Paul takes a first at Cambridge

THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO ST PAUL, edited by James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 301. Paper, $23.00.

This volume is one in a series of "Companions to Religion" which the publisher has been producing since 1997. Ten volumes have appeared with eight or more in progress. The book is composed of 18 essays, plus an excellent introduction by the editor. The topics include Paul's life and work, Paul's theology, a section entitled "St Paul" (which contains three essays devoted to Paul in the second century, Paul's legacy, and contemporary perspectives on Paul) and a section devoted to Paul's theology (which treats Paul's Jewish presuppositions, his gospel, christology, ecclesiology and ethics). Eight essays take up the Pauline letters, both of disputed and undisputed authorship, as well as the Pastorals. Not all of the contributions can be evaluated in this review.

Considered together, these offerings accord with what could be called the British approach to Paul, that is, cautious scholarly conclusions founded on academic rigor. The essayists are not all British but all of their expositions are measured, well stated summations of a middling to moderately conservative treatment of Paul. Nothing wrong with that, but that is what you get in this book.

James Dunn's introduction deftly summarizes much prior scholarship and suggests where research seems to be headed, primarily, Dunn thinks, into the areas of first century CE sociology and social dynamics. Dunn also anticipates (p. 11) new assessments, which will focus on Paul's ethics, Jewish mysticism, and the balance between divine initiative and human response in Paul's theology. The editor remarks (p. 12) upon what he describes as a "more radical" approach to Paul as exemplified first by Karl Barth's denigration of the so called History of Religions approach to Paul, and then by J. Louis Martyn's 1997 Galatians commentary. Dunn places Martyn upon the heights occupied by Kad Barth, because both want "to hear afresh the Gospel of Paul in all its raw power and offensiveness." This remark suggests to this reader that some important scholarly perspectives about Paul may have been left out of this volume. Barth and Martyn, theological high-wire acts, deserve more attention than they receive here. Barth's Romans did not even merit inclusion in the bibliography. Although Robert Morgan's brilliant essay on Paul's legacy (discussed below) partly corrects this volume's neglect of the results of earlier investigations, no scholar who might be described as 'radical' is among the contributors to this volume.

Dunn singles out E. P. Sanders' emphasis upon Paul's debt to his Jewish heritage. Professor Dunn has himself contributed significantly to this "new perspective" by suggesting that Paul's primary dispute with Judaism was its refusal to extend covenant status to Gentiles. Not surprisingly, Dunn proposes (p. 10) his own conclusion as preferable to Sanders, who, Dunn claims, sees Paul as confused.

Ben Witherington assesses the state of Pauline studies today and takes note of four areas where much has been written: Jewish perspectives, feminist-and-liberationist perspectives, rhetorical studies and Paul's letters as scripture, to which Witherington adds his own critique. I wish Witherington had not felt it necessary to compliment (p. 260) Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza for her careful research. None of the male scholars he considers are treated in this patronizing manner. Instead, I wish Witherington, or someone in this survey volume, had addressed the faddishness of Pauline studies. Scholars in this field seem to fix upon an idea not because it builds upon previous discoveries but because the idea is simply a new but not necessarily a better way of recasting the fairly limited textual material. Narrowly erudite--even well packaged--restatements cannot expect a wide reading or a long shelf life, especially if they are not connected to earlier work. A handful, at least, of arresting and idiosyncratic earlier perspectives on Paul are important and should not be neglected. Only two of the contributors to this volume, for example, make even a passing reference to Ernst Kasemann. The best answer to the neglect of Kasemann or any particular scholar is, of course, that this volume is a companion to the Apostle Paul and not to Kasemann. But in that case, the essay, choosing to neglect the compelling and enduring observations of prior scholarship, must stand on its hind legs and howl pretty convincingly all by itself.

The essays on Paul's life and missionary career (by Klaus Haacker and Stephen Barton, respectively) suffer from a tendency to give Acts greater weight than deserved as a source for the historical Paul. The relationship between Acts and the letters requires more nuance than perhaps is allowed in a summary treatment of Paul's life. Nevertheless, one would have expected the influence of Dibelius, John Knox, Bornkamm, Conzelmann, and Haenchen to have been more heavily felt. That Acts represents a Lukan and not a Pauline perspective seems to this reader to have been long ago established. Haacker does suggest certain episodes in Acts may have been "invented" and "some historical details" in Acts "remain doubtful" (p. 31) but he also believes (p. 19) Acts provides "historical knowledge"--but about Paul? Burton assigns (p. 43) historicity to certain vignettes in Acts, such as the characterization of Paul as an exorcist. This observation demonstrates that once Acts rather than the letters is chosen as the first compass point to Paul, the further you travel the loster you will get.