T&T Clark Christian Theology Collection (5 vols.)

H. Daniel Zacharias presents a literary-critical analysis of the Gospel of Matthew and its interaction with Davidic tradition and use of Davidic typology. Throughout the narrative, the evangelist makes pervasive use of Davidic tradition from the Old Testament in his portrayal of Jesus. This begins from the first verse and the declaration that Jesus is the Son of David, and culminates in Jesus' usage of Psalm 22's Davidic lament on the cross. Davidic material is present throughout Matthew, in allusion, in specific citations, in thematic material. In addition, Matthew makes use of Davidic typology numerous times, with David as type and Jesus as anti-type.

Zacharias shows how the use of Davidic material presents to the reader a scripturally-grounded redefinition of what it means for Jesus to be the Son of David: not as a violent militant leader, as some expected, but as a physical descendant of David, a healing shepherd, and a humble king. Within the Gospel, Matthew utilizes Davidic typology to show how the Son of David even has similar experiences as his royal predecessor. Even David's own words from the psalms are utilized as testimony to the legitimacy of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.

In the first of a three-volume work, Daniel Patte presents three very different critical exegeses of Romans 1, arguing that all are equally legitimate and hermeneutically plausible. By expanding upon and respecting the exegeses of many erudite scholars of the last two centuries, Patte concludes that three families of vastly different critical interpretations are fully justified: traditional philological and epistolary studies; rhetorical and sociocultural studies; and figurative studies of the “coherence” of Paul's teaching.

Arising from a long-standing interdisciplinary investigation of many receptions of Romans in light of recent diversification of exegetical methodologies, Patte concludes that the interpretation of a scriptural text necessarily involves making a choice among equally legitimate and plausible alternatives; and second, that this choice is always contextual and ethical. When these points are denied (by failing to respect the interpretations of others and absolutizing one's interpretation), instead of being a scriptural blessing, Romans becomes a deadly weapon against others – heretics, Jews (Shoah), and many others. The result is a threefold commentary of Romans 1 that is unique in its scope and thorough-going exegesis.

The Apostles’ Creed is an expression of Christian theology that was formed in a period of fascinating and creative debate. The creed is not simply a dogmatic, static, and cryptic symbol of Christian faith, but, on the contrary, a lively narrative that can still inspire imagination, critical reflection, and faith.

In The Apostles’ Creed, the ancient debates that led to the formulation of its twelve pronouncements are examined. The richness of early Christian thought is explored by looking at the ideas behind each creedal pronouncement and tracing the theological debates that inspired each statement. Early Christian theology is not treated as 'unanimous,' but as pluralistic. The polyphony of theological opinion, which characterized the Christianity of this period, is therefore highlighted and celebrated.

In explaining the context that gave birth to the creed, this study refers to the testimony of various ‘witnesses’ of those theological arguments. This includes opponents of the apostolic and church Fathers: the Gnostics, ‘heretics,’ and Jewish and pagan critics of Christian faith.

Barry D. Smith studies the salvation-historical meaning of Jesus’ death (commonly known as the atonement) in the New Testament. Smith works his way through the four theories of the doctrine of the atonement that have emerged in the history of Christian theology: moral influence, governmental, satisfaction and Christus victor theories.

Smith works from the premise that, for a theory of the atonement to be successful, no biblical data may be omitted or distorted, and the generalized concepts used to comprehend the biblical data must be easily seen as implicit in the data. From this vantage point, Smith advances a formulation of the atonement that is best supported by the biblical text itself. The conclusion Smith reaches is that the biblical data supports both the penal-substitutionary version of the satisfaction theory and the Christus victor theory of the atonement, each of which should be viewed as two parts of a more inclusive theory of atonement present in the New Testament.

In this book Jaco Gericke is concerned with different ways of approaching the question of what, according to the Hebrew Bible, a god was assumed to be. As a supplement to the tradition of predominantly linguistic, historical, literary, comparative, social-scientific and related ways of looking at the research problem, Gericke offers a variety of experimental philosophical perspectives that aim to take a step back from the scholarly discussion as it has unfolded hitherto in order to provide a new type of worry when looking at the riddle of what the biblical texts assumed made a god divine.

Consisting of a brief history of philosophical interpretations of the concepts of whatness and essence from Socrates to Derrida, the relevant ideas are adapted and reapplied to look at some interesting metaphysical oddities arising from generic uses of elohim/el/eloah as common noun in the Hebrew Bible. As such the study seeks to be a prolegomenon to all future research in that, instead of answering the question regarding a supposed nature of divinity, it aims to complicate it beyond expectation. In this way a case is made for a more nuanced and indeterminate manner of constructing the problem of what it meant to call something a god.