Apostle Paul

Miguel G. Echevarría and Benjamin P. Laird 40 Questions about The Apostle Paul

Echevarría, Miguel G. and Benjamin P. Laird 40 Questions about The Apostle Paul. 40 Questions and Answers Series. Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2023. 319 pp. Pb; $24.99. Link to Kregel Academic

Miguel Echevarría is associate Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. His 2014 SBTS Ph.D. dissertation was published as The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Pickwick, 2019). In addition to several journal articles, his Engaging the New Testament is due from Baker in 2024. Benjamin Laird is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University and author of The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation (Hendrickson 2022) and Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy and the Authority of the New Testament (IVP Academic, 2023).40 Questions about the Apostle PaulIn this new volume of Kregel Academic’s 40 Questions series, Echevarría and Laird answer frequently asked questions about the Apostle Paul. As they say in the introduction, it is possible to write “100 Questions about the Apostle Paul” and still not cover every related subject to Paul’s life in teaching. They divide the book into three parts: first, questions about Paul’s life; second, questions about Paul’s writings; and third, questions about Paul’s theology.

Questions in the first part summarize what little we can know about pre-Christian Paul. They speculate a little bit about his father as a potential possible pharisee and his relation to Sergius Paulus. Was Paul married? Did he have both a secular and Jewish education? Did he have any post-conversion education? They also discuss potential motives for Paul’s persecution of the early church. Echevarría and Laird only briefly discuss Paul’s conversion and do not touch on the possibility Paul was not so much converted from Judaism to Christianity than called to a prophetic office (the “light to the Gentiles”) as sometimes suggested by the New Perspective on Paul or Paul within Judaism views.

Echevarría and Laird offer a “provisional Pauline chronology” (Jesus’s crucifixion is AD 33, Paul’s conversion AD 33/34) followed by two chapters on Paul’s missionary journeys and his trip to Rome. They accept the traditional view that Paul was released from prison after the book of Acts and engaged in ministry (perhaps) in Spain and Crete, arrested again in Rome, and was executed under Nero. They recognize that not all scholars agree, although they do not interact directly with them. Their chronology relies on an early date for Acts and the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. They also collect what can be known about Paul’s death from early church writers (including the Acts of Paul). Question 10 discusses Paul’s missionary strategy. He intentionally targeted unreached urban centers with an “integrated lifestyle.” Paul lived and worked in these communities, culturalizing his Gospel proclamation (1 Cor 9:19-23). He “conducted his life so as to avoid needless offense” (89).

The second part of the book deals with Paul’s writings. They cover basic introductory materials such as date, destination, etc. Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s letters; otherwise, all their views are traditional. They deal with challenges to Pauline authorship (Question 18) and responses to those objections (Question 19). They discuss Paul’s use of secretaries, letter carriers, and the responsibilities of a letter carrier (Question 13).

Questions 15 and 16 reflect Laird’s interest in the New Testament canon. When were Paul’s letters first collected and published? They argue for an early collection. Paul’s collections were “likely formed from duplicate copies in Paul’s possession” (130). Eventually, a ten-letter collection was supplemented by the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. They discuss whether Paul wrote the book of Hebrews (Question 16). They observed that Paul certainly influenced the book of Hebrews, and they speculate that Hebrews was a speech by Paul. They conclude by pointing out that the arguments against Pauline authorship of Hebrews are not as strong as often assumed. Finally, with respect to canon, are there lost letters written by the apostle Paul? In Question 17, they discuss “lost” letters like the Corinthian correspondence. If there are lost letters, it is because the recipients simply did not copy them.

In the third section of the book, Echevarría and Laird answer questions about Paul’s theology. They survey ten proposals for a possible center of Paul’s theology and conclude that “crucifixion and resurrection” is the central theme. All doctrine flows from Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, including the other proposals. This section includes chapters on Christology, atonement, and several Christian practices (conversion, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, law and grace, and faith and works). With respect to eschatology, they observe that Paul has a two-age eschatology in keeping with the common Jewish view of this age and the age to come. There are some signs that the new age has already begun (such as resurrection and the Holy Spirit), but others have not yet arrived, such as the second coming of Christ. They argue that Paul’s view of an imminent return of Christ drives his mission (249). Paul’s mission is “to fulfill Isaiah’s vision of gathering the Gentiles into the community of God’s saving promises (250).

This section also includes answers to several specific questions. They include two chapters on the New Perspective on Paul. Echevarría and Laird summarize the views of N. T. Wright and James Dunn, the key popularizers of E. P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism. These views are then critiqued (Question 34). They find rights emphasis on covenant in Paul’s thought problematic and are not convinced by Dunn’s “Works of the Law.”  The next question concerns a hot topic often discussed along with the New Perspective, the phrase pistis Christou. Does this refer to the faithfulness of Christ or the believer’s faith in Christ? Although there are several chapters on the New Perspective on Paul, Echevarría and Laird are not influenced by this popular trend in Pauline studies. Although they are fair in their critique of the New Perspective, their answers represent a traditional view of Paul.

The final chapters of the book deal with controversial topics such as Paul’s view of marriage and divorce, the role of women in ministry, the continuation (or cessation) of sign gifts, the problem of slavery and racial division, and supersessionism (has the church replaced Israel?).

Conclusion: Echevarría and Laird’s 40 Questions on the Apostle Paul is a basic introduction to Paul’s life, ministry, and theology. The book will introduce students to basic issues and arguments current in Pauline studies. As with other volumes in this series, each chapter ends with five discussion questions, which make the book a good fit for a class on Paul’s letters and theology. Advanced readers may be frustrated with the brevity of each chapter, but that is due to the goals of the 40 Questions series. Echevarría and Laird provide footnotes for readers interested in pursuing topics in more depth. However, I would like to see a basic bibliography a the conclusion of each chapter identifying four or five key books on the topic.

Extras: Chad Burchett interviews Miguel Echevarría for the SEBTS blog, Beyond the Book.

 

Other books reviewed in this series:

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Acts 21 – Paul vs. James

Paul and JamesWhen Paul arrives in Jerusalem, he meets with “James and the Elders.”  As it turns out, there are many Jews in Jerusalem who believe Jesus is the Messiah yet are still following the Law (21:20).  This is not unexpected since Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law nor did Jesus ever teach his disciples to reject the Law or Temple worship. Jesus did reject the traditions of the Pharisees, but he lived as any Jew might have in the first century. It is better to see Jesus calling his disciples to a deeper engagement with the Law. In the Sermon on the Mount, for example, Jesus wants his followers to obey not only the letter, but also the spirit of the Law.

James, the Lord’s Brother, has emerged as a leader in the Jerusalem church. When Paul arrives he gives a report (ἐξηγέομαι) of how God is working among the Gentiles. While the elders of the community rejoice and praise God for this, James moves quickly from what God is going among the Gentiles to a potential problem with Paul’s missionary activity. James describes the Jerusalem church as very large, the NIV has “thousands,” translating the Greek “myriads” (μυριάς). While this might seem like hyperbole, several thousand people accepted the apostolic teaching in Acts 2 and 3. It is likely additional converts in the many years that have passed and there are still a large number of Jesus-followers in and around Jerusalem at this time.

There are some among this Jewish Christian community who think that Paul has made a grace error by teaching Jews who have accepted Jesus as Messiah to turn away from the Law (v. 21).  Certainly Paul taught Gentiles they were not under the law. The letter to the Galatians is a strong condemnation of Gentiles trying to keep the Law.

With respect to Jews who are in Christ, there is no specific text which clearly indicates Paul told Jews to continue keeping the law and traditions of Israel. It may or may not be the case that Paul considered ceremonial law and traditions matters of indifference.

Ben Witherington thinks it is at least possible Paul considered traditional Jewish practices as no longer required in the present age. Galatians could be read as a repudiation of the Law, although it seems that Paul only has in mind Gentile converts. But this may be the heart of the problem: the church Paul has created is something new and different.  People are converting to a belief in Jesus as savior apart from Law rather than converting to Judaism or converting to a particular messianic conviction within Judaism (Acts, 648).

If members of the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem had read Galatians, they may have wondered if Paul had rejected the Law himself. If rumors of his “all things to all men” ministry model reached Jerusalem, then it is likely there were Jewish Christians who thought Paul has gone too far in his desire to reach the Gentiles.

Luke certainly describes James and the Elders as polite and welcoming, but there are lingering questions about Paul’s ministry method. Luke does not create an artificial unity here, he reports a real tension in the early church over a critically important issue, the status of Gentiles in the church as well as the role of the Law.

To what extent do these two issues continue to be a problem in Acts and Paul’s letters? Is this tension still a problem in the modern church, even after the Reformation?

Jerry L. Sumney, Steward of God’s Mysteries: Paul and Early Church Tradition

Sumney, Jerry L. Steward of God’s Mysteries: Paul and Early Church Tradition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016. 209 pp. Pb; $28.   Link to Eerdmans

In recent years, a number of books have been published making the claim that Paul “invented Christianity.” For example, Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker (Harper & Row, 1987), Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian (2010), Robert Orlando, Apostle Paul: A Polite Bribe (Cascade, 2014) or Barrie Wilson, How Jesus Became Christian (St. Martins, 2008). These books argue for a strong contrast between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, suggesting it is impossible that Paul knew Jesus or his teachings. These claims are usually answered by examining theological connections between Jesus and Paul or answering the negative critiques directly. See, for example, Todd Still’s Jesus and Paul Reconnected (Eerdmans, 2007) or David Wenham’s Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right? (Lion Hudson, 2011).

Early Church Tradition

Jerry Sumney surveys this discussion in his first chapter (“Thinking about Paul’s Place in the Early Church”) and suggests a different method for connecting Paul to Jesus. Rather than finding connections between Jesus and Paul, his goal in this book is to “explore the relationship between the teachings of the earliest church and Paul’s thought” (15). Sumney defines “pre-Pauline tradition” as material that comes from “a time before Paul was influential in the church” (19). The book argues Paul “remained dependent on the theological ideas and developments that were in the church” (19). Paul was, therefore, not an independent voice creating doctrines no one in the church had ever considered before, and he continued to stay connected to the wider church as he developed his theology. Yet there is some creativity in how Paul developed the traditions he received.

To achieve this goal, Sumney will examine citations of “preformed tradition” in the undisputed Pauline letters. He recognizes the problems of confidently identifying preexisting tradition, so he proposes a fourteen-point criterion for identifying a particular text as pre-Pauline. These criteria are not unlike Hays’s famous seven criteria for detecting allusions to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, and have the same strengths and weaknesses. Some of these are clear and should not be controversial. For example, the presence of an introductory formula explicitly identifying a tradition or terminology that is absent elsewhere in Paul’s letters may indicate the use of a preformed tradition. If Paul shifts from first person plural to second or third person, especially with verbs of confession or praise, he may allude to a tradition.

Other criteria are more open to debate. For example, Sumney includes the use of relative pronouns and participial phrases as an important indication that Paul is alluding to a tradition. However, using relative clauses may be due to Paul’s writing style rather than a preformed tradition. He also sees statements that are not “fully congruent with the author’s theology seen elsewhere” (18) or an interruption of the flow of a text as an indication of the presence of a tradition. This assumes Paul could not himself compose a one-off saying that is different than what appears in the rest of Romans or Galatians. It also assumes we understand the “congruency of Pauline Theology” the same way Paul did. Since the database of Pauline letters is so small, unusual sayings or interruptions are to be expected.

Even with these objections, Sumney’s criteria are important since they control parallelomania. Outside of a few places where Paul directly claims to be handing along a tradition (1 Cor 15:3-5, for example), Sumney recognizes his argument for any given text as a pre-Pauline tradition is inductive. The fourteen criteria are listed in order of significance so that “parallels in the rhythm of lines” do not carry the same weight as the “presence of a citation formula.”

He applies this method in a series of thematic chapters: the meaning of Christ’s death (ch. 2); the identity of Jesus (ch. 3); “understandings of salvation” (ch. 4); the “The Coming of the Lord” (ch. 5); the Lord’s Supper (ch. 6). In each chapter he offers few paragraphs on each of the most apparent allusions to pre-Pauline material, often interacting with the major commentaries.

Sumney begins with one of the clearest examples of Paul’s use of a tradition handed down to him, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. This text is a “confessional piece” which demonstrates the earliest church interpreted the death and resurrection of Jesus through the lens of Scripture” (22). That Paul would consider Jesus as Lord (Phil 2:6-11) is indeed grounded in earliest Christian worship since the church “had already assigned Jesus an exalted position as a messianic and eschatological figure” (55). This runs counter to some readings of Paul (James Tabor, for example). Sumney’s conclusions are in line with Richard Bauckham and Gordon Fee, who also argue the phrase “Jesus is Lord” is akin to a creedal statement.

In his final chapter (“I Handed On to You . . . What I Received”), Sumney concludes that Paul was not the originator of the early church’s theology. “He seldom develops new assertions about Christ’s nature or word or other theological doctrine beyond what is found in the traditions he cites” (173).  If Paul cited (or alluded) to traditions, he expected his readers to recognize these statements. For Sumney, Paul is part of the mainstream of the early church (169), and he is the leading interpreter of the beliefs expressed in the church’s earliest traditions (174). Although it is clear that Paul often cited traditions handed down to him and likely used traditional language, just as calling Jesus “Lord,” there is at least some evidence that he stood outside the mainstream of the early church in some ways. A fair reading of Galatians 1-2 would indicate there was some tension between Paul and Peter, Barnabas, and the “men from James.”

Is it the case that Paul always develops the traditions he received? Since his goal was to study the pre-Pauline material, Sumney does not attempt to examine the unique material in Paul. Despite the laudable goal of keeping Paul and Jesus as close as possible, there are theological points that do seem at odds with the rest of the earliest church. For example, Paul’s view of the role of the Law in the present age was controversial in the early church (Acts 15, Galatians). It is unlikely any Jewish Christian would have considered the guardianship of the Law was at an end “now that this faith has come” (Galatians 3:23-4:7). There are a few texts in which Paul claims to be speaking the words of the Lord as if he is a prophet (1 Cor 7:10 and perhaps 1 Thess 4:15). In proving Paul was not a “Lone Ranger” who was creating theology no one had ever considered before, is possible to flatten the distinctions and miss what is unique in Paul.

Nevertheless, Sumney succeeds in his goal of identifying many examples of Paul’s use of traditions, which were in some sense handed down to him before he began to write his letters. By developing a straightforward method, Sumney can make a compelling case in nearly every example he offers in this book.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Book Review: Leslie T. Hardin, The Spirituality of Paul

Hardin, Leslie T. The Spirituality of Paul: Partnering with the Spirit in Everyday Life. Grand Rapids, Mich. Kregel, 2016. 192 pp. Hb; $16.99. Link to Kregel

Leslie Hardin contributed to the Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care and wrote The Spirituality of Jesus for Kregel (2009). Like his previous book, Hardin does not write a book on the practice of spiritual disciplines but rather a series of short reflections on what Paul thinks is key to spirituality. Although this is not a “how to” guide for spiritual life, readers will be encouraged as they reflect on what Paul says about these topics. For Hardin, Pauline spirituality is a “practical partnership with the Spirit,” an expression of the Spirit of God already at work in the believer’s life (17).

Spirituality of Paul, HardinIn the introductory chapter, Hardin discusses Paul’s sometimes controversial commands to “imitate me.” Hardin expresses a common frustration with Paul’s somewhat arrogant view that he is worthy of imitation, especially in matters of spiritual discipline. After all, Paul seems opinionated and angry, perhaps even demanding of his congregations. Why imitate Paul when Peter and John are original disciples of Jesus? In fact, why imitate Paul when we ought to be imitating Jesus? Like Randolph and O’Brien’s recent Paul Behaving Badly, Hardin wants to read Paul’s letters in order to answer some of these objections while focusing on the “shape” of Paul’s spirituality.

Hardin discusses ten themes in Paul: Scripture, prayer, disciple-making, proclamation, worship, holiness, spiritual gifts, edification, and suffering. Some of these are certainly within the sphere of spirituality, but several are in the category of imitation. Disciple-making, for example, is not usually included in a list of spiritual disciplines. However, as Hardin explains, Paul’s missionary method intentionally sought out individuals to develop into disciples who were told to go and find others to disciple. This process of discipleship hands down tradition from Jesus to Paul, to Paul’s disciples, and then to their disciples. Hardin’s discussion of spiritual gifts is good and approaches a potentially contentious issue with wisdom, but it does not always speak to “spirituality in Paul.”

Hardin discusses the shape of Pauline spirituality in his final chapter. First, Paul was faithful to Scripture. According to Hardin, Paul saw Scripture as a tutor leading to godliness through Christ. Second, Paul was an imitator of Jesus (1 Cor 1:11). Although he encouraged his disciples to imitate him, his eyes were fixed on Jesus. This is not a lame “year of living like Jesus,” but rather living out the lifestyle of Jesus in a way that impacts the world. Third, living life as an imitator of Jesus is, for Paul, a life of freedom. Hardin is clear imitating Jesus is not living exactly like Jesus in every single detail, but embracing the freed from guilt one has as a child of God. Fourth, imitating Paul as he imitates Jesus should result in glorifying Jesus. Paul sees glorifying Jesus as the goal of everything Paul says in his letters. Fifth, Paul’s spirituality is committed to unity. It is undeniable that Paul desires his churches to be unified in doctrine and practice. Finally, Hardin points out that the basis of any talk of the spiritual of Paul is his emphasis on the activity of the Holy Spirit.

There are a few things missing in the book. For example, Hardin has consciously avoided interacting with any of the classics of spiritual discipline. Although the focus on Paul might have limited the use of some of these classics, I would have expected some interaction with Rodney Reeves’s Spirituality According to Paul (InterVarsity, 2011). It is also remarkable (or refreshing, depending on your perspective) that a book on the spiritual of Paul does not use the work cruciform. In fact, only one or two citations of Michael Gorman are in this book. Gorman’s Becoming the Gospel is likely too recent to have influenced Hardin, but certainly, his previous books merit more than a brief citation (Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, Eerdmans 2001 and Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, Eerdmans 2009).

Conclusion. Despite these reservations, Spiritual of Paul is a good introduction to the several key areas of discipleship in the Pauline letters. Hardin’s style is inviting and will be appreciated by both laypersons and scholars. The book would be ideal for a small group Bible study.

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

 

 

Stanley E. Porter, When Paul Met Jesus

Porter, Stanley E. When Paul Met Jesus: How an Idea Got Lost in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 435 pp. Pb; $34.   Link to Cambridge

Did Paul meet Jesus before his experience in the Road to Damascus? Second Corinthians 5:16 is usually read as if Paul denied knowing Jesus before the dramatic event on the Damascus Road. When confronted by the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul asks, “Who are you, Lord?” This, too, is taken as an indication that Paul did not recognize Jesus and is used as evidence that Paul did not know Jesus before his conversion. But a few scholars in the early twentieth century suggested Paul may have seen Jesus in Jerusalem before the crucifixion and perhaps even heard Jesus teach at some point.

Porter, When Paul Met Jesus

In this monograph Stanley Porter attempts to revive the idea that Paul met Jesus by examining the relevant texts in the Pauline epistles as well as the book of Acts. Beginning with William Ramsay, Johannes Weiss, and J. H. Moulton, Porter suggests it is at least plausible to understand some of the texts used to show Paul did not know Jesus as meaning the opposite; he did recognize Jesus on the road to Damascus, and he had heard Jesus teaching in person (chapter 1).

Although he admits he has not surveyed every work on the life of Paul (a nearly impossible task these days), Porter claims to have found only one recent scholar who is open to the possibility Paul heard Jesus teach at some point before the crucifixion (Tim Gombis, in Paul: A Guide for the Perplexed). Even works with a vested interest in connecting Jesus and Paul dismisses the possibility Paul knew Jesus prior to his conversion. Porter cites David Wenham, who wrote a popular book on Jesus and Paul. Wenham simply states, “Paul did not have firsthand experience of Jesus’ ministry (cited by Porter, 175).

So what happened? Porter lays the blame for the common assumption Paul did not know Jesus at the feet of F. C. Baur, followed by William Wrede and, most significantly, Rudolf Bultmann. As Porter says, “The short answer is Rudolf Bultmann, and the long answer is the general history of Pauline scholarship” since Baur (45). There are several assumptions that make the possibility that Paul knew Jesus less likely. First, Baur reduced the Pauline canon to Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians. Second, he assumed Acts altered history to make the contrast between Paul and Peter more clear. This led to the third assumption: Peter and Paul represented the two sides of the early church, eventually synthesizing the next generation of Christianity. Bultmann argued Jesus’ teaching was irrelevant (and unknowable), and Pauline theology does not really depend on Jesus. Porter interacts at length with Bultmann’s 2 Corinthians commentary since the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:16 is critically important for the thesis he wants to defend in this monograph, that Paul not only knew the teaching of Jesus, but had heard Jesus teach, perhaps on several occasions, and may have interacted with Jesus during his earthly ministry.

As a result of the influence of Baur, Wrede, and Bultmann, most scholars reject the idea Paul knew Jesus or do not even raise the question. For many, there is a gap between the teaching of Jesus and the theology of Paul. Porter cites James Dunn, “Paul’s influence in determining the beginnings of Christianity was almost as great as that of Jesus” (Porter, 71).

With respect to method, Porter realizes many scholars reduce the number of authentic epistles and often reject the Pastoral Epistles, but there is little in the disputed epistles that supports his case. He fully accepts the book of Acts as evidence for the details of Paul’s life and prefers to date the book as early as A.D. 63 (an early date even for conservative Acts scholars). Scholarship on Pauline chronology often favors the epistles, and Porter sees no problem using both as sources for this study.

His third chapter surveys the data in Acts and the Pauline epistles, including the three reports of Paul’s conversion in Acts, focusing especially on the phrase “Who are you Lord?” For Porter, both Jesus’ statement and Paul’s response imply recognition. That is, Paul saw Jesus and recognized him because he knew him before the encounter (94). Porter gently suggests the phrase “I am Jesus” is similar to a Johannine “I am” saying, so Jesus is using a Christological formula to identify himself (the human Jesus) with God (92).

Turning to the Epistles, Porter begins with 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Porter offers a detailed exegesis of this passage, comparing it to 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 to argue that Paul had seen Jesus just as the other apostles had. With respect to 2 Corinthians 5:16, Porter interacts at length with Bultmann’s highly influential commentary. Bultmann understood this verse to say Paul did not know Jesus before the Damascus road encounter, that he did not know Jesus “according to the flesh.” Porter offers a detailed exegesis of eleven key points in this verse and concludes it is plausible that the verse indicates that Paul once knew Jesus only as a human, but now (after the resurrection), Paul knows Jesus as the resurrected Lord. He is careful to suggest this as a possible reading of the text, but along with 1 Corinthians 9:1 and the book of Acts, there is a strong possibility Paul had known Jesus prior to his conversion experience.

In chapter 4, Porter develops some of the implications of Paul knowing Jesus before the resurrection. This implies that everyone had firsthand knowledge of Jesus’ teaching because he had heard it for himself at some point in his ministry. To support this, Porter examines five passages in Paul’s letter that seem to reflect the teaching of Jesus: Romans 12:92-21 (loving, blessing, cursing); Romans13:8 and Galatians 5:14 (loving one’s neighbor); 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (on divorce); 1 Corinthians 9:14 and 1 Timothy 5:18 (paying ministers of the Gospel); 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (the Lord’s return).

After examining these passages in detail, Porter concludes Paul had firsthand knowledge of the teaching of Jesus corresponding to three phases of Jesus’ ministry. Romans 12:9-21 alludes to the Sermon on the Mount (which Porter argues was a single sermon preached in Galilee). Loving one’s neighbor alludes to Jesus’ encounter with a lawyer during Luke’s travel narrative on the road to Jerusalem who asked him how he might inherit eternal life.  1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 alludes to the Olivet Discourse, part of Jesus’ teaching to the disciples in Jerusalem. Although Porter does not offer details, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 is perhaps a better example of a possible allusion to the Olivet Discourse. Obeying the government in Romans 13 may allude to Jesus’ saying to “give unto Caesar.”

I have several questions about this section of Porter’s argument. First, acquaintance with the teaching of Jesus does not necessarily mean firsthand knowledge. If Romans12:9-11 does allude to the Sermon on the Mount, it is not necessary for Paul himself to have heard Jesus teach the words himself. The writer of the Didache also alludes to the Sermon, but no one would assume that author personally heard Jesus teach. Although it is not necessary to argue Paul had a copy of Q with him wherever he traveled, it is just as plausible he knew of some sayings sources often attributed to Q. This would account for material in Paul’s letters which would later be used by Matthew and Luke.

A second and related issue concerns the method used for demonstrating Paul had firsthand knowledge of Jesus’ teaching. Porter must walk a fine line between verbal parallels with the Gospels and general allusions. If Paul heard Jesus teach in Galilee and wrote his recollection of that teaching in Romans some twenty or more years later, it would be remarkable if the words he used were exactly the same as the Gospel of Matthew. Porter recognizes this as a problem for the vocabulary for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 (148-50), eventually concluding Paul offers a paraphrase of what Jesus said.

This raises a third concern. Sometimes, a common Jewish source is a simpler solution than what Paul heard Jesus teach. For example, both Jesus’ and Paul’s summary of the Law as “love your neighbor” is not remarkable at all since this was a well-known summary of the Law in Second Temple Judaism based on Leviticus 19:18. That a Jewish lawyer would respond to Jesus in this way is not a surprise. In addition, it is possible to find parallels to Romans 12:9-21 in Jewish wisdom literature.

Finally, Porter sometimes makes a suggestion that goes well beyond the evidence. He very tentatively suggests Paul was the “the lawyer who asked the question” in Luke 10:25-28 (147). Similarly, that Paul “overheard Jesus’ words regarding the worker being worthy of his/her wages” (159) seems to go beyond the evidence or that Paul overheard the Olivet Discourse and “heard enough” of Jesus at that point (167). All of these are, of course, possibilities, but they move into the area of speculation that cannot be supported by evidence.

In his conclusion, Porter cites A.M. Pope who asked what benefit to our understanding of Paul if it can be proven Paul knew the life and teaching of the human Jesus. Aside from historical curiosity, the connection between Jesus and Paul would serve to further strengthen Pauline studies which place Paul in a Jewish context. The wedge driven between Jesus and Paul ought to be removed, but so too the wedge between Judaism, Jesus and Paul.

Conclusion. This is a fascinating book that makes a bold claim and supports that claim with detailed evidence and careful argumentation. Porter makes his case that it is at least plausible that Paul knew Jesus’ teaching prior to the crucifixion and that he had personally seen Jesus on occasion.

 

NB: Thanks to Cambridge for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.