Really Keefer?

I have a bone to pick with Kyle Keefer.

On page nine of The New Testament as Literature, Keefer states: "The Gospel of Matthew, for example, does not favorably compare with Moby Dick with regard to lingustic complexities we often associate with literary works." (Keefer 9)

This statement was made after discussing what Keefer defines "reading literature" to be. According to Keefer, reading literature implies a "serious undertaking," and he says that this does not apply to reading the New Testament.

WHAT? Okay dude, I understand that the New Testament does not employ the "lingustic complexities" that more "modern" pieces of literature do (i.e. Moby Dick). But, you spend pages 29-36 of your book discussing the lingustic complexities of Matthew (the difference between Rabbi and Lord, etc). You totally have contradicted yourself.

And to say that reading the New Testament doesn't have as much of a "serious undertaking" as reading works such as Moby Dick is ridiculous. Yes, the Gospels are more of historical pieces of literature that depict the "plot" of Jesus' life. But, if reading the New Testament was so easy, then why does Whitworth offer Theology Majors? There is so much analytical work that can be done with the New Testament, but like you said, most people read it for strictly religious purposes. Just because that is its common use doesn't mean that reading it is less of a "serious undertaking" for those who are trying to read it through a lens of literature.