RBL 11/2012

Bird, Michael F., and Joel Willitts, eds.

Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and
Convergences
Library of New Testament Studies 411
New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Pp. xii + 276. Hardcover.
$120.00. ISBN 9780567617422.

Thomas P. Nelligan
Dominican Biblical Institute
Limerick, Ireland
This volume, published as part of the Library of New Testament Studies series, investigates
the relationship between Paul and the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and
Thomas. This volume attempts to gather together some of the scholarly strands that have
explored this issue over the past two centuries. This volume asks two fundamental
questions (1) what is the relationship between Paul and the earliest Christian gospels in
terms of their origins, setting and theological character and (2) in what ways are the
earliest gospels a reaction to Paul and his legacy, such as appropriation, development or
polemic? (12)
The volume begins with two studies on Mark and Paul. The first, Mark, Paul and the
Question of Influences, is by James G. Crossley, who argues that any similarity between
Mark and Paul can be largely attributed to the general cultural context in which they were
both writing but allowing that one may have been aware of the other and that ideas may
have been exchanged. In doing this, Crossley examines some key overlaps between Mark
and Paul, including the suffering and death of Jesus, the Gentile mission, the law, and
Christology. While overlaps were found by Crossley on these issues, there was nothing
that suggested a relationship of dependence. Crossley argues very convincingly on aspects

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

of Markan exegesis, but his controversial dating of Mark makes it difficult to determine
the direction of possible influence.
Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul, by Michael F. Bird, explores the notion
that Mark was influenced by both Peter and Paul. Bird moves systematically through the
idea that Mark was both Petrine testimony and Pauline proclamation and meticulously
looks at the arguments for and against these options. Bird states that Mark is very
probably indebted to Petrine tradition and exhibits a pro-Pauline theological texture
(52). For Bird, the Pauline influence only makes sense in the presence of the Petrine
traditions. Following the conclusion is an appendix that explores the title and authorship
of Mark in an attempt to firmly link John Mark of the New Testament with the author of
the Gospel. Overall this chapter is thorough and persuading and gives a measured look at
the possible influences that helped to shape the author of the Gospel.
Joel Willittss essay contends that Matthew and Paul may not be as opposed as previously
believed. Willitts argues that Matthew and Paul share a basic theological affinity, although
a comparison of both must ultimately be a descriptive task and needs to be read as part of
the radical New Perspective and that the scholar must resist the urge to draw
speculative conclusions (65). Two case studies are carried out on Matthews and Pauls
view of Davidic messianism and judgment according to works, and Willitts argues that
Paul is much closer to Judaism than scholars normally allow, and this provides a closer
theology to Matthew. Willitts concludes that similarity does not mean dependence and
that Matthew is not pro- or anti-Pauline but simply un-Pauline. This is a fair conclusion,
although Willitts does illustrate that further work is required in this area.
Paul Fosters essay argues that the small nature of early Christianity and its limited
theology accounts for any similarities between Matthew and Paul. Foster discusses five
points of convergence and divergence: the use of the Hebrew Scriptures, attitudes toward
the role of the Torah, christological perspectives, participation in Gentile mission, and
reflections on community structures. Foster argues that similarities are primarily due to
both sharing some of the core commitments, beliefs and affirmations in common with
the wider early Jesus movement (114). The conclusion is not satisfying. If the theology
was that limited, then Paul, being the earliest extant Christian literature, may be the
source of much of this; therefore, overlaps would take on more significance, and this is
not explored.
Luke and Paul on Repentance, by David Morlan, uses the theme of repentance as a
vehicle to compare Luke and Paul and explore their relationship. Morlan begins with
Lukes concept of repentance in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Prodigal Son
parable, which he sees as being representative of Lukes concept of repentance. The

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

discussion of Pauls view of repentance focuses on Pauls logic in negating repentance, the
law and conversion language, the power of sin, and Rom 2. Morlan concludes that Lukes
and Pauls views are ultimately different, and their respective views of repentance rest on
different understandings of human changeability. Morlans study is thorough, with indepth readings of the text, but it could benefit from a more detailed comparison of the
two views rather than showing what each text presents.
Stanley E. Porters essay argues that it is possible that the Gospel of Luke is a reaction to
Pauls major, undisputed letters. Porter examines some of Lukes and Pauls major
theological issues, such as their use of scripture, Christology, Jesus death and resurrection
and eschatology, and early Catholicism. He argues that, while there are many points of
convergence between the two, the distinct voice of each writer can still be heard. Porter
concludes that this is to be expected of two writers who possibly knew each other. Porters
argument that scholars often point out divergence much more strongly than is necessary
is an important one. The tendency to focus on differences overshadows many arguments
in this volume, and Porters observance of this pattern shows that similarities can still be
observed in spite of differences.
Mark Hardings study of Paul and John explores their perspectives on the Christ event.
Harding looks at the history of scholarship that proposes a literary connection between
Paul and John and argues that some allusions to certain Pauline themes are much more
convincing than a direct literary relationship. Harding makes note of certain aspects of
both that show both juncture and disjuncture, including the law, the Jews, Christology,
and eschatology. Some compelling similarities are found, particularly with the disputed
letters of Ephesians and Colossians. Harding does not go so far as to make a literary
connection but argues that common themes and sensibilities come from a common
background. This chapter is forthright in proposing similarities of theme and stresses the
importance of them, yet Harding falls short of proposing a connection and errs on the
side of caution.
Paul and John: Two Witnesses, One Gospel, by Colin G. Kruse, does not see any
connection between John and Paul but finds no surprise in there being common elements
to both. Kruse compares Paul and John on a number of common issues in order to see
similarities and dissimilarities. The areas analyzed are God the Father, Jesus Christ the
Son, the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, the Mosaic law, humanity and its need, the work of
Christ, union with Christ, the church and its ministers, mission, and Israel/the Jews. Kruse
argues that, although there are shared issues, they are expressed in different ways and that
there is no evidence to suggest any form of relationship but rather they both drew from
common Christian traditions. Overall the essay is thorough in its comparison, and Kruse
rightly points out that there are plenty of other areas to explore.

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Christopher W. Skinner deals with the Gospel of Thomas and argues that it shows
knowledge of Pauls writings and a reworking of Pauline language for un-Pauline ends
(221). After identifying certain inherent problems in comparing Thomas to Paul, Skinner
compares sections of Thomas with sections from Pauls letters as well as briefly
comparing their theology. Skinners conclusion is that the authors of Thomas were
indeed familiar with Pauls letters and theology but largely rejected it and transformed
key Pauline ideas to reflect their own theology. This study is significant in that it is one of
the first studies to compare Thomas with Pauline literature. Skinner does not reject a
connection based on dissimilarity but rather shows that a writer could utilize the ideas of
another author and transform them for his or her own purposes.
The second essay dealing with the Gospel of Thomas, and the final one of the volume, is
by Joshua W. Jipp. He chooses just one Pauline letter, 1 Corinthians, for comparison and
explores shared themes. The first is death and human predicament, the second is
salvation as transformation, and the third is bodily practices. In all three Jipp looks at the
theme in Thomas and in 1 Corinthians and then compares the two. Jipp argues that there
is no evidence that Thomas is reacting to Paul and that, although they share some motifs,
they are essentially different and that these differences are best understood as being part
of the diversity of early Christianity rather than as a reaction to Paul. As with Skinners
essay, this is an important paper in advancing the boundaries of scholarship in regard to
Thomas.
Overall this is an important volume in New Testament scholarship. The question of
Pauls influence on Gospel literature is one that has not been sufficiently investigated by
scholars. This volume is a long way short of a full investigation and does not settle all of
the issues but does open to door to further investigations. While all the studies contained
within are thorough and well-presented, there was a lack of close analysis with Pauls
individual letters, and many of the studies were general in nature and looked at themes
and theology from across Pauline. Finally, the volume lacks a general conclusion, which
would have been very useful to draw together the findings of the ten studies to give the
reader some form of answer to the questions asked in the introduction.

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.