Abstract
In the days of Adolf von Harnack and F. C. Bauer, the relationship between Paul and the Gospels was one of the most hotly contested topics. Judging from recent publications, it is fair to say that interest in the debate has dropped off in favor of historical explorations connecting Jesus and Paul. Consequently, this book is a welcome contribution to fill this current void as it seeks to investigate the relationship between Paul and the Gospels. The book includes ten essays, featuring two essays devoted to each: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and, Thomas.
James Crossley surveys a number of possible areas of influence from Paul to Mark, attributing much of their commonality to similar contexts and traditions. In this way, he offers caution against definitive conclusions regarding the Pauline nature of Mark's Gospel, while also acknowledging that some degree of influence is likely.
Conversely, Michael Bird highlights the prominence of Peter in the Gospel of Mark to suggest the Petrine nature of the Gospel's traditions. But if Peter's speech in Acts 10 has formed the basic structure of Mark's Gospel, these Petrine traditions also reflect Pauline theological concerns such as Paul's theology of the cross, the importance of salvation, and its attitude toward the law. Unlike the other essay couplings, Bird and Crossley disagree directly—specifically concerning the Pauline nature of Mark 7:19.
Rather than finding an intricate web of historical and theological influences between Matthew and Paul, Joel Willitts articulates an approach that broadly describes each author's respective position. Beginning with Matthew's and Paul's similarly Jewish social locations, he then proceeds to find common ground between Matthew and Paul on the basis of Davidic Messianism and eschatological judgment according to works.
Paul Foster's essay avoids the type of pitfalls that Willitts warns against to find Matthew and Paul occupying similar, yet distinct theological territories. In divergent ways, both Matthew and Paul seek to understand the significance of Jesus according to Hebrew Scriptures, struggle over the possible impermanence of Torah, employ the same Christological titles, envision a mission to the Gentiles, and outline a type of egalitarian community.
On the basis of the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 and Paul's argument in Romans 2, David Morlan argues that Luke and Paul disagree in their understanding of repentance. For Luke, repentance is primarily a return to God on the part of the willing human subject. Conversely, Paul understands repentance as a moral conformity to the law which is impossible for humans under the power of sin.
After rehearsing the evidence for Luke the physician as the author of the third Gospel, Stanley Porter draws attention to several differences between Luke and Paul concerning their use of scripture, Kyrios Christology, their view of Jesus' death, and eschatology—though these discrepancies are far more moderate than is often assumed.
Mark Harding's essay provides a helpful summary of twentieth century attempts to articulate the relationship between John and Paul. Offering his own comparison, Harding finds overwhelming congruence concerning their belief in the obsolescence of the law, the pre-existence of Christ, and the centrality of the cross. However, Paul and John differ regarding the present/future orientation of apocalyptic motifs and the future salvation of “the Jews.” Finally, additional consonance between John and Pauline theology may be found in Ephesians and Colossians.
Following a survey of a wide variety of issues, Colin Kruse concludes that Paul and John do not demonstrate literary dependence, but are indebted to the same primitive Christian tradition. In this way, Paul and John represent two of three alternate streams of thought within early Christianity.
Building upon Simon Gathercole's recent study on Thomas' indebtedness to Paul, Christopher Skinner notes Thomas' oral dependence upon Pauline spirit/flesh dichotomy as well as sayings 3, 17, and 53, but Thomas' reinterpretation and modification of the original Pauline traditions amount to a rejection of Paul.
Rather than looking for direct lines of influence, Joshua Jipp evaluates the general theological outlook of Paul (1 Cor) and Thomas concerning death, salvation, and bodily practices. Thomas utilizes many of the same motifs as Paul, but he has done so in a very different way. Consequently, Jipp finds very little reason to hypothesize any direct confrontation with Paul on the part of Thomas.
There is much to praise about this volume of essays: they are all well researched and clearly written, and they make detailed arguments. As a collection, these essays demonstrate the wide variety of historical, literary, or thematic approaches one could take when describing the relationship between Paul and the Gospels, though this is achieved without many digressions into issues of methodology. The inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas into the debate is itself an advance in current scholarship. Finally, every essayist's conclusions are thoughtful, measured, and avoid exaggeration. However, this strength is also the book's greatest weakness: its conclusions are often too cautious. Differences between Paul and a Gospel are recognized, but often muted or limited in scope. Likewise, similarities abound yet firm conclusions are scarcely made (Bird's own essay being a possible exception). One is led to assume that early Christianity was either unusually conciliatory toward theological opponents or Paul himself had very little influence beyond his own churches.