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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.