From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:51:41 EST
John Burgeson wrote:
......................................
> 2) I'm not sure just what "logical error" you mean in Mt's geneaology.
>
> 14+14+14=42
>
> But there are but 41 generations listed there.
>
> Yes, I've read the ad hoc explanations. They are not persuasive.
This is part of what I mean by forcing the data. In his Mt commentary Gundry
says:
"To get this third fourteen Matthew probably counts Mary as well as Jospeh;
i.e., the one chronological generation carries two other kinds of generations within it,
a legal (Josph's) and a physical (Mary's)."
We shouldn't imagine that Mt just didn't know how to count, or that he was
hoping that nobody would notice that the last third of the genealogy had only 13
generations. It's one thing to try to figure out the theo-logic which he was using, as
Gundry does. It's quite another to claim that somehow Mt really does list 14 biological
generations so that he's historically "inerrant."
Shalom,
George
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:52:53 EST