Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Doug Chaplin" <lists AT actually.me.uk>
  • To: "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
  • Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:54:15 -0000

Thanks Loren for this review. The book isn't published in the UK for another
month, so I shall wait with interest. From your comments it seems to me that
it displays both the strengths and weaknesses of this type of work: often
very illuminating on detail, but highly likely to go astray when squeezing
everything into a grand social theory.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:corpus-paul-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Loren Rosson
> Sent: 07 February 2006 13:54
> To: Corpus-Paul
> Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul
>
> List members --
>
> Here is the review I promised for Malina and Pilch's
> commentary.
>
> Loren
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Social Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, by
> Bruce Malina and John Pilch. ISBN 0-8006-3640-6.
>

> Malina and Pilch arrange and date the letters in the
> following order: I Thessalonians (51 CE), I
> Corinthians (between 53-56), II Corinthians (between
> 54-57), Galatians (between 54-56), Romans (between
> 56-58), Philippians (between 56-57), Philemon (between
> 55-56). II Corinthians is partitioned as follows:
> Letter #1: 2:14-6:13, 7:2-4 (written before the
> dispute); Letter #2: 10:1-13:14 (written during the
> dispute); Letter #3: 1:1-2:13, 7:5-16 (written after
> the dispute); [8:1-24 and 9:1-15 are seen as later
> inserts, and 6:14-7:1 a non-Pauline fragment]. (see pp
> 133-135)

[Doug]
Does the partitioning have any basis in their methodology, or is it like
every other attempt at scissors and paste, one that imposes the
interpreter's theology on the rhetoric of the extant text?
>
SNIP
>
>
> We see why Rom 16 was appended to the original
> letter to the Romans, for Phoebe could not have been
> recommended to the Romans -- it would have been
> shameful and socially impossible for Paul to make such
> a recommendation to people he didn't know (p 292

[Doug] It's an interesting variation on the argument, and stronger than some
versions, but isn't the whole point of chapter 16 to establish that while he
had not visited or founded their church, he was precisely known to them
through so many people?
>
SNIP
>
> In the end, this commentary belongs on the shelf of
> every Pauline student and scholar, especially if that
> shelf is top-heavy with books favoring
> systematic-theological or literary intertextual
> approaches to Paul.
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/
>
Thanks again for the review

Doug Chaplin
Droitwich Spa






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page