Aramaic Bible Study - Matthew 1:18-25
The Birth of Jesus as Recorded in Matthew
This study is part of the video series I produce studying Sacred Scripture in the various dialects of Aramaic. Below, you can find the transcript of the Classical Syriac written in Square Script used to write the Hebrew language (otherwise known as Kitav Ashuri).
Matthew 1:18-25
(18) And the birth of Jesus the Messiah was thus. While his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they had come together/married, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. (19) And Joseph her husband was a righteous man, and unwilling to expose her: and he thought of putting her away privately. (20) And while he contemplated these things, an angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, and said to him: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary as your wife; for that which is begotten in her, is from the Holy Spirit: (21) and she will bear a son; and you/she shalt call his name Jesus, for he will resuscitate his people from their sins. (22) Now all this that occurred, was to fulfill what was spoken of the LORD by the prophet: (23) Behold, a virgin will become pregnant, and will bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, ‘Our God with us.’ (24) And when Joseph rose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the LORD commanded him, and took his wife. (25) And he knew her not, until she had borne her firstborn son, and called is name Jesus.
Note: The right-to-left feature for the Square Aramaic Scripture used to write Hebrew and the Syriac script is not currently supported by Substack. As a result, I’ve separated each verse line by line for clarity. Each line should begin to be read from line to left in spite of the formatting.
Square Script read-along ("Hebrew/Kitav Ashuri)
יַלדֵּה דֵּין דּיֵשׁוּע משִׁיחָא הָכַנָא הוָא כַּד מכִירָא הוָת מַריַם אֵמֵה ליַוסֵפ עַדלָא נֵשׁתַּותּפוּן אֵשׁתַּכחַת בַּטנָא מֵן רוּחָא דּקוּדשָׁא .
יַוסֵפ דֵּין בַּעלָה כּאִנָא הוָא ולָא צבָא דַּנפַרסֵיה וֵאתרַעִי הוָא דּמַטשׁיָאיִת נֵשׁרֵיה .
כַּד הָלֵין דֵּין אֵתרַעִי אֵתחזִי לֵה מַלַאכָא דּמָריָא בּחֵלמָא וֵאמַר לֵה יַוסֵפ בּרֵה דּדַוִיד לָא תֵּדחַל למֵסַב למַריַם אַנתּתָכ הַו גֵּיר דֵּאתִילֵד בָּה מֵן רוּחָא הוּ דּקוּדשָׁא .
תּאִלַד דֵּין בּרָא ותֵקרֵא שׁמֵה יֵשׁוּע הוּ גֵּיר נַחֵיוהי לעַמֵה מֵן חטָהַיהוּן .
הָדֵא דֵּין כֻּלָה דַּהוָת דּנֵתמַלֵא מֵדֵּם דֵּאתֵאמַר מֵן מָריָא בּיַד נבִיָא .
דּהָא בּתוּלתָּא תֵּבטַן ותאִלַד בּרָא ונֵקרוּן שׁמֵה עַמַנוּאיִל דּמֵתּתַּרגַּם עַמַן אַלָהַן
כַּד קָם דֵּין יַוסֵפ מֵן שֵׁנתֵה עבַד אַיכַּנָא דַּפקַד לֵה מַלַאכֵה דּמָריָא ודַברָה לַאנתּתֵה .
ולָא חַכמָה עדַמָא דִּילֵדתֵה לַברָה בּוּכרָא וַקרָת שׁמֵה יֵשׁוּע .
Syriac in Estrangelā Script:
ܝܠܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܕܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܕ ܡܟܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܠܝܘܣܦ ܥܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܘܬܦܘܢ ܐܫܬܟܚܬ ܒܛܢܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܚܐܕܩܘܕܫܐ
ܝܘܣܦ ܕܝܢ ܒܥܠܗ ܟܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܠܐ ܨܒܐ ܕܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܪܥܝ ܗܘܐ ܕܡܛܫܝܐܝܬ ܢܫܪܝܗ
ܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܬܪܥܝ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܗ ܡܠܐܟܐ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܒܚܠܡܐ ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ ܝܘܣܦ ܒܪܗ ܕܕܘܝܕ ܠܐ ܬܕܚܠ ܠܡܣܒ ܠܡܪܝܡ ܐܢܬܬܟܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܬܝܠܕ ܒܗ ܡܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܗܘ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
ܬܐܠܕ ܕܝܢ ܒܪܐ ܘܬܩܪܐ ܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܗܘ ܓܝܪ ܢܚܝܘܗܝ ܠܥܡܗ ܡܢ ܚܛܗܝܗܘܢ
ܗܕܐ ܕܝܢ ܟܠܗ ܕܗܘܬ ܕܢܬܡܠܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܐܬܐܡܪ ܡܢ ܡܪܝܐ ܒܝܕ ܢܒܝܐ
ܕܗܐ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܬܒܛܢ ܘܬܐܠܕ ܒܪܐ ܘܢܩܪܘܢ ܫܡܗ ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ ܕܡܬܬܪܓܡ ܥܡܢ ܐܠܗܢ
ܟܕ ܩܡ ܕܝܢ ܝܘܣܦ ܡܢ ܫܢܬܗ ܥܒܕ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܦܩܕ ܠܗ ܡܠܐܟܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܘܕܒܪܗ ܠܐܢܬܬܗ
ܘܠܐ ܚܟܡܗ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܝܠܕܬܗ ܠܒܪܗ ܒܘܟܪܐ ܘܩܪܬ ܫܡܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܀
Notes from the Church Fathers mentioned in the video:
St. Jerome (Commentary on the Four Gospels)
Helvidius is at much superfluous trouble to make this word "know” refer to carnal knowledge rather than to acquaintance, as though any had ever denied that; or as if the follies to which he replies had ever occurred to any person of common understanding. He then goes on to say, that the adverb, 'until,’ denotes a fixed time when that should take place, which had not taken place before; so that here from the words, “He knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born Son,” it is clear, he says, that after that he did know her. And in proof of this he heaps together many instances from Scripture. To all this we answer, that the word 'until’ is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. And concerning the expression, “knew her not,” he has himself shewn, that it must be referred to carnal knowledge, none doubting that it is often used of acquaintance, as in that, “The child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and His parents knew not of it.” So here the Evangelist informs us, in that wherein there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth of her Son, that we might thence infer that much less was she known afterwards. Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Spirit, the Mother of his Lord? From the words, “her first-born Son,” some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother. For if he only was first-born who was followed by other brethren, then no first-birth could be due to the Priests, till such time as the second birth took place.
St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Matthew)
And when Joseph had taken her, “he had no relations with her until she had borne a son.” Matthew has here used the word until not that you should suspect that afterward Joseph did know her but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word until? Because it is common in Scripture that this expression is used without reference to specific, limited times. Here are three examples. First, in the narrative of the ark it was said that “the raven did not return until the earth was dried up,” yet the raven did not return even after that limited time. Second, when discussing God the Scripture says, “You are from everlasting to everlasting,” but there is no implication here that some limit is being fixed—rather the opposite. Third, when preaching the gospel beforehand and saying, “In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound, until the moon be no more!” it is not thereby setting a temporal limit to this beautiful part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word until to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves some further inference to be made. So it is necessary to learn what Matthew teaches: that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth. But the rest is left for you to perceive, both as a consequence of the previous narrative and what was later acknowledged: that not even after having become a mother and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have permitted himself to have sexual relations with her.
“Took unto him” not took home to him; for he had not sent her away; he had put her away in thought only, and now took her again in thought. As one might say, ‘He told it not so long as he lived;’ would this imply that he told it after his death? Impossible. So it were credible that Joseph might have known her before the birth, while he was yet ignorant of the great mystery; but after that he understood how she had been made a temple of the Only-begotten of God, how could he occupy that? The followers of Eunomius think, as they have dared to assert this, that Joseph also dared to do it, just as the insane think all men equally mad with themselves. It may be said, that “know” here signifies simply, to understand; that whereas before he had not understood how great her dignity, after the birth he then "knew” that she had been made more honourable and worthy than the whole world, who had carried in her womb Him whom the whole world could not contain.
St. Ephrem the Harp of the Holy Spirit (the Syrian)
The virgin gave birth to her First-Born, but the signs of her virginity remained. He begot us too through baptism and made us first-born [children] by his [freel gift. For there is neither older nor younger in the womb of baptism, since we are all first-born in faith. For it is about us that [Scripture] is fulfilled, Every first-born that opens the womb is holy unto the Lord.* While we are (still] corrupt in [our] sins baptism conceives us, and when we are sanctified from evil it gives birth to us from its inner depths.
He lived with her chastely until she gave birth to her First-Born. [This] word is spoken after its companion: (first] He took her,and then, He lived with her chastely.8 It is [to be] understood as follows: He lived with her chastely, and he took her.? That is, he took her, because he was called "her husband" after her conception. Another interpretation of He lived with her chastely is that desire did not rise up in his consciousness at the sight of her. Until she gave birth to her First-Born means that, on the birth of her First-Born, people were convinced that this conception was not a human matter, but that this birth was divine.
A further [interpretation) of He lived with her chastely until she gave birth to her First-Born is that this holiness' was of necessity, even though they both willingly shared in it. But the holiness they observed after the birth of our Lord was of their own freewill.
[The evangelist] defined [the nature off this necessity, and showed us concerning its limit, that it was until. He lived with her chastely until she gave birth to her First-Born. (Should it be deduced] from this therefore that he did not live with her chastely after she had given birth, since it is indicated until? But until is not the [end] limit. For he said, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right, until I put your enemies under your feet.? Therefore, when his enemies were put beneath his feet, did he stand up?
Another [interpretation] of He lived with her chastely [follows]. Is not marriage pure, according to the testimony of the apostle, The fruit of their womb is pure? But, if one were to say, "See, the brothers of our Lord are named in the gospel!," I [would reply], "Because our Lord entrusted his mother Mary to John, it is clear that these are not her sons, nor is [Joseph] her husband." For how could he who said, Honour your father and your mother, have separated Mary from her sons, and entrusted her to John [instead]?
(From his Commentary on the Diatesseron)