Genealogy of Mary and Jesus

[Burning one]

Yea, that's the Curetonian text, which is called "the old syriac"...I have a hard copy here as well, but, it reads the same as The Peshitta text does there, as far as I can see...so, I'm not sure where they got the info from, when they say that "the old syriac" shows another name, like they say the Du Tillet does.

Shlama,

the Curetonian does not read the same as the Peshitta here:

Peshitta has the name ABIUD.

Curetonian has the name ABIUR.

basically, it's a confusion of the Dalet/Resh, which happens so often in both Hebrew and Aramaic scripts due to visual similarity of the letters.

Du Tillet Hebrew Matthew is: AVIHUD
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/Peshito-DuTillet.pdf">http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/P ... Tillet.pdf</a><!-- m -->

the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew is: AVIHUD
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/EvenBohan-5.13.pdf">http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/E ... n-5.13.pdf</a><!-- m -->

the Curetonian is the big goof in this analysis. but i think what the note quoted in a previous post probably intended to say was "combines" instead of "contains," as that would make sense at least of what they are suggesting. just a guess. t

here's only one major variant here, and that is the Curetonian reading.

so, ignore the aforementioned note on the Hebrew Matthews and instead note that the Old Syriac Curetonian made a scribal error, replacing the correct letter Dalet with the incorrect letter Resh.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy