My book Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel' (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Fur Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Alteren Kirche)
was reviewed recently by the preeminent Matthean scholar Donald Senior at RBL. It was a genernally positive review save the comment that the thesis "strains the imagination". My response to such a statement is that it does not surprise that such an interpretation of Matthew would “strain a modern and non-Israelite reader’s imagination”.
was reviewed recently by the preeminent Matthean scholar Donald Senior at RBL. It was a genernally positive review save the comment that the thesis "strains the imagination". My response to such a statement is that it does not surprise that such an interpretation of Matthew would “strain a modern and non-Israelite reader’s imagination”.
2 comments:
Good riposte, JW. I read that review this AM and thought it was curious that he didn't elaborate on why it was a "strain", dropping that in without challenging specific points of the actual argument.
Was glad to see that he thought geographic aspects and the general issue of restoration worth investigating in Matt.
As someone making a similar argument to yours elsewhere in the NT, Joel, I feel your pain. I've come to think that the Assyrian invasion and subsequent scattering of the northern tribes is the most underemphasized piece of background material in New Testament studies. How many Intro to the NT books even mention it?
Everybody talks about the Babylonian Exile, but the Assyrian Exile was no less significant, at least to many second-Temple Jews.
Thanks for writing the book—it's certainly a help to my work.
Post a Comment