Matthew 1:10

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; (ASV)

Contents

Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.


JW: Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Amos” instead of “Amon” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. "Amos" was a famous Prophet so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Amon, simply copied an existing error in the Greek or intentionally slipped in the name of a Prophet for theological reasons (the names were close and "Matthew" wanted to figuratively indicate that his Jesus was not just from the line of Kings but also from the line of Prophets).

Let's first look at a typical Christian list of textual variation here:

http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay01mat.htm

"Matthew 1:10: TEXT: "and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah" EVIDENCE: S B C Delta Theta Pi* f1 33 most lat cop TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSV NRSV NASVn RANK: B NOTES: "and Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah" EVIDENCE: K L W Pi2 f13 28 565 (700 892 Ammon) 1241 Byz most Lect vg syr TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV* RSVn NRSVn NASV* NIV NEB TEV

COMMENTS: Amon is more nearly like the Hebrew spelling in the Old Testament, but several Greek Old Testament manuscripts spell his name Amos in various places. It is thus likely that copyists changed the unusual form of the name (i.e., Amos) to the more usual form (i.e. Amon)."


JW: (Putting up hand like Stop Sign) Stop! In the name of Love (one another). We'll see following that using the Greek "Amos" to represent the Hebrew "Amon" would not be an "unusual form of the name" or any form of the name. It would be using the wrong name because the names were similar and the persons were familiar. The Greek "Amon" once again, is a transliterated name, and "Amos" would be an incorrect transliteration as opposed to spelling variation. Here's an important distinction for this situation:

The use of similar but different transliterated names of familiar people by "Matthew" is not a defense of error, it is an explanation of how the error occurred.

Now for the evidence we need to convict of sin.

From the HTML Bible:

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm#V10

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus  ???? (Amon)

Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus  ???? (Amon)

Byzantine Majority  ???? (Amon)

Alexandrian  ???? (Amos)

Hort and Westcott  ???? (Amos)


JW: Here we have the familiar situation. TR has "Amon" and WH has "Amos". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary, UBS and Bruce Metzger all confirm "Amos" as likely original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:

"1.10 ????, ???? {B} The textual evidence for the reading “Amos,” an error for “Amon,” the name of the king of Judah, is nearly the same as that which reads ???? in verses 7 and 8. In 1 Chr 3.14 most manuscripts present the correct ???? (or its near equivalent ?????), but ???? is read by A Bc (B* and one minuscule read ?????). In the narrative account concerning King Amon in 2 Kgs 21.18–19, 23–25; 2 Chr 33.20–25 several Greek witnesses erroneously read ????. Despite Lagrange’s preference for ???? (see his argument quoted above on verses 7–8), the Committee was impressed by the weight of the external evidence that attests ????."

On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all presumably used "Amon" instead of "Amos" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time.

Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Amon":

1 Chronicles 3:14

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm

"??  ?????? ??????, ???????????? ?????. Amon his son, Josiah his son. "

" ?????? " (Amon) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.

Now the Hebrew Narrative:

1 Kings 15:8

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b21.htm

" ??  ???????????? ????????? ???-????????, ??????????? ??????-??????? ??????-??????; ??????????? ?????? ??????, ??????????. {?} 18 And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza; and Amon his son reigned in his stead. {P} "

" ?????? " (Amon) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.

Now let's search the Hebrew for "Amos" by Genealogy:

" "

Hmmm, what does that mean? It means there's only one "Amos" in the entire Jewish Bible. So, if someone used "Amos" referring to the Jewish Bible, they probably meant the only "Amos" in the Jewish Bible.

Now by Narrative:

Amos 1:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1501.htm

" ?  ???????? ??????, ??????-????? ??????????? ??????????:  ?????? ????? ???-?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????-????????, ???????? ????????? ????-??????? ?????? ??????????--??????????, ??????? ????????. 1 The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. "

" ?????? " (Amos) is the second Hebrew word on the right.

Reading the related Narrative shows that "Amos" was an important Prophet in the Jewish Bible and had his own Book.

Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Amon":

1 Chronicles 3:14

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=14

1 Chronicles 14 "???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????"

"????" (Amon) is the first Greek word. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible. Here (http://neonostalgia.com/human/bible/mgene.html) is an interesting genealogy chart from Chris Weimer (which is something of a hellhole to navigate. Christ, maybe you could number the generations). "Amon" is the 29th name. Note that the LXX is split between "????" (Amon) and "????" (Amos) with "????" being the majority reading.

  • I changed the PDF into HTML - does it look better?

Now the Greek Narrative:

2 Kings 21:18

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=2%20Kings&chapter=21&verse=18

??? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????

Again, the correct word "????" (Amon) 5th word from the end.

A quick check of Josephus:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145&query=whiston%20chapter%3D%23135&layout=&loc=10.47

"???????" (Ammona)

Note that Josephus' apparent spelling here adds a "?" (m) which doesn't change the sound and a "?" (a) at the end. Note that Biblical Hebrew didn't have the Masoretic vowels so if you didn't know the traditional pronunciation of the Hebrew name you would have to guess at the vowel sounds.

Now let's search the Greek for "Amos" by Narrative:

Amos 1

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Amos&chapter=1&verse=1

"????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???????"

"????" (Amos) is where it's supposed to be as the second word.

And now, the meaning of the names:

http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A

"Amon, faithful; true"

"Amos, loading; weighty"

Quite the difference.

One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Amon's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Amos" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself as we saw above. "Ammona" instead of "Amon". However, "Ammona" is still not "Amos" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Amon" as a majority reading. Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding!

Now for the very critical Transliteration (read right to left):

?? ? ?? ?

n o m A

? ? ? ?

n 0 m A

We can see that the Greek "????" is a proper tranliteration of the Hebrew ?? ? ?? ?

?? ? ?? ?

n o m A

? ? ? ?

s o m A

We can see that the Greek "????" is a improper tranliteration of the Hebrew " ?? ? ?? ? " because an "s" sound is used in place of an "n" sound and the underlying consonent would have been seen in the Hebrew so no guessing as to its sound would be required.


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Amos" at 1:10 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) According to the Masoretic text "Amon" was the correct name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Amos" was likely original.

2) The detailed narrative from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Amon" as correct.

3) The LXX also has "Amon" as a majority reading for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "????" was the correct name here.

4) "Amon" and "Amos" are two different names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. Amon was the king and Amos was a relatively important Prophet with his own book. Additionally, there is only one Amos in the Jewish Bible so if the name was used it would be presumed to refer to this Amos.

5) The transliterated Greek of the two names yield different sounds which could not be accounted for by spelling variation trying to achieve the same sound.

6) There is no evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Amon" and "Amos" were anything other than two distinct names.

7) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually changed the name from "Amos" to "Amon" implying they recognized that "Amos" was an error.

8) A one letter difference is a big difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew.

9) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

10) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

11) The meaning of "Amon" and "Amos" in Hebrew is different.

12) Dee Dee Warren, the Owner of Tweb, has temporarily banned JoeWallack, which indicates she understands the strength of the Pro argument.


The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Amos" at 1:10 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) It's possible that "Matthew" originally wrote "Amon".

2) "Amon" and "Amos" differ by one letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person.

3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Amon" so it's possible that variant spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that "Amon" is the correct name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Amos") is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Amon" and "Amos" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Amos" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".


Joseph

Con

How can it be decided that 'Amos' cannot be a transliteration? It is irrelevant what the original said if it is a transliteration, not to mention that in Acts the name Elymas is a transliteration completely different from its Aramaic word for dream-interpreter, where a scholar notes that the change to end in the letter 's' in Elymas was due to its Grecized transliterated form, and this may as well have been the intention of Matthew, regardless of Greek names that ended with '-on' (Heron, Platon, etc.), there are ones that end in '-os' (Helios, etc.) and it is really impossible to claim that 'Amon' could not have been transliterated to 'Amos'.

It's an Error 1) According to the Masoretic text "Amon" was the correct name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Amos" was likely original.'

A: Irrelevant if it's a transliteration.

It's an Error 2) The detailed narrative from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Amon" as correct.'

A: Irrelevant if it's a transliteration.

It's an Error 3) The LXX also has "Amon" as a majority reading for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "????" was the correct name here.'

A: Irrelevant if it's a transliteration.

It's an Error 4) "Amon" and "Amos" are two different names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. Amon was the king and Amos was a relatively important Prophet with his own book. Additionally, there is only one Amos in the Jewish Bible so if the name was used it would be presumed to refer to this Amos.'

A: Irrelevant if it's a transliteration. Amos and Amon would have been two different people, but Matthew's Amos would have been identical with Amon. This would be the second Amos, albeit an Amos through transliteration.

It's an Error 5) The transliterated Greek of the two names yield different sounds which could not be accounted for by spelling variation trying to achieve the same sound.'

A: Different sounds occur when you transliterate. E.g.: Joseph -> Josephus.

It's an Error 6) There is no evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Amon" and "Amos" were anything other than two distinct names.'

A: Irrelevant if Matthew transliterated Amon into Amos.

It's an Error 7) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually changed the name from "Amos" to "Amon" implying they recognized that "Amos" was an error.'

A: Their failure to see "Amos" as a transliteration is not any fault of the Evangelist's.

It's an Error 8) A one letter difference is a big difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew.'

A: How was this decided? Amos is clearly recognizeable as a form of Amon.

It's an Error 9) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.'

A: Irrelevant. Does this mean he must have missed everything from the genealogy? One would understand if his whole list is scrambled, putting Adam in the middle, Hezekiah near the beginning and so on, but this is far from the case.

It's an Error 10) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.'

This is understandable but Origen didn't imply by this that the Evangelists misspelled any names, but those copying the Old Testament.

It's an Error 11) The meaning of "Amon" and "Amos" in Hebrew is different.'

A: Irrelevant if it's a transliteration. Names had meaning which wasn't literally taken.

It's an Error 12) Dee Dee Warren, the Owner of Tweb, has temporarily banned JoeWallack, which indicates she understands the strength of the Pro argument."'

A: Not even really an argument.

As it has been mentioned above, Josephus has a variant spelling of Amon. The fact is, the Grecized name of the ancient Egyptian historian Manetho into Manethon is seen in various other forms including Manethos and Manethoth.

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

External links

Personal tools