*Alward: Matthew 1:17

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

In a message dated 98-11-22 16:06:22 EST, you write:

<< Subj:	 Re: *Alward:  Matthew 1:17 (to Crea)
 Date:	98-11-22 16:06:22 EST
 From:	blackfoot@mail.utexas.edu (chief blackfoot)
 Sender:	owner-errancy@infidels.org
 To:	errancy@infidels.org
 
 >JOE
 >"This leads me to believe that Matthew miscounted in the
 >second series.  The only other alternative (considering
 >definition and usage elsewhere) seems to be Matthew did
 >not count Jeconias in the second set. Then we get three
 >sets of 14, all nice and pretty. As tempting as that is,
 >and beneficial for my argument in this case, I had to
 >abandon it. Read and judge for yourself.
 
 >Joe Alward
 >I think you lost me, Dave.  I don't see why you had to
 >abandon the notion that Matthew did not miscount and
 >just made an exception.  All you seem to have done above
 >is repeat your evidence that apo was inclusive.  I don't
 >see what that proves in this case.  How does that rule
 >out the exception?  Please clarify.
 
 >DAVE
 >I will try. In the first set (from Abraham to David) are
 >14 generations.  In the second set (from David to the
 >captivity) are 15 (since Jeconias would be included). In
 >the third set (from the captivity to Jesus) are 14 (if
 >you count Jeconias at the top of the list). I could just
 >ignore Jeconias in the second set and count up unto Josias,
 >then begin the third set with Jeconias and the problem
 >would "vanish". However, if you want to split it up into
 >three sets of 14 each that is fine with me. Let me know
 >how it works.
 
 I believe that the standard xtian response is that Matthew
 was using a common Jewish technique of creating a divine
 connection through multiples of 7.  We find many instances
 throughout the OT where numbers of children, etc., are
 tweaked "just a little" to give us a nice 7 or multiple
 there of.
 
 This is a vague memory of some apologetic technique so
 I'm not sure how accurate it is.
 ========
Joe Alward:

Randel Helms, writing in "Gospel Fictions", claims that Matthew grouped Jesus'
ancestors into three "two-week" groups of fourteen each. But, Helms puts
Jeconias at the end of the second group and inexplicably leaves him off the
top of the third group, thereby leaving only thirteen names in the third
group.  I think it is more reasonable to leave Jeconias off the end of the
second group and put him at the top of the third:  three groupings of
fourteen, three groups of the double-multiple of the divine number seven.

http://members.aol.com/JAlw/prophetic_pattern.html

• Previous message: *Alward: Matthew 1:17
• Next message: *Alward: What Prophecies of the Resurrection?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]