The Jesus Movement and social network analysis: (part II. The social network).

The intent of this study is to imaginatively shed light on Gerd Theissen's view of the early Jesus Movement with the help of social network analysis. Part I, after a brief introduction to network analysis, discussed Graph Theory, Central Place Theory, Urbanology, and settlement archeology as aids to understand the importance of the Galilean towns Jesus is said to have visited, especially those around the Sea of Galilee. It included some information about lake harbors, Roman roads, and Dead Sea towns (the Babatha archive). It also attempted to see Capernaum as a minor Central Place from which Jesus could travel, both by land and by sea. Part II resumes with a more detailed discussion of social network concepts and then analyzes the Jesus Movement discussed by Theissen as an "Ego-centered network." It offers as an illustration Jesus' natural kinship network, and concludes with reflections about several important critical issues in current Jesus study. (Many works cited in Part II are in "Works Cited," Part I, BTB 29/4 [1999: 171-75]).

**********

As stated in Part I, J. A. Barnes was the first to transform the network metaphor into way of analyzing social relations (Barnes 1954; 1969a; 1969b; 1972). Drawing on Barnes, other network social analysts have developed network concepts (e.g., Befu 1962; Pospisil 1964; Scrininas & Betaille 1964; Bott 1975; Mitchell 1969; 1973; 1974; Boissevain 1968; 1973; 1974; 1979; 1985; Kapferer 1972; 1973; Marsden 1972; Whitten & Wolfe 1973; Snow, Zurcher, & Ekland-Olson 1980; Wilier & Anderson 1981; Marsden & Lin 1982; Granovetter 1982; Berkovitz 1982; 1984; Burt & Minor 1983; Noble 1983; Wellman 1983; 1988; Wellman & Berkowitz 1988; Wellman, Carrington, & Hall 1988; Yamagishi, Gillmore, & Cook 1988; Walker, Wassereman, & Wellman 1994; Waserman & Faust 1994; Wellman & Berkowitz 1994; Noyes 1995; see the Websites in "Works Cited [Selected]"). These social relationships are key to understanding the social dynamics of the early Jesus movement.

Two Foundational Concepts: "Activity Fields" and Limiting the Analysis

"Activity Fields"

Activity fields are contexts in which persons who share something in common relate to each other; such contexts include family, neighborhood, gender, age, education, work, and friendship (Jay 1964), as well as "categorical orders" such as race, ethnicity, and status (Mitchell 1973: 20).

Limiting the Analysis

In theory it is possible to analyze every possible person (an "infinite network") and every possible social link between them (a "total network"), and thus to construct an unlimited, all-inclusive, universal network (an "unbounded network") (Barnes 1969; Boissevain 1968; 1974; 1985; Mitchell 1969; 1973; Whitten & Wolfe 1973). In practice, network analysts limit the number of persons (a "finite network") and their links (a "partial network"), and thus construct a limited network (a "bounded network," though even bounded networks are usually somewhat pourous; see Scrinivas & Beteille 1964: 165-66). Barnes defined a partial network as "any abstract of the total network based on some criterion applicable through the whole network" (1969:57).

Two Types of "Criteria of Analysis": Structural and Interactional

There are two types of criteria of analysis, "structural" and "interactional." Some analysts, especially anti-Structural Functionalists, argue that the analyst should begin with interactional criteria (Boissevain 1974: 27-28; Noyes 1995: 458); for clarity, I begin with structural criteria.

Four Structural Criteria

Structural criteria of analysis refer to the form a network takes. This form is configured by "the extent to which people who all know one person also happen to know one another" (Mitchell 1974: 288). There are four variables.

Size. Size is the most important structural criterion, though it is not calculated mathematically. Generalization: larger networks provide possibilities for more interactions, but they also have potential for more interpersonal conflict.

Density ("Connectivity"). Density refers to "the ratio of actual existing links to the total number of possible links" (Mitchell 1974: 288). Density is either "high" ("close-knit") or "low" ("loose-knit"). Using NA as the total number of links in the network and N as the total number of persons, here is a mathematical formula for density:

100 NA/1/2 N(N-1)

Figure 1 shows a six-node network with "symmetrical" links (equal exchange between persons of equal status).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Generalization: high density allows for greater communication and usually involves relationships between persons based on more than one activity field (represented by more than one line; see "multiplexity" below; Noyes 1995: 458). High density also fosters increased social conformity, thus development of norms and attitudes (Boissevain 1985: 557b). Yet, it tends to aid in the ability to recruit persons and mobilize support (Stark 1996), a point also made in "social movement theory" (Morris & Mueller 1992).

Centrality and Prestige. Centrality is measured by the number of ties one member has with other members in the network. Focal persons have more prestige and tend to form "third-party links." In Ego-centered networks (see below), they are more intimate with the most important person around whom the network is formed (Walker, Wasserman, & Wellman 1994: 63).

Clustering. Clustering is the degree to which certain members of a network are more closely linked to each another than they are to other members of the network. Clusters tend to form cliques within a network.

Four Interactional Criteria

Interactional criteria add a more dynamic, personal dimension to the analysis, one that includes possibilities for understanding both network development and conflict between members (Wasserman & Faust 1994: ch. 15). There are, again, four variables.

Uniplexity/Multiplexity. "Uniplex" relationships are based on only one activity field, for example, family. They are "single-stranded' (graphically represented by one line). "Multiplex" relationships are based on more than one activity field; they are "many-stranded" (graphically represented by two or more lines). Generalizations: multiplex relations tend to: (1) greater accessibility to persons in the network but also to greater influence or social pressure; and (2) stronger trust, friendship, and intimacy (Boissevain 1974: 32). They usually create "strong ties" between network members.

Content of the Links (Exchange). Content refers what is exchanged in the network, that is, the type of transaction, the quality of communication, and/or the "normative content" (Boissevain 1985: 557b. Mitchell 1974 292-94). "Social support" network analysts note that there are various types of exchange: (1) material support, (2) emotional support, (3) information, and (4) companionship (Walker, Wasserman, & Wellman 1994: 56-57). Social movement (SM) theory analyzes political support within a network that has a political ideology (Moms & Mueller 1992; Duling forthcoming). Content also implies reciprocity and gift-giving (Sahlins 1965: 147-48; Malina 1993: 101, 103, 116; Stansell 1999): balanced reciprocity (equal in kind); negative reciprocity (receiving more than one gives); generalized reciprocity ("the recipient giving the original helper other kinds of aid"); and "network balancing" (repaying a gift by offering social support to others in the network) (Wellman, Carrington, & Hall 1988: 167).

Directional Flow ("Paths"). Directional flow refers to the direction in which the exchange takes place, that is, who gives and who receives. Generality: equal exchange usually implies equal social status and power (X ([left arrow] [right arrow]) Y); unequal exchange usually implies unequal social status and power (either x [left arrow] Y or X [right arrow] y). Directional flow can also imply reciprocity.

Frequency and Duration of Interaction. Frequency of interaction refers to the number of contacts between networked persons; duration refers to their length of time. Generality: Frequency usually implies what is sometimes called "reachability" or "adjacency" (see below). It can affect the quality of the content of the links, that is, the type of exchange (Boissevain 1985: 557b). Duration of interaction is usually an index of intimacy or "strong ties"; yet, there can also be "strength in weak ties" (Granovetter 1982).

The Faction Coalition

Bruce Malina has introduced to Second Testament scholars the work of Jeremy Boissevain, an anthropologist who analyzes coalitions in modern Mediterranean society (Boissevain 1974; Malina 1986a; 1988a; 1988b). Coalitions, in contrast to "corporations" (institutions), are informal; they emerge especially when there is social unrest, sometimes reflecting it, sometimes contributing to it, sometimes both. They are unstable alliances. Their members come together for a limited time and utilize each other's resources to achieve some particular purpose. Thus, individual identities and commitments are not totally lost in the group (Boissevain1973; 1974: 170).

Boissevain analyzes several coalition sub-types. One is the "faction":

   [A] faction is a coalition of persons (followers) recruited personally,
   according to structurally diverse principles by or on behalf of a person in
   conflict with a person or other persons, with whom they were formerly
   united over honor and/or control of resources [Boissevain 1974: 192].

This definition stresses: (1) a social conflict context, that is, factions are ideological, political, and in conflict with both the established authorities and rival factions with whom they compete for access to scarce resources (Boissevain 1974: 194-95; 201); (2) a strong leader who has more resources, such as the "propensity to coordinate," that is, the ability to use followers to achieve desired ends (Boissevain 1974: 196); (3) members who come from different activity fields; (4) the leader's ability to personally recruit immediate followers (Duling forthcoming). Malina has convinced some social-science critics that for the Jesus movement the term "faction" is preferable to the term "sect" because the sect concept as conceived by Max Weber contains a modem, ethnocentric Euro-American view of groups (Malina 1984; also Seland 1987; Elliott 1995; see Duling 1995).

The Faction Coalition as an Ego-Centered Network

One way to "limit the analysis," that is, to reduce the number of nodes and links to a manageable number, is to focus on the faction. The faction is also an "Ego-centered network." Defining again, an Ego-centered network is a personal network with a focal person or "Ego" at its center and lines that radiate outward to connect Ego with other persons, called "alters." Relationships with Ego (faction leader) are said to be "asymmetrical" (directional flow is primarily one way, from Ego to alters), and can be illustrated by a "star sub-graph" (Ore 1990), as in Figure 2.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Ego-centered networks are normally composed of persons from different activity fields; thus, they are termed "structurally diverse" (as in Boissevain's definition of faction above). Relationships between Ego and alters vary in intensity according to interactional criteria; thus, they are termed "qualitatively diverse." These concepts can be graphically illustrated by placing the star subgraph inside "zones of intensity," as in Figure 3.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

In Ego's intimate network, alters are said to be "adjacent to" Ego, that is, they interact closely with Ego. In Ego's effective network, alters are important but obviously not as adjacent to Ego. They are acquaintances--"friends of friends"--with whom Ego interacts less intimately or frequently. In Ego's extended network, alters are not adjacent to Ego. They are unknown, distant, but potentially knowable "friends of friends of friends." Adjacency to Ego can also be expressed as "path-distances" or "reachability," that is, the distance from Ego to alter, which can be graphically represented by line length (Berkowitz 1994: 487).

The above Ego-centered network example (Figure 3) gives an impression--it is heuristic (Whitten & Wolfe 1973: 729a)--of size (small), density (relatively low), centrality and prestige of one person (Ego), direction of flow (from Ego to alters), reachability (short and long path distances represented by short and long arrows), clustering (upper right grouping of nodes), and multiplexity (lower right group of multiple lines). It does not show interactive criteria such as content (what is exchanged), frequency or duration of interaction, or network development over time.

The faction as an Ego-centered network has been used to analyze coalitions in modern Mediterranean society (e.g., Boissevain). Such a society, it can be argued, has a greater correspondence with--has a closer "fit" with--ancient, collectivist Mediterranean society than does modern, individualistic Euro-American society (Malina 1986a; 1988a; 1988b; Malina & Neyrey 1991: 69-72). Ancient Mediterranean society is an honor-shame, "limited good" society in which peasants, including artisans and fisherfolk, are near the bottom of the social structure (Malina 1978; 1993; Duling 1992; Hanson & Oakman 1998).

It is impossible in this study to develop all the features important for social networks in such societies. Minimally they would include "pyramids of power" related to kinship and politics, with economics and religion embedded within them. Also important would be male-dominated households, father-son and brother-brother relations, patron-client relations, redistributive economic relations, priestly religion, and groups such as "voluntary associations." Analysis of an Ego-centered network in such a society would have to take into account material support in return for physical/emotional aid (esp. healing), a type of generalized reciprocity (Wellman, Carrington, & Hall 1988: 167; Stansell 1999; cp. Firth 1967: 8). Another example would be that fictive kin relations with a deviant attitude toward the family would be balanced by natural kinship networks that remain and are helpful for recruitment (Mayer 1966). Finally, teacher/student patronage would be related to friendship, especially when social transactions are unequal or asymmetrical (Boissevain 1974: 34).

The Jesus Movement: an Ancient Mediterranean Ego-Centered Social Network

Theissen's recent analysis of the Jesus Movement structure sees it as a series of concentric circles:

   The pervasive power of [Jesus'] charisma is indicated by his ability to
   attract community sympathizers and move larger crowds beyond his close
   circle of followers. As a result there develops around the primary
   charismatic [Jesusl three concentric circles: first, a small staff of
   secondary charismatics consisting of the followers of Jesus (especially the
   circle of the Twelve); second, a wider circle of community sympathizers
   without whose support no charismatic movement can exist, that is, the
   circle of people who, unlike Jesus' closest disciples, did not abandon
   house and home. While they continued their observable way of life as
   before, such tertiary charismatics can be distinguished from the people as
   a whole, namely, those people who listened to Jesus--perhaps were attracted
   to him--but did not become his sympathizers and active supporters [Theissen
   1999:217--translation considerably revised by me; italics mine].

Graphically Theissen's model would look like Figure 4.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Theissen's concentric circle view of the Jesus Movement is very similar to the network analytical model of a finite, partial, bounded Ego-centered network in Mediterranean society. The primary charismatic corresponds to Ego. The secondary charismatics, tertiary chraismatics, and "the people as a whole" roughly correspond to Ego's intimate network, effective network, and extended network.

This correlation can be developed in greater detail.

Jesus emerged in a time of social unrest in Roman-Herodian Palestine. Earlier he had been part of the Baptizer's circle. Then he struck out on his own. He migrated to the Valley-Lake Region, and there, near a strategically located, minor Central Place, Capernaum, personally and publicly recruited his faction (cp. Hengel 1981; Droge 1983; Robbins 1982; 1992 passim; Duling, forthcoming), mainly from people around the lake (Duling 1999). The language of recruitment is "call" (kaleo) and "follow" (akoloutheo). The texts are often Markan, but such "following" persons appear also in Q and the Markan pattern is generally reproduced in Matthew (cp. Matt 9:9; 10:3) and Luke (5:11: aphentes panta ekolouthesan).

It should be noted, however, that there is a different recruitment pattern in the Gospel of John. "To call" is absent, but "to follow" is present. The locations and relationships vary from those in the synoptic gospels. Instead of immediately leaving one's everyday work place and following without hesitation, there is networking with kin and friends in the villages. Thus, Andrew, one of those who has been "following" John the Baptizer (John 1:39-40: akolouthesanton), is recruited with "come and see" (John 1:39-40). He in turn fetches his brother Peter (John 1:40-42). (In this gospel both are said to come from Bethsaida; see John 1:44 in contrast with Mark 1:21, 29). Next Jesus calls Philip of Bethsaida with the words "follow me" (1:43: akolouthei moi) and Philip seeks out his companion Nathaniel of Cana (John 21:2) with "come and see" (1:46). Then Nathaniel is led to recognize that Jesus is "the Son of God" and "the King of Israel" (1:49).

From the perspective of network analysis Jesus has been an intimate alter in another Ego's (John the Baptizer's) social network. However, perhaps because of competition with Ego, he himself becomes primary charismatic, that is, Ego in the center of his own network. As Ego he desires to win; personally recruits; develops great resources and the "propensity to coordinate"; comes into conflict with those in his hometown and authorities in the larger political environment; and competes with others who have their own factions (Boissevain 1974: 192-200).

According to Theissen Jesus recruited secondary charismatics, both men and women. They were "fishermen and farmers," that is, people from the peasant strata of Lower Galilee and--as I have emphasized in Part I--especially the Valley-Lake Region. He chose from them twelve disciples (see also Meier 1997b; contrast Crossan 1991: 334). Theissen thinks that their role as judges at the end of time is implied by Jesus' saying that the Twelve would sit on (twelve) thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30). I would add that three disciples--Peter, James, and John--seemed to form a core or within the faction (Mk 1:29 = Matt 8:14; Mark 5:37,40; Luke 8:51; Mark 9:2 = Matt 17:1 = Luke 9:28; 13:3; Mark 14:33 = Matt 26:37) and that Peter probably had the highest status among them. Theissen denies that the movement was a hierarchy; rather, the Twelve were a "representative popular rule" that symbolized a renewed Israel (Theissen & Merz 1998: 216). In my view this fictive family was not totally "egalitarian" (cp. Duling 1997: 126). Although the presence of women contributed to the group's deviance--the traditional household was no longer the norm--it appears nonetheless that the movement retained a degree of male dominance (also Stegemann & Stegemann 1999: 386; contrast Crossan 1991: 261-64). The males were competitive (Mark 10:35-45; see Boissevain 1974: 196) and Peter may have already surfaced as a focal person within the network (Mark 24x; in Matt 23x; in Luke 17x; in John 25x).

From the perspective of an Ego-centered network, the secondary charismatics, male and female followers of Jesus, are alters in Ego's intimate network, that is, Ego's first order zone. They represent at least two "activity fields," family and work (Mark 1:29 = Matt 8:14 = Luke 4:38; Mark 13:3; Acts 1:13); in the Gospel of John there are also friends. The Ego-centered network is small. The number Twelve is a "collective symbol" in the network; it introduces one kind of "ideological or moral content" that is exchanged (Boissevain 1974: 196-97). These alters have the most frequent and lasting interaction with Ego, thus the greatest "adjacency" and "reachability." They have more centrality and prestige than other members of the network. At least three alters that have the strongest ties with Ego form a "cluster"; they are also focal persons and form third-party links. We may imagine that certain tasks are delegated to them. As is normally the case among intimate alters in an Ego-centered network (Boissevain 1974: 198), higher and lower statuses create competition. In a network a major problem is that as the network expands, Ego spends increasing time and resources holding it together in the face of competition from other focal members. Rivalry develops in what is already an unstable alliance. In its simplest form, Jesus' intimate or first order zone looks like Figure 5 on the following page.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Theissen's tertiary charismatics, community sympathizers in the villages, did not abandon their traditional way of life; they remained in their homes, and adhered to traditional household norms and values. Nonetheless, they provided various kinds of physical and social support to the itinerant radicals. Jesus and the other itinerants gave them the message of salvation and liberation, and the act of healing; the community sympathizers offered food and shelter and "moral support" in return.

In network analysis, the tertiary charismatics generally correspond to Ego's effective network in the second order zone. They are "friends of friends," usually known to Ego, but less adjacent. They are outside the intimate network. The content of the exchange is spiritual-political and material, hope and hospitality. In so far as they are initially unknown to Ego, they can be imagined as overlapping Ego's more distant extended network. However, they are best seen as part of the effective network.

According to Theissen, there was a third group, "the people as a whole." They were (at least in the early part of the gospel narratives) the "crowds" (ochloi) or sometimes "a large multitude" (polu plethos). These are also seen in the Markan language of "follow" (e.g., Mark 5:24: ekoluthei; 8:34: ekoluthein; 3:7: ekoluthesen; cf. Mark 10:32: hoi de akolouthountes; 11:9: hoi akolouthountes). There were also individuals from the crowds who "followed," for example, a representative blind man, Bartimaeus, who was healed (Mark 10:52: ekolouthei) and the young man in the Garden of Gethsemane who fled naked (Mark 14:51: synekolouthei). Figures like these might have become part of Jesus' closer circle. Most, however, remained anonymous. Indeed, an unknown exorcist who did not follow (Mark. 9:39: ouk ekolouthei hemin) was judged to be for Jesus (see 9:40).

In network analysis such largely anonymous persons would normally form Ego's extended network, or third order zone. They are "friends of friends of friends," unknown to Ego, but helpful at a distance.

Theissen thinks of the Jesus Movement as the "family of God" (Theissen & Merz 1978: 218-19). In social-scientific terms, it was a fictive kin group. It had a deviant ideology. Among the itinerant radicals the norm was following without hesitation and voluntary homelessness and poverty (e.g., Mark 10:21; 10:28). In this regard it should be remembered that in normal circumstances women in antiquity stayed at home and were usually responsible for the care of human bodies (Stegemann & Stegemann 1999: 377). In the Jesus Movement, however, women seem also to have "followed" (Mark 15:40-41: akolouthoun)--they thus shared the deviant ideology--though their traditional role of "providing for" (diekonoun) men is less certain (ibid. 378-84).

Theissen argues that all members of the Jesus Movement shared with Jesus three features: charisma, self-stigmatization, and a share in the promise; they were a "group Messianism" (Gruppenmessianismus). This deviant idology brought them tension with natural families, friends, and work associates in the villages; conflict with powerful politico-religious authorities; and competition with rival factions. Total commitment to the movement was the norm.

Illustration: Natural Kinship in Ego's Most Intimate Network

In social-scientific terms the Jesus Movement was a "fictive kin" movement: ties with family and friends were being broken. Nonetheless, certain kinship ties remained, as later developments of the network indicate, and, indeed, they became critical for recruitment in the movement. I cannot analyze all of them in this short paper; therefore, I limit myself to Jesus and what was probably the most important cluster in his intimate network. I shall attempt to develop a rather extensive kinship network in relation to this cluster, though I fully recognized that not all the pieces of the kinship puzzle are known. Thereby, I hope to demonstrate the utility of network analysis for further interpretation of the Jesus Movement.

Jesus' natural family was the Joseph family. The most visible cluster in his intimate network consisted of Peter, James, and John, who in Figure 5 are 1, 2, and 3. The three families are the Joseph Family, the Zebedee family, and the Jonah family.

The Joseph Family (and the Zechariah Family)

It is generally recognized that Jesus came out of the Baptist's circle, that is, that he was an alter in another Ego-centered network (Theissen 1998: 196-213). The Lukan tradition makes a kinship link between John and Jesus through the Zechariah and Joseph families. Together they suggest family networks, as in Figure 6.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

A. Zechariah, husband of Elizabeth (B) and father of John (C) (Lk 1:5-67; 3:2).

B. Elizabeth (B), wife of Zechariah (A), mother of John (C), perhaps kin of Mary (D) (Lk 1:5-79).

C. John, son of Zechariah (A) and Elizabeth (B), perhaps kin of Jesus (J) and his brothers and sisters (K-Q).

The Gospels do not portray Jesus' kin as his followers during the course of his public life (Mark 3:31; John 7:5), though in the Fourth Gospel his mother is said to have been present at the crucifixion (John 19:25; Bauckham 1990: 13, 15). This portrait conforms to Jesus' fictive kin movement (esp. Theissen 1978). Two points need to be added: both the tradition of James as a central person in the Jerusalem network and the sociological theory that new religious movements, once established, grow more rapidly through family and friend networks (Stark 1996; Duling, forthcoming), suggest the necessity relating the Joseph family to other parts of the Jesus network, at least over time. In brief outline, it looks like this:

D. Sister of Mary (John 19:25 ["his mother's sister"]).

E. Mary, wife of Joseph, mother of at least six children, perhaps kinswoman of Elizabeth (Matt 1-2; Luke 1-2; Mark 3:31 = Matt 12:46 = Luke 8:19; 6:3 = Matt 13:55; John 2:1-5, 12; 6:42; 19:25-27; Acts 1:14; cf. GNAZ 2).

F. Joseph, husband of Mary, father of at least six children (Matt 1-2; 13:35; Luke 1-2; 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42).

G. Clopas, Joseph's brother? (John 19:25; Luke 24:18; Hegesippus, AP; Eusebius, HE 3:11; 3:32:6; 4:22:4 [Bauckham 1990: 17]).

H. Mary of Clopas, probably Clopas' wife (John 19:25).

I. Symeon/Simon, son of Clopas, cousin of Jesus (Heg. AP. Eusebius, HE 3:11; 3:32:6; 4:22:4; Symeon/Simon is mentioned second, behind James, in the Jerusalem bishop lists of Eusebius, HE 4:5:3-4; 5:12:1-2 and Epiphanius PAN. 66:21-22 [Bauckham 1990: 161). J. Jesus.

K. James, brother of Jesus, "pillar of the Jerusalem church" (Mark 6:3 = Matt 13:55; Mark 15:40 = Matt 27:56; Gal 1:9 [cf. 1 Cor 5:9], 12; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; cp. Jas 1:1; Jude 1; "his mother and his brothers" stereotype: Mark 3:31 = Matt 12:46 = Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14; GNAZ 2; Ep APP 5; cp. GTH 99). Bauckham states: "We may therefore be fairly sure that James was the eldest of the four and Joses the second, though we cannot be sure whether Simon or Judas was the youngest" (Bauckham 1990: 7). However, I accept with Meier the more literal view of Mark 6:3 (Helvidian, not Epiphanian or Hieronymian; Meier 1992; 1997). James is mentioned first in the Jerusalem bishop lists of Eusebius (HE 4:5:3-4; 5:12:1-2) and Epiphanius (PAN. 66:21-22).

L. Judas/Jude (Mark 6:3 = Matt 13:35; Jude 1).

M. Joses/Joseph (Mark 6:3 [Joses] = Matt 13:55 [Joseph]; for spellings see Mark 15:40 [Joses] = Matt 27:56 [Joseph]; Mark 15:47).

N. Simon (Mark 6:3 = Matt 13:35).

O. Sister 1 (Mary? Mark 6:3: "his sisters" = Matt 13:56 ["all his sisters"]; cf. Mark 3:35). The names are in Epiphanius (PAN 78:8:1; 78:9:6). Bauckham says, "... there is some degree of probability that these names are authentic" (1990: 8).

P. Sister 2 (Salome?).

Q. Sisters 3 (+?).

In the Second Testament there is nothing of Joseph's brothers and sisters, of Mary's brothers, of the wives and children of Jesus' four brothers, or of the husbands and children of at least two sisters. If such existed, there would have been many nephews and nieces. We do hear of Mary's sister, Jesus' brother James, and traditions about Jude. Luke says that Mary was the "kinswoman" of Elizabeth, a relationship which is possibly more remote than the figure indicates.

The Jonah/John Family

The Gospel of John, as noted, claims that Jesus recruited Andrew from John's circle, and through Andrew, he recruited his brother Peter (John 1:35-40; see Duling forthcoming).

A. Jonah, Peter's and Andrew's father (Matt 16:17 [Jonah]; John 1:42 [John]).

B. Jonah's wife (not mentioned).

C. Andrew, son of Jonah, brother of Peter (no wife mentioned).

D. Peter, son of Jonah, brother of Andrew, husband.

E. Peter's wife (Mark 1:30; Matt 8:14; Luke 4:38; cp. 1 Cor 9:5, though the text says "sister wife" or "sister as wife," about which there is much debate).

F. Peter's mother-in-law (name not mentioned).

If Peter and Andrew had children, this network would look more extensive.

The Zebedee Family

A. Zebedee, the fisherman (Mark 1:19, 20 = Matt 4:21; cp. Luke 5:10; Mark 3:17 = Matt 10:2; Mark 10:35 = Matt 20:20; Matt 26:37; 27:56; John 21:2).

B. "Mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt 20:20; 27:56), presumably still Zebedee's wife.

C. James, son of Zebedee, and brother of John. Usually the sons are mentioned by name; once they are simply "the sons of Zebedee" (John 21:2); twice the "mother of the sons of Zebedee" is mentioned (Matt 20:20; 27:56), the first reference clearly to shift blame to her for an inappropriate question. Mark calls them the "sons of thunder" (3:17); Matthew emphasizes that there are two sets of two brothers (Matt 4:18-22; 10:2).

D. John, son of Zebedee, and brother of James.

If James and John were married and had children, this network would be much larger.

There is, of course, a stated activity field that the two sets of brothers--Peter and Andrew, James and John--share, namely, fishing (esp. Luke 5:7). So they are linked by kinship, gender, village, and work activity fields. They are also linked as members of Jesus' intimate network. In the cluster of four there are multiplex relationships. If their relationship with Ego was that of unequal exchange--the directional flow was to them--they may have had a certain amount of equal exchange among themselves. Moreover, one can image that they offered social support to others in the network (network balancing). Three of the four must have been most adjacent to Jesus, and so they must have developed strong ties.

I have merely scratched the surface in this attempt to illustrate the potential of network analysis for the Jesus Movement. However, one aspect of the network beyond the time of Jesus should be noted, that is, the links between those who are most adjacent to Jesus, Jesus' brother James and Paul. In its simplest terms it might look like Figure 9.

[FIGURE 7-9 OMITTED]

Conclusion

I noted at the outset that network analysis would not "solve" current debates about the possible effect of urbanization and Greco-Roman cultural influence, including Cynicism, on a Galilean rural peasant artisan. Nonetheless, it might shed some light on these discussions. What light?

Knowledge of the networks of roads and the lake with its many towns and harbors is suggestive for the physical environment in which Jesus' social network was formed. One must imagine a great deal of travel over the roads (Strange 1997) and a busy lake full of fishing boats, especially with a relatively high population in Galilee. Current estimates are about 200,000 people, with an average of about 500 per village (Meyers 1997: 59). Hanson's study of the fishing economy should be kept in view (Hanson 1997). It is important to give the Valley-Lake Region and Tiberias their due, along with Lower Galilee and Sepphoris (Duling 1999). Capernaum, as a minor Central Place, is strategically located with respect getting to towns both by roads and the lake. This observation may well have political implications--escapes--with respect to the territories of Antipas and Philip (Rousseau & Arav 1995: 46). Thus, Capernaum was something of a physical "Ego," not more than a day's walk from Galilean villages to the West and South or a boat rides to the North, East, and South. Near Capernaum were Chorazin and Bethsaida. If Jesus condemned these three towns together, the condemnation is strong evidence that they were linked and that Jesus was active there. All this suggests that if the itinerant radicals shook off the dust--or fish scales!--from their feet and moved on, they could return to either Peter's (or Jesus') house in Capernaum, from whence they could again depart in many directions.

If Jesus was a traveling artisan, he was no doubt exposed to at least some urban Hellenistic cultural influence in Galilee. Freyne and Fiensy have contended that as a travelling artisan Jesus would have had more status (Freyne 1988: 241; Fiensy 1994). Batey goes further. He suggests that a city like Sepphoris would have shaped Jesus' language and thought, indeed his message of the Kingdom; thus, Jesus was not hostile to cities (Batey 1984a; 1984b; 1991). In contrast, while Freyne admits to a certain degree of"urban overlay" (Strange's term) in Galilee, he argues from his own experience of Irish peasants, Redfield's Great Tradition and Little Tradition (Redfield 1960), Carney's economic model (Carney 1975), and in general sources such as Josephus that peasants would not have held the values of urban elites. Rather, they would have opposed them (Freyne 1988; 1995; 1997b). Horsley uses literary sources coupled with a model of political economy to suggest that there was hostility between cities and villages (Horsley 1994b: 122). This hostility was marked especially by Lower Galilean peasants' plunder of Sepphoris and the attack of Tiberias by Valley-Lake residents in 66-70 C.E. (Jos Vita 30, 39, 373-80; 66, 99,177,381-92). Oakman, joined by Hanson, has made a similar point with respect to the temple economy and the plight of peasants straining under the burden of rents and debts: Jesus' core values were those of the peasant strata (Oakman 1992: 121; Oakman 1994; also Oakman & Hanson 1998:131-59). Even the Regionalist Meyers recently admitted that Jesus avoided Sepphoris because he, Jesus, would not have received a sympathetic hearing among the elite, Herodian, and priestly classes (Meyers 1992: 325)!

How do these issues relate to the Jesus Movement as an Ego-centered network? I am convinced that it is possible to hold together both the more complicated picture of the physical connections current among Regionalists and a faction coalition/Ego-centered network. The latter functioned in a conflict environment in which Jesus avoided the main urban centers. Jesus' most important central places were in the Valley-Lake Region. That was his primary physical network. One then needs to work out the many persons and relationships in the intimate, effective, and extended social networks, and graph the nodes and lines throughout the network. The above illustration is only a beginning.

Works Cited (Selected)

(Works in Part II that are already listed in the "Works Cited" of Part I [BTB 29/4: 171-75] are not duplicated below.)

Web Sites and Software

Freeman, Linton C. & Ronald L. Breiger, eds. n.d. SOCIAL NETWORKS (An International Quarterly) http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~socnets/snjhome.html

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS, HOMEPAGE OF THE http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/project/INSNA/

Kapferer, Bruce. ND. GRAPH LAYOUT APPLET--[BRUCE] KAPFERER MINE DATA http://www.public.asu.edu/~corman/jsocnet/kapferer.htm Social Networks, A Special Issue. 1997. L'ANNEE SOCIOLOGIQUE 47/1.

http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/project/INSNA/spec iss.html Krackhardt, David, Jim Blythe, & Cathleen McGrath, with Mark Herbert. ND. KRACKPLOT: A SOCIAL NETWORK VISUALIZATION PROGRAM. http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~krack/inidex.html

van Huff, Arthur. JAVA FOR SOCIAL NETWORKS? http://www.public.asu.edu/~corman/jsocnet/

Books and Articles

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1970. Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae. JBL 89:265-91.

Alexander, Jeffrey C., ed. 1987. THE MICRO-MACRO LINK. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bauckham, Richard. 1994. The Brothers and Sister of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response to John Meier. CBQ 56: 686-700.

1991. Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. NOVTEST 33/3: 245-75.

1990. JUDE AND THE RELATIVES OF JESUS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

Becker, Michael, & Wolfgang Fenske, eds. 1999. DAS ENDE DER TAGE UND DIE GEGENWART DES HELLS. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Borgatti, Stephen, ed. N.d. CONNECTIONS. (A Journal of the International Network for Social Network Analysis)

Breiger, Ronald L. 1994. The Duality of Persons and Groups. Pp. 83-121 in Wellman & Berkowitz.

Burt, Ronald S., & M. J. Minor, eds. 1983. APPLIED NETWORK ANALYSIS: A METHODOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Corbo, Virgilio C. 1993. THE CHURCH OF THE HOUSE OF ST. PETER AT CAPERNAUM. Pp. 71-76 in ANCIENT CHURCHES REVEALED, ed. Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Exploration Society; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society.

D'Angelo, Mary Rose. 1990. Women Partners in the New Testa. merit. JOURNAL OF FEMINIST STUDIES IN RELIGION 6:65-86.

Draper, Jonathan A. 1998. Weber, Theissen, and Wandering Charismatics in the Didache. JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES 6: 541-76.

Droge, Arthur J. 1983. Call Stories in Greek Biography and the Gospels. Pp. 245-57 in SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 1983 SEMINAR PAPERS, ed. K. H. Richards. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Duling, Dennis C. 1999. The Jesus Movement and Social Network Analysis. Part I: The Spatial Network. BTB 29/4: 156-75.

Eisenstadt, S. N., & Louis Roniger. 1980. Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange. COMPARATIVE STUDIES IN SOCIETY AND HISTORY 22: 42-77.

Elliott, John H. 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, ed. Philip F. Esler. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Fiensy, David A. 1997. Jesus' Socioeconomic Background. Pp. 225-55 in HILLEL AND JESUS: COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF TWO MAJOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, ed. James H. Charlesworth & Loren L. Johns. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Fortna, Robert T. 1970. THE GOSPEL OF SIGNS: A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NARRATIVE SOURCE UNDERLYING THE FOURTH GOSPEL. London: Cambridge University Press.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1982. The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Pp. 105-30 in SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND NETWORK ANALYSIS, ed. P. V. Marsden & N. Lin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (Reprinted as pp. 201-19 in SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY, ed. R. Collins [San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 19831.)

Hamilton, Gordon J. 1996. A New Hebrew. Aramaic Incantation Text from Galilee: `Rebuking the Sea.' JOURNAL OF SEMITIC STUDIES 41: 215-49.

Hanson, K. C., & Douglas E. Oakman. 1998. PALESTINE IN THE TIME OF JESUS. SOCIAL STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

Hengel, Martin. 1981. THE CHARISMATIC LEADER AND HIS FOLLOWERS. Trans. J. Greig. New York, NY: Crossroad. (Original ed. 1968.)

Jay, Edward J. 1964. The Concepts of `Field' and `Network' in Anthropological Research. MAN IN INDIA 44/177: 137-39.

Johnson, Jeffrey C. 1994. Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Social Networks. A Review. Pp. 113-51 in ADVANCES IN SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS. RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAIORAL SCIENCES, ed. Stanley Wasserman & Joseph Galaskiewicz. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kapferer, Bruce. 1973. Social Network and Conjugal Role in Urban Zambia: Towards a Reformulation of the Bott Hypothesis. Pp. 83-110 in Boissevain & Mitchell.

1972. Norms and the Manipulation of Relationships in a Work Con. text. Pp. 181-244 in SOCIAL NETWORKS IN URBAN SITUATIONS, ed. J. Mitchell. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. (http://www.public.asu.edu/~corman/jsocnet/kapferer.htm)

Louw & Nida. 1989. GREEK LEXICON (Bible Windows). Malina, Bruce J. 1988a. Patron and Client. The Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology. FORUM 4/1: 2-32.

1988b. A Conflict Approach to Mark 7. FORUM 4/3: 3-30.

1979. Review: Gerd Theissen, SOCIOLOGY OF EARLY PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANITY (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). CBQ 41: 176-78.

Malina, Bruce J., & Jerome H. Neyrey. 1991. First-Century Personality: Dyadic, Not Individual. Pp. 68-96 in THE SOCIAL WORLD OF LUKE-ACTS, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Marsden, Peter V. 1992. Social Network Theory. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIOLOGY 4: 1887-94, ed. E. F. Borgatta & M. L. Borgatta. New York, NY Macmillan.

Marsden, P. V., & N. Lin, eds. 1982. SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND NETWORK ANALYSIS. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Meier, John P. 1997a. On Retrojecting Later Questions from Later Texts: A Reply to Richard Bauckham. CBQ 59:511-27.

1997b. The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist During Jesus' Ministry? JBL 116: 635-72.

1992. The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective. CBQ 54: 1-28.

Mitchell, J. Clyde. 1974. Social Networks. ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY 3: 279-99.

1973 Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction. Pp. 14-38 in Boissevain & Mitchell.

Morris, Aldon D., & Carol McClurg Mueller, eds. 1992. FRONTIERS IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. 1980. THE HOLY LAND: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL GUIDE FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO 1700. Oxford, UK/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 1995. Loss of Wealth, Loss of Family and Loss of Honour. Pp. 139-58 in MODELLING EARLY CHRISTIANITY, ed. Philip F. Esler. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.

Noble, Mary. 1973. Social Network: Its Use as a Conceptual Framework in Family Analysis. Pp. 3-13 in Boissevain & Mitchell.

Noyes, Dorothy. 1995. Group. JOURNAL OF AMERICAN FOLKLORE 108: 449-78.

Nun, Mendel. 1999. Ports of Galilee. Modern Drought Reveals Harbors from Jesus' Time. BAR 25/4: 18-31, 64.

Oakman, Douglas E. 1994. The Archaeology of First-Century Galilee and the Social Interpretation of the Historical Jesus. Pp. 220-51 in SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE 1994 SEMINAR PAPERS, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

1992. Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Samaritan Story. BTB 22:117-25.

1991. The Countryside in Luke-Acts. Pp. 151-80 in THE SOCIAL WORLD OF LUKE-ACTS, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Overman, J. Andrew. 1997. Jesus of Galilee and the Historical Peasant. Pp. 67-73 in Edwards & McCollough.

Redfield, Robert. 1960. THE LITTLE COMMUNITY AND PEASANT SOCIETY AND CULTURE. Chicago, IL: Phoenix.

Robbins, Vernon K. 1992. JESUS THE TEACHER. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1982. Mark I. 14-20: An Interpretation at the Intersection of Jewish and Graeco-Roman Traditions. NTS 28: 220-36.

Sahlins, Marshall D. 1965. On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange. Pp. 139-236 in THE RELEVANCE OF MODELS FOR SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, ed. Max Gluckman & Fred Eggan. ASA Monograph No. 1. New York, NY: Praeger.

Schottroff, Luise. 1995. Itinerant Prophetesses: a Feminist Analysis of the Sayings Source Q. Pp. 347-60 in THE GOSPEL BEHIND THE GOSPELS: CURRENT STUDIES ON Q, ed. Ronald A. Piper. SUPPNOVTEST 75. Leiden: E J. Brill.

Scrininas, M. N. & A. Betaille. 1964. Networks in Indian Social Structure. MAN 64: 165-68.

Scott, John. 1996. Networks. Pp. 794-95 in THE SOCIAL SCIENCE ENCYCLOPEDIA, ed. Adam Kuper & Jessica Kuper. 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge.

Seland, Torrey. 1987. Jesus as a Faction Leader. On the Exit of the Category `Sect.' Pp. 197-211 in CONTEXT, ed. Peter Wilhelm Beckman & Roald E. Kristiansen Trondheim: TAPIR.

Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher, & Sheldon Ekland-Olson. 1980. Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstrucrural Approach to Differential Recruitment. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 45: 787-801.

Stansell, Gary. 1999. Gift Giving in the First Testament. Paper delivered at the SBL Hebrew Bible and Social Scientific Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature, 1998. Forthcoming, SEMEIA.

Stark, Rodney, & William Sims Bainbridge. 1980. Networks of Faith: Interpersonal Bonds and Recruitment to Cults and Sects. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 85: 1376-95.

Stegemann, Ekkehard W., & Wolfgang Stegemann. 1999. THE JESUS MOVEMENT. A SOCIAL HISTORY OF ITS FIRST CENTURY. Trans. O. C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Stegemann, Wolfgang. 1984. Vagabond Radicalism in Early Christianity: a Historical and Theological Discuss/on of a Thesis Proposed by Gerd Theissen. Pp. 148-68 in GOD OF THE LOWLY: SOCIO-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE, ed. W. Schottroff & W. Stegemann. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Theissen, Gerd. 1983. Zur forschungsgeschichtlichen Einordnung der soziologischen Fragestellung. Pp. 3-34 in STUDIEN ZUR SOZIOLOGIE DES URCHRISTENTUMS. 2nd ed. Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Waetjen, Herman C. 1989. A REORDERING OF POWER. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Walker, Michael E., Stanley Wasserman, & Barry Wellman. 1994. Statistical Models for Social Support Networks. Pp. 53-78 in ADVANCES IN SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS. RESEARCH IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, ed. Stanley

Wasserman & Joseph Galaskiewicz. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wassermman, Stanley, & Katherine Faust. 1994. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS. METHODS AND APPLICATIONS. Cambridge: University Press.

Wellman, Barry. 1988. Structural Analysis: From Method and Metaphor to Theory and Substance. Pp. 19-61 in Wellman & Berkowitz.

1983. Network Analysis: Some Basic Principles. Pp. 219-50 in SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY, ed. R. Collins. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wellman, Barry, & S. D. Berkowitz. 1988. Introduction: Studying Social Structures. Pp. 1-14 in Wellman & Berkowitz.

Wellman, Barry, Peter J. Carrington, & Alan Hall. 1988. Networks and Personal Communities. Pp. 130-84 in Wellman & Berkowitz.

Willier, D., & B. Anderson, eds. 1981. NETWORKS, EXCHANGE AND COERCION: THE ELEMENTARY THEORY AND ITS APPLICATIONS. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Wolf, Eric. 1966. Kinship, Friendship, and Patron. Client Relations in Complex Societies. Pp. 1-22 in THE SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF COMPLEX SOCIETIES, ed. Michael Banton. New York, NY: Praeger.

Yamagishi, Toshio; Mary R. Gillmore; & Karen S. Cook. 1988. Network Connections and the Distribution of Power in Exchange Networks. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY 93: 833-51.

Dennis C. Duling, Ph.D. (University of Chicago), is Professor in the Religious Studies Department of Canisius College, Buffalo NY 12408 (e-mail: [e-mail]). He is author of JESUS CHRIST THROUGH HISTORY (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), THE TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON (Doubleday, 1983); Matthew 18:15-17: Conflict, Confrontation, and Conflict Resolution in a "Fictive Kin" Association, BTB 29/1 [1999]: 4-22, and numerous articles on Matthew. Parts I and II of this article were delivered as a paper and discussed at the 4th International Context Group Meeting in Tutzing, Germany, June, 1999.