Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul.

Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. By Bruce J. Malina & John J. Pilch. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2006. Pp. x + 419. Paper, $27.00.

Malina and Pilch have produced another volume in the Fortress Social-Science Commentaries on New Testament Writings Series, which focuses upon the seven undisputed Pauline letters. The volume begins with a lengthy introduction that provides essential background information on Paul and on his letter recipients. The introduction concludes with a list of challenges to the "majority view" that cues the readers to anticipate the more explicit discussions to follow.

The introduction is followed by an explication of the seven Pauline letters, which are arranged in chronological order, each containing the letter outline, the intent of the letter, a translation, and textual notes on individual verses. Malina and Pilch use the New Revised Standard Version in the translation section of each passage, but take issue with the NRSV's "ethnocentric translation" in various places throughout the individual notes.

In the textual notes, the reader will encounter in bold type phrases that correspond to the "reading scenarios" section at the end of the volume. These fifty scenarios are significant aides towards a "considerate reading" (p. 3) of Paul's letters, because they draw attention to the vast differences between the social and cultural issues of Paul's world and of much of modern culture. Such familiar social-scientific models as "honor/shame" are included, along with other issues more particularly related to the Pauline communities, such as "Ekklesia (Gathering)."

The foremost virtue of this commentary is the overt recognition by the authors that every person "pre-reads" every text (p. 2), because of his or her preconceptions about the writer, the context for writing, the characters involved, and the genre. According to the authors, the less readers know about these stated variables, the more likely they are to transpose their own modern notions onto the ancient text. The bold-printed insertions of reading scenarios into the commentary text serve to remind the readers to avoid this common pitfall. For those unfamiliar with the social-scientific approach, the reading scenarios provide a fine introduction--informative, and yet concise.

There are a few limitations, however, to this volume. First, within the wealth of cultural information of this commentary I was surprised to find almost no discussion of the place of women in the first century. The fact that Paul's letters are referenced more often than any New Testament writings as a means to recover women's contributions to the early Jesus movement makes this lacuna even more puzzling. The places one would anticipate a discussion of women in the first century (1 Corinthians 7 and 11; Romans 16; Galatians 3:28) were all devoid of any such discussion. Similarly, the reading scenarios lacked such obvious topics as "patriarchy."

Secondly, one of the most controversial positions that Malina and Pilch take in this commentary is to define the make-up of Paul's communities as Israelites, but non-Judean; therefore, his letter recipients do not adhere to the more rigid rules set down by Judean Israelites. As a result, the authors argue that the appropriate translation of the Greek term ta ethne is "non-Judean Israelites" rather than the NRSV's "the gentiles," even though, Malina and Pilch do concede that "the gentiles" is a legitimate translation of ta ethne elsewhere in first-century literature. Yet, within their own commentary, the authors find it impossible to translate ta ethne consistently, reverting to the NRSV's "the gentiles" from time to time (i.e., Rom 2:24) with little rationale for the change in translation. Such a radical departure from the "received view" requires a stronger argument than they offer, and most likely their interpretation will be a source of confusion for non-specialists.

Finally, I was surprised at the lack of care that the authors took with their pronoun usage throughout the volume. At times they employ the first person plural when describing Paul's discussions with his particular communities; for example: "[Paul's] first point is that God has in fact raised Jesus from the dead for us" (p. 111). I expected more nuanced language from a volume that successfully challenges ethnocentric readings in so many other ways. The use of the first person plural subtly entices the readers to set Paul's letters into their own context.

Overall, the Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul is a valuable resource both for the uninitiated and for those already familiar with social-scientific methodology. With the few caveats listed above, this commentary would be useful for seminary students and for lay persons. In addition, because of its challenge to the received view of Paul, this commentary is essential reading for Pauline scholars.

Lee A. Johnson 

Methodist Theological School in Ohio 

Delaware, OH 43015