Active Users:761 Time:02/08/2026 04:16:44 PM
The "begats" shouldn't be bypassed at all. Tom Send a noteboard - 01/02/2012 08:10:48 PM
There's an incredible amount of information that those "begats" give the reader. There are 42 generations, broken into a trinity of 14s. The numerological implication is significant, as 42 signifies the end of tribulation (i.e., the Messiah has come). Furthermore, the names remind the reader of the continuity with the Old Testament, which is important from a traditional Christian standpoint to refute groups that wanted to discard the Old Testament completely. It's why Matthew comes first in the New Testament, actually.

Not only that, but there are further implications. The reader is reminded of the original covenant with Abraham, of the Exodus, the anointing of David and the promise made that the Messiah would arise from his house, the Babylonian exile and the entire spiritual tradition of the Jews.

Furthermore, the whole concept of Hebrew tradition is stood on its head at the very end. The list begins like one of the numerous lists from the Old Testament, then ends by reminding us that Joseph was not Jesus's father. Spiritually, Jesus is the descendant of this house, but physically he is not. He fulfills the promise made, over and over again, to the forebears of Joseph but he comes directly from God.

Also, the unusual circumstances of his birth are legitimized by mention of the four other women prior to Mary who get referenced in that whole list of "begats". Tamar, who posed as a prostitute to have sex with her father-in-law, Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho who hid the Israelite spies before Joshua had the town destroyed, Ruth, who was a Moabite and not even Jewish and whose marriage to Boaz was very unconventional, and Bathsheba, who committed adultery with David while her husband Uriah was fighting in the army (and placed so as to die).

There's a reason why they're mentioned. Anyone reading that whole list and familiar with the stories sees how everything comes together perfectly. All those "begats" are incredibly important in tying the Old Testament to the New.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.

ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius

Ummaka qinnassa nīk!

*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Inspired by The Guardian, which books (classic or otherwise) do you think could be shorter? - 30/01/2012 02:10:22 PM 1522 Views
What'll happen if I mention The Count of Monte Cristo? - 30/01/2012 02:25:56 PM 1049 Views
LOL - 30/01/2012 04:30:07 PM 1219 Views
- 30/01/2012 05:05:19 PM 1033 Views
The Wheel of Time. *NM* - 30/01/2012 02:59:03 PM 532 Views
Agreed. *NM* - 30/01/2012 03:10:23 PM 424 Views
Hmph. *NM* - 30/01/2012 10:05:04 PM 450 Views
Hmph indeed. *NM* - 31/01/2012 05:38:18 PM 445 Views
<3 *NM* - 31/01/2012 06:01:10 PM 410 Views
Exactly. - 30/01/2012 03:26:23 PM 1055 Views
I'd really love someone to do a good job of this. - 30/01/2012 04:29:01 PM 1008 Views
I don't think Ivanhoe really needs to be pruned - 30/01/2012 03:22:37 PM 1053 Views
Mansfield Park needs a jolly good rework. - 30/01/2012 04:34:54 PM 995 Views
In fairness, all Mansfield Park needs to be cut is its heroine... - 30/01/2012 10:34:43 PM 1070 Views
The Karamazov Brothers, or whichever order those words go in. - 30/01/2012 08:16:19 PM 1048 Views
War and Peace. That second epilogue really has to go. - 30/01/2012 10:37:28 PM 1148 Views
"Could" be shorter doesn't always mean "should" be shorter. - 31/01/2012 02:18:44 AM 1126 Views
Re: "Could" be shorter doesn't always mean "should" be shorter. - 31/01/2012 04:00:13 AM 1126 Views
I agree. I would even go farther than that. - 01/02/2012 07:59:13 PM 1154 Views
Re: I agree. I would even go farther than that. - 02/02/2012 12:51:45 PM 1228 Views
I don't really think any book should be abridged - 31/01/2012 09:50:34 AM 1122 Views
The Bible. Although I hear it's sort of been abridged before. - 31/01/2012 04:46:28 PM 1100 Views
Why would you cut out Matthew 1? - 31/01/2012 05:11:24 PM 984 Views
Not all of it. - 01/02/2012 04:14:13 PM 1150 Views
The "begats" shouldn't be bypassed at all. - 01/02/2012 08:10:48 PM 980 Views
Tom. Thanks for that information. *NM* - 02/02/2012 02:10:34 PM 536 Views
Everything by Ayn Rand. - 31/01/2012 05:46:11 PM 994 Views
Everything by Thomas Hardy - 02/02/2012 02:27:03 PM 1055 Views

Reply to Message