nit-picky because I expect to be able to trust a commentary.

What is wrong with this analysis:

[quote]"Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream and is told to keep his wife because her pregnancy is from God.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25."

No, the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife ... she was not his wife until after the dream. I don't appreciate paraphrasing that is inaccurate.

[quote]Mary too is a passive character, as all verbs concerning her are passive.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25.

Let's see. Mary is at no time present in the pericope, she is merely being referred to/talked about. Reading her passivity into this is an absurd abuse of grammar.

Find more posts tagged with

Lexham Press

Comments

Tom Reynolds

What is wrong with this analysis:

"Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream and is told to keep his wife because her pregnancy is from God.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25."

No, the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife ... she was not his wife until after the dream. I don't appreciate paraphrasing that is inaccurate.

Joseph had the choice of 'keeping his wife' or divorcing her quietly... We could get into a long discussion of Jewish wedding customs but we can refer to her as his wife although they have not had the second ceremony or consummated the marriage.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

What is wrong with this analysis:

[quote]"Joseph is visited by an angel in a dream and is told to keep his wife because her pregnancy is from God.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25."

No, the angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife ... she was not his wife until after the dream. I don't appreciate paraphrasing that is inaccurate.

I think it's more complicated than just writing off the paraphrasing as inaccurate. She was already but not yet his wife. Many English versions call Joseph "her husband" (for Grk aner) and note his intention to "divorce" her in Matt 1:19 before the angel comes in v. 20 to tell him to not fear taking Mary as wife. In some sense their relationship was legally binding and would require legal dissolving. And yet the marriage was unconsummated and still required some final commitment from Joseph (taking her as wife). However, I could revise this sentence to say "to keep his commitment to Mary as his wife because her pregnancy is from God." I didn't see this as inaccurate due to the cultural connotations.

Doug Mangum (Lexham)

What is wrong with this analysis:

[quote]Mary too is a passive character, as all verbs concerning her are passive.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25.

Let's see. Mary is at no time present in the pericope, she is merely being referred to/talked about. Reading her passivity into this is an absurd abuse of grammar.

I'll take a closer look at this.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087315#Comment_1087315

Mary too is a passive character, as all verbs concerning her are passive.

Douglas Mangum, ed., Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Mt 1:18–25.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087313#Comment_1087313

We could get into a long discussion of Jewish wedding customs but we can refer to her as his wife although they have not had the second ceremony or consummated the marriage.

True, but the angel's message is incompatible with calling her his "wife". You can't have it both ways - you have to keep the angel's message compatible with the context. Some translations add something equivalent to "take her home" as a way to handle the pre-dream/after dream change of status. Perhaps the greatest semantic overlap is "published their banns" as the pre-dream state.[;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087314#Comment_1087314

I didn't see this as inaccurate due to the cultural connotations.

I grew up in a Church of Christ in which my Grandfather preached until his death. Very early in Sunday School we learned that Mary and Joseph were "betrothed" which we learned was past just being engaged but short of being married - hey, I wasn't in school yet and the most exotic state I knew was "grass widow". This was in a very rural, isolated region where many parents hadn't finished high school. My point: we learned what the Bible words meant; we didn't make logical mincemeat out of a verse in order to avoid learning not everything worked like our valley. I agree that one can wind your way to wording the cultural connotations into "husband/wife" IF one then also makes the corresponding change in the angel's message. I see it as inaccurate when it turns the angel's message into nonsense. And I see the purpose of a commentary to comment on the text not an unwritten pre-digestion of the text.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087327#Comment_1087327

I grew up in a Church of Christ in which my Grandfather preached until his death.

Wow. Without giving away how young our generation is, I'm guessing he crossed many enlivened arguments among 'the breathren', and had shape-note singing down to a ti!

Marching in cultural is iffy, given we'd have an adulteress meriting stoning on our hands (the village unaware exactly what happened).

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087313#Comment_1087313

Joseph had the choice of 'keeping his wife' or divorcing her quietly... We could get into a long discussion of Jewish wedding customs but we can refer to her as his wife although they have not had the second ceremony or consummated the marriage.

Or Joseph could have denounced her and had her stoned.

It appears that Joseph truly loved Mary. He knew that he had not performed the ritual of inviting a child into this world with her so he must have assumed that she and some other man did perform the ritual . IMHO if he was thinking about divorcing her quietly instead of having her stoned shows that he loved her so much that if she wanted another man he was going to let her go. [[most men would have had her stoned - showing that not only Mary was qualified for this task but so was Joseph]] [[commentary by me (not found in Logos) ]]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087329#Comment_1087329

I'm guessing he crossed many enlivened arguments among 'the breathren'

Well, I could go back a generation to his uncle who founded a number of Church of Christ churches - three in our county alone. By the time I came along the three in our county had their differences over music (2-1 against instruments) but the pair I knew (1 for 1 against instruments) didn't talk to the 3rd church - I never knew the reason although I had relatives in it ... but we were the only one that recognized the female preacher in the church across the river. I've come to suspect that the fact her sister was our postmistress, weigh-station owner, gas station owner AND superintendent of our Sunday School might have had something to do with it.

But, yes, there is a very good reason I have much sympathy for your Literalist Church of the Bible. I too retain the RM focus on the 2 L's - literal and logic. And my two siblings who went to Harding were taught care and logic.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087341#Comment_1087341

I'm guessing he crossed many enlivened arguments among 'the breathren'

Well, I could go back a generation to his uncle who founded a number of Church of Christ churches - three in our county alone. By the time I came along the three in our county had their differences over music (2-1 against instruments) but the pair I knew (1 for 1 against instruments) didn't talk to the 3rd church - I never knew the reason although I had relatives in it ... but we were the only one that recognized the female preacher in the church across the river. I've come to suspect that the fact her sister was our postmistress, weigh-station owner, gas station owner AND superintendent of our Sunday School might have had something to do with it.

But, yes, there is a very good reason I have much sympathy for your Literalist Church of the Bible. I too retain the RM focus on the 2 L's - literal and logic. And my two siblings who went to Harding were taught care and logic.

Interesting MJ—I fussed with CofC for eons over some of these issues (as you likely already know).

In fact, I have an exhaustive power point presentation on the instrumental music issue that was prepared for a debate on this topic.

I will say, however, that your upbringing would explain your emphasis on close Scripture reading (which is why I almost always click on your posts if I see them).

Notwithstanding our vast theological difference—I do appreciate CofC research tenacity.

Simply put, a person better be ready to tangle when they encounter CofC.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087355#Comment_1087355

Simply put, a person better be ready to tangle when they encounter CofC.

Or as I remember it, hours long debates between Dad, an elder, and his cousin, a deacon. Everyone left them alone in the living room (back when living rooms were formal). Note that Dad normally referred to Jack as his 5th cousin (1st cousin 1 removed; 2nd cousin 1 removed ... add them together and he's a 5th cousin) and met with him around the dining room table. But getting the Bible right is serious business - and Jack as a disabled logger had plenty of time to research his position. The shared Finnish blood ensured they had a constant supply of coffee and cookies - my job was the cookies . Fortunately, their shared Irish Catholic blood had not given them tempers.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087358#Comment_1087358

Simply put, a person better be ready to tangle when they encounter CofC.

Or as I remember it, hours long debates between Dad, an elder, and his cousin, a deacon. Everyone left them alone in the living room (back when living rooms were formal). Note that Dad normally referred to Jack as his 5th cousin (1st cousin 1 removed; 2nd cousin 1 removed ... add them together and he's a 5th cousin) and met with him around the dining room table. But getting the Bible right is serious business - and Jack as a disabled logger had plenty of time to research his position. The shared Finnish blood ensured they had a constant supply of coffee and cookies - my job was the cookies . Fortunately, their shared Irish Catholic blood had not given them tempers.

I can soooo envisage those discussions🤓🤪!

CofC are often a Calvinists worst nightmare—but I better digress before I get started 🤔😉.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087314#Comment_1087314

In some sense their relationship was legally binding and would require legal dissolving.

I believe there are still places where this can be true of betrothal, which of itself certainly does not make husband and wife.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087355#Comment_1087355

Notwithstanding our vast theological difference—I do appreciate CofC research tenacity.

I think that's perhaps the single greatest strength of the conservative wing of the Restoration Movement - a relentless focus on parsing out the text.