tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post1627894733329070921..comments2007-08-04T20:20:34.334-05:00Comments on Pondering The Gospels: Matthew 1: 1-17Rich in Brooklynhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10589780733691616974noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-59298990567606917602007-08-04T19:23:00.000-05:002007-08-04T19:23:00.000-05:00The process is, you send your email address to me ...The process is, you send your email address to me at mine (See my profile!) and put your request pretty plainly in the subject line so I don't mistake you for spam.forresthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214745625847174676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-1664388317556176912007-05-10T20:52:00.000-05:002007-05-10T20:52:00.000-05:00i've been researching the mystery of a common miss...i've been researching the mystery of a common misspelling of the word "dilemma" (correct) vs. "dilemna" (incorrect). this is not just an ordinary shared misspelling, because there are many, many people that ASSERT that they were TAUGHT to spell it "dilemna". this is a global phenomenon!<BR/><BR/>in another blog, someone said that in matthew 21:1-46 the word "dilemna" appeared. i theorized that this widespread spelling mis-perception may have arisen from a misspelling in a certain version of the bible, but i was unable to find that reference anywhere online.<BR/><BR/>i did, however, come across this blog where the misspelling did not occur in the verse, but in the commentary. i'm curious as to where your spelling of the word came from.<BR/><BR/>i bet this will come as a shock to you to find that you have it misspelled -- ie: i bet you are certain that you spelled it correctly because you were taught to spell it that way -- like SO many other people including myself. is that the case?<BR/><BR/>also, do you know of an appearance of that word in matthew? or anywhere else in the bible?<BR/><BR/>thnxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-26724926708089046292007-01-12T12:11:00.000-05:002007-01-12T12:11:00.000-05:00Thanks to RichardM, Forrest, and Johan for their c...Thanks to RichardM, Forrest, and Johan for their comments. <br />I felt a little reluctant to start my "ponderings" by pondering the genealogy, but decided that the best way to avoid an unconscious filtering of the Gospels was to look at every part, beginning at the beginning. And in the order they are usually presented Matthew is the beginning and the genealogy is the beginning of Matthew.<br /><br />I agree with RichardM that "Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark and added stuff they thought would make the story better." I almost but not quite agree that "some of that stuff is not believable". Obviously, the genealogy is technically "believable" for the plain reason that lots of people believe it. This is not a trivial point in view of my original determination not to put myself in the position of telling anyone what to think. I think it is also "believable" in the sense that Matthew himself (or whatever we want to call the final author/editor) believed it. More about that in a moment.<br /><br />I don't mean to evade the question of whether I myself believe the genealogy. That is, do I believe that this is an accurate list of Mary's ancestors? Well, no, not particularly. The 14-generations schema does seem too neat. And I can't imagine how Matthew would know it was accurate even if it was. Nor do I personally find that my faith in Christ depends on knowin who his mother's ancestors were.<br /><br />I haven't looked into whether the genealogy as given contradicts Hebrew scriptures about who begat whom (though I'm surprised that RichardM says it does). Any details others may want to add about that are welcome, but I am not personally inclined to pursue the question at present. I also don't know whether Matthew's genealogy conflicts with Luke's. Maybe more about that when I get to Luke (maybe 2009? 2010?). Luke's genealogy is a genealogy of Joseph so it would naturally differ From Matthew's.<br /><br />Why do I think that the gospel writer believed his genealogy of Mary was accurate? Because I believe in his essential integrity. Of course he wanted to "make the story better", but I don't think he would have thought he could do that by adding lies. Obviously he had some source for the genealogy. Perhaps it was an earlier writer's speculation (based on some plausible reasoning). Matthew read it, thought it had the ring of truth, may not have realized it was originally a speculation, and he inserted it in his gospel. I suspect that in his time some of the very things that make the genealogy suspect today (the 14-generation pattern, for example) would have made it appear more credible to him.<br /><br />I'm aware that some writers say this "doesn't matter". They make the point that Matthew was proclaiming Jesus' role as the fulfiller of Messianic hopes. So, they argue, he was justified in making up a genealogy that strengthened his point. I worry, quite frankly, about whether some of these writers apply the same standard to their own polemical writings. I can trust an author who unknowingly makes mistakes. I can fully understand that standards of evidence employed may vary from time to time and even from writer to writer. But I would have a very hard time in trusting the Gospel of Matthew to tell me anything if I really believed that its author deliberately added lies to his narrative.<br /><br />Forrest says that "the factuality of the list itself is not necessarily signigicant". I think, though, that he is taking essentially the same point of view that I am. He says that a later devotee "fudged the genealogy, believing that Jesus must have had one". This leaves room for the "fudger" to have at least been trying to be honest, and for the final author of the gospel to have been unaware that he was quoting a fudge.<br /><br />I'll be receptive to others' further comments about this issue, but I hope myself to move on to the next part of the Gospel.<br /><br />- - <br />By the way, thanks to Forrest for suggesting that I drop by <a href="http://kwakerskripturestudy.blogspot.com"><b>Kwaker Skripture Study</b></a>. I read it often, and will now consider adding comments from time to time. I don't know what process there is, if any, for getting added as one of the people who can directly post to it.<br /><br />Peace to all,<br />Rich A-ERich in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589780733691616974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-69093394939965383012007-01-12T12:06:00.000-05:002007-01-12T12:06:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rich in Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10589780733691616974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-44693377091103473192007-01-11T15:11:00.000-05:002007-01-11T15:11:00.000-05:00I'm not sure that lack of literal, archival reliab...I'm not sure that lack of literal, archival reliability is the same as adding stuff to make the story better.<br /><br />A few weeks ago I translated some of Anthony Bloom's reflections on the reason for the Gospel genealogies. That translation appears <a href="http://johanpdx.blogspot.com/2006/11/anthony-bloom-speaks-to-non-mystic.html">here</a>.<br />Bloom cites the genealogies in the service of his thesis (an important reflection of Eastern Orthodox spirituality) that "a lot of what we consider humanness is actually on the divine margin."Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-26340206498848198092007-01-11T15:09:00.000-05:002007-01-11T15:09:00.000-05:00First of all, we need more good folks over at http...First of all, we need more good folks over at http://kwakerskripturestudy.blogspot.com/<br /><br />so please consider showing up and putting a foot in.<br /><br />2nd, I agree that this passage says something highly significant to the people who put this story together. This geneology is here to support Jesus's claim to be King of Israel--although all the sons of the last king had been deliberately killed by the Babylonians. A geneology for this purpose has nothing to do with whose genes are swimming in the pool, everything to do with public acknowledgement of legitimacy.<br /><br />The factuality of the list itself is not necessarily significant; a "son of" David might well mean "someone like" David, who himself was a son of nobody-special, important because of Who made him King, not because of who his family were. Jesus may have well seen things in this light. How do you know who's the legitimate king?--Ask a prophet. John the Baptist, for example. "I'll tell you where I get my authority if you'll tell me where John got his."<br /><br />That, of course, implies that a later devotee fudged a geneology, believing that Jesus must have had one.<br /><br />A "son of God," of course, is one "like God." The King of Israel, for instance.forresthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214745625847174676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8960598518385569926.post-56836724509227462782007-01-11T12:07:00.000-05:002007-01-11T12:07:00.000-05:00Since you pleaded for comments...
I have to say t...Since you pleaded for comments...<br /><br />I have to say that I don't think that whoever came up with the two geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke had as much respect for the truth as I would like. It seems pretty obvious to me that both geneologies are bogus. Matthew's neat division into sets of 14 generations doesn't work. For one thing the numbers don't add up. For another it contradicts the evidence in the Old Testament about who begat whom. For another the amount of time is all wrong. For another Matthew's geneology conflicts with Luke's. The bottom line is that Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark and added stuff they thought would make the story better--unfortunately some of that stuff is not believable.RichardMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08564152237574253857noreply@blogger.com