Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Are all the commentaries on Matthew really necessary?

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Religion and Theology

In this article three new commentaries on Matthew are discussed, namely Blomberg (1992), Hagner (1993), and Luck (1993). Different sections from the three commentaries are compared: first the Introduction, and then the commentary on two pericopes, namely Matthew 1:18-23 and Matthew 8:23-27. From the comparison a few conclusions are drawn and the necessity of the abundance of Matthean commentaries since the previous decade is questioned.

Affiliations: 1: Department of New Testament University of South Africa PO Box 392 Pretoria 0001 Republic of South Africa

10.1163/157430195X00140
/content/journals/10.1163/157430195x00140
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157430195x00140
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157430195x00140
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157430195x00140
1995-01-01
2016-09-28

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation