Re: Genealogies (was Re: personal revelations)

From: George Murphy (
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 14:04:37 EST

  • Next message: Iain Strachan \(asa\): "Re: Numbers"

    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