Jesus in Context OR Ancient Texts?

I noticed 2 New Testament backround books available in March Madness. One is Jesus in Context by Darrell Bock, and the other is Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies by Craig Evans.

Does anyone have knowledge of which of these is better? I'm leaning toward Jesus in context because it looks like it includes full ancient texts, whereas Ancient Texts does not, but I'm not sure because the description for the latter is a bit vauge. Does anyone have an idea or a suggestion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

I'm not familiar with Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies but I have the Jesus in Context. It does have clips from the actual texts.

Here's a sample from Jesus in Context for Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7.1–17*

In this text from Eusebius, Julius Africanus seeks to explain the differences between Matthew and Luke and also reports how some families kept genealogical records.

1Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words: 2“For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law;—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—3whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name. 4Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately. 5But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi. 6Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph. 7Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another. 8By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her as before said, and begat a son Eli. 9Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him. 10Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture. 11For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have banded down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews. 12And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks. 13But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. 14A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible. 15Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.” 16And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.” 17Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe.

Bock, D. L., & Herrick, G. J. (2005). Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study (pp. 41–43). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Alain Maashe

While they both deal with primary sources, these two works serve two different purposes. Bock's work gives the background material (Jewish and early Christian texts) illustrating and illuminating various topics and themes found in the Gospels. Bock gives you primary sources related to specific passages in the Gospels (keyed to his other book Jesus according to Scripture).

Evans does not deal with specific passages but seeks to give a general survey of the body of literature serving as background to the entire New Testament and its time (from OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Mishna and Talmuds to Greco-Roman authors and non-literary sources such as inscriptions, coins, and ostraca ). It is useful for the dating and authorship of these sources, summary of contents, usefulness and limitations, identifying critical editions of primary texts, scholarly translations, studies and commentaries published about these texts. It is a one stop shop to the what, who, when, how and why of the vast array of background texts related to the study of the NT.

As such, the books complement each other rather than compete.

Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580508#Comment_580508

Thank you both! It seems for my purposes Jesus in Context will be most immediately helpful, and then some time in the future I might look into Evans if I want to delve deeply into the background lit.

Thanks again!

PS: I'm also considering Keener's Background Commentary also available in MM. Does anyone have an opinion on how it contrasts with Jesus in Context?

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580517#Comment_580517

Keener's Bible Background Commentary is kind of like the notes that you would have in a study Bible, only more detailed, and they only deal with background information. I love to use it, as well as the OT one. Anything Keener writes is informative.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580676#Comment_580676

Here is an example from the Evans text (the formatting changed during copy/paste):

CHAPTER ONE

The Old Testament Apocrypha

OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees (see Old Testament Pseudepigrapha)
4 Maccabees (see Old Testament Pseudepigrapha)
Psalm 151 (see Old Testament Pseudepigrapha)

Fifteen books make up the OT Apocrypha. Some editions of the Bible incorporate the Epistle of Jeremiah into Baruch as its sixth and final chapter. These editions, therefore, have fourteen books. Whereas Protestants do not regard the books of the Apocrypha as inspired or as canonical, the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Coptic Churches accept most of them. (For a listing of their respective canons of the Apocrypha, see appendix 1.)
The word “apocrypha” is a Greek word literally meaning “hidden away.” Why “hidden”? Over the centuries those who appreciated and approved of these books as authoritative thought of them as hidden from the uninitiated and simple. They were reserved for the wise and learned. On the other hand, those who viewed these books as spurious and as possessing no authority have understood them as hidden because of perceived heretical tendencies. It is probably for this reason that the word “apocrypha” has come to mean “false.” For example, when a story about a well-known person is suspected of being untrue we say that it is “apocryphal.”
The Apocrypha (the word is actually plural—the singular is apocryphon—but people often think of it as singular) represent several types of writing. Some of the writings are historical (e.g., 1 Esdras, 1 and 2 Maccabees), some are romantic (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Susanna, Additions to Esther), some are didactic (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus), some are moralistic (e.g., Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Bel and the Dragon), and some are devotional (e.g., Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Prayer of Manasseh). One is apocalyptic (2 Esdras).
The Greek text of the Apocrypha is found in the LXX (see ch. 4). The best EnglishEnglish translation is B. M. Metzger, OAA. This edition contains several helpful notes and tables. Metzger has also edited A Concordance to the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Revised Standard Version (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). See also the English translation edition of the Apocrypha in the New Revised Standard Version (New York: Oxford, 1989). For current introductions, see D. A. deSilva, IAMCS, and D. J. Harrington, InvA. For current one-volume commentaries on the Apocrypha, see J. L. Mays et al., eds., HBC, W. R. Farmer et al., eds., IBC, and O. Kaiser, OTApo.

Summaries

1 Esdras. First Esdras is not accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. (It was rejected by the Council of Trent, 8 April 1546.) The Roman Catholic Bible includes it in an appendix. (In the Vulgate it is called 3 Esdras.) It is, however, accepted by the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Churches. It is a historical writing based upon 2 Chr 35:1–36:23, Ezra, and Neh 7:38–8:12 (see the table below). However, the story of the three men in the court of Darius (3:1–5:6), which has no parallel in the OT, may represent the author’s chief concern (Metzger, IA 18), perhaps to encourage the renewal of God’s people (Harrington, InvA 153) and to highlight the qualities of Zerubbabel (deSilva, IAMCS 286–87). The book follows neither the MT nor the LXX. The unknown author apparently intended to emphasize the religious reforms of Josiah (1:1–24), Zerubbabel (5:47–6:34), and Ezra (8:1–9:55). It was written probably in the second century B.C.E. First Esdras relates to biblical literature as follows (Klein, 769):

1 Esdr 1:1–22
=
2 Chr 35:1–19
1 Esdr 1:23–24
=
(no parallel)
1 Esdr 1:25–58
=
2 Chr 35:20–36:21
1 Esdr 2:1–5a
=
2 Chr 36:22–23/Ezra 1:1–3a
1 Esdr 2:5b–15
=
Ezra 1:3b–11
1 Esdr 2:16–30
=
Ezra 4:7–24
1 Esdr 3:1–5:6
=
(no parallel)
1 Esdr 5:7–73
=
Ezra 2:1–4:5
1 Esdr 6:1–9:36
=
Ezra 5:1–10:44
1 Esdr 9:37–55
=
Neh 7:73–8:13a

Text: R. HANHART, Esdrae liber 1 (Septuaginta 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). Survey: H.W. ATTRIDGE, “Historiography,” JWSTP 157–60; D. A. DESILVA, IAMCS 280–95; D. J. HARRINGTON, InvA 152–65; O. KAISER, OTApo 24–29; B. M. METZGER, IA 11–19; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-biblical Times,” JWSTP 131–35; W. O. E. OESTERLEY, IBA 133–41; Z. TALSHIR, “1 Esdras,” DNTB 341–42. Commentary: R. J. COGGINS and M. A. KNIBB, The First and Second Books of Esdras, 4–75; S. A. COOK, “I Esdras,” APOT 1:1–58; J. C. H. HOW, “I. Esdras,” NCHSA 2:30–32; R. W. KLEIN, “1 Esdras,” HBC 769–75; J. M. MYERS, I and II Esdras, 1–104; Z. TALSHIR, 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000); H. G. M. WILLIAMSON, “1 Esdras,” ECB 851–58. Critical Study: T. C. ESKENAZI, “The Chronicler and the Composition of 1 Esdras,” CBQ 48 (1986): 39–61; A. E. GARDENER, “The Purpose and Date of I Esdras,” JJS 37 (1986): 18–27; Z. TALSHIR, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).

2 Esdras. Second Esdras is not accepted by the Roman Catholic Church either, although it is included in a form of the Latin Vulgate with 1 Esdras. It is, however, accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church. In the Vulgate it is 4 Esdras. (Part of 2 Esdras is also known as 4 Ezra and is sometimes included in the OT Pseudepigrapha. On the confusing Esdras-Ezra nomenclature, see the tables below.) Second Esdras does not resume the historical narrative of 1 Esdras, as one might suppose, but is called “2 Esdras” because of the opening verse: “The second book of the prophet Ezra.…” The book is an apocalypse consisting largely of seven revelations (3:1–5:20; 5:21–6:34; 6:35–9:25; 9:38–10:59; 11:1–12:51; 13:1–58; 14:1–48) which are primarily concerned with moral themes. Apparently, at least three authors are responsible for 2 Esdras. The original author was probably a first-century Palestinian Jew who, writing in Aramaic or Hebrew, produced chapters 3–14 (the original 4 Ezra). It was subsequently translated into Greek. A second-century Christian added a Greek introduction (chs. 1–2, also called 5 Ezra). Finally, a third-century Christian added the last two chapters (15–16, also called 6 Ezra) in Greek. The Semitic original is lost, and only a fragment of the Greek has survived (15:57–59). The purpose of the original author was to show that God is just, despite the evil of the Rome of his day and the calamities that had befallen Jerusalem (Metzger, IA 30).

TABLE OF ESDRAS NOMENCLATURE
Hebrew Bible
Septuagint
Vulgate
English Apocrypha
Ezra
1 Esdras
Nehemiah
2 Esdras
1 Esdras
3 Esdras
1 Esdras
4 Esdras
2 Esdras

TABLE OF EZRA NOMENCLATURE
1 Ezra
Ezra-Nehemiah of the Hebrew Bible
2 Ezra
4 Esdras (Vulgate) = 2 Esdras (English Apocrypha) chaps. 1–2
3 Ezra
1 Esdras (Septuagint) = 3 Esdras (Vulgate) = 1 Esdras (English Apocrypha)
4 Ezra
4 Esdras (Vulgate) = 2 Esdras (English Apocrypha) chaps. 3–14
5 Ezra
4 Esdras (Vulgate) = 2 Esdras (English Apocrypha) chaps. 15–16
(adapted from H. W. Attridge, “Historiography,” JWSTP, 158)

Text: R. L. BENSLY, The Fourth Book of Ezra, the Latin Version Edited from the MSS (Texts and Studies 3/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895); B. VIOLET, Die Überlieferung, vol. 1 of Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Ezra) (GCS 18; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1910). Survey: D. A. DESILVA, IAMCS 323–51; D. J. HARRINGTON, InvA 185–206; R. A. KRAFT, “Ezra Materials in Judaism and Christianity,” ANRW 19.1:119–36; B. W. LONGENECKER, 2 Esdras (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1995); B. M. METZGER, IA 21–30; W. O. E. OESTERLEY, IBA 142–60; M. E. STONE, “Apocalyptic Literature,” SJWSTP 412–14; J. E. WRIGHT, “Ezra, Books of,” DNTB 337–40. Commentary: R. J. COGGINS and M. A. KNIBB, The First and Second Books of Esdras, 76–305; J. M. MYERS, I and II Esdras, 107–354; W. O. E. OESTERLEY, II Esdras (The Ezra Apocalypse) (London: Methuen, 1933); IDEM, “II. (IV.) Esdras,” NCHSA 2:32–42; J. J. SCHMITT, “2 Esdras,” ECB 876–87; M. E. STONE and T. A. BERGREN, “2 Esdras,” HBC 776–90. Critical Study: G. K. BEALE, “The Problem of the Man from the Sea in IV Ezra 13 and Its Relation to the Messianic Concept in John’s Apocalypse,” NovT 25 (1983): 182–88; T. A. BERGREN, Fifth Ezra: The Text, Origin, and Early History (SBLSCS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); IDEM, Sixth Ezra: The Text and Origin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); E. BREECH, “These Fragments I Have Shored against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra,” JBL 92 (1973): 267–74; G. N. STANTON, “5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century,” JTS 28 (1997): 67–83. See bibliography on 4 Ezra in chapter 2.

Tobit. Tobit is accepted by the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches. The book of Tobit is a romance (deSilva, IAMCS 70; Harrington, InvA 11) relating a moralistic story of the adventures of Tobit and his son Tobias in Nineveh shortly after the exile of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–6). It was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew—as attested by the Dead Sea Scrolls (i.e., 4Q196–200; cf. Fitzmyer)—sometime in the second century B.C.E. by an unknown author. Subsequently it was translated into Greek. Tobit emphasizes piety (such as attending to the burial of the dead) in the face of paganism. Tobit’s prophecy of the rebuilding of the temple (14:5–7) has received attention in recent scholarship concerned with the place of the temple in first-century eschatological expectations.

Text: R. HANHART, Tobit (Septuaginta 8/5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). Survey: D. A. DESILVA, IAMCS 63–84; R. DORAN, “Narrative Literature,” EJMI 296–99; D. J. HARRINGTON, InvA 10–26; L. R. HELYER, “Tobit,” DNTB 1238–41; O. KAISER, OTApo 30–39; B. M. METZGER, IA 31–41; C. A. MOORE, “Tobit, Book of,” ABD 6:585–94; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-biblical Times,” SJWSTP 40–46; W. O. E. OESTERLEY, IBA 161–71. Commentary: J. CRAGHAN, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth, 127–62; C. F. DEVINE, “Tobias,” CCHS 393–402; J. A. FITZMYER, Tobit (CEJL; New York: de Gruyter, 2003); L. L. GRABBE, “Tobit,” ECB 736–47; C. A. MOORE, Tobit (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996); G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, “Tobit,” HBC 791–803; I. NOWELL, “The Book of Tobit,” NIB 973–1071; IDEM, “Tobit,” IBC 687–95; H. SCHÜNGEL-STRAUMANN, Tobit (HTKAT; Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder, 2000); D. C. SIMPSON, “The Book of Tobit,” APOT 1:174–241; H. St. J. THACKERAY, “Tobit,” NCHSA 2:42–58; F. ZIMMERMANN, The Book of Tobit (JAL; New York: Harper, 1958); E. ZENGER, Judit und Tobit. Critical Study: A. DI LELLA, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tobit 14:3–11,” CBQ 41 (1979): 380–89; J. A. FITZMYER, “The Aramaic and Hebrew Fragments of Tobit from Cave 4,” CBQ 57 (1995): 655–75; D. MCCRACKEN, “Narration and Comedy in the Book of Tobit,” JBL 114 (1995): 401–18; C. A. MOORE, “Scholarly Issues in the Book of Tobit before Qumran and After: An Assessment,” JSP 5 (1989): 65–81; A. PORTIER-YOUNG, “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings,” CBQ 63 (2001): 35–54; W. SOLL, “The Family as Scriptural and Social Construct in Tobit,” in The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSup 154; SSEJC 6; Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998), 166–75; IDEM, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology,” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31; R. A. SPENCER, “The Book of Tobit in Recent Research,” CurBS 7 (1999): 147–80.

Judith. Judith is accepted by the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches. Notwithstanding several serious anachronisms and historical blunders, the book tells a heroic tale of the beautiful Judith whose courage and faith in God saved her village from destruction at the hands of one of Nebuchadnezzar’s generals. In many ways the book stands in the tradition of the heroes in Judges (see 4:4–22). Originally a second-century B.C.E. Hebrew composition, probably reflecting the tensions and fears of the Maccabean struggle (Metzger, IA 43; though see the cautions in deSilva, IAMCS 93–95), the work survives in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and several later Hebrew recensions. Nothing is known of the author.

Text: R. HANHART, Iudith (Septuaginta 8/4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Survey: D. A. DESILVA, IAMCS 85–109; R. DORAN, “Narrative Literature,” EJMI 302–4; D. J. HARRINGTON, InvA 27–43; L. R. HELYER, “Judith,” DNTB 624–27; O. KAISER, OTApo 39–45; B. M. METZGER, IA 43–53; C. A. MOORE, “Judith, Book of,” ABD 3:1117–25; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-biblical Times,” SJWSTP 46–52; W. O. E. OESTERLEY, IBA 172–82. Commentary: L. ALONSO-SCHÖKEL, “Judith,” HBC 804–14; N. D. COLEMAN, “Judith,” NCHSA 2:58–62; A. E. COWLEY, “The Book of Judith,” APOT 1:242–67; J. CRAGHAN, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth, 64–126; A.-M. DUBARLE, Judith (2 vols.; AnBib 24; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966); M. LEAHY, “Judith,” CCHS 403–7; C. A. MOORE, Judith (AB 40; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985); R. J. RAJA, “Judith,” IBC 696–706; G. WEST, “Judith,” ECB 748–57; L. M. WILLS, “The Book of Judith,” NIB 1073–1183; E. ZENGER, Judit und Tobit. Critical Study: T. S. CRAVEN, Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith (SBLDS 70; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983); M. S. ENSLIN and S. ZEITLIN, The Book of Judith (JAL 7; Leiden: Brill, 1972); R. HARRIS, “A Quotation from Judith in the Pauline Epistles,” ExpTim 27 (1915–1916): 13–15; J. W. VAN HENTEN, “Judith as a Female Moses: Judith 7–13 in the Light of Exodus 17, Numbers 20, and Deuteronomy 33:8–11,” in Reflections on Theology and Gender (ed. F. van Dijk-Hemmes and A. Brenner; Kampen, Neth.: Kok Pharos, 1994), 33–48; P. J. MILNE, “What Shall We Do with Judith? A Feminist Reassessment of a Biblical ‘Heroine,’ ” Semeia 62 (1993): 37–58; P. W. SKEHAN, “The Hand of Judith,” CBQ 25 (1963): 94–109; IDEM, “Why Leave Out Judith?” CBQ 24 (1962): 147–54; J. C. VANDERKAM, ed., “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith (SBLEJL 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); L. M. WILLS, “The Jewish Novellas,” in Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context (New York: Routledge, 1994), 223–38.

Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 9–13.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580677#Comment_580677

Here is an example from the Keener text:

MATTHEW

Introduction

Authorship. In contrast to, say, Paul’s letters, attributions of authorship in the Gospels are generally based on church tradition rather than evidence in the biblical text itself. Although this tradition is usually trustworthy, in the case of Matthew it may be less reliable (since the same tradition also claims that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew, which is not true of our First Gospel). The authorship of the First Gospel is thus debated, but we will speak of “Matthew” for convenience’s sake and lack of a better designation.

Date. The date of Matthew is debated. Some conservative scholars, like Robert Gundry, date Matthew before A.D. 70 and attribute its authorship to Matthew; other equally conservative scholars date Matthew around 80 and are less certain about authorship. Because Matthew addresses the emerging power of the Pharisaic rabbis considerably more than Mark (but still recognizes the power of the Sadducees and the priesthood), and these rabbis began to achieve some political power in Syria-Palestine mainly after 70, it is reasonable to surmise that Matthew was written in the seventies, although this date is not certain.

Where Matthew Was Written. The most likely locale is in the area of Syria-Palestine, because that is where the rabbis exercised their greatest influence in the seventies and eighties of the first century. But again certainty is not possible.

Setting, Purpose. Matthew addresses the needs of his Jewish-Christian readers, who are apparently in conflict with a Pharisaic religious establishment (cf. 3:7 with Lk 3:7; Mt 5:20; 23:2–39). Members of the early rabbinic movement, mainly successors of the earlier Pharisees, never achieved the power they claimed, but they began to consolidate as much juridical and theological influence as possible, especially in Syria-Palestine, in the years following A.D. 70.
Matthew presents the traumatic destruction of the temple, which had probably occurred recently (see the previous discussion on Gentiles as well as their own people (cf. 1:5; 2:1–12; 3:9; 8:5–13; 15:21–28; 24:14; 28:19). Matthew’s collection of Jesus’ teachings (especially chaps. 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 23–25) is to be used to make other disciples for Jesus, just as other Jewish disciples passed on their rabbis’ teachings to their own disciples (28:19).

Genre and Sources. Most scholars think that when Matthew wrote his Gospel, Mark was already in circulation. (Not all scholars accept this position, but it is widely viewed as the consensus.) In line with the standard literary practice of the day, Matthew followed one main source, which he regarded as highly reliable—Mark—and then wove in material from other dependable sources around it. Due to space limitations in this commentary, much of the material found in both Matthew and Mark receives more detailed treatment only under Mark.
Biographies were written differently in Matthew’s day than they are today. Biographers could write either in chronological order (e.g., Luke follows the order of his sources as carefully as possible) or, more frequently, in topical order. Matthew arranges the sayings of Jesus according to topic, not chronology: the ethics of the kingdom in chapters 5–7, the mission of the kingdom in chapter 10, the presence of the kingdom in chapter 13, church discipline and forgiveness in chapter 18 and the future of the kingdom in chapters 23–25. Some commentators have argued that Matthew grouped Jesus’ sayings into five sections to parallel the five books of Moses (other works were divided into five to correspond with the books of Moses, e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, the rabbinic tractate Pirke Abot, 2 Maccabees and perhaps 1 Enoch).

Matthew’s Message. This Gospel or one of its sources may have been used as a training manual for new Christians (Mt 28:19); rabbis taught oral traditions, but Jewish Christians needed a body of Jesus’ teachings in writing for Gentile converts. Matthew repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus fulfills the Jewish Scriptures, and argues from those Scriptures the way a trained scribe would. He portrays Jesus as the epitome of Israel’s hopes for his Jewish audience, but also emphasizes missions to the Gentiles: outreach to the Gentiles is rooted both in the Old Testament and in Jesus’ teaching. Matthew is quick to counterattack the religious leaders of his day who have attacked the followers of Jesus; but he also warns of the growing dangers of apostate religious leadership within the Christian community.

Commentaries. W. D. Davies and Dale Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1988–), provides some Jewish background. John Meier, Matthew, New Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1981), is good on literary issues, although he would not agree with my emphasis on the specifically Jewish context of Matthew. Those most familiar with Matthew’s milieu, however, will recognize that my commentary is less dependent on other commentaries and more indebted to primary sources and to older scholars such as Joachim Jeremias, T. W. Manson, Gustaf Dalman and, more cautiously, Josef Blinzler and J. D. M. Derrett; and to more recent scholars such as E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes and Martin Goodman. One helpful specialized study is Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, SNTSMS 8, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), whose treatment includes Matthew 1:2–16; see also C. S. Keener, … And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992), which addresses Matthew 5:17–48 and 19:1–12; and Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951), on John the Baptist.

1:1–17
The Background of Jesus

Ancient biographies typically began by rehearsing the noble lineage of their subject. Here Jesus is connected with the history of his people from the beginning.
1:1. The Messiah was to be a “son [descendant] of David”; “son of Abraham” was applied to Jewish people in general, so Matthew begins by reminding us that Jesus is Jewish. Genealogies could provide unity to a survey of history between major figures (as with Adam, Noah and Abraham in Gen 5, 11). Greek readers often called the book of Genesis “the book of generations,” and the title is also used for genealogies and other accounts contained in it (Gen 2:4; 5:1 LXX). In Genesis genealogies are named for the first person cited, but Matthew’s genealogy is named for the person in whom it climaxes, Jesus Christ.
1:2–16. As in Old Testament genealogies, but in contrast to Luke and Greco-Roman genealogies, Matthew records the names beginning with the oldest and moving to the most recent.
Genealogies reminded Jewish people of God’s sovereignty in arranging marriages and providing offspring. Sometimes they explained why a person behaved a particular way (e.g., Moses’ descent from lawbreakers like Reuben, Simeon and [directly] Levi helps explain some of his own weaknesses in Exodus 6:12–30). Most important, they were essential to document a person’s proper lineage as a pure Israelite (in contrast to some other Galileans, who could be descended from converted Gentiles), a member of the priesthood, or royalty. Genealogies could also be used as unifying links between major figures in history; Genesis links Adam, Noah and Abraham in this way (Gen 5, 11). Matthew connects Jesus with the Old Testament narratives about the patriarchs, the Davidic kingly line and the exile.
At least partial genealogical records of important (especially priestly) families were kept in the temple. After the temple was destroyed in 70, anyone could have claimed to be of Davidic descent, but the claim for Jesus was made before 70, when it still could have been checked (Rom 1:3). Even after 70, the evidence for his Davidic descent was still sufficient to provoke trouble for some of Jesus’ relatives with the Roman government.
Women did not need to be recorded in ancient genealogies, but Matthew includes four women (1:3, 5–6), three of them Gentiles (Gen 38:6; Josh 2:1; Ruth 1:4) and the other also a Gentile or at least the wife of a Gentile (2 Sam 11:3)—even though he omits the matriarchs prominent in Jewish tradition, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah and Rachel. Thus he hints from the Old Testament that God has always planned missions to all peoples (Mt 28:19).
Scholars have suggested that some ancient genealogies incorporated symbolic material based on the interpretation of biblical texts. Jewish interpreters of Scripture sometimes would modify a letter or sound in a biblical text to reapply it figuratively. Thus the Greek text of Matthew 1:10 reads “Amos” (the prophet) rather than “Amon” (the wicked king—2 Kings 21), and Matthew 1:8 reads “Asaph” (the psalmist) rather than “Asa” (a good king turned bad—2 Chron 16); most translations have obscured this point.
1:17. Matthew omits some names, as was customary in genealogies (in this case perhaps following the Greek translation of the Old Testament); creating patterns like three sets of fourteen made lists easier to remember. Some commentators have argued that Matthew uses fourteen generations because the numerical value of David’s name in Hebrew letters is 14. (Unlike letters in the English alphabet, Greek and Hebrew letters were also used as numerals; the Jewish practice of counting the numerical values of words and deriving meaning from them came to be called gematria.) Dividing history into eras was common; a later Jewish text, 2 Baruch, divided history into fourteen epochs.

Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), Mt.

Liam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580679#Comment_580679

Hey Joseph thanks for the previews! I think Keener will actually be most beneficial because he seems more detailed for each verse. Thanks a lot!

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/580863#Comment_580863

Glad I could help!