Thoughts and questions on Matt 1:16 - "gowra"

[tbrice]

I know of masterful explanations of "gowra" in Matthew 1:16 by Messers Younan and Roth. However I have lingering thoughts which have led to two significant questions I'd appreciate comments from this forum:
1. Matthew begins his genealogical breakdowns using an active verb - "fathered" - no translation problem. However when he arrived at the 40th generation from Abraham, he changed to a more passive tone; "the "gowra" of... Did he intend to draw special interest by the use of this term, since...
2. Gowra is obviously a more general word which could be (and was) misconstrued. He could have chosen and used a more-specific word with a sharper meaning of "father". Did Matthew intend for the need of special attention focused on this individual, Yosip, who must be the blood link between the Royal Davidic Lineage and King Y'shua? Obviously this person would himself have to be Royalty (King Yosip), and Maryam would then have been Queen Maryam, establishing the DNA blood connection with King Y'shua.

The work on this verse to clear up the genealogy within Matthew is vital. Yet, I have this little yellow flag waving in my brain that signals "caution - pay close attention". And I am totally deficient in Aramaic, unable to properly look into any potential deeper meaning or fine points. Any thoughts? TB

[gregoryfl]

I hope you get your answer.

[Stephen Silver]

Shlama TBRice:
Your query is thoughtful. King David's throne passed through his first-born descendant Solomon. This is Matthew's geneology. Luke's geneology passes through Nathan. In the numerical completion of 14-14-14 generations as in Matthew 1:17, the focus must be on Gowra, unless there is a scribal error of omission. The DuTillet Hebrew Matthew (12th Century, if I recall correctly) adds another name to complete the third set of 14 generations. Personally, I disagree with the DuTillet in this point, and question its credibility.
That to say this, The use of the title "gowra" seems to work well as "father" in Matthew 1:16, but this is not widely received as fact. However, Paul Younan has found etymological evidence in a modern Aramaic primer that "gowra" can be illustrated to mean "father", as in "a gowra had two sons...etc," Until further independent evidence is uncovered, (perhaps an early Aramaic commentary from a reputable source) we are left with what we have.
With all this in mind, I think it is reasonable to say that Maryam's father was named Joseph, and he was descended from the Royal line of Solomon, David's first-born heir to the throne. I've stuck my neck out here, so I hope you find this helpful. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

Shlama,
Stephen

[tbrice]

Thank you Stephen. I am exactly where you are WRT the genealogies. However, the usage begs the question as to why Matthew would use this "more general" term (with several potential meanings) instead of another more-specific word for father. It made me wonder about the word itself. Perhaps this general word was used as a denotation of a reason for its use. Could there be a prefix or an ending on the word itself to denote that this "father" was father of a daughter within a genealogy normally naming only males. I was hoping to elicit some word study by Aramaic users. TB

[gbausc]

"Gavra" as it occurs in Matthew 1:16 is actually "gavrah" (her man, hero, master, authority, leader, guardian, father, husband) as it has a personal pronoun enclitic attached, which is followed with "d'Maryam" -"of Mary". This is a normal Aramaic construction where the personal possessive pronoun enclitic is followed by the one letter preposition Dalet (of) to complete the connection of possession between the preceding noun (gabra) and the following noun (Maryam). It is hard to see why "awleth" (begot) is not used, but perhaps it is because in every other generation listed, each father begets a son, not a daughter. In fact, there are 180 "begats" in the Old Testament, and only one of them is predicated of a named daughter in a genealogy, and that is Rebecca: "And Bethuel begat Rebecca"- Genesis 22:23. There are other places where it says, "and he begat sons and daughters", but this is the only one in which it says a man begat a female who is named. So it may be that is why "gabrah d'Maryam" is used, to distinguish the uniqueness of Mary's name being included in a genealogy and as the offspring of a long line of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & David.
I translated "gavrah d'Maryam" as "the Guardian of Maryam" in my interlinear and in my Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English
translation.


Dave Bauscher

[johnkw]

Perhaps the Joseph listed in Luke 3 isn't Mary's husband, but her uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. There are traditions which have him related to Mary. An uncle would be a natural guardian, if, for example, Mary's father had died.

[tbrice]

"Gavra" as it occurs in Matthew 1:16 is actually "gavrah" (her man, hero, master, authority, leader, guardian, father, husband) as it has a personal pronoun enclitic attached, which is followed with "d'Maryam" -"of Mary". This is a normal Aramaic construction where the personal possessive pronoun enclitic is followed by the one letter preposition Dalet (of) to complete the connection of possession between the preceding noun (gabra) and the following noun (Maryam). It is hard to see why "awleth" (begot) is not used, but perhaps it is because in every other generation listed, each father begets a son, not a daughter. In fact, there are 180 "begats" in the Old Testament, and only one of them is predicated of a named daughter in a genealogy, and that is Rebecca: "And Bethuel begat Rebecca"- Genesis 22:23. There are other places where it says, "and he begat sons and daughters", but this is the only one in which it says a man begat a female who is named. So it may be that is why "gabrah d'Maryam" is used, to distinguish the uniqueness of Mary's name being included in a genealogy and as the offspring of a long line of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & David.
I translated "gavrah d'Maryam" as "the Guardian of Maryam" in my interlinear and in my Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English
translation.


Dave Bauscher

---

Thanks for your post Dave. I had been away for a while (health problems) and just read your post. You hit on the same nail that I had been posturing for a long while. Matthew's use of Gowra almost certainly had to do with the need to forewarn readers that his genealogy entry had to do with a female (very unusual!) in the genealogy. I know nothing of Aramaic and have garnered what I know from Younan's Peshitta transliteration and AGR's articles. The dual genealogies of Matthew and Luke always seem to be "redundant", yet dis-similar; and had long posed a problem for me. With the gowra explanation, it becomes clear that Luke wrote his genealogy after he had seen Matthew's; and he (as he insisted) explicitly stated it to be husband Joseph's (not Jesus') lineage. Like Eisenhower taking pictures of the German death camps, he wanted to make sure that later skeptics that might deny His Heavenly Conception could not lay claim that v19 Joseph could have been Jesus' father - because was not of the required Royal Line. I think your post puts some icing on that cake. Thanks much. TB

[tbrice]

Perhaps the Joseph listed in Luke 3 isn't Mary's husband, but her uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. There are traditions which have him related to Mary. An uncle would be a natural guardian, if, for example, Mary's father had died.

The genealogy in Luke gives me no problem. Luke plainly identifies Joseph as the "supposed" father of Jesus, which strongly suggests Mary's husband.  And Luke had a reason for writing this seemingly contradictory genealogy.  It is clear to me that Luke had seen Matthew's Gospel account, and as he says in the first four verse of his own Gospel, determined to confirm the truth of what early Believers had been told.  Just like Eisenhower insisted that movies and pictures of Hitler's death camps in 1945 because "50 years from now some will deny they existed".  Luke wrote his COMPLEMENTARY account of husband Joseph to prove to Believers that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father because his lineage was through Nathan who was never King.  On the other hand, Matthew's genealogy, he wrote it to prove that Jesus was the blood descendant of King David, fulfilling prophecy that David's Kingdom would be eternal.  It became eternal when Jesus was born: The last King of Israel was, and is, Jesus; King of kings.   
TB

[Seeker of the Truth]

The genealogy in Luke gives me no problem. Luke plainly identifies Joseph as the "supposed" father of Jesus, which strongly suggests Mary's husband.  And Luke had a reason for writing this seemingly contradictory genealogy. ... Luke wrote his COMPLEMENTARY account of husband Joseph to prove to Believers that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father because his lineage was through Nathan who was never King.  On the other hand, Matthew's genealogy, he wrote it to prove that Jesus was the blood descendant of King David, fulfilling prophecy that David's Kingdom would be eternal.  It became eternal when Jesus was born: The last King of Israel was, and is, Jesus; King of kings.
TB

Shalaamu (Shlama) TB,
     In Luke 3:27, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel is described as "son of Neri." However in Matthew 1:12 and the Old Testament, Jechoniah/Jehoiachin, king of Judah, is the father of Shealtiel. I propose that perhaps Neri is the wife of Jechoniah, she being a descendant of Nathan son of King David, and both were parents of Shealtiel. However, this would make Joseph a descendant of the royal lineage as well. Unless there could've been two Shealtiels and two Zerubbabels, both being father and son of each other?

Blessings to you in your studies.
Shalaamu (Shlama)

-- Seitz (הַלְתַּוְאַם Hal-Tawˀam)

[tbrice]

The genealogy in Luke gives me no problem. Luke plainly identifies Joseph as the "supposed" father of Jesus, which strongly suggests Mary's husband.  And Luke had a reason for writing this seemingly contradictory genealogy. ... Luke wrote his COMPLEMENTARY account of husband Joseph to prove to Believers that Joseph could not have been Jesus' father because his lineage was through Nathan who was never King.  On the other hand, Matthew's genealogy, he wrote it to prove that Jesus was the blood descendant of King David, fulfilling prophecy that David's Kingdom would be eternal.  It became eternal when Jesus was born: The last King of Israel was, and is, Jesus; King of kings.
TB

Shalaamu (Shlama) TB,
     In Luke 3:27, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel is described as "son of Neri." However in Matthew 1:12 and the Old Testament, Jechoniah/Jehoiachin, king of Judah, is the father of Shealtiel. I propose that perhaps Neri is the wife of Jechoniah, she being a descendant of Nathan son of King David, and both were parents of Shealtiel. However, this would make Joseph a descendant of the royal lineage as well. Unless there could've been two Shealtiels and two Zerubbabels, both being father and son of each other?

Blessings to you in your studies.
Shalaamu (Shlama)

-- Seitz (הַלְתַּוְאַם Hal-Tawˀam)

Very interesting....    I had never noticed that (I suspect that few have), but I'll retain it in my memory bank and remember it here if I ever get t chance to pursue it.  Thanks very much for pointing out the inconsistency.  TB

---

"Gavra" as it occurs in Matthew 1:16 is actually "gavrah" (her man, hero, master, authority, leader, guardian, father, husband) as it has a personal pronoun enclitic attached, which is followed with "d'Maryam" -"of Mary". This is a normal Aramaic construction where the personal possessive pronoun enclitic is followed by the one letter preposition Dalet (of) to complete the connection of possession between the preceding noun (gabra) and the following noun (Maryam). It is hard to see why "awleth" (begot) is not used, but perhaps it is because in every other generation listed, each father begets a son, not a daughter. In fact, there are 180 "begats" in the Old Testament, and only one of them is predicated of a named daughter in a genealogy, and that is Rebecca: "And Bethuel begat Rebecca"- Genesis 22:23. There are other places where it says, "and he begat sons and daughters", but this is the only one in which it says a man begat a female who is named. So it may be that is why "gabrah d'Maryam" is used, to distinguish the uniqueness of Mary's name being included in a genealogy and as the offspring of a long line of the seed of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & David.
I translated "gavrah d'Maryam" as "the Guardian of Maryam" in my interlinear and in my Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English
translation.


Dave Bauscher

---

Thanks for your post Dave.  I had been away for a while (health problems) and just read your post.  You hit on the same nail that I had been posturing for a long while.  Matthew's use of Gowra almost certainly had to do with the need to forewarn readers that his genealogy entry had to do with a female (very unusual!) in the genealogy.  I know nothing of Aramaic and have garnered what I know from Younan's Peshitta transliteration and AGR's articles.  The dual genealogies of Matthew and Luke always seem to be "redundant", yet dis-similar; and had long posed a problem for me.  With the gowra explanation, it becomes clear that Luke wrote his genealogy after he had seen Matthew's; and he (as he insisted) explicitly stated it to be husband Joseph's (not Jesus') lineage.  Like Eisenhower taking pictures of the German death camps, he wanted to make sure that later skeptics that might deny His Heavenly Conception could not lay claim that v19 Joseph could have been Jesus' father - because was not of the required Royal Line.   I think your post puts some icing on that cake.  Thanks much.   TB

Dave...    I am in the process of trying to put together an article (book, ??) summarizing many of the Aramaic discoveries I have encountered.  I greatly appreciate your reply and assessment above and would like to include your post within the genealogies section.  Would you mind if I use your post (with or without your name - your choice) as a pivotal part of that section?  If you care to discuss and/or get acquainted, my email is trbrice@sbcglobal.net.   TB

[Charles Wilson]

Hello everyone-

The genealogy of Matthew is suspect.  It may offer an indirect reason for Luke's version, Luke having reviewed all the info to give the "truth" of the matter (i.e. "after Matthew").

Josephus, Antiquities..., Book 14, Ch 1, Section 3:

"...It is true that Nicolatls  [sic: "Nicholas"]  of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter..."

Josephus can be very sneaky at times, as he appears to be at this point.  Others who came later may have manipulated the text but notice the curious statement in Matthew:

Matthew 1: 11 - 12 (RSV):

[11] and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.
[12]And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni'ah was the father of She-al'ti-el, and She-al'ti-el the father of Zerub'babel,

This is most interesting in that the Dynastic Hasmoneans (of the Mishmarot group "Jehoiarib" - maybe! - of the House of Eleazar) are not even mentioned as returning from the exile to take the "Leading Role" of the Temple Service Groups and yet ancestors of Antipater, the father, and Herod are known to be "...of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon...".  RILLY!!!!

Which brings us to Matthew and "Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon...".  "...AND AFTER"!!

Now, it's easy to deny the premise that the 2 quotes are related but re-read the Josephus quote again.  If there was more evidence that the Josephus Narrative was manipulated, it might be harder to deny the premise.  I believe that there is that evidence.  The Matthean Genealogy is suspect.

CW

[Seeker of the Truth]

... the Dynastic Hasmoneans (of the Mishmarot group "Jehoiarib" - maybe! - of the House of Eleazar) ...

Shalaamu (Shlama) Charles,
     The Hashmoneans (חשמונים) are of the 1st course of priests, that of J(eh)oiarib in 1 Chronicles 24:7. So they are are of the House of Eleazar.

Blessings.

[Charles Wilson]

I was determined not to hi-jack this important thread so I held off commenting or starting a new thread on the Hasmoneans.  I'm sure a new thread on the Hasmoneans will start soon enough but  until then...:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...13998.html

Herod's last speech is about how he had accomplished more during his reign than the Hasmoneans accomplished during their 125 years in power.  "Now, why would Herod do that...?"

The Hasmoneans are that important to the NT.  A MOST important book by Uzi Leibner has been published (Early Settlements in...) which gives an understanding of the Hasmoneans, their settlements and how they were most approving of the Temple Service.

OK. enough.  Please keep examining Matthew's Genealogy.  THAT'S important as well.

CW

[aux]

Perhaps the Joseph listed in Luke 3 isn't Mary's husband, but her uncle, Joseph of Arimathea. There are traditions which have him related to Mary. An uncle would be a natural guardian, if, for example, Mary's father had died.

So close! I think you had the right idea, but the wrong genealogy!

It appears that the 'Joseph' of Matthew 1.16 is indeed Joseph of Arimathea who is the uncle of Mary. I recently did a report breaking it down, with a companion video answering Tovia Singer, and show how this was necessary in order for Yeshua to fulfill the promise of the Davidic Messiah through Solomon despite the curse placed on the royal male line (Jer 22.30) in combination with a little-known statute in Numbers 27 that allows the inheritance to pass from the paternal to maternal line - to the Messiah Yeshua - and also remain sinless in order to fulfill the prophecy of being our "asham" offering (most holy per Lev 7.1) in Isaiah 53.10.

Here's a snippet:

The answer as to why "gebrah" was used in the Peshitta which breaks the flow of the genealogy is somewhat of a mystery but it suggests he was her caretaker and protector while also a family member of the generation previous to Mary. The simplest and most logical explanation is Mary's father was dead and had no sons just like the legal scenario in Numbers 27.1-11 (otherwise the inheritance would not have transferred to his daughter Mary in the event that he may still have a son before death) and the 'Joseph' of verse 16 is her uncle through whom Mary received the inheritance of her paternal lineage going back to Solomon in accordance with the statute outlined in the above verses of Numbers 27.

In this case, Mary would then pass the paternal inheritance, and messianic candidacy, to her son Jesus according to the flesh, in accordance with Torah law, while also satisfying other unique messianic prophesies including the indication of being sinless as a guilt-offering ("asham") per Isa 53.10, and worthy of the extraordinary and highly exalted even divine titles (cf Jer 23.5-6; Isa 11.2-3) given to the promised son in Isaiah's prophesies accompanied by signs from heaven (as mentioned below). One could even say God's comment in 1Chronicles 17.13 in the Davidic covenant, also used elsewhere, becomes literally fulfilled in this case: "I will be his father and he shall be My son." Similarly, the original messianic prophesy of the Seed of the woman in Genesis 3.15 takes on a new literal significance in retrospect. One might even say it’s as if the word of God was made flesh.

The only other two Josephs identified in the gospels, other than Mary’s husband, living during the time of Jesus and Mary include one of Mary's other sons named Joseph, and the other is Joseph of Arimathea.

In some deep and very interesting traditions (on which the later elaborations of the holy grail legends are based) Joseph of Arimathea is said to be Mary's uncle (watch this space for more info). The scriptures describe him as a good and righteous man (Lk 23.50), a secret disciple of Christ (Jn 19.38) as well as a rich and powerful member of the Sanhedrin (Mt 27.57-58, Mk 15.43) who held enough sway to meet with Pilate on short notice and request the body of Christ -- which makes sense of why Joseph was allowed to place Him in his own tomb (Mat 27.59-60, cf. Isa 53.9) which, if not mistaken, could only be done for family members as they were typically family tombs. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry on tombs confirms this idea and uses Joseph of Arimathea as an example (https://imgur.com/a/be0W0yF).

In any case, the above explanation is the simplest one that preserves the logical flow of the plain meaning of the text and the contextual framework as well as the explicit numbering of 14 generations given by Matthew, and is in accordance with Torah law, the Davidic covenant, and other prophetic considerations including from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel.

[...]

Full report:
https://openthematrix.wordpress.com/2023...-examined/

Let me know what you guys think or if you find any issues I should revisit, clarify, expand on, etc.

[cgjedi]

Yes, the evidence in the New Testament strongly suggests that Joseph of Arimathea was indeed Mary's uncle. The wording in the Peshitta makes this very clear. The translation in Greek obscures this.
Not only that, but the Peshitta also strongly suggests that Mary, herself, was originally from Arimathea (Ramah). Something that I have never seen discussed.

https://youtu.be/6SVx8tGYRbM