An extremely important Jewish writer and thinker of the first century AD, Philo of Alexandria exercised through his ideas and language a lasting influence on the development and growth of Christianity in the New Testament period and later. This book provides an introduction to the major themes and ideas in the religious and philosophical thinking of Philo and outlines the importance of his thought by means of introductory treatments and sections of freshly translated text and commentary. Dr Williamson illustrates in his work the place and significance of Philo within Judaism and as part of the background to Christianity, and so provides a valuable resource for scholars and students in this area of study.

Vol. 4 covers the late Roman period to the rise of Islam. Focuses especially on the growth and development of rabbinic Judaism and of the major classical rabbinic sources such as the Mishnah, Jerusalem Talmud, Babylonian Talmud and various Midrashic collections.

In the search for Matthean theology, scholars overwhelmingly approach the Gospel of Matthew as the "the most Jewish Gospel." Studies of its Sitz im Leben focus on its relationship to Judaism, whether arguing from the perspective that Matthew wrote from a cloistered Jewish community or as the leader of a Gentile rebellion against such a Jewish community. While this is undoubtedly an important and necessary discussion for understanding the Gospel, it often assumes too much about the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism (via Martin Hengel). Robert S. Kinney argues for a hybridized perspective in which Matthew's attention to Jewish sources and ideas is not denied, but in which echoes of Greek and Roman sources can be observed, focusing on identifying Matthew's use of rhetoric and its possible echoes of Greco-Roman philosophical disciple-gathering teachers.

When writing to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul used figurative temple language repeatedly to shape the identity of his audience (“Temple of God,” “Temple of the Holy Spirit,” and “Temple of the Living God”). While other scholars have identified the place of the Jerusalem temple in Paul’s thinking or the impact of temples in the life of Corinth, there has been no comprehensive study of the way that figurative temple language in philosophy could have influenced the Corinthians’ worldview. Hellenistic philosophy was pervasive in the first century and provided theological guidance for faith and practice to Paul’s Gentile audience before their conversion. Philip N. Richardson provides a comprehensive survey of figurative temple language in Hellenistic philosophy, shedding light on the way that the kinds of philosophical thought known in cities like Corinth may have influenced the Corinthians to think about figurative temple language. This study throws into sharp relief the similarities and differences between Paul’s use of temple language and that of philosophy, and illuminates Paul’s setting of this language in the wider framework of 1–2 Corinthians and his purpose for its use in the argument of the letters.

Although traditionally accepted by the church down through the centuries, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20) has been relegated by modern scholarship to the status of a later appendage. The arguments for such a view are chiefly based upon the witness of the two earliest complete manuscripts of Mark, and upon matters of language and style. This work shows that these primary grounds of argumentation are inadequate. It is demonstrated that the church fathers knew the Markan ending from the very earliest days, well over two centuries before the earliest extant manuscripts. The quantity of unique terms in the ending is also seen to fall within the parameters exhibited by undisputed Markan passages. Strong indications of Markan authorship are found in the presence of specific linguistic constructions, a range of literary devices, and the continuation of various themes prominent within the body of the Gospel. Furthermore, the writings of Luke show that the Gospel of Mark known to this author contained the ending. Rather than being a later addition, the evidence is interpreted in terms of a textual omission occurring at a later stage in transmission, probably in Egypt during the second century.