This book explores the Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis (MPH), a largely neglected solution to the Synoptic Problem which holds that the author of the Gospel of Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source, and that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used both the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke as sources. MacEwen begins with a survey of the scholars who have defended various forms of the MPH. Chapter 2 discusses two key lines of evidence which support the MPH. The first line of evidence is textual - demonstrating that Matthew could have known the contents of Luke's Gospel beyond merely the double tradition material. The second line of evidence, involving a study of strings of verbatim agreements in the Gospels, supports the view that Matthew depended directly on Luke. Chapter 3 explores evidence and arguments which can be seen as problematic for the MPH. MacEwen concludes that the MPH has been neither definitely proved nor disproved, and deserves further scholarly scrutiny.

What place do the four Gospels give Satan, demons, and Jesus’ human opponents (including Jewish leaders but also Jesus’ disciples) in their accounts of Jesus’ life? This study takes a literary-historical approach to the Gospels, examining them as narratives. It shows how the authors were in the process of developing the devil as a character and determining which roles he filled. New interpretations of individual passages in the Gospels are given as well as new understandings of the theological emphases of each author. This study is also a contribution to redaction criticism and the relative chronology of the Gospels. It employs the theory of Matthean posteriority which revolutionizes our understanding of the literary relations between the Gospels and allows for a new understanding of theological development in early Christianity.

Offers a fresh reading of the much-debated Synoptic Problem.

This book offers a new explanation of the development of the first three Gospels based on a careful examination of both patristic testimony to the "Hebrew Gospel" and internal evidence in the canonical Gospels themselves. James Edward breaks new ground and challenges assumptions that have long been held in the New Testament guild but actually lack solid evidence.

The passing of Professor Graham Stanton, former Lady Margaret chair of divinity at Cambridge University, in 2009 marked the passing of an era in Matthean scholarship and studies of early Christianity. Stanton's 15 books and dozens of articles span thirty-four years and centre largely on questions pertaining to the gospel of Matthew and early Christianity. The present volume pays tribute to Stanton by engaging with the principal areas of his research and contributions: the Gospel of Matthew and Early Christianity. Contributors to the volume each engage a research question which intersects the contribution of Stanton in his various spheres of scholarly influence and enquiry. The distinguished contributors include; Richard Burridge, David Catchpole, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Don Hagner, Peter Head, Anders Runesson and Christopher Tuckett.

The first Gospel has traditionally been considered a very Jewish work. Recent scholarship has suggested some Hellenistic influence. The issue is explored in this work with attention focused on the dream narratives of the first two chapters. An investigation is carried out using a new methodology. The memory techniques used in an oral or semi-literate society are explored. A search is made for such techniques in Matthew and these are then compared with similar devices in a wide range of literature, Old Testament, contemporary Jewish, Greek and Roman. The intention is that literary practice should help to clarify the cultural setting in which Matthew functions. This is a work which will interest New Testament scholars with a focus on Gospel studies and oral transmission. It may also appeal to some classical scholars or those with a specialized interest in Josephus.

This volume addresses the Synoptic Problem and how it emerged in a historical context closely connected with challenges to the historical reliability of the gospels; questions the ability of scholarship arriving at a compelling reconstruction of the historical Jesus; the limits of the canon; and an examination of the relationship between the historical reliability of gospel material and ecclesial dogma that was presumed to flow from the gospels. The contributors, all experts in the Synoptic Problem, probe various sites and issues in the 19th and 20th century to elaborate how the Synoptic Problem and scholarship on the synoptic gospels was seen to complement, undergird, or complicate theological views. By exploring topics ranging from the Q hypothesis to the Markan priority and the Two Document hypothesis, this volume supplies extensive theological context to the beginnings of synoptic scholarship from an entirely new perspective.