Bird, Michael F. and Joel Willitts, eds.
Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts & Convergences
Library of New Testament Studies 411.
London: T&T Clark, 2011. Pp. xii + 276. Hardcover. $120.00.
.
With thanks to T&T Clark for this review copy!
If the first set of chapters in this volume read like a debate between two opponents then the second set read like a collaboration of two partners. Both Joel Willitts and Paul Foster take roughly the same approach in assessing the relationship between Paul and Matthew and they both draw roughly the same conclusions.
Joel Willits’ chapter “Paul and Matthew: A Descriptive Approach from a Post-New Perspective Interpretive Framework” begins by critiquing comparative methodology before offering an alternative framework in which to situate Paul and Matthew. In short, Willitts argues that the scholar’s task should be descriptive, that is, they should simply describe what Matthew and Paul said on a particular topic and only then compare them, keeping in mind matters of audience, genre, purpose for writing, etc. What they should not do is draw definitive conclusions about the relationship between the two authors based on these comparisons because such conclusions are highly speculative.
The alternative framework Willitts suggests for comparing Matthew and Paul is “apostolic Judaism,” that is, a “new form of Judaism” that held the “conviction that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.” (67) He sees the social location of both authors as the “Jewish synagogue in the Graeco-Roman world of the middle to late first century” (67), so while Matthew wrote to Jewish believers in Jesus, Paul wrote to “Gentile believers within an ethnically diverse yet Jewish social setting” (69), which means that both Jews and Gentiles would have heard his message.
Willitts uses two case studies for his comparison: 1) Davidic Messianism and 2) Judgment according to works. On Davidic Messianism he finds that it was basic to both Paul and Matthew and that they each “were in general continuity with their first-century contemporaries.” (76) The differences between the two can probably be attributed their different audiences and the difference in genre. On judgment according to works Willitts concludes that Paul and Matthew are also in agreement with each other, although they made their appeals in different ways, and in continuity with the Jewish tradition. In both authors we find a discontinuity with the tradition due to the “Christocentric nature of the obedience” under consideration. (82)
In the end Willitts’ descriptive method yields an unsure result about the relationship between Paul and Matthew. If the options on the table are that Matthew is 1) anti-Pauline, 2) un-Pauline, or 3) pro-Pauline, we can almost surely reject the first option. The second and third choices are not as clear cut since Matthew can easily be described as “un-Pauline” in the sense that he seems “wholly uninterested in Paul,” e.g., in not directly quoting him or mentioning his name (85), but he can be said to be “pro-Pauline” if by that we mean that they shared a basic theological outlook. If one uses “pro” to mean that Matthew explicitly endorses Paul then the label should be rejected.
Paul Foster’s chapter “Paul and Matthew: Two Strands of the Early Jesus Movement with Little Sign of Connection” takes roughly the same interpretive approach suggested by Willitts. In order to “situate the Matthaean and Pauline writings both within the emergent Jesus movement vis-à-vis Judaism” (88) Foster chooses five themes for comparison: 1) The use of the Hebrew Scriptures; 2) Attitudes towards the role of Torah; 3) Christological perspectives; 4) Participation in Gentile mission; and 5) Community structures.
Both authors use Scripture “for Christological and salvation-historical purposes” (91) while employing typological interpretations that see Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and expectations. There is also a general continuity with other contemporary Jewish groups who used similar techniques “for the purpose of advancing specific messianic claims.” (92)
Concerning each author’s attitude toward the role of Torah, Foster briefly examines Romans 2-3 and Matthew 5, concluding that while there are clear differences in approach (Paul negates claims of Jewish particularism based on possession and performance of Torah; Matthew’s Jesus offers a subversive reading of the programmatic statements on the law) that “may reflect the divergent social settings of their communities… it would be wrong to infer from such divergence that Matthew was in dispute with Pauline understanding of the Torah.” (95) Both are concerned with the Torah’s validity although to different degrees.
Both Paul and Matthew share a similar Christology that can be attributed to the wider Jesus movement. Paul emphasizes a κύριος Christology while Matthew emphasizes a Son of God Christology. This isn’t to say that Matthew is unconcerned with Jesus as κύριος or Paul with Jesus as Son of God, it only shows that they have different emphases, and the differences shouldn’t be seen as antithetical.
The issue of Gentile mission is probably the thorniest of the bunch. It can be said that both affirmed a Gentile mission but little past that in terms of the similarity and difference. Paul clearly affirms a non-Torah observant mission but it’s difficult to discern where exactly Matthew comes out on the issue. Foster says that it “remains beyond the available evidence to determine whether Matthew envisaged a law-free or law-observant mission to the Gentiles, although some passages in the Gospel might point perhaps more strongly to the possibility of a law-free mission, or at least a slightly relaxed outlook.” (110)
In terms of community structures both Paul and Matthew promote pastoral care and group discipline as community responsibilities. There is no emphasis on hierarchical leadership roles in either in the general message of either, but in practice Paul seems to invoke his apostolic authority when all else fails, creating an inconsistency in what he preaches. The nature of Matthew’s writing doesn’t allow us much insight into the actual practices of the alleged Matthaean community. The similarities between Matthew and Paul on this point probably reflect dominical teaching or the perspective of the wider early church.
There’s plenty to commend in both Willitts’ and Foster’s chapters. For one, I’m happy that the descriptive approach taken by each was able to keep their conclusions modest and fairly free from the pitfalls of the scholarly imagination. It’s hard to disagree with the conclusion(s) that Matthew and Paul shared a general outlook part of the wider apostolic Judaism/Jesus movement and that there doesn’t appear to be any direct influence or reaction from one to the other. Willitts and Foster were careful to highlight differences while suggesting that such differences don’t equate to opposition.
One thing that struck me as a deficiency of this kind of study in general, and not just in these two chapters, was that it’s difficult to gauge what exactly Matthew’s theology is apart from Jesus’ theology as recorded by Matthew. There’s also the issue of whether or not Matthew’s Gospel represents the Sitz im Leben of a Matthaean community. If it does (and I’m not at all convinced that this is the case) then that complicates matters even more. For Paul these issues are more clear-cut since he writes as a single author speaking to particular groups of Christians. But the resulting problem is that we don’t know to what extent Paul is agreeing with Jesus, Matthew, or the Matthaean community. Both Willitts and Foster highlight this problem in their respective chapters (see 62-63; 110).
I have only one small complaint about these two chapters and that is that I would have loved to have seen more interaction with Matthaean and Pauline scholars on the topics addressed. David Sim receives the bulk of critical interaction from both Willitts and Foster but past Sim there’s not much to speak of. I understand that space is limited and both authors had to be judicious about the sources they chose to interact with, but it would have been nice to get a better view of opposing viewpoints. This complaint aside I can safely say that Willitts and Foster have managed to maintain the momentum set by Bird and Crossley and they have given me every confidence that the following chapters will be of the same quality.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
They totally forgot to say that perhaps Paul is pro-Matthew. David Wenham spends a long time argues that Paul had access to the Jesus traditions in more ways than are commonly accepted. I do not think he meant to, but with his book and Robinson’s Redating of the New Testament, I’ve pretty much accepted that Dave Black is right, Matthew was out and about before Paul’s first mission.
Geoff: It’s unlikely that either author would have given much consideration to Matthew writing before Paul. I like to date Matthew to the early- to mid-60s so I think it’s possible that Paul might have been familiar with his Gospel, and certainly the same basic tradition that informs his Gospel, but I suspect Paul wrote most (if not all) of what he wrote before Matthew’s Gospel would have circulated to him.
Yeah, most people don’t.
I’ll probably change my mind in a few years, but a 40s date makes some good sense to me.
Geoff: If I can be brought around to believing that Matthew wrote first (and trust me, I’m amenable to such a belief!) then I could go with a 40s date.