09-06-2004, 08:12 AM
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).
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).