Mar 7, 2010

Two Pauls?

I recently submitted a book review to the Criswell Theological Review for a book entitled Paul, His Letters, and Acts. In the book the author Thomas Phillips tries to argue for two Pauls, the one in Paul’s epistles and the portrait of Paul in Acts. While such a case might be made, I think that Phillips would have done well to heed the following statement from David Peterson’s recent Acts commentary.

“Although there are many points of contact—and there is value in comparing the evidence of Acts with the letters where possible—Luke offers a different perspective on Paul's ministry. Some have taken this to mean that Luke was misinformed, or deliberately misleading, or presenting an ideal or legendary Paul. But it is important to remember the occasiona1 nature of Paul's letters, the limited scope of Luke’s description of Paul, and his own distinctive agenda in writing.”

David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), 19.


Richard Fellows said...


I reviewed Thomas Phillips' book here

Charles Savelle said...

Hi Richard,

I cant get the link to work. Can you provide a URL?

Richard Fellows said...

Sorry, Charles. Try this:

Charles Savelle said...

The URL worked. Thanks. Are you working on any other book reviews now?

Richard Fellows said...

I am not working on any book reviews. Right now I am reading Dunn's "Beginning from Jerusalem", but it is too long for me to review properly. While reading through this book I am taking the opportunity to collect my thoughts on Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem church leaders, and I hope to blog about this soon. I mention this because I know you are interested in the apostolic council.