Abstract
Paul's social relationships are the subject of this volume, which is addressed to a particular group of scholars, namely those of evangelical persuasion. Eleven chapters follow an introduction written by the editors.
The first chapter, written by S. Porter, is entitled “How do we define Pauline social relations?” He considers three approaches that have been proposed to defining Pauline social relations (socio-historical, historical-textual, and ecclesial) before putting forward a different alternative (a linguistic approach). His linguistic proposition, however, is not convincing. In essence, Porter argues that Paul deploys his social relations within the text by means of how he “gramaticalizes” himself and his associates.
Chapter 2, “Paul, Timothy, and Pauline Individualism: A Response to Bruce Malina,” is written by Mark Batluck. The aim of this chapter is to question Malina's overarching collectivist approach. Malina's social scientific approach and conclusions between individualism and collectivism, this article contends, need to be seriously nuanced.
In Chapter 3 (“Paul, Patronage and Benefaction: A ‘Semiotic’ Reconsideration the issue”) Bruce A. Lowe enters into the debate concerning patronage and benefaction to clarify the discussion by means of semiotics. The point of the article seems to be simple enough: words are only signifiers; words are far from being the only valid indicator of the presence or absence of a particular social reality. The precision articulated is important and the author illustrates his point through Romans as a case study.
“Paul and the ‘Social relations’ of Death at Rome (Romans 5:14, 17, 21)” is the title of the next chapter written by James R. Harrison. The thesis is captured thus: “Given the aura of death attending the Julio-Claudian house, Paul's bold death-and-life contrasts … would have grabbed the attention of Roman auditors living in the capital” (119). The theological contribution is interesting but the grand pronouncements of Paul's challenging the culture of death of Rome with the resurrection life of Christ need to be nuanced. Pauline texts are ambivalent texts and one may see different sides in them.
It is difficult to understand the place, or the purpose, of the next two articles: “The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul's letters, and the ‘we’ passages of Acts” by Sean A. Adams; and “The authorship of Hebrews: A Further development in the Luke-Paul Relationship” by Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker.
The aim of Adams' contribution is “that there are multiple relationships for Luke and Paul” (125). There is a certain Luke that is identified in only one of the undisputed Pauline letters (Phlm 24). The author includes all the references to “Luke” mentioned in all the letters attributed to Paul, including the Pastoral Epistles and Acts. The discussion becomes much more confusing than enlightening regarding the recognized ambiguity pertaining to “Luke's” social relations to Paul.
What does an article on the authorship of Hebrews add to our understanding Paul's social relations? Close to nothing. Here is the principal argument of the authors: “Although Hebrews has been handed down to us without an author, we have argued that both external and internal considerations suggest that Hebrews constitutes Pauline speech material, recorded and later published by Luke, Paul's traveling companion” (183–84).
The following chapter is written by Christopher Stenschke: “The Significance and Function of References to Christians in the Pauline Literature.” His thesis is that Paul's references to Christ's communities in particular geographical areas “need to be assessed together with his references to (all) believers, (all the) saints and (all) brothers in places other than that of the addressees of a particular writing” (189). This review cannot enter into the problematic aspect of such a proposal.
The chapter that follows is by Christopher Land. It is a thorough examination of Paul's response to idol food inquiry (“‘We Put no Stumbling Block in Anyone's Path, so That Our Ministry Will not Be Discredited’: Paul's response to an Idol Food Inquiry in 1 Corinthians 8:1–13.”) Notwithstanding the merit of the chapter for how it articulates Paul's response, there is one disturbing conclusion that should have been avoided, especially in light of the advances of the New Perspective(s) on Paul and our post-Holocaust situatedness: “Paul's (alleged) decision to treat idol food as a “matter of conscience” manifests Christianity's liberation from Jewish superstitions” (252).
Paul and the Corinthians are still on the radar in the next chapter, “Paul, the Corinthians' Meal and the Social Context” by Panayotis Coutsoumpos. However, this article does not have any clear thesis or argument.
Mark Keown is the next contributor: “The Christ-Pattern for Social Relationships: Jesus as Exemplar in Philippians and other Pauline Epistles.” The argument is that Paul's social relationships are always theologically driven. Although one may agree with the author that theology is extremely important to Paul, one may also resist the author's tendency to reduce every Pauline social relation to mere theology. It is unfortunate that some authors (e.g., Peter Oakes, J. A. Marchal), who have done much in stressing the economic and socio-political aspects of Philippians, are not even mentioned.
The last chapter, “Honouring Epaphroditus: A Suffering and Faithful Servant Worthy of Admiration” is by H. H. Drake Williams, III. It is a succinct contribution that explores the reason why Paul encouraged the Philippians to honour Epaphroditus and men like him. The only problem is in how the author uses the term “Christian” as a clear and fixed analytical category (p. 348, Christian context; p. 349, Christian privileges) in contradistinction to “Roman” and “Jewish” frame of reference.