*Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

 >Joe Alward:
 >
 >Ok.  I numbered the fourteens differently; I left Jeconias off the end of
the
 >second set, thereby permitting inclusive counting, and put Jeconias at the
 >beginning of the third set, also permitting inclusive counting.
 >
 >
 >I count Josiah as end of the set of fourteen that just preceded the exile,
 >while Jeconias marks the beginning of the exile.
 
 
 CREA
     So now you've decided that you're competent to edit and redact the
 scriptures?  That's mighty nice.  However, the manner in which YOU count and
 divide the list of generations is utterly irrelevant --  what Matthew did to
 and with the material at hand is at issue, not your reworking of his
 materials.   
 
    Please go back and actually READ the Matthean genealogy rather than just
 browsing it.  You'll discover that the problems run deeper than you
 currently understand, since the first set starts with Abraham and ends with
 David -- the second set starts with David and ends with Jechonias -- and the
 third set begins with Jechonias and ends with Jesus.  Both David and
 Jechonias are counted TWICE (does this mean that they are twice as important
 than the others?)  in calculating the three sets of 14 generations besides
 the obvious gaffe of having 15 names in the second set instead of the
 stipulated 14.
==================
Joe Alward:

I didn't add or subtract anything, as you implied, obviously.  I only
interpreted what was there.  The dispute between us seems to be whether
Jeconias, and not Josiah, his father, should mark the beginning of the exile.
If Jeconias is the marker, then the problem you mentioned is apparent and
Matthew is a fool, because he can't count to fifteen.

However, if we look at Matthew 1:11, we see that one may argue for some
latitude in choosing the end of the second set of fourteen names, and the
beginning of the third set.  I gave the benefit of the doubt to Matthew and
assumed that the imprecision of the eleventh verse allows one to say that the
second set ended with Josias, while the third set began with his son,
Jeconias.  That puts fourteen names in each of the three groups.  While some
would say I'm creating a "how-it-could-have-been" scenario, others, myself
included, will say that some skeptics (perhaps included you) are going out of
their way to create a "how-it-could-have-been-a-contradiction" scenario.

Here's Matthew 1:11-12 for other's benefit:

"And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, ABOUT the time they were carried
away to Babylon"

I take the "about" as license to give Matthew the benefit of the doubt and
assume he really DID count the names in his first sixteen verses, and that he
meant for Josias to end the second group and Jeconiash to begin the third.  To
assume otherwise is to assume that there is an error in Matthew 1:17 (there is
an error, in my opinion, but it has nothing to do with our current debate.)

Can you provide a good reason for assuming that Matthew was so dimwitted that
he would not have counted those names? 

Also, your comments above suggests that you think that there is something
unusual about David appearing at the bottom of the first set of fourteen names
and at the top of the second.  Why do you think that? 


Perhaps you would be interested in looking at the article I wrote about
Matthew 1:17 several months ago; it's based on Randel Helms' work.  The
article is at http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html

• Previous message: *Alward: Three Days (Mooney)
• Next message: *Alward: Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]