Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Re: Midrash without Midrash; was Historical writing: was Genealogies...

Expand Messages
  • Steven Craig Miller
    To: Leonard Maluf,
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 16, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Leonard Maluf,

      << I hope you understand by now that it is not my position that part of
      Matthew's and Luke's genealogy intend to refer to non-historical people. I
      simply question whether the Evangelists intended to be writing history, or
      writing narrative in some other genre. >>

      On the one hand, you seem to want to claim (and you have so claimed in past
      messages) that the Evangelists did not intend to be writing "history." And
      when asked for an example, you pointed out the genealogies of Jesus which
      appear in Matthew and Luke. Yet, on the other hand, when asked for you to
      point out which parts of the genealogies you think Matthew and/or Luke held
      to be non-historical, you come up completely empty.

      I've also asked you to cite other ancient midrashic documents which would
      support your position, but (to date) you have cited NOTHING!

      On October 29, you wrote: << How do I interpret the texts? That is really
      too broad a question to be broached here. It is easier to say simply that I
      don't interpret them the way you do, namely, apparently, as intending to
      tell a straightforward story with literal historical references. They are
      more midrashic in character, theology in narrative form, in my view, and
      Luke understood Matthew's narrative to be such. Thus he could write a
      "better" infancy narrative than Matthew, using something close to the same
      kind of writing as he, and therefore not to be charged with inconsistency
      of historical detail which neither narrative was intended to supply. >>

      I've tried asking you to point out where this supposed "midrashic"
      character of the gospels appear in these gospels. But so far you come up
      empty! It seems that on the one hand, you want to claim that the gospel
      writings are "more midrashic in character," and yet, on the other hand, you
      cannot point to one place in the gospels which is "midrashic in character."
      Gosh, that must make it difficult for you to defend your hypothesis, yes?

      -Steven Craig Miller
      Alton, Illinois (USA)
      Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
      what do I know?"
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.