10-06-2003, 04:23 PM
Paul,
Taking a word out of context is major bad joojoo. And I'm sure you understand the implications of it. There is no way for me to believe that this particular word, which has a dual application in this instance, was to mean that the lineage that Matthew was tracing was Mary's. Your straining at gnats here to prove the Peshitta and Aramaic rather than ensure it befits Hebrew custom, and checking it against it. NO ONE with any sort of credentials will take anything at complete face value without doublechecking it. In this case, the things you look for are the customs of the day that the writer is used to, and the particulars involved. I'm sure we are all aware of the antiquity of Matthews writing, and at best, it holds a position of being the most likely source that was translated from Hebrew.
No war here on the language part. Just echoing the consensus of many others through the ages, who have put forth countless hours trying to understand everything.
Matthew's writing would not list a woman within the direct genealogy. That was the adherence within the custom of the Hebrews of the day. The listing of Women within a genealogy, as a practice, did not become the normal custom till after the first century or so. This information
Paul, take some time to look into the customs of the day, rather than go strictly by a theory, just because a word has a dual meaning. A truley great translator and scholar will do just that.
Taking a word out of context is major bad joojoo. And I'm sure you understand the implications of it. There is no way for me to believe that this particular word, which has a dual application in this instance, was to mean that the lineage that Matthew was tracing was Mary's. Your straining at gnats here to prove the Peshitta and Aramaic rather than ensure it befits Hebrew custom, and checking it against it. NO ONE with any sort of credentials will take anything at complete face value without doublechecking it. In this case, the things you look for are the customs of the day that the writer is used to, and the particulars involved. I'm sure we are all aware of the antiquity of Matthews writing, and at best, it holds a position of being the most likely source that was translated from Hebrew.
No war here on the language part. Just echoing the consensus of many others through the ages, who have put forth countless hours trying to understand everything.
Matthew's writing would not list a woman within the direct genealogy. That was the adherence within the custom of the Hebrews of the day. The listing of Women within a genealogy, as a practice, did not become the normal custom till after the first century or so. This information
Paul, take some time to look into the customs of the day, rather than go strictly by a theory, just because a word has a dual meaning. A truley great translator and scholar will do just that.