bookmarked
What's so mysterious about "generation" (genea) in Matthew?
by kepler 36 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Bobcat
Concerning the length of "this generation":
It is most notable that in both Matthew's and Mark's account, Jesus immediately follows the discussion about 'this generation' with this statement:
(Matthew 24:36) . . .Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. . .
(Mark 13:32) . . .Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. . .
It almost seems like Jesus was anticipating that attempts would be made to calculate a detailed time schedule. The Society (but others also) have regularly done this. The overlapping generation idea is simply more of the same. Perhaps on a less obvious level than outright calculating of years, but still an attempt to describe when 'that day and hour' will come.
Maybe one of their main problems is that they simply write too much. As Proverbs 10:19 says: "In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly."
-
Band on the Run
Does anyone truly believe that Jesus actually stated "generation?" This verse is almost universally cited as proof that the Church inserted its post-Resurrection beliefs into the mouths of actors in the gospel narritives. I always felt that the Jerusalem group was powerful until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Since Jesus never uttered this verse, they did not leave Jerusalem and either perished or were dislocated.
Such an event could have been the pivotal moment when Pauline Christianity became dominant. If one believes the statement, a generation could not be more than 70 years. It strikes me that the WT is exceedingly literal. They don't see analogy or metaphor. So, an actual generation is no longer possible.
So throw the I-Ching or consult a voodoo priestess to know which WT version one should believe. If New Light is always correct, why have any old light? The Holy Spirit should reveal the present truth for all time.
-
kepler
OGD,
You noted that I was as adamant as the WT about their being a specific numerical value for a generation?
Hmmm. I'll have to reconstruct. Since I have not grown up in the WT faith, the notion of a generation has been more on the periphery for me for most of my life. Since Biblical references to generations were probably a large portion of the pie chart of generational measurements though, I think I have probably mused at one time or another about how many years they are talking about. It was only today though that I actually thought about using this test, and had meant to look at some other concordance instances of use. There's a concordance here at home and I had difficulty finding what I wanted on line when I was at the office. So I guess I started writing half-cocked. Rather than having a precise temporal definition of generation - I just have some of the arguments displayed for parents giving birth to children over an age span - and indications that Matthew's chapter one use of the term seems to match up rather well with that. I feel as though I have not done sufficient homework to argue the case for/against other genea definitions in chapter 24. I would just as soon listen to what others have to say on that one.
While the instances cited so far are for the New Testament, I suppose the research could be expanded (in principle ) to the Septuagint. To clarify what I mean, the Hebrew Scripture or Old Testament was translated over several decades or a couple centuries into Greek for dissemination about the Mediterranean Jewish community. There are variations in this text from extant Hebrew versions beyond the scope of this discussion, but translators to Greek had to decide when to use the term "genea" and how. Maybe there is a clue there.
But I am also inclined to believe/think that many Biblical passages that are interpreted as prophecy appear as they do because of a lot of backdating or ex post facto editing. To put it another way, once that possibility is admitted into the discussion, it is hard to identify where the genuine predictions are - or who said them. In some of the discussion above it is implied, but to illustrate, consider I Peter writing supposedly from Babylon. If he was not writing from Babylon, it was probably Rome. But why would he call Rome Babylon if he didn't see a resemblance? What was the resemblance? Also, the "this generation" passage appears in all three synoptic Gospels, but there are significant differences in the overall accounts surrounding that discussion. So, for arguments about context for "generation" in Matthew: do they apply as well in Mark and Luke?
...It is hard for me to break off about prophecies of destruction of cities without mentioning the one that bothers me most. And that is the reported destruction of Babylon in Isaiah. The insert into the "poem" of chapter 14 at verses 22-23 describes the fate of Babylon at the hands of Sennacherib - not Cyrus. Sennacherib desecrated its temples, leveled and flooded the city and sent its population off into captivity about a century before Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem. Nothing like that happened ever again. But our tradition tells us otherwise.
-
transhuman68
LOL, I had never heard of anyone finding the length of a generation by averages in Matthew. Not that it can be applied to 1914, as you have to combine Scriptures from Daniel, Ezekiel & Revelation, which is complete nonsense ! The Watchtower do two things wrong IMO- they look for 'signs'- there are no signs: and they apply the word 'generation' to themselves, or at least to the supposed 'anointed', where most of the time in the NT 'generation' seems to be referring to the wicked !
-
Aussie Oz
marked for later...it's late :)
oz
-
oompa
this thread was interesting yet simple...i also noted that it has more long posts on it than average by far....and the context suggest that maybe some of these posters were on the GB???? reading this was like having a vision of the GB sitting around with all these crazy ideas....they start nice like this....then one guy says the others are wrong and that god just revealed the answers to him in a dream last night about what a generation REALLY is this time....then a slow gerriatric fight breaks out.....and one guy storms out telling them all there acting like a bunch of flucking mormons.....oompa
-
kepler
oompa,
LOL. It might have been about 1820 at the Congress of Vienna after they put Napoleon out of circulation that the top diplomats among the allies were sitting around in meetings dividing up Europe. In the midst of all this the Russian representative didn't show up because he had died.
One of the negotiators sitting at the table expressed his concern. "What do you suppose was his motive for doing that?"
And by the way, a generation is equal to 43.5 years. And if you don't believe it, when I report back to my ship, I will be forced to open this envelope which contains my orders...
Cheers,
Kepler
-
Sulla
There are variations in this text from extant Hebrew versions beyond the scope of this discussion, but translators to Greek had to decide when to use the term "genea" and how. Maybe there is a clue there.
kepler, I think the point is that there are no clues and that you should stop looking for them. The point of the first chapter of Matthew is to break up the important people in the Jewish religious history into symmetric groups of 2x7 generations: the generation being defined as sons and fathers. There is no implication of years, and to try to figure out how many years he might have been talking about per generation is to entirely miss the point.
If he was not writing from Babylon, it was probably Rome. But why would he call Rome Babylon if he didn't see a resemblance? What was the resemblance?
Well, the resemblance would be that Rome was acting to oppress the chosen of God the way Babylon was. So, in the Jewish/Christian context, the similarity is pretty obvious, right?
Also, the "this generation" passage appears in all three synoptic Gospels, but there are significant differences in the overall accounts surrounding that discussion. So, for arguments about context for "generation" in Matthew: do they apply as well in Mark and Luke?
ok. I don't think you are listening.
-
Bobcat
Just some thoughts on "generation" from a bookworm:
Greek dictionaries (related to 1st century Greek) recognize several different uses of the term "generation." Here is how Bauer's Lexicon (BDAG or 3rd edition) has the listings broken down. Each item has: Definition, [Rendering], (Example Verses):
1. Those exhibiting common characteristics or interests [race, kind] (e.g. Lk 16:8)
2. The sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time and frequently defined in terms of specific characteristics [generation, contemporaries] (e.g. Mt 11:16; 12:41f; 23:36; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32)
3. The time of a generation [age]
A. Of periods of time defined in terms of a generation [age, generation] (e.g. Mt 1:17)
(BDAG actually has two more, but they are unrelated to this thread.)
A couple of points can be drawn from how this Lexicon has the uses broken down:
Not all uses of the term are the same. Thus, it would be misleading to expect the same meaning in one use as in all other uses. For example, in Mt 1:17 "generation" is used for successive descendants in a family line. Each child is described as a generation. In this usage the average length in years between generations can be calculated, as was done above.
But the usage in Mt 24:34 (and other examples) is different. So trying to calculate or compare a time period to cover this usage, based on a different usage (such as Mt 1:17) would actually be a bit like comparing apples with oranges. The Society's 'overlapping generations' idea would seem to be somewhat of a mixing of different usages.
In connection with Mt 24:34, "this generation" is linked with "all these things," and 'these things occurring.' (The things fortold to take place that would indicate that "he [Jesus] is near at the doors." - Verses 32-34)
The Society's attempt to pin the beginning of "this generation" to 1914 is faulty on several fronts. It is based on faulty chronology for one. Also, "these things" that were fortold did not simply switch on in 1914. (Using 1914 as an example) It would take time for the amalgamation of events to both happen and be recognized as such. So, trying to say that, in 1914 (or any other specific year) "this generation" suddenly began, is false reasoning. It is trying to make exact that which can only be generalized.
(For example: Preaching the good news was one of the events foretold. But it did not begin in 1914 (again, using that year as an example). One cannot say that the preaching of the good news suddenly began in that year so as to differentiate it from the year before or the year after.)
It appears to me that many of the ideas about "this generation" are basically trying to calculate the length of "this generation" so as to determine when "these things" will have run their course. This is actually backwards. "This generation" does not determine the length of "these things" (the events), rather, it is "these things" (the events leading up to the end) that determine the length of "this generation."
Thus, both the Society's position, and many of the arguments against the Society's position, seem to be based on a false premise.
Another point of note is the immediately following staement by Jesus in Mt 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
Based on this statement, in theory at least, if one knew everything the Father knew, then, that one would also know "the day and hour." By extension, the more one knows, the closer he should be able to get to knowing that "day and hour." In effect, by means of Jesus' discourse, the Father intentionally revealed only enough information to calculate 'nearness,' but not enough to calculate "the day and hour." Attempts to get around this could only be futile.