This is a lightly revised version of Edsall’s doctoral dissertation at Oxford, supervised by Professor Markus Bockmuehl. It is the search for a “stable musical theme” of early Christian teaching, and if present, the extent of it. The title is deliberate. Edsall does not seek to identify all early Christian teaching, but Paul’s “witness” to initial or formative teaching. To do so he must determine both what was taught and when it was taught.

Edsall begins by identifying problems with previous attempts to identify early Christian teaching. Form-critical studies incorrectly assumed the unity of the early church and its teaching. More recent studies, specifically James Dunn’s Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (3rd ed.; London: SCM, 2006), instead find diversity, with no unified kerygma or catechetical framework, and only a single unifying belief in Jesus as risen Lord. While Edsall finds some agreement with this view, the common body of teaching is greater than this minimalist account allows.

The body of the book has three parts. Part One explains the methodology. Guided by ancient communicators’ use of their audience’s expected knowledge (ἔνδοξα), Edsall proposes three appeals or indicators of what Paul assumed his audience would know: (1) explicit reminders of Paul’s teaching, (2) direct appeals, and (3) implicit appeals to audience knowledge. The choice of letters and methodological issues related to their differences are discussed, and the possible complicating roles of co-senders, secretaries, and letter carriers are persuasively sidelined.

Part Two addresses formative teaching in churches Paul established by identifying the three proposed types of appeal in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, devoting a chapter to each type and a summary chapter comparing the findings from the two letters (chs. 5–8). The results show a substantial overlap in Paul’s initial teaching in both cities.

Similarities include the monotheistic understanding of the one true God as Father of both believers and Jesus; Jesus as Christ and Lord who died “for us”, was raised by God, and will come again as judge; and the Holy Spirit as present in Paul’s preaching, and as a gift and bestower of gifts to believers. Continuity is also found in Paul’s self-portrayal; moral/ethical topics, particularly, opposition to idolatry, sexual immorality and greed; communal structure and worship; apocalyptic cosmology and eschatology, including the Parousia of the Lord and the resurrection of believers; and in individual and community identity, as ἀδελφοί in an ἐκκλησία, called to be holy.

Similar elements of Paul’s teaching are put to different uses in the letters, which demonstrates their fundamental importance and suggests these elements were part of a broader “symbolic universe” in Paul’s initial teaching. Conversion was not acceptance of just a few new propositions. It involved embracing this symbolic universe, which despite its Jewish roots, required Jews and Gentiles to shift core beliefs and practice. The relative lack of the notions of “justification” and “participation in Christ” is explained by the ad hoc nature of the letters.

Part Three seeks to identify the relationship between Paul’s initial teaching and formative instruction in churches he did not establish, from his letter to the Romans. Edsall finds that Paul anticipates a remarkable continuity with the wide-ranging ἔνδοξα of the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches. However, Paul’s detailed discussions of how the death of Jesus “works”, faith and the Law, the relationship of Israel and the church, and his moderate “ecumenical” tone show that Paul expected differences between the τύπον διδαχῆς (Rom 6:17) and “his gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25, “my gospel”).

There is much to commend this study. It is clearly structured and easy to read. The method adopted seeks to ask questions of the text in a disciplined way in order to shed light on the historical situation behind the text, and the premise that effective communication starts from what is already known is insightful. In this light, the extent to which Paul assumes familiarity with a range of Christian teaching in all three audiences is striking, and his ready use of theologically rich language and titles, compressed statements of truth, and references to Scriptural narratives and people is particularly thought provoking.

Some might question the book’s suggestion that Paul revisited aspects of his initial teaching in his letters because of his earlier “miscommunication” (p. 101). The force of Paul’s phrase “my gospel” in Romans and its relation to the Romans’ “pattern of teaching” (p. 186) is also open to question, in light of similar statements elsewhere (2 Tim 2:8; cf. 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:14) and Paul’s insistence there is only one gospel (1 Cor 15:3–11; Gal 1:6–9). It is also possible that the limited Pauline corpus adopted in the book influences the discussion at this point (cf. p. 192).

Nevertheless, the book convincingly demonstrates that previous attempts to identify early Christian teaching have been too pessimistic and minimalistic. Instead, there is “remarkable continuity” between the three communities in “core” matters that comprise a comprehensive symbolic universe that was different from both Jewish and Gentile mindsets, such that “the convictions Paul believed himself to share with his Roman readers do resemble a musical theme of surprising fullness and complexity” (p. 227).

---