This article considers whether there are clues in Matthew's Gospel as to whether he thought he was writing Scripture. It discusses the opening phrase and how it can be understood. It suggests he thought of his Gospel as a continuation of biblical history.
The Gospel of Matthew's account of the resurrection of Jesus is regarded by many scholars as the least reliable historically. This article does not provide definitive answers to the questions raised, but it indicates some of the avenues that could be further explored. The relationship of Matthew 28 to the other gospels is examined. The major arguments that supposedly justify treating Matthew 28 with suspicion are each considered in turn.
This article's main point is that if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke did use Mark, they also knew early non-Marcan traditions of the life and teaching of Jesus well. Matthew 24:10-12 functions as a case in point.
This study considers both the life-seetting of the Gospel of Matthew and the life and structure of early Christianity, by noting Matthew's popularity in house churches of the Greco-Roman world.
This article works with the assumption that there is a structure in Matthew's composition. It further emphasizes that discerning the overall literary structure involves identifying smaller literary components that make up larger sections of the Gospel and give them their overall themes. McClister wants to examine Matthew 17:22-Matthew 20:19 as such a unit to determine the meaning of the text.
Chapter 1 is a biblical-theological introduction to the Gospel of Matthew. It introduces the usual issues like background (authorship, audience, purpose), structure and outline, message and theology (e.g., Matthew’s Christology), and a chronological overview.
How does Matthew present the Jewish leaders in his Gospel? Carson outlines some of the researcher's limitations in this regard and discusses a number of theological problems.
The matter of divorce and remarriage in the Gospel of Matthew and 1 Corinthians is considered in this essay.
This article attempts to demonstrate that the agreements between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke against Mark are widespread. This is discussed as a contribution to the synoptic problem.
