The essays in this volume present a state-of-the-discipline snapshot of current and recent research into the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The contributions showcase wide range of methods and perspectives on Gospels study. The Gospels are viewed from a traditio-historical perspective, and with an eye on history of interpretation. Literary and social-scientific analysis of the Gospels, as well as theological and spiritual readings are also presented. The collection presents chapters by experts in the field of Matthean, Markan, and Jesus studies that freshly examine the core texts. The list of highly distinguished contributors includes: James D.G. Dunn, Francis Watson and Donald Hagner.

With characteristic boldness and careful reassessment of the evidence, MacDonald offers an alternative reconstruction of Q and an alternative solution to the Synoptic Problem: the Q+/Papias Hypothesis. To do so, he reconstructs and interprets two lost books about Jesus: the earliest Gospel, which was used as a source by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke; and the earliest commentary on the Gospels, by Papias of Hierapolis, who apparently knew Mark, Matthew, and the lost Gospel, which he considered to be an alternative Greek translation of a Semitic Matthew. MacDonald also explores how these two texts, well known into the fourth century, shipwrecked with the canonization of the New Testament and the embarrassment at outmoded eschatologies in both the lost Gospel and Papias’s Exposition.

Anyone who reads the Gospels carefully will notice that there are differences in the manner in which they report the same events. These differences have led many conservative Christians to resort to harmonization efforts that are often quite strained, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Many people have concluded the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory and therefore historically unreliable as accounts of Jesus. The majority of New Testament scholars now hold that most if not all of the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography and that this genre permitted some flexibility in the way in which historical events were narrated. However, few scholars have undertaken a robust discussion of how this plays out in Gospel pericopes (self-contained passages). Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? provides a fresh approach to the question by examining the works of Plutarch, a Greek essayist who lived in the first and second centuries CE. Michael R. Licona discovers three-dozen pericopes narrated two or more times in Plutarch's Lives, identifies differences between the accounts, and analyzes these differences in light of compositional devices identified by classical scholars as commonly employed by ancient authors. The book then applies the same approach to nineteen pericopes that are narrated in two or more Gospels, demonstrating that the major differences found there likely result from the same compositional devices employed by Plutarch. Showing both the strained harmonizations and the hasty dismissals of the Gospels as reliable accounts to be misguided, Licona invites readers to approach them in light of their biographical genre and in that way to gain a clearer understanding of why they differ.

A lively, readable and up-to-date guide to the Synoptic Problem, ideal for undergraduate students, and the general reader.

The earliest of the four Gospels, the book portrays Jesus as an enigmatic figure, struggling with enemies, his inner and external demons, and with his devoted but disconcerted disciples. Unlike other gospels, his parables are obscure, to be explained secretly to his followers. With an introduction by Nick Cave

Were the biblical Adam and Eve historical figures, or are the early events described in Genesis primarily symbolic in nature? Behind the debate of a historical Adam is the age-old debate about evolution and the agreement between Scripture and science. With an introduction that outlines the history and main points of every viewpoint from Darwinism to Young Earth Creationism, this book then clearly outlines four primary views on Adam held by evangelical Christians. Contributors include Denis O. Lamoureux, John H. Walton, C. John Collins, and William Barrick. Each focuses his essay on answering the following questions: What is the biblical case for your viewpoint, and how do you reconcile it both with modern science and with passages and potential interpretations that seem to counter it? In what ways is your view more theologically consistent and coherent than other views? What are the implications of your view for the spiritual life and public witness of the church and individual believers, and how is your view a healthier alternative for both? This book allows each contributor to not only present the case for his view, but also to critique and respond to the critiques of the other contributors, allowing you to compare their beliefs in an open forum setting to see where they overlap and where they differ. Concluding reflections by pastor-scholars Gregory A. Boyd and Philip Graham Ryken highlight the significance of the topic in the faith of everyday believers. The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from 'works of the law', a disputed term that represents a fault line between 'old' and 'new' perspectives on Paul. Was the Apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic Law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second century readers understood these points in conflict, how they relate to 'old' and 'new' perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the Apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the 'new' perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ.