tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post113510733298227663..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Response to LüdemannMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1136067709456741642005-12-31T17:21:00.000-05:002005-12-31T17:21:00.000-05:00Regarding the four women in the birth narrative, I...Regarding the four women in the birth narrative, I agree with both Mark Goodacre and Jane Schaberg that the writer of Matthew mentioned them in order to allow that honorable offspring can result from dishonorable liasons.<BR/><BR/>My studies indicate that this writer was using a source document (not Mark) which told of the conception of Mary by a "Guardian angel." If we know from 1 Enoch that "fallen angels" can interfere in human affairs in this manner, why not an occasional "good angel"? This is almost implied in Luke (re Gabriel). I think it's understandable that the writers of Matthew and Luke would not wish to spell this out any more than we would like to acknowledge similar incidents occurring within the UFO phenomenon.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135173621231311402005-12-21T09:00:00.000-05:002005-12-21T09:00:00.000-05:00Re 'called a Nazarene', I think the common denomin...Re 'called a Nazarene', I think the common denominator of the birth-narrative quotations, whose imperfect 'fits' are telling, is not necessarily always scriptural justification for the tradition. It is better stated as optimal-if-imperfect scriptural backup for *either* tradition *or* (as in the case of Egypt and Rachel's tears) typology.<BR/><BR/>I'd wish to be a minority voice on the four women in the birth narrative, ever mindful of the need to avoid eisegesis of contemporary preoccupations. If the contemporary view (that Matthew is mentioning 4 women of dubious sexual/marital history and thereby providing an unspoken message re Mary) were correct, these questions would arise: <BR/>(1) What is so dubious about Ruth?<BR/>(2) Is this in line with Matthew's view on Mary?<BR/>(3) Why does he deliberately show the propriety not to mention the name of Bathsheba?<BR/>(4) What is wrong with the simpler view that Matthew, quite naturally, simply mentions female ancestors when they were more famous than their husbands and/or evoked a well-known OT story, and/or to clarify which particular wife the descent came through (in cases where there was more than one wife)? <BR/>(3) What is wrong with the simpler view that Matthew simpolyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135144153781488882005-12-21T00:49:00.000-05:002005-12-21T00:49:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.crystalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05681674503952991492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135134258830472442005-12-20T22:04:00.000-05:002005-12-20T22:04:00.000-05:00I agree with Whit -- I thought the all-caps defini...I agree with Whit -- I thought the all-caps definitely made things worse.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135129000152928752005-12-20T20:36:00.000-05:002005-12-20T20:36:00.000-05:00Mark wrote, "I have changed to lower-case here and...Mark wrote, "I have changed to lower-case here and throughout, which I find easier to read than upper case."<BR/><BR/>Wonder if any of the precieved harsh tone of Lüdemann was due to the fact that it was published on your blog in all caps? I know the old joke on e-mail was that all caps is like yelling and I sometimes find that I perceive it that way. <BR/><BR/>Just as Mark talks of the difficulty of understanding the tone someone uses in a blog - I wonder if perhaps at some level we read Lüdemann as yelling because his responses were in upper case type.Whit+https://www.blogger.com/profile/11230181113950441099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-1135121786806155662005-12-20T18:36:00.000-05:002005-12-20T18:36:00.000-05:00A well stated response by Dr. Goodacre. I do not d...A well stated response by <BR/>Dr. Goodacre. I do not disagree with much of what Prof. Lüdemann wrote, but the tone was certainly contentious.<BR/><BR/>The legitimate questions of Virgin Birth, Magi, the Herod slaughter of the innocents, and the Magi will continue to be examined. As Pete Townshend once wrote "I know you have decieved me but I can see for Miles and Miles and Miles" <BR/><BR/>The gospels were written for specific theological reasons and with that understanding, let us converse with civility and humilityAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com