And HE+ was JESUS
about years 30 beginning
being as was supposed son of Joseph
of Heli,
( i.e., the descendant of Heli { Eli } )
New Testament scholars have debated the Genealogy of JESUS CHRIST for decades and perhaps, for centuries.
The conflict comes from the discrepancy between Luke 3:23 and Matthew 1:16 in the KJV . . . but it is the ADDED WORDS translators inserted that are NOT in the literal Greek IN LUKE 3:23 that are causing the confusion in English translations.
And JESUS HIMSELF+ began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
which was the son of Heli,
[ Those words in BLUE are not in the Greek but added to the English translation. ]
Here is the literal translation:
The words in RED are the MAIN CLAUSE of the sentence.
The words in BLACK are the participial phrases.
And HE+ was JESUS about years 30
beginning being as was supposed son of Joseph of Heli,
( i.e., the descendant of Heli )
AS can be seen in the literal Greek, the MAIN CLAUSE states clearly that JESUS was OF HELI. The word (descendant) is added, just like "was" is here , to make it make sense to English readers.
and Matthew 1:16.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary,
of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST.
The discrepancy is supposedly centered around Joseph, the appointed step-father and guardian [ Aramaic: GOWRA or more literally, GaBRah ] of The LORD JESUS CHRIST.
The problem is a basic translation issue. There is no discrepancy between Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23.
There are no Greek words which state " which was the son" listed in Luke 3, beginning with Heli to the end, i.e., from the last
part of verse 23 through verse 38 !
Thus, descendant might be a better understanding of the genitive determiner , "tou" = ( of the ), in the Greek .
.
In Hebrew genealogy, a "son" could be the direct off-spring OR the grandson or even great-grandson, etc.
But to the ENGLISH READER, "son" implies a literal male child sired by a father.
To Avoid CONFUSION for the reader of English, descendant is a better choice of an ADDED WORD, rather than adding in " son of. "
Sometimes, FATHER
was used in the Hebrew for an Uncle who actually begot the male child for his
brother's widow. The child would legally carry
his dead father's name, but be the physical child of his dead
father's brother, in the Jewish Law.
In this way, the Law made sure that a dead man's
name and lineage would not be lost, expire, out of the LEGAL register.
Unfortunately, the LEGAL register expunged the
physical lineage of some Jewish males; they became untraceable.
Thus, in the literal Greek, in Luke 3:38, Adam is
NOT literally called the "son" of GOD.
Adam is simply written "of" GOD,
"Of" indicating created ( instead of procreated as it does with
the others in the lineage ) in this genitival phrase.
+ + +
NOW, CONCERNING THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS in Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 . . .
Upon reading the English translation, those two verses SEEM to make Joseph the son of TWO different men; hence, the lineage of The LORD JESUS CHRIST becomes muddled.
In both Matthew and Luke, the same ancestors are listed between Abraham and
King David.
However, after King David, the ancestors ARE DIFFERENT in the lineage until it reaches two men: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel ( Salathiel and Zorobabel, in Luke).
Then the names in the lineage are different until it reaches Joseph and The LORD JESUS.
Not only are the names different, BUT THE AMOUNT of ancestors / descendants differ as well !
Many , many explanations have been offered as to why the men’s names differ between the two lists of ancestors.
There are TWO FACTS which we all know:
1. Joseph did not beget The LORD JESUS CHRIST, and
2. Mariam provided the womb and the flesh for the Incarnate LORD.
There are TWO MORE FACTS which we know.
1. Jacob begot Joseph, as simply stated in Matthew 1:16.
2. Joseph was the GaBRah (GOWRA in some Aramaic New Testaments -- a virile, adult male, a husband) or guardian** of The LORD JESUS and His+ birth mother until after the birth of CHRIST.
After HE+ was born, Joseph and Mariam consummated their marriage.
** Matthew 1:16 is the ONLY verse in the Peshitta/ Aramaic NT which uses this word, GOWRA. It is not the common word, AB or AV, for "father" that is used in the Aramaic NT, lending no substance to the theory that GOWRA means Mariam's "father" in this one lone verse. *
SEE THIS LINK for verification. If the page seems too complicated, contact me in the comments and I will walk you through the different boxes to click to go to the verse analysis, which is in English, fortunately. DUKHRANA ~ GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF ARAMAIC PESHITTA VERSES ~ LUKE 3:23
What we DO NOT KNOW is how to read the Greek participial phrases found in Luke 3:23.
If the participial phrases are set aside, we can clearly see Luke 3:23 states:
And HE+ was JESUS of Heli,
that is , the DESCENDANT of Heli ( Eli )
Unfortunately, the KJV is less than literal in its translation and the modern versions followed suit.
Luke 3:23
Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος, ὢν, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, υἱός, ᾿Ιωσήφ, τοῦ ῾Ηλί,
Literal translation:
And HE+ was JESUS about years 30 beginning being as was supposed son of Joseph the (descendant ) of Heli,
The participial phrases are in yellow; the MAIN CLAUSE is in red. The participial phrases as adjectives merely ADD information. They do NOT “jump into” the main clause and become the main clause themselves.
Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering*, a former Wycliffe translator who has worked as a missionary translator and teacher in Brazil for many years after his time with Wycliffe, explained this Greek reading, very literally in his New Testament translation, [THE SOVEREIGN CREATOR HAS SPOKEN – Objective Authority for Living, 2nd Edition, 2016] DR. WILBUR N. PICKERING'S LITERAL NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATION
Dr. Pickering explained that to read the GREEK correctly in this verse, one had to set aside the participial phrases and focus on the ONE MAIN CLAUSE of the sentence. That clause is:
And HE+ was JESUS the (descendant ) of Heli,
The Greek has only ONE “son” in the verse and it is in the participial phrase being as was supposed son of Joseph. The participle “being” has to have an object, which is “son”.
[ The other participial phrase , about years 30 beginning , also must have an object, which is usually understood and inserted in the translations, such as “beginning his ministry at about 30 years of age”, which is implicit in the context of the passage, according to Dr. Pickering, pg. 594 in Appendices, page 80 in Book of Luke.]
Dr. Pickering thoroughly explains it in footnote #14, pg. 79-80 and footnote #1, pg 80, of his translation of the Book of Luke.
Below is a portion of the footnotes. For the complete footnote, see the link above. Click on the NT book of Luke. Go to 3:23 of Luke and the footnote will start at the bottom of page 79.
“ . . . However, every version that I recall seeing has “Joseph, the son of Heli”, which directly contradicts Matthew, “Jacob begot Joseph”. The word ‘son’ (without the article) occurs only with Joseph, although most versions supply it on down the genealogy.
But Luke is precisely correct in not using it, because it would not hold for the first and last names in the list—Eli did not beget Jesus (nor Joseph) and God did not beget Adam.
So then, properly understood Luke does not contradict Matthew (with reference to Joseph’s father), nor does he affirm an error of fact (with reference to Jesus’ father). ( End of footnote #14)
1 All published Bibles that I have seen add ‘son’ or ‘the son’ to each prepositional phrase in the genealogy, but Luke didn’t write that—from ‘Eli’ to ‘God’ there is no ‘son’. Why not? I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but with both Eli and God the word would have a different meaning than with the rest of the names in the list. Adam could be called a ‘son’ of God by creation, but not procreation.
I take it that Eli was Mary’s father, and thus the maternal grandfather of Jesus, so here also ‘son’ would have a different meaning. For all that, through Mary and Eli Jesus received some of David’s genes, so He was literally a descendent of David."
Thus we can see the main clause of this verse has the descendant of Heli being The LORD JESUS, not His+ step-father and guardian, Joseph, who was not related by blood to Heli at all.
And HE+ was JESUS the (descendant ) of Heli,
So then, who WAS related to Heli by blood ?
It
had to be the birth mother of The LORD JESUS. Dr. Pickering chooses to ignore
the apocryphal tradition and many legends that “Anne and Joachim” were Mariam’s
parents.
There is no solid
record of their names outside of "high" church accounts from the
Middle Ages. The Protoevangelium of James, an Apocryphal book, is too spurious,
silly, and full of error to provide an accurate record.
But if not the father of Mariam, Heli could have been a grandfather or great-grandfather of Mariam. Mothers were not listed in Jewish lineages, although they were an integral part of the process of procreation.
Ancient Jewish records list the parents of Mariam as Anne and Joachim. From Wikipedia, WIKIPEDIA -- GENEALOGY OF JESUS comes this interesting item:
A Jewish tradition relating Mary to Luke's genealogy is recorded in the Doctrina Jacobi (written in 634), in which a Tiberian rabbi mocks the Christian veneration of Mary by recounting her genealogy according to the tradition of the Jews of Tiberias:[55]
Why do Christians extol Mary so highly, calling her nobler than the Cherubim, incomparably greater than the Seraphim, raised above the heavens, purer than the very rays of the sun? For she was a woman, of the race of David, born to Anne her mother and Joachim her father, who was son of Panther. Panther and Melchi were brothers, sons of Levi, of the stock of Nathan, whose father was David of the tribe of Judah.[56]
Although this is supposedly common knowledge that Anne and Joachim were Mariam’s parents, it seems “sons of Levi, of the stock of Nathan … of the tribe of Judah” is a bit confusing.
Perhaps “of the stock” means the maternal side of the lineage ? Nathan was of the tribe of JUDAH, not LEVI.
If this report is correct , AND IF “STOCK” should indicate the mother’s lineage, that would explain why Mariam --- of the tribe of Judah --- was listed as a cousin of Elisabeth in Luke 1:36 even though Elisabeth was a “daughter of Aaron”, Luke 1:5, which was of the tribe of Levi, not Judah.
Read
more of this valuable explanation of Dr. Pickering which reconciles the two
readings in the Greek Texts between the names listed in Matthew
versus the names listed in Luke of the Genealogy of The LORD JESUS CHRIST at
the Link provided .
At any rate, there is enough ancient documentation
from two different writers, from two different perspectives, to establish the
TRUTH that The LORD JESUS CHRIST, Y'SHUA+ ha
MASHIYACH+ was the Anointed ONE+, come directly
from GOD, as promised through the Seed of David via the Hebrew virgin Mariam,
to REDEEM GOD'S Chosen People . . .
and as the Mystery of GOD revealed, to REDEEM the rest
of the world as well.
Amen and THANKFULLY SO !
+ + +
* Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering, ThD, PhD, wrote a superb New Testament Translation with Commentary [THE SOVEREIGN CREATOR HAS SPOKEN – Objective Authority for Living, 2nd Edition, 2016] . He has collated more than 20 Greek manuscripts and is a TEXTUAL AUTHORITY on the Byzantine Greek texts.
Throughout his New Testament translation, Dr. Pickering foot-notes the discrepancies between the Alexandrian Greek texts and the Byzantine texts. His appendices are very helpful in dealing with “apparent” discrepancies in the Gospel accounts.
His New Testament is available on-line, as well as in book form. See the link above. His website is found here. PRoject UNderground CHurch = PRUNCH ~ Dr. Pickering's website
No comments:
Post a Comment