Southern Baptist Theology in the Late Twentieth Century
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 2 – Spring 2012
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Thomas E. Phillips. Library of Pauline Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. 243 pages. Softcover, $24.95.
In 1845 F.C. Baur published his two-volume work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, in which he argued that the genuine Pauline letters present a different picture of the apostle than does the Book of Acts. Baur’s arguments aside, his separation of the letters from Acts still marks New Testament studies (32–33). Phillips’ book purports to present the intersecting data from these two sources and how scholars relate them (xi). The footnotes refer to the author’s views and other works, but the book carefully presents the biblical data and the scholarly discourse about them.
The first chapter summarizes two widely divergent reconstructions of the historical Paul (Chilton 2004, Crossan and Reed 2004) to illustrate that one’s approach to the data of Acts is pivotal for reconstructing Paul’s life (27). The second chapter briefly recounts the contributions of Baur, John Knox, and Philipp Vielhauer, all three of whom argued for irreconcilable differences between the Acts data set and the Pauline data (35–42). For his part, Phillips acknowledges that the biblical texts were not intended to answer modern critical questions, that they have significant areas of silence, and that the “inconsistency and diversity” within themselves and between each other allow many possible explanations (42–47). For each intersecting point, he proposes to focus on the historical data of the Pauline letters first before culling the larger data set from Acts, comparing them after they have been treated separately (47–49).
The last four chapters deal successively with the chronology of Paul’s life, his personal background, those with whom he interacted at the Jerusalem Conference, and other associates who were absent from the Jerusalem Conference. Along the way, Phillips often points out ways that interpreters unwittingly merge the two data sets that they presume to keep separate. For instance, on Pauline chronology: “Even approaches that make no direct appeal to Acts often rely upon existing scholarly consensuses for the dates and order of Paul’s letters,” which themselves often make use of Acts’ data (51). The author also rates just how reconcilable the two data sets are on different issues. Many points of comparison appear not too difficult to reconcile. The most disparate data sets between Acts and Paul’s letters are those that relate to: the number and purposes of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem (72–82), the trumped-up social status of Paul in Acts (122–24), Paul’s relation to and unity with Peter and James (146–47, 150–56), and Timothy’s relative insignificance in Acts in comparison to the letters (184–87).
The conclusion returns to the issue of the Jerusalem Conference. Whether one correlates Acts 15 with Galatians 2:1–10 is the pivotal issue for understanding how Paul’s letters and Acts relate to one another (191). If Paul’s Jerusalem visit in Acts 11–12 correlates to Galatians 2:1–10, then Galatians would display a temporary rift between Paul and Peter. Subsequently, the Jerusalem Conference ameliorated Paul’s relation to Jewish Christianity en masse. In sum, the Paul of history would “lean” toward the picture of him in Acts (192). However, if Acts 15 correlates to Galatians 2:1–10, then “Galatians comes to be regarded as a reflection of the central and abiding core of Paul’s theological convictions” (193). This critical consensus implies that Paul’s influence waned after his conflict with Peter (194). The collection for Jerusalem “had only meager hopes for success.” When Paul claimed he had no room left to preach in the East (Rom 15:23), his rejection by many churches was the issue, not his unbounded success in evangelizing the Mediterranean coastlands (195). Paul died a failure, but one of his admirers saw the need to salvage his legacy. “Critical scholars are increasingly coming to argue that one of the major purposes of Acts was the rehabilitation of Paul for its late first- or early second-century readers.” Phillips agrees (197).
Until the conclusion, the author’s views only minimally color his presentation and comparison of the two data sets. The Jerusalem Conference rightly takes center stage in discussing whether the two data sets can be reconciled. One might wish that Phillips had mentioned alternatives to the critical consensus besides the early date for Galatians, which is respectfully treated in chapter three. For example, some argue that Galatians 1–2 do not claim to recount all of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem. The language there allows for other visits to be omitted that do not pertain to the argument (cf. Silva’s Interpreting Galatians, 2nd ed., 129–39 for the brief argument). In this scenario, Paul’s conflict with Peter might have corrected real hypocrisy, clarifying how Gentiles would be included among God’s people.
