From: George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 14:04:37 EST
John Burgeson wrote:
> George wrote: "There seem to be a number of possible explanations for Mt's 3
> x 14 claim. It seems to me that Gundry's has the merit of suggesting what I
> called the theo-logic for his arrangement."
> 1. Yes, there are many. You probably have seen more of them than I have. AT
> one time I think I had counted six different "explanations."
> 2. All that I have seen are ad hocs -- of a nature that holding to any one
> of them is really to appear to be one who still thinks OJ was innocent.
> 3. I include Gundry in #2. Whather or not it is the best of a very poor lot
> -- kind of like the student who got the highest "F" in the class -- I have
> no opinion.
You still seem to be missing the point which I made in my post of 4 March.
Actually I have spent less time than you apparently have in studying this particular
issue. But to the extent I am interested in it, it's because I want to know what
theological point Mt was trying to make with this particular arrangement. Of course
that is to give him the benefit of the doubt & assume that he had a theological point, &
wasn't just careless. When an author says something that seems odd, characterizing all
attempts to understand what he or she was getting at as "ad hoc" doesn't seem very
helpful to me: It assumes _a priori_ that the passage really doesn't make sense, and
that anybody who thinks that it may is practicing eisegesis.
Of course there's the possibility that Mt just made an arithmetic error. Smart
people have been known to do that & it wouldn't shake my faith if Mt did. But simply to
assume that at the outset closes you off from the possibility of getting deeper insight
into the passage. OTOH, an attempt to understand what Mt may have been getting at here
does not in any way commit one to denying the existence of simple errors like the
citation of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah in Mt.27:9. (& to make another distinction in
connection with that verse: It's possible to understand _why_ Mt made a slip there -
i.e., that the reference to the "potter" in v.7 suggested a passage in Jeremiah while
the actual reference in v.9 is to Zechariah. But it's still a slip!)
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 16:46:47 EST