Michael Bird – Four Views on the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012)
This is an interesting little book with a fascination of the number four. Michael Bird, the general editor, assembled four leading Pauline scholars to offer their views on four questions about Paul. Thomas Schreiner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Douglas Campbell, and Mark Nanos each take a stab at positively presenting their particular views on Paul and then the other three are given the chance to respond (leading to four articles in each section). The four questions are:
Strengths – The first strength of the book is the collection of scholars included in the book (this is also a weakness, will explain later). Each of the writers, including the editor, are well known scholars who have impacted the field Pauline scholarship. It is a treat to see the four of them engage each other and the book offers a goal for those of us beginning our scholarly life to works towards (how to write, how to positively present views, how to critique, etc).
A second strength is the effort by each author to present their own views in a positive manner. What do I mean by positive? All to often in scholarship, it is required to spend as much time arguing against as arguing for something, and sometimes the arguing for gets lost in the shuffle. I really enjoyed that in each of the main essays the authors were arguing primarily for something. The responses are obviously critiques, but the essays, most likely due to length requirements, could not spend to much time engaged in polemical discussions. Thus, the book offers four essays by four respected scholars where each take a stand for something. This deserves to be commended.
A second weakness is the amount of ground each scholar was expected to cover. The four questions engaged in this book are indeed significant, but to expect them to be covered in essay’s of this length is difficult. I felt this led to several shortcomings in the book. First, the authors were at times required to assert arguments without having the room to construct them. Each of the authors tried to point the reader to other places where the arguments were explained (lot of footnotes saying, “See my article in…”), but if they focus of the book had been narrowed more of the explanation could have been in the book itself. Second, I think this lead to a disjointed effort by the authors. While Schreiner and Johnson seem to have been writing about the same thing, Campbell and Nanos’ essays seem to belong to another discussion. Some of this is do to the views of Campbell and Nanos, but it also a result of the broad focus of the book. I believe if the focus had been narrowly defined the articles would have been more closely aligned with each other.
In the end, I wholeheartedly recommend this book to those interested in Pauline scholarship. Four scholars deeply engaged in the ongoing conversation offering their views on critical questions in the field, without a doubt it is worth a read. Plus, if you are familiar with Pauline scholarship it shouldn’t take all that long to read (and even if you are not, it can serve as a primer to the discussion).