From what I remember of the earlier one, I think the updated version isn't much different. ![]() (It was a while ago that I read through the infancy material in the earlier version of his commentary. ![]() I've read through the sections on Matthew 1-2 in all three of them, and I didn't see anything that significantly advances the case for a traditional view of the infancy narratives. A couple of lengthy commentaries on Matthew came out this year from conservative scholars, Knox Chamblin and Grant Osborne. In a post on Christmas resources a couple of years ago, I mentioned that the best books I'm aware of on the historicity of the infancy narratives are Craig Keener's 1999 commentary on Matthew and Darrell Bock's 1994 commentary on Luke.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |