Introduction
This article is an attempt to understand sociological contribution of the Gerd
Theissen regarding the early Christina community particularly based on his
books Sociology of Early Palestinian
Christianity and The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. The first book deals with sociology of the Jesus
movement and the later one explores sociology of the Pauline communities based
on Corinthian correspondence. The paper also makes a critique of Theissen’s
work by bringing together criticism from different scholars.
1.Theissen’s
Methodology
Gerd
Theissen’s Sociology of Early Palestinian
Christianity is one of the pioneering sociological studies of the earliest Christianity
and Jesus’ movement. The aim of sociology of the Jesus movement is to analyze
the typical features of the Jesus movement and its interaction to the
Palestinian society. He analyzes
the roles, factors and function. “An analysis of roles investigates typical
patterns of behavior; an analysis of factors the way in which this behavior is
determined by society; an analysis of function of effects upon society.”[1]
The governing sociological
perspective in this book is sociological functionalism: “societies in general
are regarded as entities whose “basic aims” include achieving the integration
of their members and overcoming conflicts through change.”[2]
“Integration can involve compulsion and restrictions, but it can also mean the
extension and the enrichment of human possibilities. Conflicts can either be
suppressed by compensatory solutions or brought to a head by new plans for
their resolution.”[3]
He says religion has four functions: integrating function, antagonistic
function, restrictive function and creative function. E.S. Fiorenza observes
that his analysis of the Jesus movement was based on sociological theory of
conflict whereas he used sociological theory of integration more for the
reconstruction of early Christian beginning in the Hellenistic urban society.[4]
2.1 Analysis of Roles:
Typical Social Attitude in the Jesus Movement
Theissen
believes that earliest Christianity began as a renewal movement internal to
Judaism brought into being through Jesus. The internal structure of the Jesus
movement was determined by the interaction of roles by wandering charismatics,
sympathizers and the bearer of the revelation.
Wandering
Charismatics (pages
8-16): “Jesus did not primarily found local communities, but called into being
a movement of wandering charismatics.”(p.8). Theissen thinks the twelve apostles, the group
with Stephen, Paul and Barnabas were itinerant preachers. He perceives that the
wandering charismatics “shaped the earliest traditions and provide the social
background for a good deal of the synoptic tradition, especially the tradition
of the words of Jesus.”(p.10). The ethical norm of this tradition can be
understood as the attitude of the Jesus’ followers especially in the pattern of
giving up home, family, possessions and protections. The wandering charismatics
left their homes (Mk. 1.16,10.28ff) and family (Mk.10.29; Mt.8.22). They led a
life of wandering. They gave up their possessions and accepted poverty as a
mark of complete discipleship, their trust in God and calling. They criticized
the rich and possessions. They depended upon the support of the sympathizers
for daily needs. Theissen called their dependency on them for sustenance as charismatic
begging. The wandering cynic philosophers are in several ways analogous to the
wandering charismatics. The ethical radicalism in the synoptic tradition is
connected with wandering charismatics. Only those who freed from the everyday
ties can practice such radicalism and eschatological expectation is thus high
on the tradition.
Sympathizers (pages 17-22): They are settled local communities who
supported wandering charismatics materially. They are understood exclusively in
term of their relationship with wandering charismatics. Local communities were
less radical than wandering charismatics. Their behavior regulated by various
factors such as the Law, their profession, family and outward conformity. Wandering
charismatics were the authorities in the local communities. The sympathizers
themselves determined the membership of the local communities.
Son of Man (pages 24-30): The title of Son of Man for Jesus
reveals the internal perspective of the Jesus movements. There are two kinds of
Son of man saying: Earthly son of man and future Son of Man. Sayings of earthly
Son of man take active forms that indicate that Son of Man transcends the
worldly norms and passive forms which indicate that the sufferings of the Son
of Man.
2.2 Analysis of Factors: The Effect of Society on the Jesus Movement
Socio-economic Factors (pages 33-46): The most striking socio-economic phenomenon
of the Jesus movement was social rootlessness of the wandering charismatics.
Such rootlessness was deliberate and voluntary among wandering charismatic but
Theissen also notices the involuntary aspects among followers of the renewal
movements. Famines, over-population, concentration of possession and unjust
distribution of the goods are the causes of social rootlessness. Taxation was
very much oppressive. Pax Romana of
Augustus provided favourable condition for the growth of the trade and commerce in
Palestine, which changed the socio-economic structure of the country. There
were people who moved to upper class but the condition of the many ordinary
people became worse. This upward and downward movement of people in the
economic ladder created need of renewal movement like Jesus movement, which had
members from upper class and middle classes.
Socio-ecological Factors (pages 47-58): The Jesus movement was centered in the
country and was ambivalent in its relationship to Jerusalem and Hellenistic cities.
This phenomena can explained “in terms of the conflict between city and
country, especially as there are analogies to it elsewhere.” The Jesus movement
later developed an oppeness to keep a central position of Jerusalem while
rejecting its present form. Theissen notices that “the Jesus movement found
doors opened to them in Hellenistic cities because they could offer prospects
of a resolution of the tensions between Jews and Gentiles: theirs was a
universalistic Judaism, which was open to outsiders.”(p.58)
Socio-political Factors (pages 59-76): Jesus movement was a theocratic
movement. It proclaimed the imminence of the rule of God and end of other
rules. Prophetical movements, the Essense and the resistance movement were
other theocratic movements. The theocratic movements expected imminent
eschatology. They had messianic expectations. They hated foreigners but such
attitude was lacking in Jesus movement.
The power of aristocracy had
constant struggle because of the friction with Herodian client rulers and Roman
procurators. This struggle in the structures of the government weakened the
idea of theocracy and gave rise to dreams of radical theocracy. The Roman
military presence and Hellenistic soldiers hated Jews. Tension between Jews and
Gentiles was existed in Palestine and nearby Hellenistic cities. Priestly
aristocracy was natural allies of the Romans. There was constant tension among
aristocracy, Herodians and Romans. This tension in the ruling structures
furthered the longing for the Kingdom of God.
Socio-cultural Factors (pages 77-95): The strict interpretation of the Torah
was result of the socio-cultural tension between Jewish and Hellenistic
culture. Jesus movement shows two tendencies in this regard: intensification of
norms and relaxation of norms. The former applied primarily to social aspects
whereas the later applied to religious aspects. The other renewal movements
also applied such norms. The intensification was the major tendency. Thiessen
notices that the intensions of the renewal movements indicate the “tendencies
towards inter-cultural segregation form the Gentiles and tendencies towards
intra-cultural segregation from other Jewish group. The two belong together
dialectically.” (p.84).
Universalist tendencies and
claims were presented in both Hellenism and Judaism. However, Greeks and Romans
reacted to the conflict between Hellenism and Judaism with anti-Semitism.
Judaism responded to this crisis with xenophobia. Theissen argues that the
Jewish people underwent severe identity crisis in 1AD because of the threat
from the alien culture. “The intensification of norms and accentuation of
eschatological expectation seemed to be the way out of the crisis of Jewish
self- identity.” (p.93). The intensification of norms produced schism in
Judaism, which ultimately led into universalization of the Judaism. This
universalization happened “when the intensification of norms became the
relaxation of norms and when it was recognized that even an elect remnant
within Israel could not satisfy these intensified norms: all, Jews and Gentiles
alike, were directed towards grace. The break-through happened in the Jesus
movement, though it was only with Paul that its final consequences were drawn.”
(p.94).
2.3 Analysis of Function: The Effect of the Jesus Movement on Society (pages 99-119)
“Tensions give rise to forms
of aggression.” Theissen thinks the “functional outline of the Jesus movement
for overcoming social tensions is an interpretation of it as a contribution
towards containing and overcoming aggression.” (p.99). Dealing with aggression,
Jesus movement presents a new vision of love and reconciliation, whose centre
was the new commandment to love one’s enemy. The question is that how Jesus
movement which expected to practice such vision would influence the entire
society with radical ethics of wandering charismatics and their alien patterns?
Theissen suggests it is through miracles. “If so many miracles had taken place,
would not the miracle of love be possible also?” (p.112).
Thiessen argues that Jesus
movement was a failure in Jewish society as a renewal movement. The reasons for
this are: firstly, the acute tension in Palestine during 30s and 40s threatened
Jews and resorted them into traditional patterns of behavior. This “diminished
the chances of the Jesus movement, which encroached on the tabus of society
with its criticism of the temple and the law.” (p.113). Further, Jesus movement
often forced into a role of a scapegoat. However, the vision of love of Jesus
movement had greater chance in Hellenistic world because Hellenistic world
enjoyed peace and stability provided a favorable condition to the Jesus
movement than the Palestine world.
3.1 The Sociology of Early
Missionaries (pages 27-59)
Jesus
movement was a Palestinian phenomenon and the Hellenistic Christianity
primarily developed outside Palestine. The Christian communities were not
interested to separate from the Judaism and thus it seems misunderstanding to
speak about primitive Christian communities in the earliest period.[7] The bearers of the Christianity
that came to known as later were itinerant missionaries, prophets and apostles
who would depend upon local sympathizers. There were two kinds of the itinerant
preachers: itinerant charismatic and community organizers. (p.28).
Community Organizers (pages
35-40): The Hellenistic Jewish
Christians started first to turn to Gentiles. The protagonists of the Hellenistic
mission were Barnabas and Paul who started the systematic mission among them.
Socio-political Factors (pages
36-37): The Hellenistic mission was operative in almost all cities who accepted
Roman as benefactor with republican constitution. The urbanization and
Romanization or Hellenization went hand in hand. The idea of Kingdom is very
less in Pauline mission and Theissen argues that “ the political structure is accepted
without reservation (Rom 13:1ff) and Paul, being a citizen of Tarsus and of
Rome, is fully integrated into the political texture of the Roman Empire.” (p.
36)
Socio-economic factors
(pages 36-37): Christianity penetrated
to the higher strata of Hellenistic society. A familial love-patriarchalism
which has less value for nonfamilial ethical radicalism of the synoptic
tradition is a characteristic of these communities with social stratification.
Such setting charismatic begging was inappropriate. Thus Paul and Barnabas were
respectable as working men than itinerant preachers. However Pauline
communities accepted missionaries who did accept supports.
Socio-ecological factors
(p.38): Paul and Barnabas concentrated to mission in the cities. To manage
their travel expenses and other needs, they depended on supports of the
congregations and their own incomes from their work. Other missionaries depended
on congregational supports alone.
Socio-cultural factors
(pages 39-40): Paul and Barnabas
understood missionaries of Gentiles by themselves and turned away from their
own culture. It reduced their chances to get support from them. They would be
seen as “philosophers” roaming around the land who did not accept reward for
their wisdom and Paul also thinks like cynic philosophers in his claim of self
sufficiency in Phil4.11. Such renunciation was a part of mission strategy. On
the other side, he received the Macedonian support. “Thus Paul represents a
type of missionary who can be described as the goal-oriented community
organizer, breaking new grounds” (p.40) among people other than Jewish
sympathizers.
The Conflict between
Itinerant Charismatics and Community Organizers (pages
40-54)
In
Corinth, Paul had conflict with other competing missionaries (especially in
2Cor.) and their followers (1Cor. 1-4) who resided in Corinth. The focal points
of conflict were theological stand points, question right for apostolic support
and apostolic legitimacy. To analyse the controversy, Theissen distinguishes
following three types of legitimacies (pp 40-42):
Charismatic Legitimation
(pp 42-49): The synoptic commission speeches expect an obligation to a
demonstrable asceticism from missionaries. Thus missionaries accepted
charismatic poverty and trust in God for their provision. Paul discusses at
length positively the privilege of getting missionary support, though he
renounced it. This denial perceived by others as evading charismatic poverty
and Paul’s work as craftsman displays his lack of trust in God; thereby Paul is
not a real apostle.
Traditional Legitimation
(pp 49-51): The itinerant missionaries were Jews (2Cor.11.22). It was known to
Corinth that Paul was a Jew. However, he had deficient in this because he had
Tarsian and Roman citizenship which indicates that he had high degree of
integration with non-Jewish and he might be estranged Judaism unlike itinerant
missionaries from Palestine. Itinerant missionaries represented a community but
Paul does not; though he sent by Antioch church. They also used letter of
recommendation to enter into new territories.
Functional Legitimation (pp
51-54): Paul brings his missionary accomplishments to suppress all competitors.
It is functional legitimate of his apostleship.
“Paul’s
competitors appeal to a charismatic legitimation which is supplemented by a
traditional one, while Paul, in contrast, represents a different form of
apostolic legitimacy, a functional form which he combines with elements of a
charismatic form-in which he takes his charismatic deficit, his “weakness,” and
elevates it to the status of a sign of his apostolic existence.” (p.53). These
two ways of legitimation perceive the question of subsistence in different way.
The community organizers subordinated such question under an effective mission,
while itinerant missionaries had an orientation to the norms of the vita apostolica is a value in its own
right. “The theological question of an apostle’s legitimacy is indissolubly
linked with the material question of the apostle’s subsistence.” (p.54).
Itinerant
charismatic preachers and community organizers are two types of early Christian
preachers who came into conflict in Corinth regarding the attitudes on the
question of the itinerant preachers’ charismatic poverty and their claim to
support from the community. “Paul’s competitors represent the patters or type rooted
in Palestine soil and shaped by the ethos of the commissioning speech.” (p.58).
However, Paul and Barnabas represent a type which is rooted in urban Hellenistic
world. Their vita apostolica shaped
by factors such as socio-ecological, socio-economic, and socio-cultural
factors. “Both embody a specific form of religiously inspired, socially divergent
behaviour.” (p.58).
3.2 Social Stratification
of the Corinthian Community (pages 69-110)
Corinthian
community is marked with internal stratification: majority come from the lower
classes and few influential are from the upper class. This thesis is analyzed
in following ways:
1. Statements About the Community as a Whole (pages
70-73): 1Cor. 1.26-29 and 4.10 talk about lower class people, those who are
wise, powerful, esteemed, and those of noble birth. Theissen argues that these
titles are sociological categories. He says the powerful would be influential
people and the wise can be the educational class who consider wisdom as the
status symbol.
2.
Statement About Individual Members of the
Congregation (pages 73-96): Theissen
proposes that statements about holding office, about houses, about assistance
rendered to the congregation and about travel can be served as criteria for
high social status. First two of these indicate position and the last two
indicate activities. Theissen brings
biblical references regarding such criteria with respect to Corinthian
congregation and argues that Corinthian congregation included people with high
social status.
3. Statement About Division Within Corinth (pages
96-99): There was social split between have and have not at the Lord’s table (1Cor.
11.22). Theissen argues that the protagonists of the other parties belonged to
the upper classes (1 Cor. 9.1ff; 16.2; 2Cor. 11.5; Chapters 10-13). The focal
point of the litigation in 1Cor.6.1-11 is biwtika,,,,,
probably
affairs of property or income. The members of the upper class may only go for
court suit. The wise in Corinth may be from the upper class. The slaves also
belonged to the congregation (1 Cor. 7.21ff). Thus, there was social stratification
in the Corinthian congregation.
The Social
Interpretation of the Evidence (pages 99-110)
The
Social Structure of the City of Corinth (pages 99-102): Caesar refounded Corinth as
Roman colony in 44 BCE. The city had economic prosperity through trade,
banking, production from artisans and governmental administration. This
economic prosperity brought two groups of people: wealthy and poor.
Social Condition of the Pauline Mission (pages
102-110): The Corinthian community consisted of lower strata people mostly. Acts
says Paul first engaged mission among Jews and then turned to Gentiles or
God-fearers. Theissen argues that God-fearers had high social standing than
that of proselytes. Christianity especially its Pauline form was very much
receptive to them because it catered spiritual need without affecting their social
standing. Thus, Christianity had conflict with Judaism because Christianity
lured away Gentiles who were Judaism’s patrons and it was anti-Jewish in a
gentile world where Jews were a minority. Paul himself was from upper strata
with Roman citizenship who was standing equal to Corinthians in many ways. Therefore,
he could win individuals with high social standing in Corinth. However, the
majority was from lower social strata. Theissen argues that the internal stratification
in the congregation between have and have not can not be attributed exclusively
to social stratification of the houses.
Hellenistic
primitive Christianity encompassed various social strata, thus various interests,
customs and assumptions. It was an advanced stage of primitive Christianity and
the oldest form was Palestinian Christian communities. Theissen says, “The
history of primitive Christianity was shaped even in the first generation by a
radical social shift which altered important socio-cultural, socio-ecological,
and socio-economic factors through the processes of Hellenization,
urbanization, and the penetration of society’s higher strata.” (p.107). The
synoptic ethical radicalism of surrendering family, property, and home found
little room in Pauline churches. Pauline communities developed ethos of
love-patriarchalism. “This love-patriarchalism takes social differences for
granted but ameliorates them through an obligation of respect and love, an obligation
imposed upon those who are socially stronger.”(p.107). The social relationship
in the Hellenistic communities shaped by Christian concepts of solidarity,
equality and brotherhood. The love-patriarchalism produced the mental attitude
and fashioned lasting institutions. It prepared Christianity to receive masses.
3.3 The
Strong and the Weak in Corinth: A Sociological Analysis of a Theological
Quarrel (pages 121-140)
The
quarrel between the strong and the weak in Corinthian congregation is a matter
of different customs regarding eating food sacrificed to idols. The weak
avoided such food but strong appealed their knowledge and thought. “There is
only one God; there are no idols and hence no meat sacrificed to idols” (1Cor 8.4ff).
Paul distinguishes cultic meals in an official setting (8.10) from meals in
private houses (10.25ff). (p.121). In
8.10ff, he talks about the right to participate temple meals with appropriate
mental reservations. 10.1-22, he says such meals regarded as incompatible with Christian
Lord supper. Another reservation he puts forward when the sacred character of
the meat specifically pointed out in a private domestic setting of the meal. (p
122-3).
Socio-Cultural factors (pages 123-4): The weak is not ethnic
homogenous group. Theissen argues that they include both gentile Christians and
Jewish Christians. “Gentile Christian type who always used to eat such
consecrated meat but developed a guilty conscience after conversion to
Christianity and a Jewish Christian type who had always avoided such ritually
slaughtered meat and who, after conversion, could exercise his unaccustomed
freedom from restrictive ritual rules only with a bad conscience.” (p124). Some
of the Corinthian Christians namely God-fearers can not be sorted to any group.
Theissen argues that God-fearers did not completely convert to Judaism because
of their ritual participation of consecrated meal. Paul offered an accommodated
Judaism to them. They might be included in the strong.
Socio-Economic factors (pages 124ff): Paul himself
identified with weak (1Cor 4.10,9.22). Theissen put forward the hypothesis that
the socially weak in 1.26-27 are identical with those who are weak regarding
consecrated meat (p125).
Class-specific Characteristics in Eating Habits (pages 125-129): Public
distribution of meat in ceremonial occasion was popular in Roman territories.
Such feasts are religious. The lower class who seldom ate meat in their daily
life depended largely on such meat distributions. When Jews and Gentiles
converted to Christianity faced difficulty to have such meat. Those who had
been pagan found connection of meat with religion but they tempted to eat it
with a guilty conscience. The strong who were from the upper class had less
biased position regarding consecrated meat.
Signs of Stratification within Pattern of
Sociability (pages 129-132): Participating to sacrificial meals was a means of social
communication and sociability. Restriction on meat sacrificed to idols was
barrier to this. The issue in 1Cor8-10 is not related with the social contact
of Christians with pagans but problem of meat sacrificed to idols.
Class-specific Traits in the Forms of Communication (pages 137-140): The informants
of Paul were from the high strata of the church. Paul also addressed almost
exclusively to the strong in his replay.
The upper
strata had more liberal attitude on the issue but they could not win the weak.
Paul does not the champion of the strong, though he agrees to their position.
He made a plea for consideration of the lower strata by the higher strata. His
recommendation was based on love, that
the higher classes accommodate their behavior to the lower classes, only
mitigates the tension between the two but allows the differing customs to
continue to exist. The factual privileges of status enjoyed by the higher strata
are preserved. For example, private meals with consecrated meat continue to be
allowed in principle (10.23ff). Nor is participation in cultic meals excluded
in principle. All that is prohibited is disturbing weak person by doing so.…Paul’s
solution is a compromise. The wishes (or prejudices) of the weak are upheld
just as is the knowledge (and social privilege) of the strong. For that very
reason it is realistic and practicable. (p.139).
These solutions
are characterized with love-patiarchalism of Pauline letters. “This
love-patriarchalism allows social inequities to continue but transfuses them
with a spirit of concern, of respect, and of personal solicitude. Concern for
the conscience of the other person, even when it is a “weak” conscience and
obedient to norms now superseded, is certainly one of the congenial
characteristics of this love-patriarchalism.” (p.139-140).
3.4 Social Integration and Sacramental Activity
Early
Hellenistic congregations were marked with internal stratification. Various
conflicts within the congregation had sociological dimensions. 1Cor.11.20-22
indicates that an exaggerated individualism was the reason for the conflict as
if each person had eaten independently of others. V22 says there were two
groups: have and have not. i;dion
dei/pnon seems to indicate the meal which individual Christians bring with them.
Theissen thinks that a group of high class Corinthian congregation brought
their meal to congregational meeting and had it privately. He assumes that “the
conflict over the Lord’s Supper is a conflict between rich and poor Christians.
The cause of this conflict was a particular habit of the rich.” (p.151). They
participated and made possible congregational meal but separated themselves
from others. They ate their food before commencement of the congregational
meal. (p.153). Further, Theissen argues that wealthy Christians started eating
before Lord’s supper and they had more to eat. It was a private meal and word of
the institution of the Lord’s Supper does not instruct to share such meals.
This kind of behavior of the wealthy class leads to the humiliation of the poor
who also attended the congregational meeting. Paul says, “You despise the
church of God and humiliate those who have nothing” (1Cor.11.22). Thus the
basis of the conflict over Lord’s Supper is social, especially the social
stratification of the community. However, Paul responds to the situation from
the perspective from below.
Paul
tries to solve the problem by suggesting to have the private meal in their
home. This is a compromise but Paul acknowledges the class-specific
distinctions in the congregation while trying to minimize its manifestation. It
is an example of love-patriarchalism. Paul interprets the elements of the
Lord’s Supper, sacrifice and judgment sociologically relevant way. He
emphasizes the unity of the community in his exposition of Lord’s Supper. “The
one who sacrificed becomes the judge, the powerless one the ruler of the
world.” (p166). Paul uses theology of sacrament to achieve greater unity and
integration in the congregation
4.
A Critique of Gerd Theissen
Criticism from Richard Horsley[8] (pages 10,30-40): “Theissen
did not carry out enough exegetical and historical analysis of much of the
data. He could not uncover clearly the patterns of social structure, behaviour,
and tensions implicit in the sources as superimposed an abstract system of
analysis and modern social patterns and concepts into ancient Jewish Palestine.
Consequently, his reconstruction of Jesus’ movement does not support by textual
data.” (p.10). Horsley criticizes Theissen for vagueness and abstraction in his working definition: “Earliest Christianity
began as a renewal movement within Judaism.” Horsley says Theissen failed to
say what is Judaism and social definition of religion. He criticizes further
that Theissen describes the title “Analysis of Role” but he discusses about the
life style of wandering charismatic instead of discussing the social role of them.
Theissen could not explain the ways in which Jesus movement might have
attempted to renew the society. Theissen’s division of his analysis of Jesus
movement in terms of roles from his analysis of the interaction of the movement
with the Jewish society in terms of factors is arbitrary and abstract
procedure. Further his “analysis of the Jesus movement in terms of roles
includes virtually no historical dimension.” (p.32). Horsley accuses that “in
Part Two of the conceptual apparatus is anachronistic and the principal
analytical categories are very abstract and schematic. It is highly questionable
whether interpretive terms taken from modern societies are applicable to
ancient social realities.” (p.32). His analysis of cause by cause and factor by
factor will not enable us to see the interconnections. Theissen became
seriously reductionist when he separates the inseparable in chapter VII:
“Theissen treats as a political matter what was irreducibly economic and
cultural-religious as well.” (p.35). Moreover, there are problems in
functionalist sociology such as inattentiveness to history, underestimation of
serious conflict and conservative bias, which all are evident in Theissen’s
work.
Criticism from John Elliott[9]
(pages1-33):
Theissen failed to explain his functional sociological perspective. Further,
analysis of role, factors and function is part of such perspective but he
failed to explain the correlation between role, function and factors; and why
such aspects are important for his analysis. Theissen’s treatment of economic,
ecological, political and cultural factors of the Palestine is appreciable but
limited. Theissen also neglected to define what is a renewal movement, though
he claims Christianity as a renewal movement at the outset of his book. Though
he draws readers into a wealth of comparative data, he failed to use any
explicit model for such comparative analysis. Moreover, Theissen did not resolve
the tension between his conclusions: Christianity as a world renouncing
movement and renewal movement within Judaism. Renouncing and renewal are
different social aims and perceptions.
Structural functionalism
perceives social system as whole and the interrelated activity of its parts. However,
it involves a questionable assumption: “the system as whole has certain needs
and goals as distinct from the needs or the goals of the individuals and groups
within the system.” (p.23). This kind of assumption is evident in Thiessen also.
Further, he applied psychological properties of individual to groups or other
collectivities. Such application is an invalid procedure and constitutes a
methodological fallacy. Elliott points out that Theissen’s use of psychological
theories fails to fit the aim his study namely the Jesus movement as a social
phenomenon.
Criticism from Schutz and Meek[10] : Theissen shows us the
sociological dimensions of the conflict between the strong and the weak and
argues that the controversy implies the presence of persons from different
social strata in the Corinthian church. He also thinks that the strong had
higher economic status than the weak and thus they socially integrated well
into the larger society. John Schutz questions this argument following way:
Theissen compares the strong with Christian Gnostics. Schutz says, “It is
plainly difficult to think of Gnostics, with their dour cosmologies and
clannish sense of separate identity, as paradigms of social integration.”[11] Secondly, Theissen includes God-fearers in high social
strata. Theissen assumes that high social status involves high social
integration. Schutz questions this why did well integrated gentiles “forsake
common civic and religious tradition in favor of Judaism”? It may not be valid
to assume that all the God-fearers enjoyed high social status. Further,
Theissen’s assumption that high social status provides high social integration
can be contradict when one consider the evidences from the other dimension of
the social life. Meeks suggests that such contradiction can be avoided if one
recognizes that the strong of the Corinthian congregation are inconsistent in
status. He opines that they might have
had higher social rank in some dimension but lower in other aspects. “Such
people would share many of the attitudes, values, and sentiments of unambiguously
higher social levels yet still lack status crystallization.” (p.70)
Criticism from Justin J. Meggitt[12]: argues that the meat conception
of the lower strata of the society is higher than that Theissen thinks and
argues: The weak, part of the lower strata seldom eat meat in their daily life.
Meggitt brings various evidences from the antiquity to show that meat was
available to common people than Theissen allows. He supports his argument by
bringing the existence of the cook shops and wine shops. They were existed
throughout the empire and meat was available to lower strata people through
them. Thus, Thiessen’s interpretation of food conflict depended on such weak
evidence because he overlooked the existence of such shops.
Criticism from Fiorenza[13]: Theissen used Troeltsch’s
analytical concept of patriarchalism to explain the relationship between lower
and higher strata of the Corinthian congregation. He argues the social
integration in the Hellenistic urban congregation was based on
love-patriarchalism. Fiorenza observes the patriarchal aspects of this model:
“the theoretical model is the vision of the patriarchal oikos or familia with its
structured hierarchies and differentiated roles” (p.78). She criticizes that
Theissen did not derive his understanding of the integrative power of the
love-pariarchalism from proper analysis of the concept or text but he superimposed
the model of love-patriarchalism on the text of the Corinthians. Thus, Fiorenza
critically exposes the patriarchal side of the analytical model of Theissen.
Thiessen’s
perception that Paul accepted the texture of Roman political system without
criticism is a questionable argument especially in the light of findings of recent
socio-political readings of the Pauline wittings, which acknowledge the
anti-imperial tone of the Paul.
Conclusion
Theissen
could apply scientific insights from sociology to the biblical texts and
derived conclusions. His major conclusions are: Jesus movement was a renewal
movement within Judaism but failed. However, it found doors in Hellenistic
cities through community organizers. The Corinthian community had social
stratification, which was the major cause for so-called Corinthian problems.
Theissen also thinks that the wandering charismatics and their ethical
radicalism mostly shaped Palestinian Jesus movement but such forces did not
find much place in Pauline communities, which accepted love-patriarchalism. Elliott
observes that Theissen’s studies generally “demonstrate how fresh questions
concerning the correlation of belief and behavior, ideas and material
conditions, theological symbols and social relations can generate new
perspectives on old texts and revisions of previously assured results.”[14] Thus, the sociological studies of Theissen
brought out new conclusions on several texts and the Jesus movement. However,
his conclusions and sociological methodology are criticized and challenged by
other scholars.
Bibliography
Elliott, John H. “Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament:
More on Methods and Models.” Semeia
35 (1986):1-33.
__________. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993.
Susan R. Garrett. “Sociology
of Early Christianity.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David
Noel Freedman, et.al. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Fiorenza,
E.S. In Memory of Her.New York, The Crossroad Publishing Company,1983.
Horsley,
Richard. Sociology and the Jesus Movement.
New York:Continuum,1994.
Meggitt,
J.J. “Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth.” Journal of Theological Studies 45/1 (1994):137-141.
Meek,
Wayne A. The First Urban Christians. New
York: Yale University Press,1983.
Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977.
____________.
The Social Setting of Pauline
Christianity. Edited and translated by J.H. Scutz. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982.
[1] Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian,
translated by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1977),1.
[2] Susan R. Garrett, “Sociology
of Early Christianity,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David
Noel Freedman, et.al (New York: Doubleday, 1992).
[6] This
section is taken from Theissen’s book The
Social Setting of Pauline Christianity(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)
[9] His
criticism is taken from his article “Social-Scientific Criticism of the New
Testament: More on Methods and Models,” Semeia
35 (1986):1-33.
[10] This part
is taken from Meek’s book: Wayne A. Meek, The
First Urban Christians (New York: Yale University Press,1983), 70.
[11] J.H.
Schutz, “Step toward a Sociology of Primitive Christianity: A Critique of the
Work of Gerd Theissen,: Paper presented to the Social World of Early
Christianity Group of the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature,27-31
December 1977, cited by Meek, The First
Urban Christians,70.
[12] J.J
Meggitt, “Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth,” Journal of Theological Studies 45/1
(1994):137-141.
[14] John H. Elliott, What is Social-Scientific Criticism?
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993),22-3.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.