From social description to social-scientific criticism. The history of a Society of Biblical Literature Section 1973-2005.

Abstract

The thirty year history of an SBL Section reveals an essential component of the exegetical enterprise coming of age. Focused from the beginning on the social and cultural dimensions of New Testament writings and their social settings, the Section has undergone notable permutations and cleavages while also reflecting the development, refinement, and academic influence of a now standard sub-discipline of the historical critical method.

**********

This history of a "Section" of the Society of Biblical Literature was first presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 17-22, 2005. Delivered in the Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament Section of the SBL on November 20, 2005, it was one of several papers addressing the Section's general theme of that year, "The New Testament and the Social Sciences after Thirty Years: Retrospect and Prospect." It is published here as it was presented, with only minor modifications.

In the Beginning, Social Description

To put these three decades into historical perspective, I want to take us back to the loins and first organizational stirrings whence came this SBL Section. This would take us to the year 1972 and the historic meeting of the AAR/SBL in Los Angeles with the theme, "Religion and the Humanizing of Man." On Monday, September 4, 1972, a so-called "Section" of the SBL met under the theme "Experiments toward a Social Description of Early Christianity." Wayne Meeks of Yale University presided, and five papers were presented. The following year, at the annual meeting of the AAR/SBL held in Chicago, a working group emerged with the theme "The Social Description of Early Christianity," with Leander Keck and Wayne Meeks serving as co-presiders and seventeen persons signed up as participants: Paul Achtemeier, Scott Bartchy, James Charlesworth, John Elliott, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, John Gager, Robert Jewett, Leander Keck, Robert Kysar, Wayne Meeks, Dean Moe, Frederick Norris, Peter Richardson, Wayne Rollins, Jonathan Z. Smith, Robert Wilken, James Wilde, and Raymond Williams. (On the undertaking see also W. Meeks 1975). At this meeting the decision was made to focus on the social formation of Christianity in a particular region of the Circum-Mediterranean, and the choice was for Antioch on the Orontes. Following five years of papers on Antioch, Robert Wilken and Wayne Meeks published their 127-page co-authored volume on Antioch in 1978. It was entitled Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (SBL Sources for Biblical Study 13. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978). The authors state that the book "reflects the convergence of two disciplines, New Testament studies and early church history or patristics" (1979: vii). One of the additional projects of this working group was the construction of an inclusive bibliography of materials on the social world of antiquity. I contributed to this effort the large bibliography assembled by the San Francisco BASTARDs (Bay Area Seminar for Theology and Related Disciplines). It was a massive bibliography, which, to my knowledge, was circulated among a few but never published.

While the study on Antioch involved no professed inclusion of, and indicated no interest in, the social sciences, it did include much social detail on the situation in Antioch and exemplified one of several possible loci for "social descriptions" of early Christianity. A paper prepared for the group by Jonathan Z. Smith and eventually published in 1975 listed four possible goals that a "social description of early Christianity" might envision.

* The first goal might be a description of the social facts contained in early Christian materials.

* The second would entail a composition of a social history of early Christianity or of specific phases thereof.

* The third goal could involve an analysis of the social organization of early Christianity in terms of the social forces giving birth to the movement and the social institutions it formed.

* The fourth could entail an interpretation of early Christianity as a social world providing meaning to and a plausibility structure for those inhabiting this world.

While Smith did not indicate what role the social sciences might play in this analysis of social realia and social issues, the point was soon taken up by two other members of the working group, John Gager and myself. Gager noted that "social description" is not to be confused with sociological analysis, stressing that description is one thing and sociological analysis another (Gager 1979:175). It was the latter which Gager was promoting and which is clearly evident already in his study, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Gager 1975). I cited Gager to make the same point in my 1981 study, A Home for the Homeless by way of introducing what I then called a "sociological exegesis" of 1 Peter. For this analysis I found useful the sociological model of a conversionist sect, drawing on the work of sociologist Bryan Wilson (Wilson 1973) to investigate and explain the social situation and socio-rhetorical strategy of I Peter and its sectarian ideology. Meeks had already explored the utility of the sectarian model in his article on "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism" (Meeks 1972), and Robin Scroggs (1975) proposed it as a useful social model for examining the formative Jesus movement in general. Eventually I reorganized Smith's four types of approaching social issues and added two further ones that involved purposeful use of the social sciences for examining Mediterranean social and cultural scripts and for investigating the social dimensions of biblical texts (Elliott 1993:18-20). The collection of essays edited by Meeks in 1979, Soziologie des Urchristentums, on the other hand, had little to do with sociology and much to do with social history.

At this period of the 1970s several colleagues outside this working group were also recognizing the need for examining the Jesus movement with tools and perspectives of the social sciences. These included Fernando Belo (1974), James Wilde (1974), Robin Scroggs (1975, 1980), Gerd Theissen (1977, 1979, 1982), Richard L. Rohrbaugh (1978). Bengt Holmberg (1980), and Bruce Malina (1981), among a growing number of scholars across the globe.

In 1977 the SBL Group, morphing into the "Seminar on the Social World of Early Christianity," in addition to its continuing attention to Antioch, also devoted a session to discussions of recent studies by Gerd Theissen (1977) and John Gager (1975). The subsequent translation of five of Theissen's German essays into English by the late John Schutz under the title The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (1982), was prompted, Schutz notes, by the work of the Seminar (Schutz in Theissen 1982: ix). The 1978 meeting heard papers from Thomas Finn and Bruce Malina and discussed a future agenda. In 1979 Carolyn Osiek joined Leander Keck as co-presider. At this same meeting Bruce Malina and I were respondents to papers moving beyond the previous focus on Antioch. At that meeting I also reported to the Group about similar interests in "Sozialgeschichte" developing in Germany and concerning an important meeting held at Villigst, Germany, in the fall of 1977. At that meeting Scott Bartchy (then director of the Institut zur Erforschung des Urchristentums in Tubingen) and I (resident research scholar at the Institut) were invited to join Dorothee Soelle, Hans Kippenberg, Wolfgang and Ekkehard Stegemann, Willi and Luise Schottroff, and Hartmut Dreier, among others, to discuss new social historical approaches to the biblical writings then underway on the continent (see Hochschild 1999). At the 1980 meeting, with Carolyn Osiek as chair, Edwin A Judge from Australia presented a paper, and attention again was directed to the future of the group. No meeting took place in 1981, but that year saw two books published on 1 Peter that reached diametrically opposed conclusions concerning the situation and strategy of this New Testament writing (Balch 1981; Elliott 1981). Encouraged to engage in a public debate on the issue and on the methodology behind our differing conclusions, Balch and I agreed to a dialogue sponsored by the Seminar at the 1982 meeting of the AAR/SBL in New York City. In retrospect, this event was more significant than I had realized at the time. It brought to the surface distinctly different methods for analyzing the text of 1 Peter, with Balch favoring a social historical description of 1 Peter and myself preferring an analysis involving the social sciences and an investigation of 1 Peter as the product of a conversionist Israelite sect. The papers of this exchange (Balch 1986, Elliott 1986) were published in a volume edited by Charles Talbert, Perspectives on First Peter (1986).

From Social Description to Social History and Social-Scientific Criticism

This difference in methodologies became manifest and institutionalized in the SBL programs from this point onward. Beginning at the Dallas, Texas, meeting of the AAR/SBL in 1983, two new "consultations" appeared on the program. One was chaired by Robert Jewett and entitled "Social Sciences and New Testament Consultation." The other was co-chaired by Dennis Smith and Michael White and entitled "Social History of Early Christianity Consultation." Eccolo! Two children were born of the initial 1973 Group loins, with one committing itself to the social sciences, and the other to social history, respectively. That year the Social Sciences and New Testament Consultation had two sessions involving (1) discussions of the recent publications of Bruce Malina (1981) and John Elliott (1981), and the important study of Thomas Carney (1975) on social models for the study of antiquity, and (2) papers on the Social Settings of certain New Testament writings. The Social History of Early Christianity Consultation with Dennis Smith and Michael White as co-chairs, also held two sessions: a review of Wayne Meeks, First Urban Christians (1983) by former students Dennis Smith, Michael White, and David Balch, with Meeks responding, was followed by a general planning session.

In 1984 the newly formed "Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation" Section met with Robert Jewett as Chair and myself on the Steering Committee. Two sessions were held: one (S106) on social-scientific approaches to Mark 7, with Mary Douglas as respondent; the other (S120) on the Pauline Churches in Social-Scientific Perspective. The Social History of Early Christianity Group with Dennis Smith and Michael White as co-chairs also had two sessions: one (SI2), on "Social Networks;" the other (S48) on "Ancient Literature, Social Context, Social Description." Since 1983 both groups have continued on down to the present, usually with co-chairs and two sessions each year.

The Harvest--Appraisals and Prospects

In the case of the Social-Scientific Criticism Section, our work has had intentional interdisciplinary, international, and inter-generational coloration. All the sessions have had an international representation of scholars (United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, South Africa, etc.). The steering committee of the SSC Section included, beside members from the U.S.A., Philip F. Esler from Scotland; J. Eugene Botha from South Africa; and Dietmar Neufeld, from Canada. The latter is currently serving as chair of the Section (2006-2009). Women as chairs or steering committee members or presenters included Carolyn Osiek, Ritva Williams; Margaret MacDonald, Kathleen Corley, and Alicia Batten. Mary Douglas and Tal Ilan were invited as guests. There also has been a productive measure of cross-disciplinary dialogue with colleagues from disciplines other than exegesis or theology. Guests have included Mary Douglas on the subject of purity and danger, Thomas Carney on the use of models in the study of antiquity, John Kautsky on social stratification; Tai Ilan on women in the Bible; James Scott on peasant societies and strategies; and Jeffrey Olick on social memory.

There also has been a healthy cooperation with other sections and groups of the SBL and AAR, with mutual invitation of members to present papers and serve as respondents. Perhaps the most familiar influence of this Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament section on historical Jesus research is John Dominic Crossan's Jesus, Mediterranean Peasant, though, of course, he kept that debt a secret in the magnificent volume itself. But then imitation, they say, is the most sincere form of flattery and gratitude. Unfortunately, others less gifted than Crossan also have used the research without acknowledgment but have misunderstood what they were reading. As a consequence, this secondhand presentation has led to confusion and, because of unacknowledgment of sources, has not allowed readers to double-check the original works. The result on occasion has been more cloud than clarity. (See, e.g. the muddled study of Louise Lawrence 2003 as justly criticized by Zeba Crook 2006, or the confused study of G. Downing 1999). Several members of the section have been invited to present to other AAR/SBL groups and sections over the years, including once with our social history colleagues when sociologist Rodney Stark was invited as guest speaker.

The venue of this annual meeting of the AAR/SBL has served to recruit new colleagues and younger scholars who then used this opportunity to get their feet wet in this method and receive valuable feedback from colleagues. The feedback continues long after the annual meetings conclude, often resulting in invitations to other academic venues such as the Catholic Biblical Association of America with its task force on "Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation" led by Bruce J. Malina, and the annual Spring meetings of the Context Group. Here we have established dialogue with a growing number of scholars worldwide, have received from them actual Mediterranean perspectives, especially from our Spanish, Italian and Middle Eastern colleagues, and have forged teams that now meet outside the USA on a regular basis.

One such international group of scholars (mentioned in the preceding paragraph) is The Context Group, A Project on the Bible in its Socio-Cultural Environment. This is an international group of scholars, which has met annually since 1986, and whose members are engaged in an inter-disciplinary study of the Bible involving the merger of traditional exegesis with the research, theory, and methods of the social sciences. Papers at these meetings are distributed and read prior to the meetings where they are critically discussed and prepared for publication. Information on the Context Group, its history, modus operandi, and record of publications is contained in several sources: Elliott 1993, 2001; Oakman 1996 (history); Pilch 2001: 1-4; Esler 2004 (autobiographical account). The publications of this Group alone number in the hundreds. Many essays, a substantial number of which appeared originally in this journal, have been gathered in numerous anthologies (Elliott 1986, 2007; Aguirre 1988, 1994; Neyrey 1990, 1991; Esler 1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2005; Malina 1996; Rohrbaugh 1996, 2006; Moxnes 1997; Pilch 2001; Stegemann-Malina-Theissen 2002; Guijarro 2006; Hagedorn & Crook 2007). Beside the host of journal articles and monographs written by individuals, many co-authored works illustrate the collaboration so typical of the Context Group (Malina & Neyrey 1988, 1996, Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992, 1998; Pilch & Malina, 1993, 2000; Destro & Pesce 1995, 2000, 2005; Osiek & Balch 1997; Hanson & Oakman 1998). Many of these works also have been translated into other languages.

Some direct or indirect influence of this Social Science Section of the SBL may also be seen in the proliferation in the annual program of new groups with allied interests and focuses. The program of the 2005 annual meeting of the AAR/SBL listed newcomers with such names as "Contextual Biblical Interpretation Consultation"; "Ideology, Culture and Translation Consultation"; "Construction of Christian Identities"; "Bible and Cultural Studies"; "Ideological Criticism"; "John's Apocalypse and Cultural Contexts Ancient and Modern"; "Anthropological Approaches to the Bible"; "Constructions of Ancient Space"; "Meals in the Greco-Roman World"; "Early Christian Families"; and "Gender, Sexuality, and the Bible." To this we should add the many papers in other sections that are merging elements of the social sciences with conventional exegesis. While we cannot claim that all this activity has been stimulated by our SBL section, it surely has been influenced by the constant stream of papers, articles, essays and books issuing from this group over the years. At the very least, this growing interest in the kind of interdisciplinary method we have been advocating represents a modest trickle starting in the 1970s and welling in subsequent years into a flood of research, teaching, and publication now covering the globe.

Outside the AAR/SBL, we have been meeting and collaborating with interdisciplinary teams from around the world. Many of our publications have found a resonance not only with other colleagues, especially younger scholars, within the guild, but outside theology as well and then also with ministers looking for good preaching aids and with a host of interested lay folk.

We are currently calling this method Social-Scientific Criticism, a label for which I take credit. The first edition of A Home for the Homeless (1981) had as its subtitle, "A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy." In the second expanded edition of 1990, under the prompting of Bruce Malina I modified the subtitle to read "A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy." "Social-Scientific Criticism" is intended to embrace all the social sciences, not just sociology, and to fit with all the other "criticisms" of the historical-critical method. Like text criticism, literary criticism, narrative criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, rhetorical criticism, and the other criticisms of exegesis, Social-Scientific Criticism is an indispensable operation of an interpretive method that intends to examine all the features of biblical texts and all aspects of their social contexts and then the relations of texts and contexts. (On the method see Elliott 1981:1-20; 1986; 1993:36-86; 2005; Malina 1982; Esler 2005, inter alios.) A Home for the Homeless (1981) also broke new ground in several other respects that were later pursued in subsequent exegetical studies: it stressed the necessity of examining the correlation of a document's rhetorical strategy with its social-cultural situation; it demonstrated the utility of analyzing I Peter and other New Testament documents as examples of sectarian experiences and perspectives; it anticipated recent interest in social identity theory with its focus on 1 Peter's stress on the audience's collective identity, social solidarity, and ideological commitment; it pointed out the central significance of household and home in the early Christian movement; and it showed how attention to a writing's ideology is an essential ingredient of exegetical method. Malina's seminal volume on the New Testament and cultural anthropology (Malina 1981) put the issues of ancient Mediterranean cultural perspectives, cultural values, and cultural scripts on the exegetical map (see also Malina 1986; Elliott 1988, 2005; Malina & Neyrey 1988, 1996; Neyrey 1990, 1991, 1998; Pilch 1991a, 1991b, 2000; Malina & Rohrbaugh 1992, 1998; Pilch & Malina 1993/1998, 2000; Aguirre 1994; Destro & Pesce 2005; Malina & Pilch 2006). Theory and models have been applied to a broad range of social issues (listed in Elliott 1993: 124-26; see also the further models provided by Duling 1996; 1999a; 1999b; 2000; 2005a; 2005b).

Not all studies calling themselves "sociological" or "social-scientific," however, are indeed that. All too many are bandwagon-jumpers that are at best collections of social factoids devoid of persuasive interpretation. The distinction that John Gager made years ago between "social" and "sociological" bears repeating. A study is not sociological (or social-scientific) unless and until it presents a hypothesis concerning a relationship of some social phenomena, a hypothesis that guides a collection of data that are then used to illustrate and explain the relation, meaning and function of the social phenomena.

   Any sociological approach to early Christianity will be concerned
   with explanations of social facts, whereas a social history need
   not concern itself with anything more than a description of the
   relevant social data. The two approaches are certainly not
   antithetical. But neither are they identical [Gager 1979:175,
   emphasis added].

To those interested in the social world of early Christianity, it has been clear from the outset that the accumulation of social data and the production of social description are guided by social presuppositions and social pre-understandings, just as exegesis is directed by theological presuppositions and pre-understandings. To the great detriment of our common study of the social world of early Christianity, however, the initial working group never attempted or achieved agreement on the necessity for clarifying these social pre-understandings, let alone the need for the explication of theory and models.

As a consequence, we now have in the SBL two groups born of the same loins but operating as independent and, for the most part, uncommunicating progeny. The current name of the one group is "Social History of Formative Christianity and Judaism." The name of the other is "Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament." The separation and distance, in my view, are unfortunate because both are concerned with social history and both use theoretical models and social scientific research. Whereas social historians appear to prefer leaving their reading scenarios and models implicit so as to appear objective and free of interpretive constraints, social-scientific critics make their theory and models explicit so as to allow for assessment and theory confirmation or disconfirmation. Behind this cleavage, however, may be factors that are social and personal as well as theoretical and methodological. The social historian group seems quite influenced and shaped by time spent at Yale University under the wings of Wayne Meeks and Abraham Malherbe. The social-scientific critics, on the other hand, include members with a wide diversity of academic backgrounds, mentors, and countries of origin, and much time spent living in the Near East and Circum-Mediterranean.

Within the past thirty years, the need for, and utility of, the social sciences in the exegetical repertoire have become self-evident. In his 2002 overview of Social-Scientific Criticism (2002: 24), David Horrell concluded that "the use of the social sciences in studies of early Christianity is now widespread and firmly established." Already in 1993 Dale Martin observed (116) that SSC "is now a staid and respectable member of the exegetical scene." Bengt Holmberg (1990), Caolyn Osiek (1992), and David Horrell (2002), among others, offer insightful, balanced appraisals. Surveys by sociologists and anthropologists of the works of SSC practitioners such as by John Chance (1994); John Coleman (1999) and Albert Verdoodt (2001) have welcomed the cross-disciplinary conversation and emphasize not only the sociological sophistication of our work but also what anthropologists and sociologists now can learn from us exegetes. The recent French volume edited by Andre Lacoque, Guide des nouvelles lectures de la Bible (2005), with my essay on SSC (Elliott 2005), introduces SSC along with other new exegetical operations to the French-speaking world. SSC works have been translated into a wide array of foreign languages.

Immaculate Perception and Other Illusions or Bugaboos

All this positive assessment notwithstanding, Social-Scientific Criticism still seems to be an unknown entity in many universities, seminaries, and places of study around the world. Demurrers and diehards are still to be found, though their number decreases daily. I am not sure where these folks have been for the last thirty years of exegetical innovation or what moves them to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to an exegetical operation that seems so obviously needed and essential to our interpretive task. The Bible refers on every page to social events, social relations, social institutions, and patterns and codes of social behavior. Its writings are social products that are shaped by economic and social conditions, social institutions and processes, and group ideological interests. In their language, content, structure, strategies, and meaning these texts presuppose, encode, and communicate information about the social systems in which they were produced and to which they were a response. These texts, in addition, were designed as vehicles of social interaction. To analyze, understand, and explain these social and cultural aspects of the Bible and its matrix, a method informed by the social sciences is essential to the exegetical enterprise. What could be more simple and self-evident? What is keeping some from seeing this? When exegetes in the quest for biblical relevancy continue to read biblical authors as though they were speaking to modern readers; when exegetes continue to read biblical writings as though they were written in postmodern Kansas; when exegetes join the U.S. White House in being oblivious to the enormous cultural differences separating Western capitalism from Near Eastern tribalism, what will it take for colleagues to get with the program?

Some perhaps feel like old dogs who are too tired or calcified to learn new tricks. Their students, who are left uninformed of social-scientific method, are of course the biggest losers. The excuse that "since their teachers didn't inform them of the method and since the handbooks didn't mention it, it didn't seem worth doing" just won't cut the mustard any longer. For others with a passing acquaintance with Social-Scientific Criticism, there still seem to be massive muddles about models (Rohrbaugh 1987).

Some scholars worry that conceptual models could be morphed from lenses viewing the evidence into evidence itself (Rodd 1981). While this is conceivable, not one example of such inappropriate procedure has ever been cited and none is known to me. The fear is a bogeyman. Other colleagues imagine that the search for social facts can be a so-called "objective" affair that is free of any subjective presuppositions and that only objectivity is needed for appropriate analysis. This Virgin Mary belief that some are blest with "immaculate perception" was laid to rest years ago by Thomas Carney in his seminal work, The Shape of the Past. Models and Antiquity (1975). This dead dog no longer hunts.

Then there are those who assume a Treasure of Sierra Madre stance and, insisting that "we don' need no steenkin' models," refuse to discuss theory and models altogether. The problem in these cases is a failure or an unwillingness to recognize that all research of social phenomena involves presuppositions concerning the objects studied, conceptual models of how these phenomena interrelate and operate, and methodological notions of how one best proceeds. Technically speaking, a "datum" is not some random piece of raw material but a "given" of some hypothesis or theory. Seeking data implies working hypotheses. Everyone uses models whether s/he knows it or not. The question is not whether or not we use models to gather and interpret evidence, but whether or not we use them consciously and acknowledge them explicitly. (On models see, inter alios, Elliott 1986b: 1-33; Malina 1986; Esler 2006: 3-14.)

Another worry is that such a "scientific" approach necessarily leaves God, faith, and theology out of consideration. Again, not one instance of such procedure on the part of a SSC practitioner has ever been cited, and the entire body of exegetical work along SSC lines should have laid this bugaboo to rest.

There is also a concern that practitioners of SSC operate with a "homogenized" view of Mediterranean culture that does not allow for variation among local contexts (Garrett 1988, 1992; Chance 1994: 146-49). The concern for geo-cultural particularity is indeed a valid one. In actuality, however, this concern is shared, rather than denied, by all the practitioners I know. There are, of course, different levels of generalization and abstraction, depending on what social phenomena one is trying to analyze. When flying with United Airlines at 30,000 feet, one sees patterns and outlines on the terrain below that are invisible to one down on the ground. High levels of abstraction and generality are produced by observations from 30,000 feet. Features typical of all ancient Circum-Mediterraneans do not deny particular cultural traits of Palestinian Israelites or Corinthian Christ-followers. Particular regional traits, however, come into focus only when the general, conventional and pan-Mediterranean features are first established.

I have been criticized as a--gasp--"Marxist" for my macrosociological model of the interrelationship of natural environment, economy, society, culture, technology, and politics and my assumption of a relationship between material infrastructure and theoretical superstructure (Eiliott 1993: 64-65). The label "Marxist" is neither here nor there. But what might have become a useful discussion of how to envision the larger ancient scene and its relation of infrastructure and superstructure was nipped in the bud when no substantive evidence was presented to explain this charge or why a Marxist approach to the Bible is considered unacceptable in the first place. I, by contrast, believe, with my colleague Norman Gottwald (1979), that we have just begun to tap its methodological potential.

Another type of response does not dispute the necessary place of SSC in exegesis, but rather questions specific points made by particular practitioners. This kind of response is constructive and productive because it leads to clarification of interpretation and refinement of method. Thus some critical voices have wondered whether honor and shame were as important in the ancient world as has been claimed (Downing 1999 and Lawrence 2003, both of whom apparently were unaware of the fulsome study of Neyrey 1998). Others (Malina 1986) have questioned the fit of cognitive dissonance theory (as employed by Gager 1975) with ancient Mediterranean cultures where values and experiences were not expected to match. Gerd Theissen's preference for sociological structural-functionalist analysis in his study of the emergence of the Jesus movement (1978) has been challenged as of less utility than conflict theory (Elliott 1986: 17-25; Horsley 1989). Still others have questioned the appropriateness of analyzing the Jesus movement as a sectarian phenomenon (Seland 1987; Craffert, 2001; see, however, Elliott 1995; more recently see Fugelseth 2005). Space forbids discussion of these queries. I leave their substance and merit for my readers to weigh. On the whole, the voices that have been raised to contest specific theories or conclusions are few in number and often originate with fellow practitioners seeking to improve the method.

The Future Agenda

What about our future agenda? Let me urge just one of many desiderata: we need to increase the conversation and collaboration of colleagues with common interests and goals. Now that we have thirty years of new exegetical methods on our plate, it is time for consultation and cooperation, especially among exegetes interested in the social and cultural dimensions of ancient and modern settings. Social-scientific critics could work more closely with social historians. Both should invite socio-rhetorical critics to the conversation. Neutestamentler and Alttestamentler investigating the ancient social world ought to exchange publication off-prints and office telephone numbers. Exegetes could invite more social scientists to their meetings and social scientists could return the favor, as sociologist John Coleman (1999) has urged, now that cross-disciplinary learning has become a two-way street.

Conclusion

Summa summarum, over the past three decades we have added needed methodological operations to the historical-critical method. These exegetical sub-disciplines have contributed to a fuller understanding of the social and cultural dimensions of the biblical writings, of the biblical communities, and of their social worlds. In the AAR and SBL, Social-Scientific Criticism has had a healthy impact on other sections and groups over the years and shares some responsibility for the emergence of many new sections or groups with a social or cultural or ideological focus. We now know more than ever before not only about how the ancient world looked, but also how it worked. SSC in particular has given us better maps for surveying the social and cultural terrain of the biblical world, comprehending these foreign biblical texts with greater cultural sensitivity, and seeing more clearly the possibilities and limits of finding in the Bible guidelines for addressing the pressing issues of our own time.

Works Cited

Aguirre, R. 1994. La mesa compartida. Estudios del NT desde las ciencias sociales. Presencia Teologica 77. Maliano: Sal Terrae. 1988. Del movimiento de Jesus a la Iglesia cristiana. Ensayo de exegesis sociologica del cristianismo primitivo. Estella (Navarra) Verbo Divino.

Balch, D. L. 1986. "Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter." Pp. 79-101 in Perspectives on First Peter, edited by C. H. Talbert. NABPR Special Studies Series, n. 9. Macon: GA: Mercer University Press.

Balch, D. L., ed. 1991. Social History of the Matthean Community. Cross-Disciplinary Approaches. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Belo, F. 1974. Lecture materialiste de l'evangile de Marc: Recit-Practique-Ideologie. Paris: Cerf; 2d rev. ed. 1975. ET: A Materialist Reading of the Gospel of Mark. Translated by M. J. O'Connell. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981.

Carney, T. F. 1975. The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity. Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press.

Chance, J. A. 1994. "The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice." Semeia 68:139-51.

Coleman, J. A. 1999. "The Bible and Sociology. 1998 Paul Hanly Furfey Lecture." Sociology of Religion 60/2: 125-48.

Craffert, P. F. 2001. "An Exercise in the Critical Use of Models: The 'Goodness of Fit' of Wilson's Sect Model." Pp. 21-46 in Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible. Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina, edited by J. J. Pilch. Biblical Interpretation Series, 53. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Crook, Z. A. 2006. "Method and Models in New Testament Interpretation: A Critical Engagement with Louise Lawrence's Literary Ethnology. "Religious Studies Review 32/2: 87-97.

Crossan, J. D. 1991. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.

Destro, A.M., & M. Pesce. 2005. Forme culturali del cristianesimo nascente. Scienze Umane, N.S. 2. Brescia, Italy: Morcelliana.

2000. Come nasce una religione. Antropologia ed esegesi del Vangelo di Giovanni. Percorsi 8. Rome/Bari, Italy: Laterza & Figli.

1995. Antropologia delle origini cristiane. Quadrante Laterza 78. Rome/Bari, Italy: Laterza.

Downing, F. G. 1999. "'Honor' among Exegetes." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61/1 (1999): 53-73.

Duling, D. C. 2005a. "Ethnicity, Ethnocentrism, and the Matthean Ethnos." Biblical Theological Bulletin 35/4 (2005): 125-43.

2005b. "Empire: Theories, Methods, Models." Pp. 49-74 in The Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context, edited by John Riches & David C. Sire. London, UK: T. & T. Clark International.

2000. "The Jesus Movement and Social Network Analysis (Part II: The Social Network). Biblical Theology Bulletin 30/1: 3-14.

1999a. "Matthew 18:15-17: Conflict, Confrontation, and Conflict Resolution in a 'Fictive Kin' Association." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29/1: 4-22.

1999b. "The Jesus Movement and Social Network Analysis. Part I: the Spatial Network." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29/4: 156-75.

1996. "Millennialism." Pp. 183-205 in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, edited by R. L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Elliott, J. H. 2007. Conflict, Community, and Honor. 1 Peter in Social-Scientific Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

2005 "Lecture socioscientifique. Illustration par l'accusation du Mauvais Oeil en Galatie." Pp. 141-67 in Guide des nouvelles lectures de la Bible, edited by A. Lacocque. Paris, France: Bayard Editions.

2001. "On Wooing Crocodiles for Fun and Profit: Confessions of an Intact Admirer." Pp. 5-20 in Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible. Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina, edited by J. J. Pilch. Biblical Interpretation Series, 53. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

1995 "The Jewish Messianic Movement: From faction to sect." Pp. 75-95 in Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context, edited by P. F. Esler. London, UK: Routledge.

1993. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. British edition: Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament. An Introduction. London: SPCK, 1995.

1990. A Home for the Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of l Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.

1988. "The Fear of the Leer. The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner." Forum 4/4:42-71.

1986a "I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch." Pp. 61-78 in Perspectives on First Peter, edited by C. H. Talbert. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series, n. 9. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

1986b. "Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament. More on Methods and Models." Pp. 1-33 in Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social WorM, edited by J. H. Elliott. Semeia 35. Decatur, GA: Scholars Press.

1981. A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.

Esler, P. F. 2004. "The Context Group Project: An Autobiographical Account." Pp. 46-61 in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, edited by L. J. Lawrence and M. I. Aguilar. Leiden, The Netherlands; Deo Publishing.

1994. The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-scientific approaches to New Testament interpretation. New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge, 1994.

Esler, P. F., ed. 2005. Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

2000. The Early Christian World. 2 vols. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

1995. Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in its Context. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge, 1995.

Fuglseth, K. S. 2005. Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: a Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John. NovTestSupp 119. Boston, MA/Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Gager, J. G. 1975. Kingdom and Community. The Social Worm of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

1979. "Social Description and Sociological Explanation in the Study of Early Christianity. A Review Essay." Religious Studies Review 5:174-80.

Garrett, S. R. 1992 "Sociology of Early Christianity." Anchor Bible Dictionary 6: 89-99.

1988. Review of B. J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986) in Journal of Biblical Literature 107: 532-34.

Gottwald, N. K. 1979. The Tribes of Yahweh. A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Guijarro Oporto, Santiago, ed. 2006. Los comienzos del cristianismo. IV Simposio del Grupo Europeo de Investigacion sobre los Orlgenes del Cristianismo. Salamanca, Spain: Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia.

Hanson, K. C., & D. E. Oakman. 1998. Palestine in the Time of Jesus. Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Hagedorn, A., & Z. A. Crook, eds. 2007. In Other Words. Essays in Honor of Jerome H. Neyrey, S. J. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield-Phoenix Press.

Hochschild, R. 1999. Sozialgeschichtliche Exegese. Entwicklung, Geschichte und Methodik einer neutestamentlichen Forschungsrichtung. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 42. Freiburg: Universitatsverlag/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Holmberg, B. 1990. Sociology and the New Testament. An Appraisal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1980. Paul and Power. The Structure of Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Horrell, D. G., ed. 1999. Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark.

Horrell, David G. 2002. "Social Sciences Studying Formative Christian Phenomena: A Creative Movement." Pp. 3-28 in Handbook of Early Christianity. Social Science Approaches, edited by A. J. Blast, J. Duhaime, and P.-A. Turcotte. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002.

Horsley, R. A. 1994. Sociology and the Jesus Movement. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Crossroad (originally published in 1989).

Lacocque, A., ed. 2005. Guide des nouvelles lectures de la Bible. Paris, France: Bayard Editions.

Lawrence, L.J. 2003. An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr (Siebeck).

Malina, B. J. 2001. The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthroplogy. Atlanta, GA: John Knox (Originally published in 1981; 2nd ed., 1993).

1997. "Mediterranean Cultural Anthropology and the New Testament." Pp. 151-78 in La Biblia i el Mediterrani. La Biblia y el Mediterraneo. La Bible et la Mediterranee. La Bibbia e il Mediterraneo, edited by A. Borrell, A. de la Fuente, & A. Puig. Actes del Congres de Barcelona, 18-22 de Setembre de 1995. Vol. 1. Abadia de Montserrat, Spain: Associacion de Catalunya.

1996. The Social Worm of Jesus and the Gospels. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

1986. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

1983. "Why Interpret the Bible With the Social Sciences?" American Baptist Quarterly 2 (1983): 119-33.

1982. "The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation." Interpretation 36: 229-242.

Malina, B.J., &J. H. Neyrey. 1996. Portraits of Paul. An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

1988. Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Foundations and Facets, Social Facets. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press.

Malina, B.J., & J. J. Pilch. 2006. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

2000. Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Malina, B.J., & R. L. Rohrbaugh. 1998. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1991. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Martin, D. B. 1993. "Social Scientific Criticism." Pp. 103-119 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, edited by S. R. Haynes and S. L. McKenzie. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Meeks, W A. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

1975. "The Social World of Early Christianity." The Council on the Study of Religion Bulletin 6/1: 1,4-5.

1972. "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism." Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 44-72.

Meeks, W. A., ed. 1979. Zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. Ausgewahlte Beitrage zum friihchristlichen Gemeinschaftsleben in seiner gesellschaftlichen Umwelt. Theologische Bucherei, 62. Munich, Germany: Chr. Kaiser.

Meeks, W. A., & R. L. Wilken. 1978. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. SBL Sources for Biblical Study 13. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

Moxnes, H., ed. 1997. Constructing Early Christian Families. Family as social reality and metaphor. New York, NY/London, UK: Routldege.

Neyrey, J. H. 1998. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

1990. Paul, In Other Words. A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Neyrey, J. H., ed. 1991. The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Oakman, D. E. 1996. After Ten Years. A Draft History of the Context Group: Project on the Bible in its Socio-Cultural Context.

Osiek, C. 1992. What Are They saying about the Social Setting of the New Testament? 2d ed. New York, NY: Paulist Press.

Osiek, C., & D. L. Balch, eds. 1997. Families in the New Testament: Households in the New Testament World. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Pilch, J. J. 2000. Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1991a. Introducing the Cultural Context of the Old Testament. Hear the Word. Vol. 1. New York, NY/Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist Press.

1991b. Introducing the Cultural Context of the New Testament. Hear the Word. Vol. 2. New York, NY/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Pilch, J. J., ed. 2001. Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible. Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina. Biblical Interpretation Series, 53. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Pilch, J. J., & B.J. Malina. 2000. Social Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Pilch, J. J., & B. J. Malina, eds. 1998. Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning. A Handbook. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, (Originally published in 1993).

Rodd, C. S. 1981 ."On Applying a Sociological Theory to Biblical Studies." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981): 95-106.

Rohrbaugh, R. L. 2006. The New Testament in Cross Cultural Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.

1996. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

1987. "Models and Muddles. Discussions of the Social Facets Seminar." Forum 3/2:: 23-33.

1978. The Biblical Interpreter. An Agrarian Bible in an Industrial Age. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Scroggs, R. 1980. "The Sociological Interpretation of the New Testament." New Testament Studies 26: 164-79. Reprinted in The Bible and Liberation. Political and Social Hermeneutics, edited by N. K. Gottwald. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983. Pp. 337-56.

1975. "The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement." Pp. 1-23 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, edited by J. Neusner. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 12. Vol. 2. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

Seland, T. 1987. "Jesus as a Faction Leader. On the Exit of the Category 'sect.'" Pp. 197-211 in Context. Peder Borgen FS, edited by P. W. Bokman & R. E. Kristiansen. Trondheim: Tapir.

Smith, J. Z. 1975. "The Social Description of Early Christianity." Religious Studies Review 1 (1975): 19-25.

Stegemann, W., B. J. Malina, & G. Theissen, eds. 2002. The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Talbert, C. H., ed. 1986. Perspectives on First Peter. National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion Special Studies Series, 9. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Theissen, G. 1992. "Some Ideas about a Sociological Theory of Early Christianity." Pp. 257-87 in Social Reality and the Early Christians. Theology, Ethics, and the Worm of the New Testament, translated by M. Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

1983. Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 2nd expanded ed. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 19. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr/Siebeck. (Originally published in 1979).

1982a. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth, edited & translated with an Introduction by John H. Schlitz. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1982b. "The Sociological Interpretation of Religious Traditions: The Methodological Problems as Exemplified in Early Christianity." Pp. 175-200 in The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth, edited and translated and with an Introduction by John H. Schlitz. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1977. Soziologie der Jesusbewegung: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums. Theologische Existenz heute 194. Munich, Germany: Kaiser. ET: Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1978. British edition: The First Followers of Jesus. London, UK: SCM Press, 1978.

Verdoodt, A. 2001. "L'etude de la Bible d'apres l'exegete-sociologue J. H. Elliott." Recherches Sociologiques 32/1: 143-150.

Wilde, J. A. 1974. A Social Description of the Community Reflected in the Gospel of Mark. Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Microfilms.

White, L. M., ed. 1993. Social Networks in the Early Christian Environment: Issues and Methods for Social History. Semeia 56. Atlanta, GA.: Scholars Press.

Wilson, B. R. 1973. Magic and the Millennium. A Sociological Study of Religious Movements of Protest among Tribal and Third-World Peoples. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

John H. Elliott, Dr. Theol. (Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat, Munster, Germany), an Associate Editor of BTB, author most recently of Conflict, Community, and Honor. 1 Peter in Social-Scientific Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007) and "Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a Jew Nor a Christian. On Correcting the Nomenclature." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5.2 (2007): 119-155, is Professor Emeritus, Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94117-1080. e-mail: [e-mail].