Matthew 1:11

From Errancy Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Previous Verse < Matthew 1 > Next Verse

and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon. (ASV)

Contents

Pro

Edit this section if you suspect error.


JW: According to 1 Chronicles 3: (ASV)

15 "And the sons of Josiah: the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son."

"Jeconiah" was "Jehoiakim's" son and "Jehoiakim" was "Josiah's" son.

According to Matthew 1: (ASV)

11 "and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon."

"Jechoniah" was Josiah's son. "Matthew" appears to have omitted "Jehoiakim" from his genealogy compared to Chronicles. The combinations of original Hebrew, translated Greek, possible name variations/mispelling, genealogy and narrative descriptions make it all potentially very confusing. Keep in mind that at the time "Matthew" likely wrote there probably was no official Canon to go by and there was also no Wickied! computer sight organized by Peter (Kirby) to assist the Semitically blind.

The Greek for "Matthew" here is:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=11

"?????? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ??????????? ?????????"

"????????" is "Jechoniah" which is the fifth name from the right. All the major Greek families have "????????".

2 Kings 24:6 gives the narrative version from the Jewish Bible:

"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.." (ASV)

Now let's look at the Hebrew for "Jeconiah":

1 Chronicles 3:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm

??  ???????, ???????????--????????? ?????, ?????????? ?????. "16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son."

" ????????? " (Jeconiah) 4th Hebrew word from the left.

2 Kings 24:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b24.htm

" ?  ???????????? ???????????, ???-????????; ??????????? ??????????? ??????, ??????????. 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead "

" ??????????? " (Jehoiachin) third Hebrew word from the left.

Because things were not sufficiently confusing before now we have name variation in the Hebrew. Note that this also provides an example in the Jewish Bible of different names referring to the same person.

Now for the LXX spelling (fasten your seat belts, yea!)

1 Chronicles 3:

3:16

"??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?????"

"????????" (Jeconiah), 4th Greek word from the left.

24:6

"??? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????"

"??????" (Jehoiakin) where "Jeconiah" should be, 5th Greek word from the right. Observe that the LXX has completely lost it here as the Greek names for "Jeconiah" and "Jehoiakin" here are exactly the same. Thus we have a possible reason why "Matthew" skipped a generation here. His Greek list may have had the same name twice at this point (although both were apparently "Jehoiakin" which is the name he skipped).

Summary of Greek name:

Matthew 1:11  ????????

1 Chronicles 3:16  ????????

2 Kings 24:6  ??????


Transliteration:

Masoretic 1 Chronicles 3:16  ?  ??  ??  ??  ??

English Ye co ne ya h

Masoretic 2 Kings 24:6  ?  ?  ??  ??  ??  ?  ??

English Ye h o ye k e n

Greek Matthew 1:4  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

English I e ch o u i a u

Greek 1 Chronicles 3:16  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

English I e ch o u i a s

Greek 2 Kings 24:6  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

English I o a k i m


The problem for the Greek translators here was that "Jehoiakim" had no existing Greek equivalent. It had to be transliterated. The next problem was that Hebrew of this time lacked the Masoretic vowels so if you were not an expert with the Hebrew bible you could be fluent in Hebrew in general but not know the proper pronunciation of a Biblical name that was no longer in use. You had to guess at the vowel sounds. Therefore, variation in Greek spelling could be a result of using different Greek letters for the same Hebrew sound and different Greek letters based on guesses for the vowel sounds. You can see the resultant variation above.

Now to try and guess the possible source of "Matthew's" omission. But was it unintentional or intentional? My guess again is that "Matthew" knew there was another generation here because there was no omission here in Greek lists but the name variation and use of the same name twice in the Greek narratives made "Matthew" feel he could omit a name without much complaint or even notice.

In the Appeal To Authority category:

Brown, Page 83, Birth Of The Messiah:

"Matthew would have been true to history if he said, "Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim and his bothers"

ICC, Page 178:

"All this strongly suggests the possibility of a textual or scribal mistake behind Mt. 1.11"

So after 500 years of religious strife the Catholics and Protestants finally agree. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:

"1.11 ????????? {A} In order to bring the text of Matthew into harmony with the genealogy in 1 Chr 3.15–16, several of the later uncial manuscripts (M U ? ?), as well as a variety of other witnesses (including f 1 33 209 258 478 661 954 1354 1604 syrh with *, pal geo), have added ??? ??????, ?????? ?? ?????????. Although it is possible to argue that the clause had accidentally fallen out during transcription, the external evidence in its favor is not as weighty as that which supports the shorter text (? B C E K L S V W ? ? ? most minuscules it vg syrc, s, p copsa, bo arm eth). It should be noted also that when the clause is present there are fifteen generations in the second tesseradecade (compare ver. 17)."

The most extreme potential error here is that "Matthew" claims groups of 14 generations:

17

"So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations." (ASV)

But according to 1 Chronicles:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/1_Chronicles_3

Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Ahaziah
Joash
Amaziah
Azariah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jehoiakim
Jeconiah

There were 18 generations.

Let's move back to "Matthew's" possible intent. What was "Matthew's" intent for the Reader to understand here. "Matthew" starts the genealogy with:

1

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

The implication here for the Reader is that this is a complete genealogy. "Matthew" ends the genealogy with:

17

"So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations"

Again, the implication here for the Reader is that this is a complete genealogy. "all the generations" is used, it's explicitly quantified as three groups of 14 and implies there is something significant about the three groups of exactly 14. So "Matthew" has communicated intent of a complete genealogy at the start and finish of the generations. If "Matthew's" intent was for the Reader to take this as a complete genealogy one wonders what exactly "Matthew" could have added, using his normal style, to make it clearer. Add to this the general observation that "Matthew's" primary objective was to persuade that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. The best way to do this regarding lineage would be to give a complete genealogy.


Here's famed Internet Apologist JP Holding's defense against the original abbreviated version of my claimed error (apparently he's reading this and was alerted to the problem at his site):

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html

"Same dip, different day, see #5 above. No error, just normal genealogical practice."


JW: Holding's brief response here does refer to #5 which does give some examples, authority and detailed reasoning but is still General in nature and wouldn't carry all that much weight against my detailed article here which concentrates on Specifics. Holding does mention genealogy omissions as an acceptable, non-erroneous convention of the time which seems to be the most popular "defense" here so I'll address that:

1) General arguments are evidence of course but don't allow you to ignore the Specifics of the context of the potential error.

2) Finding examples supports your General argument but you also have to consider examples that don't support your General argument if you want to conclude Probable rather than just Possible.

3) Specifically here, Chronicles from the Jewish Bible is probably the best parallel for "Matthew's" supposed genealogy and sure looks like it intends to give a complete genealogy for David's line. Even if you can demonstrate one omission in it you would still have to conclude that for any other specific sequence in it it likely intended to be complete.

4) The Greek word "Matthew" uses has a primary meaning of "begat". Greek has a separate word with a primary meaning of "father". So while Chronicles is using "his son", "Matthew" is using "begat" which is even harder to justify using with skipped generations. Perhaps Mr. Holding can provide some such examples in Greek literature.

While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error.


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" omission of King Jehoiakim at 1:11 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) The specific wording at the start and end of the genealogy and explict use of "14" indicates the Reader would understand that a complete Genealogy was being presented.

2) "Matthew" uses "begat" instead of "father/son of" indicating no omissions were intended.

3) The necessity of transliteration of no longer used Hebrew names and resultant spelling variation and similar names would make it easier for names in between two such similar names to be omitted unintentionally or intentionally.

4) The Authority appealed to above thinks it probable that there is error here.

5) We will see that "Matthew" has other omissions in his list.

6) The likely best parallel to compare "Matthew's" Genealogy to, Chronicles, appears to have intended to present a complete listing for the Davidic line.

7) We have no evidence that such omissions in Greek writings were the Rule rather than the exception.

8) There are many more examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy.

9) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

10) And listen to this (waving arms around excitedly on sidelines ala "John" Maddin!) B1565 adds the issing King to "Matthew" indicating they thought the omission was an error.

11) Famed Internet Apologist JP Holding has declined to argue this Error at this time in JoeWallack's Forum even though there is no Censorship there indicating he understands the strength of the Pro argument.


The evidence that "Matthew's" omission of one King at 1:11 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) The Jewish Bible, Greek Bible and literature of the time sometimes give ancestry that contains omissions.

2) The detail genealogy in Chronicles appears to have a time gap itself between the Exodus and Conquest as there is a deficit of names for the supposed time period. This may be because of a separate Jewish tradition that the stay in Egypt was Four generations rather than Four hundred years.

3) "Matthew" may have intended to omit the name.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that the omission by "Matthew" of the name of King Jehoiakim here is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Matthew's" omission of a King here was intentional and an accepted literary convention of the time, a complete genealogy would have been a better presentation and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".


Joseph


1:11 "and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon. (ASV)"

"And Error begat Error." (JSW)

JW: As O'reilly said in the classic and unique (except it had been done before) unauthorized takeover of the Helm Star Trek episode, "One...more...time!"

According to the Jewish Bible Jechoniah only had one brother:

16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.

17 And the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: Shealtiel his son,

Let's look at a few more English translations for the "brethren" word:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1126877756-1238.html#11

"and Josi'ah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon." (RSV)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:11;&version=31;49;9;15;16;

"And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:" (KJV)

Most English translations use "brother" while some use "brethren". "Brother" has a stronger meaning of literal brother than "brethren". Generally the Apologist "defense" here is to concede that Jeconiah only had one brother and argue that "brother/brethren" here has a figurative meaning. "Brethren" also used to be a more popular word than it is now. Of course what's of pimary importance here is the underlying Greek.

All the major Textual families:

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm#V11

have "????????". The definition from Liddell Scott:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?layout.refembed=2&layout.refdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0155&layout.refcit=book%3DMatthew%3Achapter%3D1%3Averse%3D11&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%231212&layout.reflookup=a%29delfou%2Fs&layout.reflang=greek&layout.refwordcount=1&layout.refabo=Perseus%3Aabo%3Atlg%2C0031%2C001

"??????? [?], (?- copul., ??????, Arist.HA510b13; cf. ???????) properly,

     A. son of the same mother: 
           I. as Subst., ???????, ?, voc. ??????; Ep., Ion., and Lyr. ???????? (gen. -????? in Hom. is for -???), Cret. ????????, ????????, Leg.Gort.2.21, Mon.Ant.18.319:--brother, Hom., etc.; ??????? brother and sister, E.El.536; so of the Ptolemies, ???? ??????? Herod.1.30 , OGI50.2 (iii B. C.), etc.; ??' ????????? ???????? Hdt.7.97 : prov., ??????? ??????? ???????? E.Fr.975 : metaph., ?. ?????? ???????? LXX Jb.30.29 . 
                 2. kinsman, ib.Ge.13.8, al.; tribesman, Ex.2.11, al. 
                 3. colleague, associate, PTeb.1.12, IG12 (9).906.19 (Chalcis); member of a college, ib.14.956. 
                 4. term of address, used by kings, OGI138.3 (Philae), J.AJ13.2.2, etc.; generally, LXX Ju.7.30; esp. in letters, PPar.48 (ii B. C.), etc.:--as a term of affection, applicable by wife to husband, LXX To.10.12, PLond.1.42.1 (ii B. C.), etc. 
                 5. brother (as a fellow Christian), Ev.Matt.12.50, Act.Ap.9.30, al.; of other religious communities, e.g. Serapeum, PPar.42.1 (ii B. C.), cf. PTaur.1.1.20. 
                 6. metaph., of things, fellow, ???? ??? ?. ????????????????, of Leviathan's scales, LXX Jb.41.8. 
           II. Adj., ???????, ?, ??, brotherly or sisterly, A.Th. 811, etc.; ????? ?. ???????, of Hephaistos and Athena, Pl.Criti. 109c. 
                 2. generally, of anything double, twin, in pairs, X.Mem. [p. 21] 2.3.19:--also, akin, cognate, ???????? Archyt.1 ; ?. ?????? Pl.Lg. 683a : mostly c. gen., ?????? ?????? S.Ant.192 ; ? ?? ????? ??????' ?. ???? ???????? ??? Id.Fr.925 ; freq. in Pl., Phd.108b, Cra.418e, al., cf. Hyp.Epit.35: c. dat., ?????? ???????? S.OC1262 , cf. Pl.Smp.210b.


JW: We see a primary definition of sons of the same mother and secondary figurative meaning. Bauer confirms this (take my word for it). Now let's consider the possible source of "Matthew's" probable error here and whether it may have been intentional or unintentional. We saw above that "Matthew" omitted Jehoiakim, Jeconiah's father, from the geneaology. We also saw in the Greek narrative that the exact same name for Jehoiakim and Jeconiah was used. So it would seem relatively easy to confuse the two. Hearkening back to the brothers of Jehoikim:

15 "And the sons of Josiah: the first-born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum."

According to [2 Chronicles 36]:

"1 Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father`s stead in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:2 Joahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:3 And the king of Egypt deposed him at Jerusalem, and fined the land a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold.

2 Chronicles 36:4 And the king of Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. And Neco took Joahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt.

2 Chronicles 36:5 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah his God.

2 Chronicles 36:6 Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.

2 Chronicles 36:7 Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of Jehovah to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.

2 Chronicles 36:8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah.

2 Chronicles 36:10 And at the return of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Jehovah, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem."


Jehoiakim's older brother Joahaz (Johanan) was King before Jehoiakim. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) succeeded his father as King. Zedekiah succeeded Jeconiah but which Zedekiah, Jehoiakim's younger brother or Jeconiah's brother? 2 Chronicles 36:10 above sez Jeconiah's brother but 17

"And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah, [Jehoiachin`s] father`s brother, king is his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah."

sez Jehoiakim's brother. "Matthew's" intent of adding "brothers" to Josias' begatting of Jechoniah may have been to include two brothers who were also Kings so that in addition to a Genealogy line a Reigning line was also being given. So once again "Matthew" may have been aware that Jehoiakim had brothers and not Jeconiah but felt that the conflicting identification of who King Zedekiah was brother of would help hide the inaccuracy or may have unintentionally said there were brothers of Jeconiah simply by confusing the names of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah. "Matthew" had a reason to skip Jehoiakim, to get to 14 G-men, and had a reason to identify brothers as begat, to otherwise have a complete line of Reignmen. Once he skipped Jehoiakim he could only add begotten brother Kings to Jeconiah and the confusion over the J names and who Zedekiah's brother was would help hide the body. So my guess here again is this was intentional.

In the appeal to authority category:

Brown, page 61, "Historically Josiah was the grandfather of Jechoniah who, as far as we know, had only one brother. The listing would be correct if Matthew read: "Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian Exile"

ICC, page 178, "All this strongly suggests the possibility of a textual or scribal mistake behind Mt. 1.11."

Error.


Here's famed Internet Apologist JP Holding's defense against the original abbreviated version of my claimed error (apparently he's reading this and was alerted to the problem at his site):

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html

"#12 Oops. I guess Wally thinks Matthew 7:4, "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?," means you only talk this way to family. The use of "brethren" here hearkens to the OT use in which it means one's kindred (not just blood brothers, cf. Gen. 31:23 for example). Bauckham in Gospel Women [20] agrees, referring this to his father Jehoiakim's brothers; IOW his uncles."


JW: Holding's brief response here does give some examples, authority and detailed reasoning but is still General in nature and wouldn't carry all that much weight against my detailed article here which concentrates on Specifics. Holding does mention "brethren" as having a figurative meaning which seems to be the most popular "defense" here so I'll address that:

1) General arguments are evidence of course but don't allow you to ignore the Specifics of the context of the potential error.

2) Finding examples supports your General argument but you also have to consider examples that don't support your General argument if you want to conclude Probable rather than just Possible.

3) "Brethren" is an inferior translation. "Brothers" is better and has a stronger meaning of from the same womb (best to avoid the term "blood brother here").

4) The underlying Greek word is "????????" which has a primary meaning of "from the same womb".

5) We have two brothers (of the same womb) of Jehoiakim at this point in the Reigning Line which "Matthew" was likely referring to.

6) "Matthew" 1:2 sez "Jacob begat Judah and his brethren", the only other time such a phrase is used in the genealogy, and this likely refers to brothers of the same womb.

7) The Greek word "Matthew" uses has a primary meaning of "begat". Greek has a separate word with a primary meaning of "father". "Begat" implies brothers of the same womb.

While we're on the subject of Holding here I asked the Admins here to invite Holding to argue against Genealogy error. He declined. I conclude from this that Holding does not want to debate Genealogy error here because he knows his argument is weak. Thus, more evidence for Error.


So in Summary, the evidence that "Matthew's" reference to the brothers of Jeconiah at 1:11 is an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) According to the Jewish Bible Jeconiah had one brother.

2) The underlying Greek word is "????????" which has a primary meaning of "from the same womb".

3) "Matthew" uses "begat" instead of "father/son of" in general indicating a likely literal meaning of "brothers".

4) The necessity of transliteration of no longer used Hebrew names and resultant spelling variation and similar names would make it easier for references to brothers being made to the wrong person unintentionally or intentionally.

5) We have tremendous name confusion here in the underlying texts. The same Greek name is used for Jehoiakim and Jeconiah and King Zedekiah is identifed in different places as the brother of both.

6) "Matthew" probably mentioned the brothers here to identify the Reigning line and both such King brothers were brothers of Jehoiakim and not Jeconiah.

7) Both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah had a brother named Zedekiah.

8) "Matthew" 1:2 sez "Jacob begat Judah and his brethren", the only other time such a phrase is used in the genealogy, and this likely refers to brothers of the same womb.

9) The Authority appealed to above thinks it probable that there is error here.

10) We've seen that "Matthew" has other incorrect references in his list.

11) Origen confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts.

12) Famed Internet Apologist JP Holding has declined to argue this Error at this time in JoeWallack's Forum even though there is no Censorship there indicating he understands the strength of the Pro argument.


The evidence that "Matthew's" reference to the brothers of Jeconiah at 1:11 is not an Error, ranked by weight of evidence is:

1) "Brothers" may have been meant in a figurative sense.


In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that the reference by "Matthew" to the brothers of Jeconiah here is an Error. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Matthew's" reference to the brothers of Jeconiah here was figurative, a Greek word with a primary meaning of "kinsmen" would have been a better presentation and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect".


Joseph

Con

This is certainly an error if (as some assert) GoMatthew is to be taken literally and historically. But we can see that the author of GoMatthew breaks his genealogy into discrete sections, then divides each section into fourteen generations, providing a poetic balance to his genealogy. If GoMatthew is read literarily (instead of literally), then the issue of "missing generations" becomes moot--because it would seem that the author's idea was to give a structured, perhaps even poetic, literary pattern to the chapter, rather than a strictly historic account.

This is why I say that a familiarity with Greek literature of the time is necessary: if we can see other examples with similar conditions, then we can see that the author of GoMatthew was simply following a literary convention, thus making the question of "historical error" moot.

--JustinEiler 14:41, 11 Sep 2005 (CDT)

Neutral

Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.

Hi Justin. Do I even need to try and convince you of error here or are you just trying to present a possible defense? In other words, based on my presented argument and your presented assertion would you vote for Error, No Error, or Don't Know?

Joseph

For my part, if I had to vote based solely on Matthew (as compared against the OT), then I'd have to go with "Error." But that's why I make the distinction I do--without a wider knowledge on my part of Greek literature of that time, I'd have to vote "I don't know."
No document stands by itself: it's vital to understand the cultural context, including the literary conventions of the time. Some of the listed "contradictions" become understandable in that light--especially some of the contradictions that here on ErrancyWiki would be listed in the category of Immorality.
I guess that's why I can argue both sides of the errancy issue so easily: I'm not looking to "prove" or "disprove" the Bible--the only thing I'm looking for is a greater understanding. Now, to be sure, that greater understanding has lead me to believe that both the OT and NT are grossly anhistoric ... but it's also led me to a richer appreciation.

--JustinEiler 09:41, 12 Sep 2005 (CDT)

External links

Personal tools