Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

Sure. This is standard procedure among historical harmonizers/concordists - to construct a "could have been" scenario & then claim that the problem has been solved.
But the "problem" stems from assumptions about the nature of scripture.

See the footnote reference to the comment of John Lightfoot, who knew a bit about ancient Jewish practice, on p.91 of NPNF, 2d Series, Vol.1, where this explanation by Eusebius begins: "There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: 'Dick Fischer' ; 'ASA' ; 'George Murphy'
  Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:17 PM
  Subject: Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

  I often find that when people don't think there is an explanation, they don't go look for one. Here is what Eusebius says about those genealogies. And, George, they both make Jesus to be Joseph's son.

  Eusebius says that both are genealogies of Joseph but due to
  Jewish law of who can raise up children for a dead childless
  brother, a genealogy of law is not equal to genealogy of biology

  ...Solomon......................Nathan
  .....|.............................|
  ...Mattan--------Estha----------- Melchi
  ...dies first |...........|
  ............Jacob---?---- Eli
  ....................|
  .................Joseph

  Eli dies Jacob marries Eli's Widow raises Joseph as Eli's seed
  according to Law
  ~~Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
  House, 1955), p.33

  Why that wouldn't satisfy everyone, I don't know. Luke following biology, Matthew follwoing Jewish law. But it does show that one doesn't have to accommodate everything. And thus, Dick may be right, they both may have consulted the records.

  On Sun Jun 11 14:46 , "George Murphy" sent:

    Of course there were traditional genealogies - you can find them in the 1st chapters of I Chronicles e.g. But the claim that there were actual records going back to an historical Adam that had the same kind of historical value as the records we can get today at the couty courthoue is fantasy. & of course one wonders why if Luke & presumably Matthew consulted the temple records their genealogies back to David are so different. Yeah, I know, one was Mary's & the other Joseph's (or maybe the other way around!) - in spite of the fact that both are explicitly said to be Joseph's. Or some other dodge. Spare me.

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dick Fischer
      To: ASA
      Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:04 PM
      Subject: RE: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

      Hi Paul, you wrote:

>>But George also claims that even though Paul thought of Adam as a historical

      figure, there is no reason for us to do so.<<

      What about Luke tracing the ancestry of Christ to Adam? Up until 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed, the genealogies of all the Jews was a matter of record in the temple. Luke didn't dream up Christ's ancestry, and it wasn't dictated to him from on high. All he had to do was trot down to the temple and look up the records. Adam was a man of record in the temple. The only hard part began with the twelve tribes of Israel.

      http://members.aol.com/Wisdomway/twelvetribes.htm

      Up until that point it was fairly easy.

      Dick Fischer

      Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

      Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

      www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Sun Jun 11 15:54:11 2006