Social-Science Criticism of the New

Testament
New Testament scholars need to be aware of the culture in which the NT was written.
Social-science criticism accentuates the historical particularity of the Scriptures by
describing in detail the original setting. Some awareness of this critical method will
not only be helpful for our future biblical studies, it will also be relevant to our class
paper.

Social-science criticism is an attempt to better understand the historical context of the

NT, particularly its setting in terms of social dynamics. John Elliott defines it as a
"component of the historical-critical method of exegesis." 1 Whereas historical critics
typically look at large units of society — nations, leaders, and demographic statistics
— social-science critics strive to examine the common people, their understanding of
the way the world works, and the way they interact with one another. 2 History and
sociology overlap, and they may sometimes merge or at least inform one another, but
in general, a historian takes a wide view, looking at the way large components of
society change over time. A social scientist takes a more detailed view of the way a
culture functions at a specific point in time. A historian may give a sketch of society;
a social scientist tries to create a video of interpersonal dynamics and psychology.

A brief history

Social science criticism began as historians examined specific societies in greater

detail to see how the common people lived. Early pioneers in this field include Max
Weber, Ernst Troelsch, Adolf Deissmann, Shirley Jackson Case, and Edwin Judge.
Historians such as Joachim Jeremias and Frederick Grant also contributed to our
understanding of first-century cultures.

Several notable scholars began work in the 1970s, intentionally bringing sociological
techniques to biblical studies: John Gager, Robert Grant, Martin Hengel, Abraham
Malherbe, Bruce Malina, Wayne Meeks, John Stambaugh, and Gerd Theissen. In the
1980s, John Elliott, Philip Esler, Bengt Holmberg, Howard Clark Kee and Jerome
Neyrey began to contribute to the field, often using sociological theories in the
analysis of specific texts. For a more detailed history, see Elliott, pp. 17-35.

What methods are involved in social-science criticism?

Social-science criticism, like historical criticism, attempts to better understand the

context in which the NT was written, to see how the words would be understood in
their original setting. To do this, it brings specialized methods from sociology and
cultural anthropology. They try to understand the way the other culture perceives
reality, the world, and its own cultural interworkings. Elliott gives a long diagnostic
list in appendix 2 (pp. 110-121) to explore each detail of the way a culture may
function. The analyst strives to understand what natives would think, in their own
terms, and why they might think it, as seen by the scholar. The picture becomes more
complex when we recognize that most people function in several societies
simultaneously (e.g., values shaped in part by Judaism, part by Greek ethics, part by
Roman law, etc.)

Social critics use specialized methods from the fields of sociology, psychology,
linguistics, economics, political science, and semiotics. They try to map out the way
that political, military, economic and ecological elements interact in the culture.
Group dynamics are particularly important: their traditions, attitude toward people not
in the group, leadership, hierarchies, kinship relations, role assignments, conflict
resolution, values, loyalties, beliefs, worldviews and plausibility structures. "The aim
of the study of such issues is to understand how and why people thought, behaved,
and spoke the way they did...how and why these modes of action and communication
made sense within the cultural parameters of the ancient Mediterranean" (Elliott, p.
67).

Three sociological conclusions may illustrate the results: 1) Ancient Mediterranean

cultures were honor/shame cultures. Ethics were based largely on peer pressure, on
whether the person brought honor or shame to the group. 2) These cultures had a
perception of "limited good" — that one can gain only if another person loses. 3)
Early Christian groups had characteristics of marginalized sects, and their theological
views were shaped by their social situation. 3

This method involves specialized training and terminology, and can be intimidating to
beginners. Elliott observes that it requires an "adequate familiarization with the social
sciences as well as with the disciplines of theology and exegesis...adding yet one more
discipline to the many already embraced under the label `exegetical method'" (p. 99).
It is not possible to be an expert in everything that is relevant to biblical studies. Some
specialization is necessary. Some will specialize in the social-science angle; most
scholars will not. However, when we read the results of social-science criticism, we
cannot simply accept everything. "Uncritical acceptance of social theory or
unfamiliarity with competing schools of social thought can seriously weaken an
exegetical analysis" (ibid.). In order to evaluate the results of social-science criticism,
we need to critique the method.

Critiques and cautions

Biblical scholars value a more accurate, more detailed understanding of the context in
which the Scriptures were written, and social-science criticism can be a very helpful
supplement. However, as with other critical tools, a few cautions are in order.

1. Sociology, like other sciences, tends to favor naturalistic explanations even if they
contradict the text. The analysis may be presented with this self-imposed limitation,
and an ancient culture that included supernaturalistic beliefs may be forced into a
naturalistic mold. Like other analyses based on a specific approach (e.g., form
criticism, canonical criticism, history-of-religions, and dogmatic presuppositions), it
should be supplemented with other critical methods and epistemology.

2. Some people seem to act as if we can discard a biblical teaching merely by showing
that it had a specific function in its original setting, and our cultural situation is very
different. This may be true, but it does not always mean that the original teaching is
irrelevant. Just because we do not live in a shame-based culture, for example, does not
mean that we may do everything once considered shameful. The interpreter's task
does not stop at the original setting — it must also include a search for transferable
principles. Social-science criticism may help in this process, or it may stop short.

3. Social-science criticism uses sociological techniques that are not universally

accepted within sociology. The validity of "models" is debated, because human
behavior includes creativity. The validity of using models on the past is debated,
particularly when the evidence is so limited. Sociological generalizations based on
modern third-world cultures may not apply so easily to ancient Mediterranean
cultures. The focus on common culture and group psychology may obscure the role
that individual leaders have in initiating change. As Susan Garrett observes, "One
cannot take it for granted that documents were always products of communities"
(ABD, 6:94).

4. As with other tools, it is tempting to select the evidence that fits the theory. Elliott
may do this in his analysis of 1 Peter. First, he emphasizes a social meaning
of paroikos, arguing that the recipients of this letter were resident aliens before their
conversion to Christianity, and their pre-existent sense of alienation is what caused
them to be attracted to Christianity. He argues that the letter tries to sharpen the
distinction between them and their surrounding culture. Barton reports this critique:
On the basis of a comparison of the household code in 1 Peter with codes from the wider Hellenistic Jewish
environment, Balch argues that the high degree of correspondence between the respective codes shows that, far from
trying to distance themselves from society at large, the Christians in Asia Minor were being encouraged toward
accommodation and greater integration. The motivation suggested is essentially apologetic.... The Christians would
counter the slander of outsiders who viewed them as a threat to civic order and household stability (p. 1107).
Garrett adds that "Elliott does not give adequate weight to considering how the
author(s) themselves might have understood (in their own terms) their intentions in
writing the letter" (p. 95). The fact that equally expert scholars disagree is in itself a
warning for us not to be too quick to accept their conclusions. Technical jargon and
claims of "rigorous" method do not assure correct conclusions. There are valuable
insights as well as some blind alleys in this critical method.

Bibliography

For a brief introduction to social science criticism, see chapter 4 of Joel

Green, Hearing the New Testament. Helpful articles and important critiques are in
the Anchor Bible Dictionary and the IVP Dictionary of the Later New
Testament. Relevant chapters may also be found in Black and Dockery's New
Testament Criticism & Interpretation, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard's Introduction to
Biblical Interpretation, and Bray's Biblical Interpretation Past and Present. These
analyses include comments both on the value and the weaknesses of social-science
criticism.

Book-length introductions include Elliott (note 1) and Carolyn Osiek, What Are They
Saying About the Social Setting of the New Testament? (1992). These books, written
by social-science critics, give favorable presentations of the method. Elliott includes a
long bibliography of books and articles reporting the results of social-science criticism
(organized by date, an arrangement useful primarily to historians of the method). To
help scholars familiarize themselves with the field, Elliott also lists numerous books
about social theories and methods, sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology of
knowledge, social history, Mediterranean studies, and other specific issues.

The following are some of the major authors and books:

John Elliott, ed. Social-Science Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World. Scholars, 1986.

Philip Esler, The First Christians in Their Social Worlds. Routledge, 1994.

-----, ed. Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientific Studies of the NT in Its Context. Routledge, 1995.

John Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Prentice-Hall, 1975.

Bengt Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal. Fortress, 1990.

Richard Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement. Crossroad, 1989.

Howard Clark Kee, Christian Origins in Sociological Perspective. Westminster, 1980.

-----, Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to New Testament Interpretation. Fortress, 1989.

Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Fortress, 1983.

Bruce Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. John Knox, 1986.

-----, The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology. Westminster/John Knox, 1993.

-----, and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Fortress, 1992.

-----, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Fortress, 1998.

Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. Yale University Press, 1983.

-----, The Moral World of the First Christians. Westminster, 1986.

Jerome Neyrey, ed. The Social World of Luke-Acts. Hendrickson, 1991.

John Stambaugh and David Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Westminster, 1986.

Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Fortress, 1982.

-----, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Fortress, 1978.

Derek Tidball, The Social Context of the New Testament: A Sociological Analysis. Zondervan, 1984.

Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Eerdman's, 1997.

Endnotes

1 John Elliott, What Is Social-Science Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993, p. 7.

2 Elliott contrasts the tendencies of social science and history in his first appendix (pp. 107-109). Among the differences are: History looks at notable events; social science seeks the routine. Historians

look at individuals; social scientists at group interworkings. History looks at unusual beliefs and understandings; social science looks for common cultural beliefs, including assumptions that are so
commonly held that they are seldom articulated. Social scientists try to carefully define the "model" of social behavior they are hypothesizing; historians tend to be less explicit about why they think
people function the way they do.

3 Elliott (p. 126) credits Malina (The New Testament World: Insight From Cultural Anthropology) for the first two; Elliott used the sectarian model extensively in A Home for the Homeless: A

Sociological Analysis of 1  Peter, Its Situation and Strategy. Stephen Barton critiques Elliott: "It appears rather one-sided to represent conversion and subsequent Christian instruction as the product of
underlying social forces of marginalization when it appears more likely that the marginalization of the Christians is the result of their conversion and distinctive lifestyle" (Dictionary of the Later New

Testament, p. 1107).

Sectarian sociology might be helpful in analyzing the book of Hebrews, since it has numerous admonitions about group boundaries, but I do not know of any analysis that uses this approach.