Talk:Matthew 1:4

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Hrm... Should I leave this as it is? "Here ( is an interesting genealogy chart from Christ Weimer." Note my first name... Oh, and hi Joe. :) Chris Weimer 13:39, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)

One little mistake (fluff)

Yes, Antioch is in Syria, not Asia Minor.


My only defense is to plead insufficient caffeination.

Online Hexapla?

No, I'm not aware of an online Hexapla. I thought Origen's work was mostly lost.

Now, why suppose that the Septuagint was modified to "Aram" rather than that Matthew is under the influence of the Septuagint? --Peter Kirby 09:45, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Of course Origen's work has not been preserved in Toto. It would be nice to have a Hebrew text from no later than early third century. My guess is that before the Church did like the Romans the Hebrew was considered useful to correct the Greek. When Latin took over and the attitude was that Jerome was a Judaizer the Church had no more use for Hebrew, just assuming it was always wrong where it differed. I was referring to what is "preserved" in the writings of the Fathers. S.C. Carlson is probably the person to check with. Eventually, they'll be something available online. Personally I think the Father preserved Hexapla is over-rated as a textual witness because:

1) It's not a direct copy or translation.

2) Origen's comments are known to have gotten mixed up with the columns.

3) Origen was branded a heretic.

4) The Latin era was not exactly the Church's most trustworthy.

5) Most of what's preserved is Syriac.

6) The potentially most important column, the original Hebrew, was not preserved, probably due to lack of ability rather than intent, indicating the poor level of scholarship in the Church.


"Now, why suppose that the Septuagint was modified to "Aram" rather than that Matthew is under the influence of the Septuagint?"

I think you understand this but just to be clear, all I said was that it's "possible". It's possible because once "Matthew" was Canonical it would have been considered a superior source to the LXX and where they differed, by the Byzantine era Christian scribes were interested in "harmonizing" (in my opinion). Remember Schmuel? He likes this idea because where the LXX can be shown to be in Error he can argue that an Inerrant original was changed to agree with Errant (non-original) Gospels. A wonderful throwback to the Good Holey Days.

There's been some speculation that the Septuagint is post-Biblical--I can't find any right now, and it's not viewed seriously by the scholars I'm aware of. Most of the folks who I'm aware of who make this suggestion are arguing that our current Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, so we're already dealing with less than scholarly ideas, I suppose.

--JustinEiler 10:04, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Admin, or Ogre? (Humor)

JW: "Since Justin is now an Administrator I'll just say that I think Brown was expressing Christian kindness towards "Matthew's" translation."

Hey, I'm not that bad ... unless I'm short on coffee. Then I'm usually too incoherent to be truly evil.
Seriously, however, I have grave doubts that Matthew "translated" anything--I'm rather of the impression that he didn't even speak enough Hebrew or Aramaic to really matter, or he'd have done better at understanding the "Riding on a colt, and the ass of a colt" from Zech. 9:9. (This is the error Joseph pointed out in Matt 21:4.)

--JustinEiler 17:08, 23 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Good News and Bad News

Peter - I've more Good news and Bad news for you. The Bad News is that while this article required no great amount of Aramithmatic, I think's it's probably the best article ever written on the subject so I already posted it to my NG and it's mine. The "Good News" is you and Justin can have the "Matthew Makes A Whole Ass Out Himself" article.

This Type of article is what I had in mind all along for a list of "1001 Errors In The Christian Bible" - Detailed explanation with the right of providing along side of it refutation (if you can). Only 1000 more to go.

(Moved from main article.)

Joe, this was a good one--I think you've covered all the bases, and I can't think of any solid rebuttal that can be made. Even my side note about the editing (in Neutral) couldn't touch it. Peter was right to put this as a featured smack-down. Now, of course that doesn't mean somebody won't come along tomorrow and prove us wrong, but them's the breaks.
Under the terms of the GPL licensing here, the article is 100% yours to do with as you wish--that's the whole point of the GPL, to let you share the article with whom you wish without harming your copyright. Both this and the "Matthew Makes A Whole Ass Out Himself" are your property, and you completely own all rights to them. But with the GPL Free Doc license here, anyone who wants to can copy it, modify it, and distribute it, so long as the new version is granted the same freedom, and the person who copied it acknowledges you as the original author.

--JustinEiler 20:25, 24 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Apologists Now! God I Love The Sound Of Psalms In The Morning.

Peter, would you please invite JP Holding here to argue against this specific claimed error? Thank you.


Hi, Joseph. I'll go invite him ... but don't be surprised if he says no. He stays fairly exclusively on TWeb for internet debates.

--JustinEiler 16:59, 1 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Hi again, Joe. He turned the invite down--between Tekton and TWeb (not to mention the "real world"), he's got a full plate.

--JustinEiler 09:30, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)