From: Don Perrett (donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 09:38:05 EST
>>>George Murphy said: 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.">>>>>>
Although I've never discussed this particular issue with anyone/ever. It
appears to me that the missing individual is Uriah. While he may not have
been in a direct line with Jesus, as the "in-death" step-father of Solomon
(and worth noting), this would make it "Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Judah, Perez,
Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and David (14)"
then "Uriah, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah (14)" and finally
"Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim, Eliud,
Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus (14)".
Why would anyone come to the conclusion that a woman (even though special)
would be included in a family line. Is there any other instance of this in
the Bible? Are there instances in the Bible where the deceased husband of
one's wife is mentioned? Does the Bible ask that a brother take in the
widowed wife? If so, then would it not make better sense that URIAH is
included in order to legitamize Solomon as an offspring of David, though he
may have been a "bastard"? Sorry for the term.
Don Perrett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 07:42:11 EST