Approaches to Hebrews
General Trends
Bruce J. Malina identifies John H. Elliot as the one who coined the term social-scientific criticism in 1993.112 Originally it was called sociological criticism, but was changed because of the different meanings of “sociological” in the United States and Europe. Malina also notes that sociological studies of the New Testament are mainly social descriptions and social history.113 The term, “social-scientific criticism,” however, is more general and includes all types of social sciences applied to New Testament interpretation.
The goal of social scientific criticism is to find out what an initial audience understood when a speech was given or a document was read aloud.114 The approach used to achieve the goal is to examine the social systems, which reveal meaning in a given social interaction. These social interactions are presumed in the writing and reading of the New Testament documents. Malina presupposes that meaning is rooted in one’s “enculturation, socialization, interrelationships and interactions.”115 Elliott comments, “Sociological exegesis asks not only what a text said ‘then and there’ but also how and why that text was designed to function, and what its impact upon the life and activity of its recipients and formulators was intended to be.”116
Dale Martin identifies two major trends in the social scientific criticism movement.117 One movement is characterized by those who seek to use traditional historical-critical methods to investigate the “social world” of early Christianity.118 This is what Malina referred to as sociological criticism above, which focused primarily on creating “social histories.” The other movement is characterized by those who seek to use sociological or anthropological models to explain the historical texts.119 Martin admits, however, that these are not two absolutely distinct movements, using completely different methods.
One example of a study seeking to identify the social history behind New Testament writings is the article by Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.”120 Meeks examines the gospel of John using concepts of sectarianism taken from the “sociology of knowledge” theories of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.121 In his article, Meeks argues that Jesus is portrayed as one rejected by his own people to reflect the social conflict between the Johannine community and the synagogue. Meeks claims that one of the primary functions of the gospel is to legitimize and solidify the community’s identity, which was likely isolated from the larger society and attacked by it.122
An example of a social-scientific approach that seeks to use a particular model in analyzing texts comes from the work of Bruce Malina. His particular approach in reading texts is what he calls the scenario model. In this model he assumes that language is used to communicate meaning to another, or “a realization of meanings in a social system.”123 In essence he seeks to “develop a set of scenarios that fit the social system realized in the language of the Bible.”124 He identifies rhetorical criticism as one tool used to detect these scenarios. Malina speaks of persuasion as a major goal of the New Testament authors. Most of their persuasive work attempts to keep the readers from being persuaded by others or to establish behavior patterns which were previously unknown.125
To illustrate how this model is applied, we shall look at Malina’s discussion on the clean and unclean or sacred and profane distinction in the ancient world.126 He argues that social lines are needed to determine what is set-apart and what is common. For Malina, “purity” is “about the general cultural map of social time and space, about arrangements within the space thus defined, and especially about the boundaries separating the inside from the outside.”127 He sees the sacred and profane as subsets of purity rules determining what is included and what is excluded. The process of restoring things to their proper order can be described as purifying or cleansing.128
Malina also mentions the fact that purity rules are to bring about prosperity in a society. Those who violate these rules, however, only bring about danger to themselves and to others.129 Malina argues that in the first-century world the main goal was to maintain one’s inherited position in society. One’s position was directly connected to his prosperity and his harmonious relationship with others. Thus it was very important how others viewed a person.130 The purity laws were there to help foster these harmonious relationships. For example, sacrifices functioned not so much for God, but for the people to maintain their right standing before God. They needed his affirmation and evaluation of their worth and value.131
Malina notes that Jesus seems to reject many of the Jewish purity rituals: touching, cleansing, interacting with things and people impure and acting on sacred days. He argues, however, that Jesus accepts the general system of purity regulations, but questions the social abuse of these rules. The regulations are not to keep people from coming to God, but rather they are to facilitate access to God.132 Paul, on the other hand goes further and declares all things clean in Christ, rejecting both the Jewish and the Greek understanding of holiness, purity, and sacredness. For Christians in the Pauline tradition, the temple was the church gathered. Those who belonged to the community were those in Christ; outsiders were those not in Christ. Purity rituals no longer distinguished who was “in” or “out,” but rather one’s relationship to Christ determined who belonged. In addition, all times were sacred for those on the inside of the community. Thus there was no need to observe days, months, seasons, and years.133
Focus on Hebrews
Social Histories
The social scientific studies on Hebrews can be divided into the two general movements mentioned above. One example of a study that takes more of a “social history” approach is the work of William Lane. Lane offers some insight into the setting of Hebrews from a social perspective.134 He first argues that the epistle has Rome as its setting.135 He then identifies the recipients as a house church of the city, which had its roots in the Jewish Hellenistic synagogue.136
After examining the social dynamics of a Roman household, Lane points out that the church in Hebrews is identified primarily as the household of God, with Jesus as the presider over the house.137 “The extension of protection, the exercise of administrative responsibility, and the provision of supervision and nurture are his [Jesus] responsibility, analogous to the role
