From: RHutchin (RHutchin@aol.com)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 13:41:05 EST
In a message dated 12/22/97 11:17:52 AM, winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net wrote:
<<From this rewriting until the work of A.T. Robertson (Appendix of his
Harmony of the Gospels) most commentators have done some work on the text.
Robertson extends the parenthetical statement to enclude both the words Son
and Joseph and interprets it to say that HLI is the father of Mary, thus
the genealogy is that of Mary not Joseph. All such interpretations are
motivated by a desire to harmonize. I once had a prof who said, "I have a
Ph.D. in Biblical studies; that gives me the right to twist this verse a
little bit!" Would that we all were so honest!
>>
Granted that there is a strong desire to harmonize. However, there must also
be a logical consistency to the passage in Luke (assuming Luke was writing
rationally).
It seems certain (Is this correct?) that Luke meant to tell the reader that
Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph. Jesus was, as supposed (but not
really), the son of Joseph.
The issue, then, is whether Luke also meant to carry the supposition along to
have the reader understand him to also mean:
- being as was supposed the son of Heli...David....
Which would have Luke saying that Jesus was, as supposed (but not really), the
son of God.
OR Did Luke mean to direct the reader to the physical genealogy of Jesus
- being the son of Heli...David....
and to the conclusion that Jesus was the son of God.
Roger Hutchinson
RHutchin@AOL.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT