Re: personal revelations

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 08:20:31 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: personal revelations"

    Don Perrett wrote:
    >
    > >>>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.

            Solomon was in no way the son of Uriah or illegitimate. The 1st child born to
    Bathsheba & David was born after Uriah's death & died himself (II Sam.11:27, 12:15-23).
    Solomon was conceived after Uriah's death & Bathsheba had become David's wife (11:27,
    12:24).
            (Note that I say that Solomon was not illegitimate. One can make a good case in
    light of his later career that he was a bastard in the popular sense but that's another
    matter!)
            Besides the wife of Uriah & Mary, 3 other women are included in Mt's genealogy
    along with their husbands (or, in the case of Judah, Tamar's john. [Should that be
    capitalized?]).
                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

            
     

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 08:21:48 EST