David A. Burnett

Last night at 6:30 pm 8/26/11, C. Kingsley Barrett passed away. Born in 1917, Dr. Barrett died at the age of 94. C. Kingsley Barrett was a world renown new testament scholar teaching at Durham University for 37 years from 1945 to 1982. Not only was he a prolific author, but his legacy is passed down through his influential roll of students such as Ben Witherington, Morna Hooker, etc. A list of Barrett’s bibliography can be found here. Barrett of Durham was one of the great British new testament scholars of his day along with G. B. Caird of Oxford, C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, and F. F. Bruce of Manchester to name a few. Barrett was and will remain part of a rich heritage of new testament scholarship at Durham in the ranks of J. B. Lightfoot, B. F. Wescott, A. Plummer, H. E. W. Turner, Barrett himself, C. E. B. Cranfield, James D. G. Dunn, and currently John Barclay and Francis Watson. He is being honored around the blogosphere and by scholars and students who have been encouraged in new testament studies by his work. He will long be remembered.

“In Christ Jesus, God is for us; and it is in Christ Jesus that we know him and trust him.” – C. K. Barrett[1]

a. Critique of Comparative Methodology

In this article, Joel Willitts ^[1]will seek to show the Letters of the Apostle Paul and the Gospel of Matthew share a, “basic theological affinity.” In his opinion, before a scholar may embark on comparing Paul and Matthew, one must pause to consider the obstacles which accompany this task. He claims that such an endeavor is of the highest order (here I assume he is referring to Bloom’s taxonomy for the term “higher”), synthesis, and much caution and reflection is required in accomplishing such a comparison. After the scholar has reflect on the arduousness of this task, they will correctly conclude, “that it is nearly impossible to present a convincing comparison of the two authors.” His main reason for this pessimism is that, when comparing the two figures, one compares something called “Paul” to something called “Matthew.” These two entities that are being compared would then be the result of the breadth of scholarly consensus that has developed, but, he then claims that this difficulty is only exacerbated by the state of “post-concensus” that New Testament studies now finds itself in, that is, scholarship in both fields is splintered.

He then turns to the work of one scholar in particular, David Sim, who has argued for an explicit offensive attack on the communities that have formed around the theology contained through interpreting Paul’s letters. The reason for using Sim as an example of failing to grasp the difficult synthetic process is, “Sim is apparently making it fashionable again to claim that Matthew was directly attacking Paul.” He claims Sim’s aforementioned thesis requires the reader, “to agree to several controversial conclusions ― built on a growing mound of educated guesses ― about both Paul and Matthew.” (Unfortunately for Willits’ reader he does not give an example of one of these controversial conclusions.) Willits claims that Sim needs to get his portrait of Matthew and Paul exactly right before this task of synthesis is even started or the hostility will, “disappear like the Wicked Witch of the West.”

Having stated his doubts about comparing Paul and the Matthew, he then goes on to claim a certain type of comparison, i.e., descriptive, may actually be instructive. By this term, descriptive, he appears to means that Paul and Matthew can be compared for similarities. He then gives his crucial methodological principle, “the interpreter must limit herself primarily to the descriptive task and resist the urge to draw speculative conclusions.”

b. Paul and Matthew Within “Apostolic Judaism:” An Alternative Interpretative Framework

In this section, Willitts claims that he will provide a framework that is suitable for his desired descriptive comparison that is as accurate, “as possible with the socio-historical settings of the authors and documents in question.” For Willitts, the particular form of Judaism that Paul and Matthew were members of should be labeled apostolic Judaism, which like all forms of Judaism is Torah-observant. While he believes Matthew and Paul were both part of Judaism, he points out that there sect was not compatible with other forms of Judaism or, as he says, “apostolic Judaism was allogeneic.” He then claims that he is part of the “growing number of scholars” who believe the two should be viewed in this framework and that, “Paul’s letter’s were written to Gentile believers in Jesus within an ethnically diverse yet Jewish social setting, while Matthew’s Gospel was written to Jewish believers in Jesus with an ethnically restricted Jewish social context.” As for the supposed differences, they are the result of, “when Matthew and Paul address the same topic … they deal with it for different reasons and to accomplish different ends.”

c. Case Studies

He then turns to demonstrating how to properly compare Paul and Matthew. Before gives us the names of his test cases he pauses to tell us why he chose to employ these themes: 1) both authors unmistakably these traditions and 2) these traditions are obvious when a post-New Perspective framework is used. Also, it is important for his reader to know that he will not use detailed exegesis to come to his conclusions, instead, he will rely on the work of others that has already been done. (He claims that detailed arguments are “counterproductive and unnecessary!”) the authors in the areas of a) Davidic Messianism and b) Judgment according to works.

As for his claim that David Messianism is in Paul and Matthew, Willits shows that Rom. 1:1-6, 15:8-12 and Matthew 1 have been understood by some scholars to indicate that, “Davidic Messianism was basic to both Matthew and Paul.” If anyone objects because Matthew and Paul employ these themes in different manners, Willits answers, “my suspicion is that he would have used Davidic Messianisms as Matthew did, if he had written to the same audience for the same reason using the same genre.”

Next he discusses the theme of judgment according to works. He then turns to the work of Simon Gathercole and Roger Mohrlang. The work of these two scholars have shown that both Paul and Matthew employ texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Prov. 24:12, Psalm 61.13) in their eschatological descriptions that envision a judgment according to works. Of course, Willits is careful to point out that Mohrlang denies that this judgment is salvific, but, if the believer does not have the proper works one may be disqualified. So, on the theme of judgment according to works, Willits believes that these two texts agree and are in sync with the Judaism from which they originated.

d. The Relationship Between Matthew and Paul

Having come to the conclusion that there is ample valid evidence for understanding Matthew and Paul as being in agreement on two major themes of the Judaism from which they emerged, Willits gives his take on how the two should be thought of as relating to one another. First, they should not be thought of as enemies because the Antioch Incident is no longer thought to reveal a break between the two strands of Christianity (i.e., Judaean and Hellenistic), plus, it is falling out of fashion to understand Matthew as having been written in Antioch. So, if there is no evidence to support a hostile relationship between the two authors (or, communities) then a cautious and careful scholar is left with two poles: 1) the two were unlike each other 2) the two were similar to each other. In the end Willits believes, “one can justifieably conclude that Matthew was either pro-Pauline … or un-Pauline.”

1. ^[1] footnotes on WordPress do work ↩

Before I get to my comments on Michael F. Bird’s article, I think it will be best to give my impression of his work in general so my remarks are not misconstrued. My first encounter with Dr. Bird’s work was in 2007, which was just about the time N.T. Wright’s influence in my thinking began to wane. I read Dr. Bird’s book on the righteousness of God and was very impressed by his research and judiciousness, even though I did not always agree with him. I then became a follower of the blog that he and Joel Willits (the author of the book’s next article) contribute to and so, one could say, he introduced me to the Biblioblogsphere. Overall, I have been very impressed by his ability to write well, his irenic attitude along with his sense of humor (especially at his speech he gave at IBR after N.T. Wright). So the things I have to say are comments on the article in question and not him or his work in general.

The first of the three theological areas that he forwards as being shared uniquely by Paul and Mark is that of their explication of the theology of the cross. Bird notes that the proclamation of the cross was an identity marker of Early Christianity, yet he still attempts to show Paul and Mark are similar. I must admit, I was skeptical of this argument from the beginning. As for a theology of the cross, it is true that this is, “conducive to Pauline proclamation,” but, the same can be said for other writers of the NT. I, for the life of me, cannot see a huge difference in this area between Mark and Matthew, except maybe, Matthew includes other themes in his gospel so it may leave the impression that this theme is not “central.” Personally, I doubt that potential impression.

Next he points out Triumphal imagery as being unique to Mark and Paul yet of the one verse he sighted from the Undisputed Letters appears to be wrong (2Cor 4:9 says, “persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed”). Then he points out the “mystery” language coupled with the heavenly portents, darkness at noon and the torn temple veil all show that Mark shares and apocalyptical perspective with Paul, yet, his point becomes moot when it is pointed out that Matthew also has all of these apocalyptic imagers^[1] (don’t forget the other resurrections in Matthew!).

Next he claims that, “only Mark and Paul portray Jesus’ crucifixion as a royal triumph (Mark 14―15; Rom 8:37; Col. 2:15). I looked up this claim regarding Romans 8: 37 in commentaries on Romans by Fitzmyer, Shreiner, Dunn, Jewett and Barrett and none of them stated that they saw this imagery in the text. The Colossians text definitely employs royal triumph in that “rulers and authorities” are triumphed over, but, one must admit that this imagery is unique to Paul in this letter which, of course, has has a major question of authenticity hanging over its head. As for Mark being the only Gospel that employs “royal triumph,” I am not sure how one could say that this theme is not present in Matthew.

The second area that he believes exhibits an unique similarity is that of the specific terminology that is employed when they speak of salvation. Particularly, he points to the use of απολυτρωσις (redeemed) as a similarity, yet, he then points out that Hebrews and Luke each use the term, or its cognate, twice! After that, he forwards as evidence precisely that which James Crossley disputed in the first article, i.e., that Mark was concerned with a Gentile mission in the same way Paul was. Overall, the argument gives the reader very little reason to believe that a clear and unique usage of salvation terminology exists between the two writers.

In the last area of supposed influence, that of the attitude to the Law, again he makes a distinction yet never shows the reader how the two entities are distinct from the rest of the NT. In order to find unique similarity with Paul on this theme he claims, against Crossley, that Mark 7:19, “certainly opens up of some persons eating foods that some others considered unclean.” But, when he considers Peter’s dream in Acts (i.e., the evidence that would disprove the unique similarity) he says, “the vision does not legitimate culinary licence, but shows that God is impartial.” I could not help but wonder why this distinction is made since this is not a conclusion that is apparent from the text. Remember, Bird’s point is that Mark’s editorial comment could lead to an understanding by some that eating taboo foods was now permitted but the text in Acts, where God tells Peter three times to “kill and eat” unclean animals could not just as easily lead to the same conclusion.

Now, I do agree with Bird, the pericope in Acts is not about food being clean but it is about Gentiles being clean, yet, food is a major part of the imagery in Peter’s revelation. Assuming Dr. Bird’s distinction between the meaning of the two texts is true it still seems to me that, against Dr. Bird, both texts can just as easily lead to the same misunderstanding.

Overall, I did not get the impression that the evidence led to Bird’s conclusion. By this, I do not mean that Mark and Paul do not share similarities; I only disbelieve they share unique similarities. If their similarities are not unique then Dr. Bird’s thesis is weakened substantially. Also, when one attempts to make an argument by sheer accumulation of “minor” evidence on must be sure that the evidence is clear which, in this case, I cannot agree that it is.

1. ^[1] mystery in Mt. 13:11; darkness at noon Mt. 27:45; the torn curtain 27:51↩

I. Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul

In the introduction, Dr. Bird explains that the Gospel of Mark derives its title from the  Greek inscription ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ. He believes this title is derived from the name of a certain John Mark who’s found in the New Testament (two times in Acts, three times in the Pauline corpus, once in Peter). His view is that it is reasonable to understand the author of this gospel to have been the one time road companion of Paul and, later, the scribe of Peter.

Next he turns to the history of scholarship in regards to Paul in the Gospel of Mark. He says there have been basically two options 1) Paul influenced Mark in his Gospel 2) Peter influenced Mark in his Gospel. Dr. Bird does not believe that the evidence of the Gospel of Mark leads to either of these two conclusions. Instead, he believes that the evidence is best interpreted as something like a synthesis of these two opposing ideas:

“The  Gospel of Mark points to an early synthesis of Peter and Paul: Petrine testimony shaped into an evangelical narrative conducive to Pauline proclamation.”

 

II. Gospel of Mark as Petrine testimony

Here Bird remarks that there is a problem with proving any theory that claims the Gospel of Mark relies on Peter’s testimony. The problem is that there is very little authentic Petrine literature that can be used to test any theories of supposed influence. While lack of abundant literature is a problem, he does not think it is an insurmountable fact. He then notes why some scholars have doubted the apostle Peter’s influence on Mark’s Gospel. He lists the four main reasons for this doubt as being:

1. Mark was probably derived from multiple sources and traditions.
2. Mark is not the most Petrine gospel.
3. The Gospel of Mark contains a polemic against Peter.
4. The testimony of Papias is the only reason scholars have for postulating a Petrine tradition behind Mark.

After noting the traditional reasons for doubting Peter’s influence on Mark, Bird then gives his reason for doubting these propositions:

1.  Richard Bauckham has shown that the Gospel of Mark speaks of Peter at the beginning and end of the Gospel. This is an example of an ancient technique called inclusio, which was used to indicate the source for eyewitness accounts.
2. Noting the work of other scholars, Bird claims that Peter, “is the most dominating personality among the disciples and Mark.”
3. Bird claims that two things in the Gospel of Mark indicate that the gospel does operate from Peter’s viewpoint:  (a) Peter is a round character in Mark’s Gospel in that he acts as antagonist and protagonist in the plot. (b) The third person plural verbs and Mark can easily be switched to first person, which, indicates a possible trace of personal testimony.
4. Finally, he claims that there is the same narritival pattern in Peter’s speech in Acts 10 and in the Gospel of Mark. This is, in his opinion, enough evidence for a scholar to postulate Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark without using Papias’s testimony.

After giving us his negative responses to the scholars who doubt Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark, which has been the historical explanation of the title ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ, he then moves on to give us a positive construction of commonalities between Mark and Paul.

a. Theology of the Cross

When it comes to preaching the cross bird claims that this, “was a feature of general Christian proclamation according to Acts.”  He even notes that he doubts any earlier forms of Christianity existed that did not, “assign a significant place of some kind to the cross of Jesus in their identity forming-narrative, ethics and theology.” Even though he considers the proclamation of the cross an important aspect of identity formation in for all of Early Christianity, he goes on to claim that Mark and Paul can be compared by their, “centrality that they both assigned to the cross of Jesus and the definitive saving event performed by the God of Israel.”

b. Salvation

As for this similarity, Bird notes that all of Early Christian writings appears to share an emphasis on salvation, but, he believes that the two, “share, more acutely with each other than with other Christian groups.” The first acutely shared aspect of salvation is the use of the term εὐαγγέλλιον. He notes that many Christians in the first century used this term but some used it differently (although, he gives only one example found in Revelation 14:6). He then demonstrates that both Paul and Mark used the term in four distinct ways: (a) they speak in some way of a beginning, (b) they attach this term with God, (c.) the term is connected to discipleship, (d) the term is connected to the Gentiles (e) individuals may be associated with preaching the gospel.

The second shared feature of salvation is in the use of the term “redemption.” On this point he claims that Paul and Mark used this term, or better the accompanying phrase, in the same way (Mk 10:45; Rom 5:8). The third area may be found in how salvation relates to the Gentiles. He claims that both Mark and Paul’s writings share the “same social context,” i.e., the Gentiles have been included in the restoration of Israel.

c. Attitude to the Law

Before getting too far into this aspect of similarity, Bird notes, “ there is surely no topic of Pauline theology so perplexing and so baffling as the apostle Paul in the Law.”  He goes on to claim that both Paul and Mark share the same attitude toward the law which is best summed up in this quote, “Paul’s Law free gospel is really a proselytism free gospel since his antithetical remarks about the law pertained primarily to instances where Gentile believers are compelled to be circumcised and adopt the Jewish way of life.” He then goes on to note that he disagrees with Crossley’s (who wrote the book’s previous article) interpretation of 7:19. Bird believes that this text is best understood as opening, “the possibility of some persons eating food that some others considered unclean.” he does not believe the episode with Peter in Acts 10 should be interpreted as opening up “culinary licence.”

IV. Conclusion and Appendix

In the conclusion Bird states, “Even if the Gospel of Mark was not written by Cyprian Jewish Christian John Mark, the document is very probably indebted to Peter and tradition and exhibits a pro-Pauline theological texture.” He then attaches an appendix to the article where he discusses the reasons for believing that the title of the Gospel was meant to indicate that a person named Mark was the author.