Thanks. I did a translation of both geneologies awhile back. Here is how Luke 3:23 looks in the greek and perhaps you can give a view on it?
LUKE 3:23 And He was, the Jesus, as-if years, thirty beginning being as supposed/lawlized/enomizeto <3543>, son of-Joseph of-the Eli.
Textus Rec.) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn o ihsouV wsei etwn triakonta arcomenoV wn wV enomizeto uioV iwshf tou hli
The W-H is worded differently though:
W-H ) Luke 3:23 kai autoV hn ihsouV arcomenoV wsei etwn triakonta wn uioV wV enomizeto iwshf tou hli
3543. nomizo nom-id'-zo from 3551; properly, to do by law (usage), i.e. to accustom (passively, be usual); by extension, to deem or regard:-- suppose, thing, be wont
I am not a Greek scholar. I use interlinears like you. I do, however, appreciate the Lamsa translation, which is from the Peshitta, rather than from Greek. Lamsa's theory is that the Peshitta preceded the Greek and that the Gospels were all written in Galilean Aramaic. Use of the Peshitta was continued under Muslim domination while all other Christian books in Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic were burned because Islam held that the Gospels were Allah's holy books and that Jesus was a true prophet.
He provides a numer of examples of texts where the Peshitta must have preceded the Greek and holds that only the officials and very learned would have spoken any Greek and that Galilean fishermen would not have fit that category. There is much debate about whether this is so, but certainly when there are questions about the Greek usage, it helps settle questions to look at his translation.
Ephraim the Syrian was an Early Church Father (4th Century) who used the Peshitta and helped found the
School of Nisibis, which after the treaty of Emperor of Jovian was exiled to Edessa.
Bar-Hebraeus was an erudite 12th Century bishop and historian from Edessa who along with many others are largely ignored in the West but we do possess some of their writings so that anyone interested in getting the whole picture and searching for the truth can at least have these resources. Edessa in Syria became the cultural center for the Aramaic speaking Christian community as well as other communities, including the gnostics and mystery religions and Jews. All of which is to say that some care may have taken place to preserve the actual words of the original Gospel writers and that some continuity exists through these links to the past.
Lamsa, translating in 1931, had Syriac as a primary language as do many Lebanese and Syrian Christians of today, who continue to use the Peshitta. My primary language is English so I am dependent on him and others to get my translation of the Peshitta.
So you've got
supposed/lawlized/enomizeto <3543> and what I am suggesting is that there is a strong possibility, seeing some continuity through these Eastern Fathers, that this word was the Greek translation of the Peshitta, which had actually said "and
he was supposed to be the son of Joseph." This fact, it seems would indicate that the community certainly viewed them as having had a fully consummated marriage, whether or not this was actually the case. So if, as was the Jewish custom, there were several stages from betrothal to consummation, outwardly anyway, there seems sufficient evidence that they were legally married.
I'm not a Greek expert but you seem to be right that "nomos" refers to law. But I doubt that the same connection exists in the Aramaic, where we simply have "supposed." This word seems to indicate and highlight that there was a difference between what was actual and what was supposed. When Eusebius of Caesaria, a speaker of Greek, points to the difference he is referring specifically to the fact that the two genealogies differ. He respects the inerrancy of the Gospels, inferring that Matthew has the accurate genealogy, while Luke has a legal account.
Many maintain that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Eusebius held this opinion. But he also knew that Luke was born in Antioch. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III, iv, 6) has: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap Antiocheias. Antioch was a cosmopolitan town where both languages may have been spoken but Syriac was still the local and primary dialect. Lamsa points out that many Syrians took Greek names to appear Greek under Greek domination to keep themselves from harm's way. So directing his Gospel to a Theophilous does not necessarily mean Greek was his original language in either Luke or Acts.
But Eusebius provides much more detail on this very old controversy and has no politics to play in providing his account beyond his love for truth and history, however accurate he may have been. So he titles chapter seven of
book 1 of his Church History - "
The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ" and he proceeds to explain the difference between legal and blood descendancy, pointing to the Hebrew law which provides that in the absence of a child, the brother must live up to his responsibility to bear children for a widow.
I will close by providing this chapter in its entirety and point out that this early father, points to an early father previous to himself as an authority, and that at the same time makes this lengthy explanation with the purpose of demonstrating the accuracy of the Gospels. So to answer the question "who cares what the ECFs had to say" one answer is that the fundamentalists should. Here is the chapter
Chapter 7. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.
1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2. For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to lawaccording to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated
3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5. But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6. Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7. Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8. By Estha then (for this was the woman's name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9. Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter's wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' Matthew 1:6 But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10. Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: 'Jacob begat Joseph.' But Luke, on the other hand, says: 'Who was the son, as was supposed' (for this he also adds), 'of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi'; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression 'he begat' he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11. For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12. And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13. But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15. Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth. And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.
17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here.
THOUGHTS ON HOUSEKEEPING
In my opinion, discussions about Mary and the early fathers are intertwined and not off-topic because they serve as an example of why we should care about the early fathers. We have seen in answer to this question
- present evidence
- provide continuity
- possess authority
So to the moderators I would suggest leaving pertinent posts alone, while taking some of the personal attacks off. And to those who wish to criticize others for their inconsistency of argument I suggest you do start using private message features, as it is a bit frustrating to only be able to send replies to substantive posts several pages away.
