Matthew 1:8

From Errancy Wiki
Revision as of 14:45, 4 September 2005 by 172.131.244.29 (talk) (Talkin Bout My Generation)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; (ASV)

Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.


JW: According to 1 Chronicles 3: (ASV)

11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"

"Ahaziah" was Joram's son.

According to Matthew 1: (ASV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:8-9;&version=8;

8 "and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;"

"Uzziah" was Joram's son. "Matthew" appears to have omitted three names that 1 Chronicles has above, "Ahaziah", "Joash", and "Amaziah", if 1 Chronicles "Azariah" is the same person as "Matthew's" "Uzziah" as both are said to be the father of "Jotham". The combinations of original Hebrew, translated Greek, possible name variations/mispelling, genealogy and narrative descriptions make it all potentially very confusing. Keep in mind that at the time "Matthew" likely wrote there probably was no official Canon to go by and there was also no Wickied! computer sight organized by Peter (Kirby) to assist the Semitically blind.

The Greek for "Matthew" here is:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=8

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

"?????" is "Uzziah" which is the last name on the right. All the major Greek families have "?????".

2 Kings 8:24 gives the narrative version from the Jewish Bible:

"And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead." (ASV)

Further potential confusion is caused by the Jews having two Kings at this time. One for Judah and one for Israel. Israel had its own King Ahaziah:

1 Kings 22:51

"Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel."

Now let's look at the Hebrew for "Ahaziah":

1 Chronicles 3:

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

?? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ?????, ??????? ??????. " 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son;"

" ??????????? " (Ahaziah).

2 Kings 8:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b08.htm

?? ???????????? ?????? ???-????????, ??????????? ???-???????? ??????? ??????; ??????????? ??????????? ?????, ??????????. {?} " 24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. {P} "

" ??????????? " (Ahaziah).

1 Kings 22:52

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a22.htm

?? ??????????? ???-???????, ?????? ???-?????????? ????????????, ????????? ?????? ????????, ???????????? ?????? ????????; ??????????? ???-??????????, ??????????." 52 Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel."

" ??????????? " (Ahaziah).

We can see that the Hebrew spelling for "Ahaziah" in the Jewish Bible is exactly the same.

Now for the LXX spelling (fasten your seat belts, yea!)

1 Chronicles 3:

3:11

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

"??????" (Uzziah)

2 Kings 8:

8:24

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

"???????" (Uzziah)

1 Kings 22:

22:52

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

"???????" (Uzziah)

Summary of Greek name:

Matthew 1:4 ?????

1 Chronicles 3:11 ??????

2 Kings 8:24 ???????

1 Kings 22:52 ???????


Transliteration:

Masoretic ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ??

English A cha z yah who

Matthew 1:4 ? ? ? ? ?

English O z i a u

1 Chronicles 3:11 ? ?? ? ? ?

English O cho z i a

2 Kings 8:24 ? ?? ? ? ? ?

English O cho z i a z


The problem for the Greek translators here was that "Ahaziah" had no existing Greek equivalent. It had to be transliterated. The next problem was that Hebrew of this time lacked the Masoretic vowels so if you were not an expert with the Hebrew bible you could be fluent in Hebrew in general but not know the proper pronunciation of a Biblical name that was no longer in use. You had to guess at the vowel sounds. Therefore, variation in Greek spelling could be a result of using different Greek letters for the same Hebrew sound and different Greek letters based on guesses for the vowel sounds. You can see the resultant variation above.

Now to try and determine the possible source of "Matthew's" omission. But was it unintentional or intentional? Did he copy the omission from the LXX?

1 Chronicles 3:11

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=11

"????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? 12 ??????? ???? ????? ??????"

????? (Joram), ?????? (Ahaziah), ???? (Joash), ??????? (Amaziah), ?????? (Azariah)

Presumably the LXX had the missing names so it wasn't the source of "Matthew's" omission. Let's look at a different possible source, "Matthew's" creanativity. Back to "Matthew" 1:8:

8 "...Joram begat Uzziah 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham

Now let's look at the son of Joram and the father of Jotham per the complete genealogy:

11 "Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,"

"Ahaziah" is the son of Joram and "Azariah" is the father of Jotham. Now compare the Greek:

?????? (Ahaziah)

?????? (Azariah)

Now the transliteration:

? ?? ? ? ?

O cho z i a

? ? ?? ? ?

A z ar i a

My guess is that the names were close enough and as "Matthew's" theology was more important to him than literal correctness, he intentionally showed ????? (Uzziah) as the son of Joram and as the father of Jotham, knowing they were two different persons, because the names were similar, and thus he was close to being figuratively correct. This allowed him to "complete" his pattern of fourteens.

In the Appeal To Authority category:

Brown, Page 82, Birth Of The Messiah:

"A more plausible explanation is that the omission was accidental caused by the similarity between the Greek forms of the names of Uzziah (Azariah) and Ahaziah...then the lists were already in Greek and already contained errors."

ICC, Page 176:

"One should observe that the omission of names from a genealogy, for one purpose or another...was common practice."

So Brown ((Catholic) thinks Error and ICC (Protestant) does not.

The most extreme potential error here is that "Matthew" claims groups of 14 generations:

17

"So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations." (ASV)

But according to 1 Chronicles:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Chronicles_3

Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Ahaziah
Joash
Amaziah
Azariah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jehoiakim
Jeconiah

There were 18 generations.


DISCLAIMER - the following is a template for a work in progress:


Here's famed Internet Apologist JP Holding's defense against the original abbreviated version of my claimed error (apparently he's reading this and was alerted to the problem at his site):

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html


JW: Let me say in general that Holding's brief response primarily consisting of assertions rather than evidence such as examples, authority and detailed reasoning wouldn't carry much weight against my detailed article here with examples, appeal to authority and detailed reasoning. Holding does mention "acceptable, non-erroneous spelling variation" and "spelling variation" seems to be the most popular "defense" here so I'll address that.

1) The first consideration for possible "spelling variation" is was there spelling variation in the original language of Hebrew for "Ram"? My detailed article above indicates no evidence for this in the Jewish Bible, in contemporary Jewish writings and from Biblical Hebrew language experts. If Holding wants to make an argument here he's reduced to the secondary argument of demonstrating that similar but different names in the Jewish Bible had this type of variation and still referred to the same person. Good luck.


In any case Holding is still stuck with the problem that the last time I checked, the Jewish Bible was still part of the Christian Bible and most Christian English translations have "Ram" for this genealogy place in the Jewish Bible while I've likely demonstrated that "Matthew" used "Aram". According to the Christian Bible then, at a minimum this would be a mistransliteration of not just the same name but the name of the same person. Error.


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Aram" at 1:4 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) According to the Masoretic text "Ram" was the correct name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present.

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

3) The original Hebrew name "Ram" was transliterated into Greek. "Matthew's" "Aram" would be an incorrect transliteration based on sound.

4) The LXX has "Aram" here in the genealogy which would explain "Matthew's" error. He copied it from the LXX.

5) "Aram" and "Ram" are two different names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible.

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

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

8) The LXX of Chronicles lists "Ram" and "Aram" as sons of Hezron indicating they were two separate names in Greek as well.

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) Some Christian English translations use "Ram" for 1:4 implying that "Aram" was a mistake.

12) The meaning of "Aram" and "Ram" in Hebrew is different.


The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Aram" at 1:4 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) "Aram" and "Ram" differ by one letter so it's possible they could refer to the same person.

2) The LXX has "Aram" here in the genealogy which supports "Matthew's" "Aram" as original and the extant LXX is older than the extant Masoretic. This weight is reduced by the LXX use of "Arran" in the detailed narrative.

3) The meaning of "Aram" and "Ram" in Hebrew is similar.


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


Joseph


DISCLAIMER - the following is a template for a work in progress:

Con

Edit this section if you doubt error.

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

External links