminology here in relation to Mary?

You should be able to tell from his quote that he is not directly quoting from the OS at Matt 1: 16. It looks like he left out a couple of words and added others.

Dave Wrote:At any rate, this is like detective work, if your not paying strict attention to the clues available to you, then you will miss out and possibly allow harm to another by your ignorance.

Exactly.

Dave Wrote:A= Aphraates' Homilies, cited by the pages of Wright's edition.
Aa= Wright's Codex A (=B.M. Add. 14619, saac. vi).
Ab= " " B (=B.M. Add. 17182, foll. 1-99, A.D.474).
Ac= " " B (=B.M. Add. 17182, foll. 100-175, A.D. 512).

From which of Aphraates' Homilies is Burkitt quoting? There are several online, but I have not been able to locate any that include the word "begat" in them.

In Yeshua the Messiah,
Wayne
Reply
#8
Quote:Hi Dave, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Matthew 1: 5, which lists two women in it.

Ok,.....how about something that is not of the topic? Was there a listing with women in it from another source that would be used to validate this? Like Mister Roth said, they are rare, that means that they did happen at some point, but they are few and far between. What about something other than Matthew for this as a comparison?

Quote:It shows that that Joseph the baali was about to send her away. If he wasn't considered to have the same status as "husband" there would be no need to send her away.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

You overlooked the point I was making. We understand that he was her betrothed/husband because it was inferred in line 18,...what's the use of stating it again? It's gotta be an addition. The leige and one of the OS doesn't have it.

Quote:You should be able to tell from his quote that he is not directly quoting from the OS at Matt 1: 16. It looks like he left out a couple of words and added others.

I didn't say he was quoting the OS, I just posted the quote as a comparison to this "gowra" thing since his quotes have been utilized on here at times. Burkitt didn't list the particular book it was in, he just listed the books associated with the author, so one could look it up for themselves it they wished.

Let's look at the quote again here:

Quote:"and Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph was called father to Jesus The Messiah."


No matter what, the point is this,..........there is a problem with accepting that word "gowra" as original. If we do accept it then where did Joseph the husband go because he has just been effectively removed from the picture? If we don't then the peshitta has the mistake that the rest of the greek manuscripts do that copied from it, and shows just how "unoriginal" this particular book of the peshitta is. Now what do you "aramaic only" folks do here?

Do we just say that Joseph the husband wasn't important enough so he doesn't deserve to be listed in matthew's genealogy? Matthew was just kidding when he said 14, it was an idiom? Matthew was speaking in targums at this point?
Reply
#9
Wayne, here's an example of how this is gonna be promoted:

"Jacob fathered Joseph, the father of Maryam, from whom was born Yeshua, who is called the Messiah."

This is off the new Nasrani site that is linked on Chris's website now.
Reply
#10
Dave Wrote:
Zechariah14 Wrote:Hi Dave, perhaps you are unfamiliar with Matthew 1: 5, which lists two women in it.

Ok,.....how about something that is not of the topic? Was there a listing with women in it from another source that would be used to validate this? Like Mister Roth said, they are rare, that means that they did happen at some point, but they are few and far between. What about something other than Matthew for this as a comparison?

Here are a couple of places in Scripture where females figure prominently in matters of genealogy:

Genesis 36:9-18 9 These then are the records of the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. 10 These are the names of Esau's sons: Eliphaz the son of Esau's wife Adah, Reuel the son of Esau's wife Basemath. 11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho and Gatam and Kenaz. 12 Timna was a concubine of Esau's son Eliphaz and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz. These are the sons of Esau's wife Adah. 13 These are the sons of Reuel: Nahath and Zerah, Shammah and Mizzah. These were the sons of Esau's wife Basemath. 14 These were the sons of Esau's wife Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter of Zibeon: she bore to Esau, Jeush and Jalam and Korah. 15 These are the chiefs of the sons of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz, the firstborn of Esau, are chief Teman, chief Omar, chief Zepho, chief Kenaz, 16 chief Korah, chief Gatam, chief Amalek. These are the chiefs descended from Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Adah. 17 These are the sons of Reuel, Esau's son: chief Nahath, chief Zerah, chief Shammah, chief Mizzah. These are the chiefs descended from Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Esau's wife Basemath. 18 These are the sons of Esau's wife Oholibamah: chief Jeush, chief Jalam, chief Korah. These are the chiefs descended from Esau's wife Oholibamah, the daughter of Anah.

Genesis 28:5 Then Isaac sent Jacob away, and he went to Paddan-aram to Laban, son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, the mother of Jacob and Esau.

Dave Wrote:
Zechariah14 Wrote:It shows that that Joseph the baali was about to send her away. If he wasn't considered to have the same status as "husband" there would be no need to send her away.

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.

You overlooked the point I was making. We understand that he was her betrothed/husband because it was inferred in line 18,...what's the use of stating it again? It's gotta be an addition. The leige and one of the OS doesn't have it.

I understand the point you are making, but find it invalid. Take a look at Genesis 28: 5 quoted above. Why all the information? We already know who Laban is and that Rebekah is the mother of Jacob and Esau. Is this Scripture added to the text, too?

I would say that there is no idle word in Scripture (Deut 32: 47) and there is something to be learned from every word and every passage.

What is to be learned from Joseph being called her husband?

How about this: Before they are married, Joseph is Mary's husband. Here we are, living before the time of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Because we are already betrothed to Messiah, He is already our husband.


Blessings and peace in the name of Yeshua the Messiah,
Wayne
Reply
#11
The Females figured prominenty in only to show forth their sons. "These were the sons,.... I don't find the genealogies you showed relevant. In fact, since they showcase the sons of those females (in almost every case mind you), why would Matthews be any different here? Why would Matthew showcase Mary and not list Joseph as the Husband? Lamsa and Murdock, who were both prominent scholars (Lamsa in fact grew up in the area, mind you), both utilized the word as husband,...now why are you and others trying to say different here?

Again you sidestepped and avoided the obvious in your post Wayne, what happened to Joseph the Husband? He is called a son of David, so why is he not listed in the genealogy?

It is not something that is irrelevant. The very person that is one of the key figures in all of this, a decendant of the son of David,.... is not important?
Reply
#12
Not to continue denouncing the peshitta, but there seems to be some obvious mistakes here:

In Matthew 1:20 we read:

"For He who is begotten within her,...."

There is a problem with this. This is announcing what gender the offspring will be when the angel then says after this:

"Now behold, she will bear thee a son,..."

What happened here? This is only seen in the peshitta, in particular, Paul's translation here brought this out. I'm not hammering on Paul with this, I'm looking at the confusion here. Why did the Angel have to announce what gender it was when in the section before that he already said what it was going to be?

Very interesting! But like I said, I only found this here in Paul's translation. Most of the other translations, be it greek, hebrew, old latin, whatever, said something along the lines of this:

"For that which shall be born of her is from The Holy Spirit,..."

This is more accurate, and leads into the next section where the angel then announces the actual gender to be.

There are other sections to look at, but this particular chapter of matthew seems to have a lot of mistakes, at least more than the others so far.
Reply
#13
Hi Dave and Forum:
I'd like to sum up the importance of the Lineage of Yeshua (Matthew 1:1-16) who was a descendent of David the king.

1) 14 Generations X 3. Abraham to David, David to Bavel, Bavel to Messiah (Matthew 1:17)

a) This number is not arbitrary. The numerical value of DaViD is 14.

Dalet=4
Vav =6
Dalet=4

Total=14

b) The Messiah had to come physically from David through Solomon, because this was the lineage of the kings of Judah.

c) Matthew lists the royal lineage through Solomon, while Luke lists the lineage through Nathan, who was another son of David, but not king.

d) The word Gowra, at the end of the list of "fathers" can contextually mean "father".

e) The former statement being true, means that Miryam's father was named by the popular name of Joseph.

f) the use of "baalah" (Matthew 1:19) shows the distinction between two Joseph's to eliminate confusion, otherwise why would 1:16 use "gowra" and 1:19 "baalah". Contextually, "gowra" (1:16) means "father", for it is within the paragraph containing the "fathers", while "baalah" (1:19) is in the next paragraph following the espousal information (1:18).

Also, "baalah/husband" (1:19) makes clear that Joseph was espoused to Miryam affirming that Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit within wed-lock.

The word "gowra" with an "ALAP" replacing the "HEH" at the end appears in many other places in the New Testament. Both spellings have the same lexeme. However, the use of the form gowra"h" is unique and is only used in Matthew 1:16. This is interesting becaues it's extremely important to the context of the paragraph that it's contained in that it mean "father".

Here is a list of I think all other uses of "gowra" in the New Testament.

Mattai ??? 7:9, 8:9, 9:9, 10:35, 11:19, 11:8, 12:11, 12:13, 12:35, 12:41, 13:28, 13:31, 13:44, 15:38, 17:14, 19:10, 19:5, 21:28, 21:33, 22:11, 25:14, 27:32, 27:57
??? Marqus ??? 1:23, 3:1, 3:3, 3:5, 5:2, 7:11, 10:7, 12:1, 13:34, 14:13, 15:39
??? Luqa ??? 2:25, 4:33, 5:12, 5:18, 5:20, 6:45, 6:6, 6:8, 7:25, 7:34, 7:8, 8:27, 8:33, 8:36, 8:38, 10:30, 11:32, 12:14, 12:16, 13:19, 14:16, 14:2, 14:30, 15:4, 16:1, 16:19, 19:12, 19:2, 19:7, 20:9, 22:10, 22:22, 22:60, 23:14, 23:4, 23:47, 23:50, 23:50, 23:6, 24:19
??? Yukhanan ??? 1:30, 3:1, 3:4, 4:29, 4:50, 5:12, 5:15, 5:5, 5:9, 6:10, 7:46, 9:1, 9:11, 9:16, 9:16, 9:24, 9:30, 10:41, 11:47, 11:50, 18:14, 18:17, 18:29, 19:5
??? Acts ??? 1:11, 1:16, 1:21, 2:14, 2:22, 2:22, 2:29, 2:5, 3:12, 3:2, 4:22, 5:25, 5:35, 6:13, 6:5, 7:2, 7:26, 8:12, 8:2, 8:9, 9:13, 9:2, 9:33, 9:38, 10:1, 10:17, 10:19, 10:21, 10:22, 10:30, 10:5, 13:15, 13:16, 13:21, 13:22, 13:26, 13:6, 14:15, 15:13, 15:22, 15:22, 15:25, 15:7, 16:9, 17:12, 17:22, 17:31, 18:2, 19:16, 19:25, 19:29, 19:35, 20:30, 21:23, 21:28, 21:28, 21:38, 21:39, 22:26, 22:3, 22:4, 23:1, 23:6, 23:9, 25:14, 25:24, 25:24, 25:27, 26:31, 26:32, 27:10, 27:21, 27:25, 28:17, 28:4
??? Yaqub ??? 3:2
??? Keepa ??? 3:7
??? Romans ??? 7:1
??? 1Corinthians ??? 7:11, 7:14, 7:16, 7:25, 7:3, 7:4, 11:11, 11:11, 11:12, 11:12, 11:3, 11:4, 11:7, 11:8, 11:8, 11:9, 11:9, 13:11
??? 2Corinthians ??? 12:16, 12:2
??? Ephesians ??? 4:13, 5:25, 5:31
??? Colossians ??? 3:19
??? 1Timothy ??? 2:12, 2:8, 5:9
??? Titus ??? 3:10
??? Hebrews ??? 2:6, 11:24

Furthermore, look at the lineage beginning with Luke 3:23

(as was supposed) the son of Joseph.

THIS IS A DISCLAIMER

Disclaimers are common in scripture. Another type of disclaimer is found with the word "betulah" in Genesis 24:16 "v'ish lo y'daah" "and no man had known her". This word "betulah" needs a disclaimer to make it mean "virgin", otherwise it means "young woman". The word "alma" in Genesis 24:14 does not need a disclaimer and it means the same thing as "betulah+v'ish lo y'daah", or "a young woman and no man had known her", which literally means "a virgin".

So, when the DISCLAIMER "as was supposed" is used to link Jesus with Joseph the context is this....

"Everybody supposes that Jesus is the son of Joseph". However, when comparing this passage in Luke with that of Matthew, it becomes clear that Luke is not the royal line through Solomon, and there are no generational markers such as are found in Matthew (14 generations).

Simply, Matthew took great pains to distinguish between two Joseph's while Luke did not have to do that. Joseph's father is listed in Luke as Heli (Luke 3:23). So Luke lists the lineage of Joseph through Nathan, son of David (Luke 3:31).

This is the most logical way to bring clarity to the two lineages. However, no semitic writer could prepare for the problems encountered with a translation into Greek where, in Matthew 1:16 the translator/redactor mistook "gowra" for "husband" instead of "father" and effectually reversed the lineages and has caused such confusion ever since.

Acts 2:30-concerning the descendency of the Messiah from King David.

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Messiah to sit on his throne."

This means that Yeshua had to be born of David, and through the line of Kings of Judah and Israel. This means Solomon's line.

One more point. When Solomon ascended the throne, Israel was 12 tribes, not divided. It was in the days of Rehoboam (Solomon's son) that the kingdom of Israel was divided between the ten northern tribes (under Jeroboam) and Judah and Benjamin (under the royal lineage of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, son of David) (I Kings 12:1-19).

Sh'lama w'Burkate,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#14
Hello Steve.

I don't wanna turn this into a big production since this was covered in great depth last year. The biggest problem I have with it is this:

In Numbers, chapter 1, verse 18, we're told that the Jewish people declare their pedigrees according to their fathers' houses. When Queen Athaliah wanted to eliminate the Royal Line of David, she only killed the males knowing full well that a female descendant of David couldn't pass on the right to the throne (II Kings 11; II Chronicles 22).

That is pretty much why that lineage of decendants could not rightfully contain Joseph as Mary's father while effectively booting Joseph the Husband out of it, because the title had to come through Joseph the husband, who just happen to be a son-of-David. Mary had the bloodline on one of of Solomon sides, agreed here, but Matthew, being the hebrew that he was, would never write a genealogy that would effectively annull Jesus's kingship by making it out to say it came through Mary. To be valid, it must come through Joseph the husband. On top of that, GOD had the say-so in it completely. GOD said The Messiah was gonna be brought through a virgin, and it was so. GOD told Mary that the baby was gonna recieve the Throne of David, and it was so. Did The Messiah have to be birthed from the bloodline of the father? No, because GOD chose the kings that were to be placed on the throne. Every single person that tried to make himself out as king without it being from GOD was pretty much killed shortly thereafter. The position was by divine appointment only. GOD chose how HE wanted it and who it was gonna be given to, and HE made it happen.

Here's where we ended:

Quote:drmlanc wrote:
How can the two lines converge in Selathiel and Zerubabel and then seperate again???


Since, we know who the father of Shilathi'el was, and it was NOT "Neri", we know that the "Neri" of Luqa must be either be the mother of Shilathi'el or the father of the mother of Shilathi'el, thus both lines reunite in the personages of Shilathi'el and Zerubabel, and then one of the younger sons of Zerubabel goes on to found the line that is recorded in Mattai (or perhaps Luqa, but obviously I think it was Mattai).

Shlama, Craig

Quote: Dave wrote:
does this help?

Who was Shealtiel's father?
If his mother had no brothers, then under the Mosaic law he could be reckoned under the mother's line. Meaning that he could be called the "descendant of" his grandfather on his mother's side.


Yes, that would be the best explanation.

Shlama, Craig

I think that answers this Steve:

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Messiah to sit on his throne."

Quote: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

Look up the passages and see if we were wrong.

There is a whole heap of assumption involved by saying that Mary's father was Joseph because that's what it is, an assumption. Luke's lineage covers what matthews doesn't but doesn't outright come out and say that Joseph was Mary's father. Disclamer, son of Heli, levrite marriage, etc, whatever, there is no outright explicit sentence that says Joseph was Mary's father unless you "assume" it here in Matthew. But by doing that you annull Jesus' kingship and dethrone Him.

People want to use that term "gowra" to make up for the lost name because they feel that the peshitta has to have the answer no matter what. I mean that folks, people will flat out refuse to accept that there might have been a mistake in this text,...I mean whatsoever, they refuse it completely.

All one has to do is look at the scribal mistakes that were found in the OT texts through the centuries. They were small for the most part, but they are there none the less. This showed up when they were able to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the OT texts, such as LXX and the Masoretic texts. No one knew it till these were found and compared. This was to be expected because of the human factor involved over many years and years of copying. Whoever threw that gowra word in there, did not know the missing king for the list, so him/her/they put that word in there to try and make up for the lost king that they didn't have in the copy they were using, and just like anything else, the missing king mistake passed on into the greek either from an aramaic source or that particular copy was used for the greek book also.

Sorry folks, Trimm makes complete sense here, way more sense than trying to say that Joseph was Mary's father and ridding Jesus of His rightful Kingship. Finally, someone found a text that had the missing name, and it just happened to be a hebrew text that no one wanted to look at. There are many early church fathers that said that his gospel was written in hebrew, not just "the hebrew language", but actual hebrew. Not just a few early church fathers, but quite a few! Rather than except the fact that someone may be doing GOD's will here, the peshitta crowd takes every opportunity to run him in the ground in their various books and reports.

The peshitta crowd refuses to accept this as a witness to the missing name because it throws the originality of the peshitta out the door,...and also what the eastern church fathers had to say about it. At least for this particular book.

Even if I find a quote like this from Aphraates:

Quote:and Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph was called father to Jesus The Messiah

People of the aramaic peshitta-only crowd will completely refuse to accept this as original or just flat out ignore it. Why? Because they have to, they can't have something be superior to it.

So yea, the genealogy segment is a brick wall. The "gowra" theory that was an unsure theory before and not completely agreeable between aramaic scholars on here, is now being promoted as the complete truth and answer to the missing name by a select few, only because they feel it promotes aramaic primacy. "Oh it doesn't matter if we de-throne Jesus, look fellas, we found the answer to the missing name!!!!!!"

yea right.

People like Lamsa never made or promoted this sort of distinction, but since he didn't, he has to be lieing or promoting his own agenda. Anything to hold up the peshitta whilst throwing complete caution to the wind. When did satanic confusion like this take hold? It could only happen to folks that are deficient in The Spirit of Truth. No Spirit-filled Christian would ever accept it as fact because The Holy Spirit would never agree to Jesus being anything less than King-of-Kings.

Thank The Lord! James Trimm did the work he did!! And just in time too with all this gowra crap being thrown around to divide GOD's people!! GOD is always on time!

Anyways, I'm done with my rant.

EDIT: Steve, here is one of the quotes from last year when we were going back and forth with this:

Quote: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

Quote: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 (not) that of Maryam we only have 13 generations

Craig had made a mistake in his sentence, he was pro-gowra, I put it in the parenthesis. His bias was for the peshitta not having any mistakes, so in a snap-shot we see how his reasoning automatically accepts the gowra theory wholeheartedly. He knows that the kingship would have to come through Joseph, but he is ready and willing to accept the "Joseph is father to Mary gowra theory" hook, line, and sinker. This is the common view and reasoning amongst the pro-peshitta crowd. I'm not attempting to start trouble, this is their reasoning, they will never accept that a mistake could possibly be in the peshitta. For the most part, their salvation is tied up in the scriptures. This is called "sola-scripture." If they don't have a particular language to adhere completely to, then they have no salvation. Even though we are to understand that our righteousness is not our own but given to us by Jesus's sacrifice, and the only way to receive and experience that gift is through faith.

But there ya go. Not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will receive the kingdom of GOD. He spelled it out for everyone.

That's about enough on this "genealogy" subject for me. I'm somewhat spent of this again as it is becoming a slight frustration on my part. Sometimes all you can do is just laugh and move on to other subjects that The Holy Spirit wants you to associate with. I just bring the petition to the throne.
Reply
#15
I started working with the first chapter of Matthew. If i'm gonna pick on it, I may as well make it better. I do not read or write aramaic, or any other language for that matter. This was just me and The Holy Spirit working together on this. I only used a couple texts other than the King James. You will not find any of the peshitta in this. Why? Because that is what The Holy Spirit wanted. So be it.

This text as it is in this chapter, fixes every mistake, and would be sought out by mainstream Christianity, and blessed by GOD. It completely honors GOD by carrying HIS word with majestic prose. It is not dumbed down, nor of a school grade reading level. There are no footnotes to make HIS people have to choose a text or become undecided about which language a word came from. THE biggest trait, is that it has no complete affiliation with any single language, except english. That is a major trait. Why? Because now one does not have to worry about language word studies, and people are unable to promote their cultures or themselves through HIS word anymore. Christians will finally allow GOD to teach them instead the scholars. That's the way it used to be, and it allowed for some of the strongest Christians ever to rise up.

I will continue to work on this and follow HIS leading in it.




The declaration from Matthew

1.

01 The record of the generations of Jesus The Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
02 Abraham fathered Isaac; Isaac fathered Jacob; Jacob fathered Judah and his brethren;
03 Judah fathered Pharez and Zerah from Thamar; Pharez fathered Hezron; Hezron fathered Aram;
04 Aram fathered Amminadab; Amminadab fathered Naashon; Naashon fathered Salmon;
05 Salmon fathered Boaz from Rahab; Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth; Obed fathered Jesse;
06 Jesse fathered David The King; David fathered Solomon from the wife of Uriah;
07 Solomon fathered Rehoboam; Rehoboam fathered Abijah; Abijah fathered Asaph;
08 Asaph fathered Jehoshaphat; Jehoshaphat fathered Jehoram; Jehoram fathered Uzziah;
09 Uzziah fathered Jotham; Jotham fathered Ahaz; Ahaz fathered Hezekiah;
10 Hezekiah fathered Manasheh; Manasheh fathered Ammon; Ammon fathered Josiah;
11 Josiah fathered Jechoniah and his brethren during the captivity of Babylon.
12 Now after the captivity of Babylon, Jechoniah fathered Shalathiel; Shalathiel fathered Zerubbabel;
13 Zerubbabel fathered Abiud; Abiud fathered Abner; Abner fathered Eliakim; Eliakim fathered Azur;
14 Azur fathered Zadoc; Zadoc fathered Achim; Achim fathered Eliud;
15 Eliud fathered Eliazar; Eliazar fathered Matthan; Matthan fathered Jacob;
16 Jacob fathered Joseph, the Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary, the Virgin who brought forth Jesus, The Annointed King.

17 Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations; and from David to the captivity of Babylon were fourteen generations; and from the captivity of Babylon to The Messiah were fourteen generations.

18 Now the birth of The Messiah happened in this manner: It came to pass that when as His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they drew near, one unto the other, she was found to be with child of The Holy Spirit.
19 Now Joseph, because he was an a upright man, was unwilling that he should expose Mary, and thought that he would dismiss her quietly.
20 Yet whilst he thought upon this, an Angel of The LORD appeared to him in a dream, and said: "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to receive unto thee Mary thy betrothed, for that which shall be born of her is from The Holy Spirit, for from The Holy Spirit hath she conceived.
21 Now behold, she will bear thee a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from all their sins."
22 Now all this came to pass to fulfill what was spoken by The LORD through the mouth of The Prophet Isaiah, who had said:
23 "Behold, the virgin shalt conceive, and bring forth a son, and His name shall be called Immanuel." (which by interpretation is: GOD with us)
24 Now when Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the Angel of The LORD had commanded him, and accepted his wife unto him,
25 but he knew her not until she brought forth the first-born son, and he called His name Jesus.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)