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

[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