EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In this entire discussion over 5 years, I'm surprised no one has brought up the elephant in the room. It's the one point that proves that the genealogy in Matthew is Mary's. And it proves that BOTH Joseph AND Mary were descendants of David, the original point of the discussion.

1. Luke 3:23 very clearly states that Luke presents the genealogy of Joseph.

2. The elephant that no one has brought up is Matt 1:17 - that the genealogy is 3 groups of 14 generations. You can count the list for yourself. The first group is 14 generations. The second group is 14 generations. The third group is.....13 generations. At least, what is presented in the majority of English translations from the Greek. So something is off in the text.

3. The Greek word translated as "husband" is "andra" (G435). Another common usage in the New Testament is in general, a man, an adult male. It's used that way much more than it is used as husband. But the translations always assume the Joseph here means the "husband of Mary" since Mary's husband was named Joseph.

4. The Aramaic Peshitta should also be consulted. Some make the case that the Aramaic was the original language the New Testament was written in since Aramaic was the lingua franca of the region. Greek was the lingua franca of the western region (ie. Roman empire). Putting that debate aside, both the Greek and the Aramaic New Testament are of very similar age whichever is the translation of the other. In the Aramaic, the word that is used is "gowra" which also has the dual meaning of "a man" or "a husband". However, in Aramaic, this word is commonly used as a male guardian of a woman who is not yet an adult.

5. So it could very well be the case that Mary's father was deceased and that a male guardian named Joseph (possibly her uncle) was responsible for her. This is very confusing because both her guardian and husband were named Joseph. And Matthew does not make the situation clear. The only way we know this is actually the correct way it should be understood is that then there would indeed by 14 generations specified in the last section. The text makes sense. There is no supposed error.

6. Matthew presents Mary's lineage. Luke presents Luke's lineage. Both are descendants of David.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,581
5,362
49
The Wild West
✟440,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The Aramaic Peshitta should also be consulted. Some make the case that the Aramaic was the original language the New Testament was written in since Aramaic was the lingua franca of the region. Greek was the lingua franca of the western region (ie. Roman empire). Putting that debate aside, both the Greek and the Aramaic New Testament are of very similar age whichever is the translation of the other. In the Aramaic, the word that is used is "gowra" which also has the dual meaning of "a man" or "a husband". However, in Aramaic, this word is commonly used as a male guardian of a woman who is not yet an adult.

We know that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, albeit based on oral sources which were predominantly of the Galilean accent of Judean Palestinian Aramaic. The Aramaic Peshitta is composed in Classical Syriac Aramaic, in a form which did not exist in the first century, but had emerged starting in the second and third centuries and indeed the New Testament translation of the Peshitta was completed in the Fourth Century, where it replaced a more complicated translation, which in turn supplanted the third century Vetus Syra translation of the Four Gospels*, which replaced the dull Diatessaron, a Gospel Harmony, as they are so called (I would prefer Gospel Cacophony), in which the four canonical Gospels are mashed together, destroying their unique individual beauty in pursuit of a superficial and insubstantial consistency that destroys the actual underlying coherence of the four Gospels, this particular mashing done by Tatian, who later became the leader of a heretical Gnostic sect related to the Severians.

Nonetheless you are correct in saying the Peshitta can be extremely useful for exploring what the New Testament looks like in an Aramaic dialect, and one of my favorite traditional English translations, the Murdoch Bible, is a translation of the Western (Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Maronite Catholic, and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church**) Peshitta New Testament, also including the extra books from the Athanasian Bible missing from the original edition, still used by the East Syriac churches (Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic and Syro Malabar Catholic), which were translated by St. Thomas of Harqel as part of the later Harklean Bible (these include Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter). There is also the Etheridge Bible, which includes only those books in the Peshitta, and also makes a point of not translating the book titles or proper names from Syriac but merely Romanizing Classical Syriac, although his choice to Romanize the word for God from the triconsonantal stem ALH as Aloha I find amusing - it could well be accurate, but today the West Syriacs say Aloho due to having dropped the vowell A, retaining only the consonantal A, or Alep (don’t ask me how A can be a consonant, but I believe this feature is common to all the Semitic languages including Hebrew), whereas the East Syriacs say Alaha (note the similarity to the Arabic word for God, Allah, which is not a proper name for the Islamic deity no matter how much the radical Saudi, Qatari, Afghan and Iranian mullahs, muftis and ayatollahs wish this was the case), despite retaining a consonantal “o”.


*The Vetus Latina the Vetus Latina Bible (which was a complete translation of the Septuagint and most, perhaps all, of the canonical New Testament) follows the Western Text Type, whereas the Peshitta is much closer to the Byzantine Text Type (not unlike the Vulgate, which is also close to the Byzantine text, and which replaced the Vetus Latina except for some liturgical uses, such as the hymn “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” , which is rendered with less elegance in the Vulgate as “Gloria in Altissimus Deo.”

**The Mar Thoma Syrian Church is a Protestant church which was created with the assistance of the British East India Company using the funds of the Indian Orthodox Church, which had been deposited with them, but which they refused to release except to one bishop who had been converted to Reformed theology, but this church is now in communion with the small Malankara Independent Syrian Church, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction in India not in communion with the Indian Orthodox or Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and I am not sure if any of the other Oriental Orthodox are in communion with them, but since the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and since the Malankara Independent Syrian Church is in full communion with them, and worships using the Syriac Orthodox liturgy and follows Oriental Orthodox theology, I suppose you could say it is the only case of an Orthodox Church in communion with the Anglican Communion.

As far as your overall argument concerning St. Luke presenting the genealogy of St. Joseph, and St. Matthew presenting the genealogy of our most blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, I have seen this before, and it seems plausible, but I personally haven’t probed into it too deeply because personally, it doesn’t matter that much to me, except as an annoyance when atheists occasionally confront us with this apparent inconsistency, as if it discredits the entirety of the Gospel even in what I suggest is the exceedingly unlikely event that an error was made, but certainly that possibility did not greatly trouble the Church Fathers, with many of them sharing your opinion @EclipseEventSigns , although some did take the view that there was an error but it was inconsequential, in the same way that the minor differences in wording in how the four evangelists recalled certain events are inconsequential, for that matter, between how the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) record the Words of Institution at the Last Supper, vs. how St. Paul records them in 1 Corinthians 11. I myself shy away from this latter approach in that I am uncomfortable saying that Scripture contains a contradiction regarding something as important as the geneaology of Christ, whereas the minor differences in wording in other events in the Gospels actually add credibility, since with all real world events with multiple independent witnesses who have not spoken with each other in an effort to harmonize (and thus potentially corrupt) their recollection of events, there will be minor differences between the recollections, whereas if multiple people collude to fabricate a story, these subtle differences will be suspiciously absent.

In addition, the minor differences in recollection we see in the four Gospels and St. Paul by no means indicate actual contradiction in any material sense, and are therefore not a threat to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, whereas the idea that one of the two geneaologies in Matthew and Luke is simply wrong does contradict Biblical Inerrancy, at a minimum suggesting serious textual corruption. And it seems so obvious that one of them, likely that of St. Matthew, is that of the Theotokos, as you say, and the other of her elderly and continent husband St. Joseph, the Adoptive Father of our Lord, who raised the Only Begotten Son and Word of God in His Incarnation as the Son of Man, teaching Him carpentry and ensuring his safety, even enduring hardship in the form of exile to Egypt to prevent Him from being killed by King Herod in His infancy, as happened to the Holy Innocents of Ramallah.

I do disagree however on point 5, that St. Mary had a guardian named Joseph, since by all accounts she was young when she was married to St. Joseph, who was elderly and had been married previously, and was a widower by all historical accounts (thus explaining the brothers of our Lord such as St. James the Just, since as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley agreed, and as the Fathers of the Early Church agreed, she was a perpetual Virgin, remaining a virgin miraculously even after giving birth, and it would have been inconceivable for St. Joseph to have carnal knowledge of the Mother of God), it seems probable that at least her parents St. Joachim and Anna were still alive.

Additionally, hagiographies, which are well accepted, suggest that St. Mary in her youth was involved in some consecrated function at the Temple in Jerusalem, and this makes sense given her royal bloodline.

Likewise, this would explain why St. Joseph was likely betrothed to her by arrangement, since both were descendants of King David and therefore had an aristocratic standing.

This stands in interesting opposition to most of the disciples, who were fishermen who were unknown and of a low social class, and one of them, St. John the Beloved Disciple, was also quite young, perhaps a teenager, before they were glorified by our Lord (I suspect of the Twelve, that St. Matthew the Evangelist, due to his literacy, and Judas Iscariot, who would also have been literate since he was the treasurer, would have had the highest social standing). Ironically St. Paul the Apostle, when he was persecuting Christians as Saul, before his conversion on the Road to Damascus, was the most well-respected of any of them among the Jews, but he accounted this for dung.

But this follows what our Lord said, that he who is humble will be exalted, which happened to Him and to most of the Apostles, and he who exalts himself will be humiliated, which would have happened to St. Paul had he not humbled himself and instead remained Saul, the arrogant, self-righteous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, but he let Christ our God transform Him into Paul, the humble, pious and geniunely righteous Christian who was a leader and guardian of the Gentile Christians, rejecting Pharisaical Judaism, and who received a crown of martyrdom when beheaded in the persecutions initiated by Nero. Conversely, Judas Iscariot continued to swell inwardly in pride, as he fervently sought the monetary gain and praise and exaltation from the Jews for betraying our Lord, but when he found it, the fruits of his betrayal had a taste too bitter even for his hypocritical palette, and he hanged himself. This brings to mind what CS Lewis wrote about Hell in the Great Divorce and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We know that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, albeit based on oral sources which were predominantly of the Galilean accent of Judean Palestinian Aramaic. The Aramaic Peshitta is composed in Classical Syriac Aramaic, in a form which did not exist in the first century, but had emerged starting in the second and third centuries and indeed the New Testament translation of the Peshitta was completed in the Fourth Century, where it replaced a more complicated translation, which in turn supplanted the third century Vetus Syra translation of the Four Gospels*, which replaced the dull Diatessaron, a Gospel Harmony, as they are so called (I would prefer Gospel Cacophony), in which the four canonical Gospels are mashed together, destroying their unique individual beauty in pursuit of a superficial and insubstantial consistency that destroys the actual underlying coherence of the four Gospels, this particular mashing done by Tatian, who later became the leader of a heretical Gnostic sect related to the Severians.

Nonetheless you are correct in saying the Peshitta can be extremely useful for exploring what the New Testament looks like in an Aramaic dialect, and one of my favorite traditional English translations, the Murdoch Bible, is a translation of the Western (Syriac Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Maronite Catholic, and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church**) Peshitta New Testament, also including the extra books from the Athanasian Bible missing from the original edition, still used by the East Syriac churches (Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic and Syro Malabar Catholic), which were translated by St. Thomas of Harqel as part of the later Harklean Bible (these include Revelation, Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2 Peter). There is also the Etheridge Bible, which includes only those books in the Peshitta, and also makes a point of not translating the book titles or proper names from Syriac but merely Romanizing Classical Syriac, although his choice to Romanize the word for God from the triconsonantal stem ALH as Aloha I find amusing - it could well be accurate, but today the West Syriacs say Aloho due to having dropped the vowell A, retaining only the consonantal A, or Alep (don’t ask me how A can be a consonant, but I believe this feature is common to all the Semitic languages including Hebrew), whereas the East Syriacs say Alaha (note the similarity to the Arabic word for God, Allah, which is not a proper name for the Islamic deity no matter how much the radical Saudi, Qatari, Afghan and Iranian mullahs, muftis and ayatollahs wish this was the case), despite retaining a consonantal “o”.


*The Vetus Latina the Vetus Latina Bible (which was a complete translation of the Septuagint and most, perhaps all, of the canonical New Testament) follows the Western Text Type, whereas the Peshitta is much closer to the Byzantine Text Type (not unlike the Vulgate, which is also close to the Byzantine text, and which replaced the Vetus Latina except for some liturgical uses, such as the hymn “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” , which is rendered with less elegance in the Vulgate as “Gloria in Altissimus Deo.”

**The Mar Thoma Syrian Church is a Protestant church which was created with the assistance of the British East India Company using the funds of the Indian Orthodox Church, which had been deposited with them, but which they refused to release except to one bishop who had been converted to Reformed theology, but this church is now in communion with the small Malankara Independent Syrian Church, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction in India not in communion with the Indian Orthodox or Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and I am not sure if any of the other Oriental Orthodox are in communion with them, but since the Mar Thoma Syrian Church is part of the Anglican Communion, and since the Malankara Independent Syrian Church is in full communion with them, and worships using the Syriac Orthodox liturgy and follows Oriental Orthodox theology, I suppose you could say it is the only case of an Orthodox Church in communion with the Anglican Communion.

As far as your overall argument concerning St. Luke presenting the genealogy of St. Joseph, and St. Matthew presenting the genealogy of our most blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, I have seen this before, and it seems plausible, but I personally haven’t probed into it too deeply because personally, it doesn’t matter that much to me, except as an annoyance when atheists occasionally confront us with this apparent inconsistency, as if it discredits the entirety of the Gospel even in what I suggest is the exceedingly unlikely event that an error was made, but certainly that possibility did not greatly trouble the Church Fathers, with many of them sharing your opinion @EclipseEventSigns , although some did take the view that there was an error but it was inconsequential, in the same way that the minor differences in wording in how the four evangelists recalled certain events are inconsequential, for that matter, between how the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) record the Words of Institution at the Last Supper, vs. how St. Paul records them in 1 Corinthians 11. I myself shy away from this latter approach in that I am uncomfortable saying that Scripture contains a contradiction regarding something as important as the geneaology of Christ, whereas the minor differences in wording in other events in the Gospels actually add credibility, since with all real world events with multiple independent witnesses who have not spoken with each other in an effort to harmonize (and thus potentially corrupt) their recollection of events, there will be minor differences between the recollections, whereas if multiple people collude to fabricate a story, these subtle differences will be suspiciously absent.

In addition, the minor differences in recollection we see in the four Gospels and St. Paul by no means indicate actual contradiction in any material sense, and are therefore not a threat to the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, whereas the idea that one of the two geneaologies in Matthew and Luke is simply wrong does contradict Biblical Inerrancy, at a minimum suggesting serious textual corruption. And it seems so obvious that one of them, likely that of St. Matthew, is that of the Theotokos, as you say, and the other of her elderly and continent husband St. Joseph, the Adoptive Father of our Lord, who raised the Only Begotten Son and Word of God in His Incarnation as the Son of Man, teaching Him carpentry and ensuring his safety, even enduring hardship in the form of exile to Egypt to prevent Him from being killed by King Herod in His infancy, as happened to the Holy Innocents of Ramallah.

I do disagree however on point 5, that St. Mary had a guardian named Joseph, since by all accounts she was young when she was married to St. Joseph, who was elderly and had been married previously, and was a widower by all historical accounts (thus explaining the brothers of our Lord such as St. James the Just, since as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley agreed, and as the Fathers of the Early Church agreed, she was a perpetual Virgin, remaining a virgin miraculously even after giving birth, and it would have been inconceivable for St. Joseph to have carnal knowledge of the Mother of God), it seems probable that at least her parents St. Joachim and Anna were still alive.

Additionally, hagiographies, which are well accepted, suggest that St. Mary in her youth was involved in some consecrated function at the Temple in Jerusalem, and this makes sense given her royal bloodline.

Likewise, this would explain why St. Joseph was likely betrothed to her by arrangement, since both were descendants of King David and therefore had an aristocratic standing.

This stands in interesting opposition to most of the disciples, who were fishermen who were unknown and of a low social class, and one of them, St. John the Beloved Disciple, was also quite young, perhaps a teenager, before they were glorified by our Lord (I suspect of the Twelve, that St. Matthew the Evangelist, due to his literacy, and Judas Iscariot, who would also have been literate since he was the treasurer, would have had the highest social standing). Ironically St. Paul the Apostle, when he was persecuting Christians as Saul, before his conversion on the Road to Damascus, was the most well-respected of any of them among the Jews, but he accounted this for dung.

But this follows what our Lord said, that he who is humble will be exalted, which happened to Him and to most of the Apostles, and he who exalts himself will be humiliated, which would have happened to St. Paul had he not humbled himself and instead remained Saul, the arrogant, self-righteous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, but he let Christ our God transform Him into Paul, the humble, pious and geniunely righteous Christian who was a leader and guardian of the Gentile Christians, rejecting Pharisaical Judaism, and who received a crown of martyrdom when beheaded in the persecutions initiated by Nero. Conversely, Judas Iscariot continued to swell inwardly in pride, as he fervently sought the monetary gain and praise and exaltation from the Jews for betraying our Lord, but when he found it, the fruits of his betrayal had a taste too bitter even for his hypocritical palette, and he hanged himself. This brings to mind what CS Lewis wrote about Hell in the Great Divorce and elsewhere.
A lot of stuff you wrote. But so much opinion and Roman Church nonsense. Especially your supposed history of the Peshitta. Absolute and utter nonsense you write. It does not further this discussion in the least.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is an Greek/Aramaic language expert weighing in the "translation Greek" which is so very evident.
biblicalGreek-Torrey.jpg
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,175
11,837
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,151,029.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Have you checked the information in the image?
Ah, so there is a tiny reference which I took for a footnote.
Charles Cutler Torrey was a teacher of Semitic languages. I have not found anything indicating any qualifications in Greek however.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ah, so there is a tiny reference which I took for a footnote.
Charles Cutler Torrey was a teacher of Semitic languages. I have not found anything indicating any qualifications in Greek however.
No qualifications in Greek? His books are all full of Greek. I have no idea what you are on about?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,175
11,837
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,151,029.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That isn't what I said.

I know nothing of his books. I'm going by what I can find with an online search.
Latin - yes
Semitic languages - yes
Greek - ?
What exactly is the problem? He was a well respected expert in languages. Are you expecting a degree in every particular language? Ridiculous. If you are actually interested, all question is put to rest by actually reading his material.

I myself have a degree in Religious Studies. But that does not specifically state Greek or Hebrew. Does that mean all the courses I took to learn and study those languages mean I'm not actually qualified? Preposterous. That's not how expertise is judged.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,581
5,362
49
The Wild West
✟440,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
A lot of stuff you wrote. But so much opinion and Roman Church nonsense. Especially your supposed history of the Peshitta. Absolute and utter nonsense you write. It does not further this discussion in the least.
Everything I wrote about the Peshitta is factual. As far as the doctrinal statements I made concerning our most glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, and her husband St. Joseph, these were made from an Orthodox perspective, and reflect the doctrine of the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus.

That said, insofar as the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of St. Mary was upheld by the founders of Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Reformed and Presbyterian, and Methodist Christianity, the first three of which are the largest, second largest, and third largest Protestant groupings worldwide, and the latter of which is the second largest family of Protestant denominations in the US and much of Africa (and would be much larger had the Methodists in Canada and Australia not merged with the Congregationalists and some of the Presbyterians ), and one of the most important in the history of Protestantism, and since to this day most Lutherans and traditional Anglicans accept this doctrine, and also accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, both of which declare St. Mary to be the Theotokos, the Mother of God, and indeed a reconciliation of Anglicanism and Lutheranism with at least some of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches seems likely, along with some of the remaining handful of high church Congregationalists and Methodists (a reconciliation I have actively worked for with the doctrinally Orthodox and liturgically Congregationalist missions I founded during the illegal Covid lockdown), considering that I find myself in agreement with my Lutheran and Anglican friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Shane R on all issues of consequence, and am also surprised by how frequently my friend @hedrick , who among the members of this forum I have conversed with seems the most knowledgeable about what John Calvin actually taught, points out areas of surprising concord between Calvin’s views and those of the Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists, I think my previous post represents the ecumenical consensus of traditional Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, and I suspect Roman Catholicism (my friend# @chevyontheriver and @concretecamper can confirm this).

Additionally, while I am not Roman Catholic, but Orthodox, if I were Roman Catholic, what difference would it make? It is logically fallacious to reject a testable statement of fact, such as my assertions about the Syriac language and the history of the Peshitta, just because a Roman Catholic said it, and it is equally fallacious to reject all doctrinal positions held by Roman Catholics, considering that the greater portion of Roman Catholic dogma, such Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the apostolate of St. Paul, is shared with all other Christians, and rejecting something just because the Roman church accepts it would result in one believing in a different religion altogether.

Lastly, I was surprised by the hostility of your reply considering that I agreed with your central argument, that the genealogy in Matthew is that of the Blessed Virgin Mary whereas the genealogy in Luke is of St. Joseph, her husband. I would have thought you would appreciate an endorsement of your core thesis coming from a Traditional Theology perspective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,581
5,362
49
The Wild West
✟440,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
What exactly is the problem? He was a well respected expert in languages. Are you expecting a degree in every particular language? Ridiculous. If you are actually interested, all question is put to rest by actually reading his material.

I myself have a degree in Religious Studies. But that does not specifically state Greek or Hebrew. Does that mean all the courses I took to learn and study those languages mean I'm not actually qualified? Preposterous. That's not how expertise is judged.

I suggest you get a Masters Degree in Aramaic Studies, because we need more people who can translate Aramaic texts such as Syriac manuscripts, and also it would give you a firm foundation in the history of the Peshitta and of Aramaic use in Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Everything I wrote about the Peshitta is factual. As far as the doctrinal statements I made concerning our most glorious lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, and her husband St. Joseph, these were made from an Orthodox perspective, and reflect the doctrine of the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus.

That said, insofar as the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of St. Mary was upheld by the founders of Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Reformed and Presbyterian, and Methodist Christianity, the first three of which are the largest, second largest, and third largest Protestant groupings worldwide, and the latter of which is the second largest family of Protestant denominations in the US and much of Africa (and would be much larger had the Methodists in Canada and Australia not merged with the Congregationalists and some of the Presbyterians ), and one of the most important in the history of Protestantism, and since to this day most Lutherans and traditional Anglicans accept this doctrine, and also accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, both of which declare St. Mary to be the Theotokos, the Mother of God, and indeed a reconciliation of Anglicanism and Lutheranism with at least some of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches seems likely, along with some of the remaining handful of high church Congregationalists and Methodists (a reconciliation I have actively worked for with the doctrinally Orthodox and liturgically Congregationalist missions I founded during the illegal Covid lockdown), considering that I find myself in agreement with my Lutheran and Anglican friends @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis and @Shane R on all issues of consequence, and am also surprised by how frequently my friend @hedrick , who among the members of this forum I have conversed with seems the most knowledgeable about what John Calvin actually taught, points out areas of surprising concord between Calvin’s views and those of the Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists, I think my previous post represents the ecumenical consensus of traditional Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, and I suspect Roman Catholicism (my friend# @chevyontheriver and @concretecamper can confirm this).

Additionally, while I am not Roman Catholic, but Orthodox, if I were Roman Catholic, what difference would it make? It is logically fallacious to reject a testable statement of fact, such as my assertions about the Syriac language and the history of the Peshitta, just because a Roman Catholic said it, and it is equally fallacious to reject all doctrinal positions held by Roman Catholics, considering that the greater portion of Roman Catholic dogma, such Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the apostolate of St. Paul, is shared with all other Christians, and rejecting something just because the Roman church accepts it would result in one believing in a different religion altogether.

Lastly, I was surprised by the hostility of your reply considering that I agreed with your central argument, that the genealogy in Matthew is that of the Blessed Virgin Mary whereas the genealogy in Luke is of St. Joseph, her husband. I would have thought you would appreciate an endorsement of your core thesis coming from a Traditional Theology perspective.
I can reject all such nonsense because it actually is nonsense. I've studied all the various claims you present for many years - over 45 years - and nothing has ever been presented which holds any water. Appealing to consensus means absolutely nothing. The current medical/scientific predicament that we have all experienced is only the latest painful example of the bankruptcy of relying on consensus. And it is laughable to give consensus as evidence of anything Biblical since if the New Testament doctrine was based on consensus of Jewish thought of the time, Christianity would never have even flourished as it did.
Your supposed "facts" about the Peshitta are not true in the least. Again, all based on consensus by Greek primacists who have never been willing to follow the evidence and have only wanted to preserve their positions and ego. Messiah Jesus said the way is narrow and it truly is when navigating all the various tradition, false history, misunderstandings, anti-semitism, empire-building, ego-protecting, close mindedness that is and has been in the various groups you list.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,175
11,837
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,151,029.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The current medical/scientific predicament that we have all experienced is only the latest painful example of the bankruptcy of relying on consensus
There was no consensus. There was an agenda that was pushed with almost all the media on board, but there was absolutely no consensus.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,175
11,837
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,151,029.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What exactly is the problem?
I've simply asked a question
He was a well respected expert in languages. Are you expecting a degree in every particular language? Ridiculous.
Once again you respond to a charicature of my position, generally referred to as a strawman attack. All I'm asking for is any evidence that he is as well qualified in Greek as he is in Semitic languages. You seem to be taking my request as a personal attack.
If you are actually interested, all question is put to rest by actually reading his material.

I myself have a degree in Religious Studies. But that does not specifically state Greek or Hebrew. Does that mean all the courses I took to learn and study those languages mean I'm not actually qualified? Preposterous. That's not how expertise is judged.
I lived in Greece for 12 years and have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn about the Greek language.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,581
5,362
49
The Wild West
✟440,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I can reject all such nonsense because it actually is nonsense. I've studied all the various claims you present for many years - over 45 years - and nothing has ever been presented which holds any water. Appealing to consensus means absolutely nothing. The current medical/scientific predicament that we have all experienced is only the latest painful example of the bankruptcy of relying on consensus. And it is laughable to give consensus as evidence of anything Biblical since if the New Testament doctrine was based on consensus of Jewish thought of the time, Christianity would never have even flourished as it did.
Your supposed "facts" about the Peshitta are not true in the least. Again, all based on consensus by Greek primacists who have never been willing to follow the evidence and have only wanted to preserve their positions and ego. Messiah Jesus said the way is narrow and it truly is when navigating all the various tradition, false history, misunderstandings, anti-semitism, empire-building, ego-protecting, close mindedness that is and has been in the various groups you list.

Forgive me, but all I see here is an ad hominem argument against me, rather than any actual evidence contradicting my statements of facts about the Peshitta, which to reiterate:

1. It is a fact, an indisputable fact, that Judean Aramaic and Gallilean Aramaic are different from the Classical Syriac of the Peshitta. They are written using different alphabets, and there are differences in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary.

2. It is a fact that the first translation into Syriac Aramaic of the Gospels was the Diatessaron of Tatian in the second century, which was replaced by the Vetus Syra in the Third Century, which was replaced by the more complete Peshitta in the Fourth Century.

3. This all being said, a rejection of Peshitta Primacy is not equivalent to a rejection of Aramaic Primacy, since the Peshitta Primacy proposed by George Lamsa is obviously wrong, given that the Peshitta is written in a dialect Jesus and his disciples didn’t speak, for it did not yet exist, whereas the Greek language Primacy is proven by more subtle philological analysis.

4. It is also a fact that there are known Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel texts that did exist in the Early Church, which are now lost, specifically the Gospel of the Hebrews, which enjoyed some respect from, and is quoted by, some of the Fathers, and these quotations are sadly all that remains. Likewise there is the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites, the latter of which is definitely heretical and the former of which, if I recall, is of disputed orthodoxy.

Now, some have speculated that there was an original version of the Gospel of Matthew, which may have been related to the Gospel of the Hebrews or a separate text, that was written in Aramaic, and that served as the inspiration for the extremely eloquent Greek of the surviving version, which Robert E. Aldridge suggests was written after Mark and Luke. This hypothesis is appealing, because it reconciles the Patristic accounts stating that Matthew was written in the language of the Hebrews, which would have been Judean Aramaic in the first century with Hebrew loanwords, with the established scholarship which indicates that Mark predates Luke and Matthew, because in this hypothesis we have Aramaic paleo-Matthew, which is lost, then Mark, then Luke, then the surviving Greek neo-Matthew which survives, followed by John, and this reconciles the scholarly consensus of Markan priority with the Patristic account perfectly, since the Fathers said Matthew was followed by Mark, Luke and John, and the scholarly consensus agrees that John was written last. However, it should be stressed that this proposal is hypothetical. However, it is an Aramaic primacy argument which actually makes sense.

It should be noted also that the Greek of the Holy Apostles St. Paul and St. John lacks eloquence, whereas the Greek of St. Luke the Evangelist, who spoke Greek natively as a Hellenic Jew, is considered to be the most refined in the New Testament, along with the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews (which has lead some to suggest it was written by St. Luke, which would make sense given that according to tradition, St. Luke relied heavily on a narrative account from St. Paul in composing Luke-Acts).

Now, if you wish to challenge my facts or my opinions, which in this post I have sought to clearly delineate, please do so, as opposed to accusing me of peddling nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,581
5,362
49
The Wild West
✟440,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
By the way, as @prodromos and @MarkRohfrietsch have doubtless noticed, this thread technically makes a Nestorian error in referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ rather than the Mother of God. While both statements are true, the Council of Ephesus forbade the former expression because it de-emphasizes the deity of Christ, and the unity and inseparability of His divine and human natures.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,175
11,837
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,151,029.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Rather than derail this thread, it might be worth starting another thread on the languages used in the Synagogues in the diaspora. From what I've read it was mostly Greek except in a few specific areas where it was Aramaic.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
5,606
1,487
✟195,374.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Well not to be disrespectful but wouldn't that make Joseph and Mary related to each other by blood?

The marital covenant. Mary, was an espoused wife, not a concubine.
The seed of the woman.
Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
One flesh....... no more twain.......
Mt 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Mr 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
No divorce in the beginning.......
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EclipseEventSigns

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2022
448
85
Western Canada
✟31,781.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Rather than derail this thread, it might be worth starting another thread on the languages used in the Synagogues in the diaspora. From what I've read it was mostly Greek except in a few specific areas where it was Aramaic.
Others chose to derail the thread by claiming false information. I brought the evidence that the original topic can be clearly solved by the original language of Matthew and Luke - Aramaic.
 
Upvote 0