RE: [Synoptic-L] Genre of the infancy narratives
- To: Mike Parsons,
<< I apologize for jumping into this thread so late and do with a little trepidation since it seems rather highly charged (at least from one side). Nonetheless, Steve Miller's request that documents supporting the claim that the Matthean infancy narrative is midrashic in character is reasonable, and I would like to suggest a source or two. >>
Thank you, I greatly appreciate the information you presented. If my rhetoric appeared excessive, I apologize. On the other hand, I don't believe that anyone should be asked to accept an idea without any sort of substantiation. It seemed to me that Leonard Maluf was (so to speak) "sleeping at the keyboard" and I was just trying to "wake him up." He even admits that he was being "lazy," I assume that this is merely an euphemism for having other pressing concerns. (After all, we all have lives beyond the keyboard.) Although I have Gundry's commentaries on Matthew and Mark, I hadn't read that section at the end of his Matthean commentary, so I appreciate you bring it to my attention.
Gundry claims that (assuming the Two-Source hypothesis) there is hard evidence for referring to Matthew's editorial activity as "midrashic" and "haggadic." Ironically, this is precisely the point where Leonard Maluf would disagree with Gundry. Thus Maluf does away with Gundry's "hard" evidence. Gundry would disagree with Maluf on another point, in that he states: "there is not enough evidence to hold that Mark and Luke took so much liberty with historical data that their gospels merit the descriptions 'midrashic' and 'haggadic'" (628). When I have more time, I'll try to give Gundry's point concerning Matthew more attention. Again, thanks for your message!
-Steven Craig MillerAlton, Illinois (USA)firstname.lastname@example.orgDisclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), what do I know?"