Matthew 1:2

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; (ASV)


Edit this section if you suspect error.


Edit this section if you doubt error.


Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

JW: The Greek:

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

"?????" (Isaac). Josephus = ??????.

"?????" (Jacob). Josephus = ???????.

The Masoretic text for Chronicles has "Israel", Jacob's new name, here. Christian Greek translations (LXX) for Chronicles have "Jacob". "Matthew" probably would have liked the idea of someone before Jesus being given a new representative name for all Israel which indicates "Matthew's" source here was the LXX.

"?????????" is "begat" and has a primary meaning of immediate generation. The Lexicon entry is given later.

Christian Greek translations of the Jewish Bible (commonly referred to as "LXX") use the "A begat B" formula in 1 Chronicles 1-3 and Ruth 4.18-22 where the meaning is immediate generation.

--JoeWallack 18:35, 17 Dec 2005 (CST)

--JoeWallack 20:47, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

--JoeWallack 10:57, 20 May 2006 (CDT)

JW: Time to look at the Definition of Error (which will be a continuing issue for ErrancyWiki):

"Main Entry: er·ror Pronunciation: 'er-&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English errour, from Middle French, from Latin error, from errare 1 a : an act or condition of ignorant or imprudent deviation from a code of behavior b : an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy c : an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done: as (1) : a defensive misplay other than a wild pitch or passed ball made by a baseball player when normal play would have resulted in an out or prevented an advance by a base runner (2) : the failure of a player (as in tennis) to make a successful return of a ball during play d : a mistake in the proceedings of a court of record in matters of law or of fact 2 a : the quality or state of erring b Christian Science : illusion about the nature of reality that is the cause of human suffering : the contradiction of truth c : an instance of false belief 3 : something produced by mistake; especially : a postage stamp exhibiting a consistent flaw (as a wrong color) in its manufacture 4 a : the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value; specifically : variation in measurements, calculations, or observations of a quantity due to mistakes or to uncontrollable factors b : the amount of deviation from a standard or specification 5 : a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function <an error of metabolism> - er·ror·less /'er-&r-l&s/ adjective synonyms ERROR, MISTAKE, BLUNDER, SLIP, LAPSE mean a departure from what is true, right, or proper. ERROR suggests the existence of a standard or guide and a straying from the right course through failure to make effective use of this <procedural errors>. MISTAKE implies misconception or inadvertence and usually expresses less criticism than error <dialed the wrong number by mistake>. BLUNDER regularly imputes stupidity or ignorance as a cause and connotes some degree of blame <diplomatic blunders>. SLIP stresses inadvertence or accident and applies especially to trivial but embarrassing mistakes <a slip of the tongue>. LAPSE stresses forgetfulness, weakness, or inattention as a cause <a lapse in judgment>."

JW: In my opinion, the Key definition above is:

"an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy"

I see two necessary related Measurements:

1) Unintentional vs. Intentional

2) Amount of Deviation.

For purposes of My Definition of Error, regarding 1) -

A) If Unintentional is Identified than there could be Error depending on the Measurement of 2). If Intentional is Identified than there could still be Error if the Presentation is Misleading AND the Measurement of 2) is as explained following. In other words, if the Presentation is a Lie, Intentional Deviation, than there could be Error.

For purposes of My Definition of Error, regarding 2) -

B) Error will only be Identified if the Amount of Deviation from Accuracy is Significant.

I'll be using these Standards for Determination of Error throughout ErrancyWiki but let's apply them now to the Genealogies:

1) The first Step is determining if any Deviation from Accuracy in the Genealogies is Intentional or Unintentional.

In order to determine Intent we first have to determine The Who. Who's Intent. I see at least Three (evidence of (the) trinity?) possible Who's to use here:

1) The Original Authors.

2) The Selectors of the Canon.

3) The Manufacturor's of Modern English Christian Bibles.

1) Looking at the Original Authors we know the Least about this group so it would be the one most difficult to Prove had Unintentional Deviation. Being a Naturalist I would also Assume that this Group generally knew that at least some of what they wrote was not History which is more evidence for Intentional Deviation. So I Generally agree with my General Detractors here that it is Generally more difficult to Prove Error in the Originals.

2) When we move to The Selectors of the Canon though we have much more Evidence as to Intent. We can see in the Early Church writings that Generally Selections were made based on a Criteria of what was thought to be Historical and Accurate and Intentional and that these Possible Selectors, or at least holders of Likely the same Attitude as The Selectors, Generally Believed that what they Selected was Historical and Accurate and Intentional. This would be the Easiest Group to determine Intent for.

3) Looking at The Manufacturor's of Modern English Christian Bibles, we know the most about this Group. The Intent of this Group though would be the most Divided of the trinity of Groups. As you go Conservative the belief of Intentional strengthens. As you go Liberal it weakens.

The Group I use to determine Error is 3). I define the Christian Bible as:

The majority modern English translation.

Specifically now, in order to determine possible Genealogy Errors based on this Group I have to determine Intentional vs. Unintentional. Obviously, Modern Manufacturor's of English Christian Bibles would have Mixed Intents. I think though for this Group, there is at least SOME belief of Historical and Accurate and Intentional, and therefore potential Unintentional Deviation from Accuracy, because:

1) Some modern Manufacturor's still believe that the Genealogies are completely accurate and Literal, even though the Trend is going the other way. So there is a Significant amount of Unintentional here.

2) Most Modern English Christian Bibles are primarily based on what Group 2, The Selectors, decided and Edited as Canon, and Group 2 has the strongest Unintentional Belief as I'll demonstrate subsequently with Quotes.

These then are my Initial Standards for purposes of determining Error in the Genealogies. Again, if someone determines Intent based on the Original Authors they may very well not determine error in the Genealogies where I have.

Let's switch back now to a General problem for Believers in trying to defend against Errors in the Genealogies:

1) Believers believe that there was a reliable chain of witnesses from the Original authors to the Selectors of Canon.

2) Some defenses against Errors in the Genealogies have to rely largely on Intentional Deviation by the Original Authors.

3) Selectors of the Canon generally did not Believe in Intentional Deviation.

4) 3) is Contradicted by 1) AND 2).

Note that this observation (sadly/tragically not noted by Brown in The Birth Of The Messiah) will be a problem for Believers for ALL areas of the Christian Bible.

--JoeWallack 10:55, 20 Dec 2005 (CST)


Attitude of Early Church Fathers Regarding The Genealogies: (Tertullian)

" Chapter XXII.-Holy Scripture in the New Testament, Even in Its Very First Verse, Testifies to Christ's True Flesh. In Virtue of Which He is Incorporated in the Human Stock of David, and Abraham, and Adam.

They may, then, obliterate the testimony of the devils which proclaimed Jesus the son of David; but whatever unworthiness there be in this testimony, that of the apostles they will never be able to efface, There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler305 of the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason in the world than to show us clearly the fleshly original306 of Christ, he thus begins his Gospel: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."307 With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin? Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ "was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,"308 -which, therefore, was His own likewise. Christ's flesh, then, is of David's seed. Since He is of the seed of David in consequence of Mary's flesh, He is therefore of Mary's flesh because of the seed of David. In what way so ever you torture the statement, He is either of the flesh of Mary because of the seed of David, or He is of the seed of David because of the flesh of Mary. The whole discussion is terminated by the same apostle, when he declares Christ to be "the seed of Abraham." And if of Abraham, how much more, to be sure, of David, as a more recent progenitor! For, unfolding the promised blessing upon all nations in the person309 of Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed," he adds, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."310 When we read and believe these things, what sort of flesh ought we, and can we, acknowledge in Christ? Surely none other than Abraham's, since Christ is "the seed of Abraham; "none other than Jesse's, since Christ is the blossom of "the stem of Jesse; "none other than David's, since Christ is "the fruit of David's loins; "none other than Mary's, since Christ came from Mary's womb; and, higher still, none other than Adam's, since Christ is "the second Adam." The consequence, therefore, is that they must either maintain, that those (ancestors) had a spiritual flesh, that so there might be derived to Christ the same condition of substance, or else allow that the flesh of Christ was not a spiritual one, since it is not traced from the origin311 of a spiritual stock." (Africanus)

"I.-The Epistle to Aristides.


[Africanus ON The Genealogy IN The Holy Gospels.]1 -Some indeed incorrectly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly,2 in order that Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King; as if any one disbelieved this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of His Father, who presents our prayers to Him, and a supramundane King, who rules by the Spirit those whom He has delivered, a cooperator in the government of all things. And this is announced to us not by the catalogue of the tribes, nor by the mixing of the registered generations, but by the patriarchs and prophets. Let us not therefore descend to such religious trifling as to establish the kingship and priesthood of Christ by the interchanges of the names. For the priestly tribe of Levi, too, was allied with the kingly tribe of Juda, through the circumstance that Aaron married Elizabeth the l sister of Naasson,3 and that Eleazar again married the daughter of Phatiel,4 and begat children. The evangelists, therefore, would thus have spoken falsely, affirming what was not truth, but a fictitious commendation. And for this reason the one traced the pedigree of Jacob the father of Joseph from David through Solomon; the other traced that of Heli also, though in a different way, the father of Joseph, from Nathan the son of David. And they ought not indeed to have been ignorant that both orders of the ancestors enumerated are the generation of David, the royal tribe of Juda.5 For if Nathan was a prophet, so also was Solomon, and so too the father of both of them; and there were prophets belonging to many of the tribes, but priests belonging to none of the tribes, save the Levites only. To no purpose, then, is this fabrication of theirs. Nor shall an assertion of this kind prevail in the Church of Christ against the exact truth, so as that a lie should be contrived for the praise and glory of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the apostle also, who, when he was preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of our Saviour, and confidently affirming the truth, said with great fear, "If any say that Christ is not risen, and we assert and have believed this, and both hope for and preach that very thing, we are false witnesses of God, in alleging that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up? "6 And if he who glorifies God the Father is thus afraid lest he should seem a false witness in narrating a marvellous fact, how should not he be justly afraid, who tries to establish the truth by a false statement, preparing an untrue opinion? For if the generations are different, and trace down no genuine seed to Joseph, and if all has been stated only with the view of establishing the position of Him who was to be born-to confirm the truth, namely, that He who was to be would be king and priest, there being at the same tune no proof given, but the dignity of the words being brought down to a feeble hymn,-it is evident that no praise accrues to God from that, since it is a falsehood, but rather judgment returns on him who asserts it, because he vaunts an unreality as though it were reality. Therefore, that we may expose the ignorance also of him who speaks thus, and prevent any one from stumbling at this folly, I shall set forth the true history of these matters.]" (Clement of A)

"Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.

And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy which begins with Abraham is continued down to Mary the mother of the Lord. "For," it is said,298 "from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon till Christ are likewise other fourteen generations,"-three mystic intervals completed in six weeks.299"

JW: All Fathers above indicate an attitude that they considered the Genealogies Historical and Accurate and Intentional and I'm not aware of any Early Church Father who said otherwise (Africanus has some implication though above that there were).

--JoeWallack 08:28, 23 Dec 2005 (CST)

External links