From: Nichael Cramer (nichael@sover.net)
Date: Fri Jun 20 1997 - 10:12:02 EDT
From: Edward Hobbs
> One thing which seems obvious to me, but not to all, is that Matthew could
> count. So it isn't too likely that he would lay out a scheme which simply
> doesn't work. Hence, our task as interpreters is to discover his actual
> scheme.
If Edward will permit me to agree in my own way:
The function of each geneaology is to give Christ the correct lineage
(Davidic in Matthew, divine in Luke). They tell us nothing about the
physical ancestry of Jesus. And, as such, to dwell on --and to try to
resolve-- the (obvious) literal contradictions in the Matthean and Lucan
backtraces is to rather strongly miss their point.
Finally, to point to a reference which I don't think I've seen mentioned in
this current incarnation of this most-recurring of threads: Probably the
best, most accessible, most thorough coverage of this topic is in the
appendix of Raymond Brown's _Birth of the Messiah_. (In relevance to the
current context, he demonstrates why most of the attempts at harmonization
are not really feasible; in short the contradictions are just that:
contradications.)
I would recommend that anyone who wants to discuss this topic should at
least be familar with that material.
Nichael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT