Social-Scientiªc
Modeling in Biblical and
Related Studies
Petri Luomanen
University of Helsinki
This article provides background information about the use of the social sci-
ences and introduces the basic themes and factions in the debate about model-
ing in the ªeld of biblical and related studies. It argues that some of the con-
troversial issues could be clariªed by drawing on the current discussion on
modeling in the philosophy of science, especially Uskali Mäki’s functional
decomposition approach. It also presents a model for analyzing early Jewish
and Christian movements at the end of the ªrst century, assessing the model’s
Komposition, function and truth-value in the framework of Mäki’s approach.
1. Einführung
Modeling is a relatively new topic in biblical and related subjects—it
was ªrst introduced in the 1970s—and it is controversial because the
application of social-scientiªc models raises the difªcult question of the
cultural gap between the present societies, where the models are usually
developed, and the ancient cultural context to which the models are
applied.
Because biblical and related studies may not belong to the most famil-
iar scholarly ªelds of the readers of this journal, I ªrst sketch an overall
picture of the development of the discipline and its main methods (Sec-
tion 2). The subsequent sections summarize the arguments presented for
and against modeling in biblical studies (Abschnitt 3), and discuss in more
detail two approaches to modeling within biblical studies: a heuristically
oriented approach of the Context Group (Abschnitt 4), and Rodney Stark’s
deductive approach (Abschnitt 5). My own viewpoint is closer to the ap-
proach of the Context Group, but with a critical edge derived from Uskali
Mäki’s functional decomposition approach to modeling that I introduce in
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft 2013, Bd. 21, NEIN. 2
©2013 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
doi:10.1162/POSC_a_00094
202
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
203
Abschnitt 4. In the ªnal section (Abschnitt 6) I apply Mäki’s approach to a
model for an analysis of early Jewish and Christian movements.
2. Methods and Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
The area of research that is nowadays commonly called “biblical and re-
lated studies” or the study of “biblical and related literature” is originally
a historical discipline that uses the same kinds of historical methods as all
research on antiquity and ancient sources. The term “related” in the name
of the discipline signals that the research is not restricted to any dogmati-
cally deªned canon of the Hebrew Bible (the “Old Testament”) oder der
New Testament. Although the historical methods applied in biblical
studies are closely related to the methods used in the study of antiquity in
allgemein, a set of approaches within the discipline have become known as
historical-critical methods. These approaches examine (1) the history of
texts and the original wordings of manuscripts (textual criticism), (2) Die
unity and the composition of sources (source criticism; earlier “literary
criticism”), (3) bilden, social setting and history of smaller (oral) units of
tradition (form-, Genre- and tradition criticism), Und (4) the editorial his-
tory of the sources (redaction criticism; the texts were often rewritten and
reedited several times). These basic historical-critical methods dominated
research up to the 1970s. After that, a variety of approaches from literary
Kritik, rhetorical criticism, anthropology, Soziologie, Psychologie, sozial
Psychologie, usw. have been adopted to complement the basic historical-
critical research.
As the above brief summary shows, there was some interest in the social
setting even within the historical-critical paradigm. Form-, Genre- Und
tradition criticism were partly inspired by the rise of the social sciences at
the end of the 19th century and they introduced the concept of Sitz im
Leben to biblical studies. Despite this promising start, genuine interest in
the social sciences soon gave way to a more theologized dialectical ap-
proach from the 1920s onwards, and biblical scholars no longer actively
followed what was happening in the social sciences. The new rise of the so-
cial sciences in biblical studies dates back to the 1970s when scholars
started to criticize the one-sided study of “theologies” of biblical litera-
tur. Instead of focusing on abstract principles and ideologies thought to
be reºected in the texts, scholars turned their attention to their more con-
crete social context.
From the very beginning there have been two branches among scholars
interested in this kind of approach: the socio-historical approach focuses
on the description of social realia and social-scientiªc criticism emphasizes
explicit application of theoretical models. Since the 1970s the “modelers”
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
204
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
have introduced various theoretical traditions from sociology, anthropol-
ogy and social psychology (for overviews see Elliott 1986, Bd. 35; 2001;
2008, Bd. 38; Holmberg 1990; Osiek 1992, Bd. 22; Hochschild 1999;
Martin 1999; Horrell 2002; Esler 2004; the present overview draws on
Luomanen, et al. 2007B, S. 15–16). Because biblical scholars have been
inspired by several branches of the social sciences the term “modeling” has
been used quite loosely within the ªeld. As some critics have aptly noted
(siehe unten), the modelers have used the term “model” to characterize all
kinds of theoretical approaches from the highly abstract level to particular
small-scale models. The broad spectrum of “models” as they appear in bib-
lical scholarship also becomes clear in the following brief listing of the ap-
proaches that have dominated the discussion since the 1970s. They all in-
clude some kind of models.
Some of the ªrst works where the social sciences were applied to bibli-
cal studies had a clear functionalist orientation (Theissen 1977; Meeks
1972, Bd. 91;1983). Other early applications drew on Weber’s typology
of charisma (Theissen 1977; Holmberg 1978), the grid and group model
by Mary Douglas (Malina 1986; Neyrey 1986, Bd. 35), sectarian studies
(Gager 1975; Elliott 1981) and Mediterranean anthropology (Malina
1981; Rohrbaugh 1996a). Though Berger and Luckmann’s sociology of
Wissen (with the model of legitimation) was already applied in the
1970S (Meeks 1972), it gained more attention at the end of the 1980s and
in the beginning of the 1990s when it was applied in some inºuential
studies in order to illuminate the sectarian stance of various New Testa-
ment writings (Esler 1987; Watson 1986; Overman 1990). More recent
applications
include medical anthropology (Pilch 2000), Anthony
Giddens’ structuration theory (Horrell 1996) and the social identity ap-
proach (Esler 1998b; 2003; Jokiranta 2007). Some of the most recent
works have also combined the cognitive science of religion1 and cognitive
science in general with the social science approach.2 In the present con-
Text, it is not possible to give more detailed examples of all the above
listed areas. The example in the ªnal section of this article focuses on dis-
cussing models that are designed to explain religious sects.
1. The cognitive science of religion emerged among scholars of comparative religion at
the beginning of the 1990s. This multidisciplinary approach draws on cognitive science,
cognitive and developmental psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and anthro-
pology.
2. To our knowledge, Luomanen, et al. 2007a is the ªrst volume where the cognitive
study of religion is programmatically introduced in the ªeld of biblical studies. My forth-
coming book deals with the same topic: Theology in the Flesh: Exploring Socio-Cognitive Exege-
Schwester. The book is under contract to E. J. Brill’s Biblical Interpretation Series.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
205
3. Arguments For and Against Modeling in Biblical Studies
The scholars who endorse the conscious use of models—mostly afªliated
with the Context Group3—have argued for their position in several con-
texts (see Malina 1982, Bd. 36; Elliott 1986, Bd. 35; 1993; 2008, Bd. 38;
Esler 1995; 1998A, Bd. 49; 2000, Bd. 78; Rohrbaugh 1996b). The fol-
lowing arguments deserve special attention:
• Models are an indispensable part of human cognition. daher,
we can only choose whether or not we use them consciously.
• Models have an important heuristic value. They evoke new
points of view and ask new sets of questions. Models cannot be
proved right or wrong. If a model produces plausible results, Es
does not matter from where it is derived.
• Even scholars who focus on describing particular historical
events use models, but implicitly.
• Models are placed in between larger theories and concrete re-
search data. Models embody larger theories for testing against
the collected data.4
Leaving aside the criticism presented from an interpretative Geertzian
Position (Garrett 1992, Bd. 6), critics have drawn attention to the follow-
ing points (see Horrell 2000, Bd. 78; 2002; Craffert 2001, P. 24; Law-
rence 2004):
• There is always the danger that models are imposed on the evi-
dence. Theoretical questions about the model are as important as
its pragmatic applicability.
• Usefulness and capacity to evoke new perspectives and questions
are not sufªcient reasons for accepting a model since most of the
anachronistic and ethnocentric models will do the same.
3. The Context Group is a working group of scholars interested in using the social sci-
ences in biblical interpretation. Members of the group meet annually in order to work col-
laboratively on joint projects and in order to offer peer reviews of publications on which
the members are working. The group started its work in the late 1980s. For more informa-
tion, see the website of the group: http://www.contextgroup.org/. In der Praxis, modeling
has become a sort of trademark for the scholars afªliated with the Context Group. This can
be seen, zum Beispiel, in the names of two signiªcant collections of essays produced within
the group: Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientiªc Studies of the New Testament in Its Con-
Text, Hrsg. by Philip Esler (London: Routledge, 1995) and Social-Scientiªc Models for Inter-
preting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina, Hrsg. by John Pilch
(Leiden: Brill, 2001).
4. Insbesondere, this three-level scheme (theories, Modelle, Daten) characterizes the text-
book of John H. Elliott who follows Thomas Carney.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
206
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
•
•
•
It is of paramount signiªcance how deviations from a model are
accounted for since these critical questions are the key to the de-
velopment of the models and social-scientiªc research in general
In der Praxis, the “modelers” have used the term model to charac-
terize all kinds of theoretical approaches from the highly abstract
level to particular small-scale models.
In anthropology, which has been the crucial frame of reference
for the Context Group, the research usually starts with
ethnographic description, not with models.
Although it is a simpliªcation to contrast the camp of “modelers” with
that of “social historians”—in reality there is much overlap and many
scholars acknowledge the validity of both points of view—models have
been and continue to be a major bone of contention. While Dale Martin
sees profound epistemological differences connected to discussion about
Modelle (1999, S. 109–10), John Elliott (2008, 38:31) conªdently labels
the fear that models might be imposed on the evidence as a “bogeyman”;
„. . . not one example of such inappropriate procedure has ever been cited
and none is known to me.”
4. Heuristics and the Truth Value of Models
The advocates of models within the Context Group have responded to the
critics who claim that models presume “positivism” or “determinism” or
“ªlling-in gaps” (Stowers 1985; Garrett 1992, Bd. 6; Horrell 1996,
S. 18–22; Martin 1999, P. 130) by emphasizing that models are only
heuristic tools that have no ontological reality or truth value. They only
help ªnd new questions and frameworks which may—or may not—prove
to be helpful in understanding the texts. (Elliott 1993, S. 43–45; 1995,
P. 7; 1998A, P. 256).
The question about the truth value is an important one and it should
not be dismissed simply by referring to the heuristic usefulness of models.
As Pieter Craffert has aptly noted (2001, P. 24), “If one’s expectation is
that models should be useful in showing up questions and possibilities not
asked before, then most (ethnocentric and anachronistic) models will pass
the test.” What we need is more philosophical reºection on how models
do their job. Recent philosophy of science discussion seems to offer reason-
able discourses for claims about the truth value of scientiªc models. Es ist
not just through our scholarly taste or a feeling of becoming enlightened
by new perspectives that we can justify the use of models.
I ªnd Uskali Mäki’s functional decomposition approach to modeling
(2009; see also 2011, Bd. 180) quite promising for the study of biblical
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
207
and related traditions. Although Mäki fully acknowledges the fact that
models as wholes can never fully resemble their target system, er argumentiert
that it is possible to identify some “privileged parts” in the model which
“can be considered for truth.” This is where decomposition comes into
play. Mäki deªnes modeling as follows:
Agent A uses object M (the model) as a representative of target sys-
tem R for purpose P; addressing audience E; at least potentially
prompting genuine issues of resemblance between M and R to
arise; describing M and drawing inferences about M and R in terms
of one or more model descriptions D; and applies commentary C to
identify the above elements and to align them with one other.
Mäki acknowledges that a fully pragmatic approach could tie the truth
value of a model with M-P and/or M-E relations by claiming that model
M is “true” if it successfully fulªlls purpose P, or convincingly addresses
the audience E. In my view, this is actually a case similar to the one
Craffert refers to (see above) and which Mäki also dismisses on the grounds
that “agent A can successfully use a false model M to impress audience E.
And A can successfully use a false model M to serve another purpose P
. . .” Notably, in this pragmatic approach, it is usually the model as a
whole which is regarded as impressive or serving a certain purpose.
Jedoch, in Mäki’s view, it is more appropriate to decompose model-
ing and start by isolating the M-R relation from the pragmatic functions
of modeling. It is the ability of model M to resemble system R to a certain
degree—or that the model at least potentially prompts “genuine issues of
resemblance” to be considered between M and R—where the potential for
the truth value of a model lies. Trotzdem, practical questions about au-
dience E and purpose P are not without signiªcance either. They help to
isolate the parts of a model which can be considered for truth from the
parts that are idle or may facilitate the modeling without claiming truth
selbst.
A corollary of Mäki’s approach is that the constituent parts of models
(R, M, P and E) are mute in themselves without the voice of the modeler
who provides a commentary for his/her model description D. While D
simply describes an (imagined) model by concrete means of a mathemati-
cal equation, a visual image, a graph, a verbal account etc., it is the com-
mentary C which actually spells out the relevant parts, purposes and audi-
ences of the model and thus also sets the stage for assessing the possible
truth value of the relevant M-R relations.5
5. In the present context, it is not possible to go into details of discussion concerning
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
208
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
In my view, Mäki’s decomposition approach seems to provide dis-
tinctions that—if applied to the discussion about modeling in biblical
studies—might help to clarify some issues in the dispute between “mod-
elers” and “social historians.” Explicit model commentaries along the lines
of Mäki’s approach should help to identify the nature and location of a
modeler’s relevant historical claims, which can then be subjected to criti-
cal discussion of their truth value. Außerdem, appropriately elaborated
commentaries can also make clear the level of abstraction in the models—
the issue that the critics have found so annoying because the term is used
in so many ways. What all this might mean in practice becomes clearer in
the ªnal section of this article where I apply Mäki’s approach to the model
that serves as an example in this article.
5. The Art of Rodney Stark: Rational Choice and Social Laws
Not all biblical social science theorists have such a practical and heuristic
approach to theorizing as the above cited proponents of modeling in the
Context Group do. Rodney Stark is the best example of a hard-core cover-
ing law theorist who assumes that results from sociological research on
modern religious movements allow us to draw inferences about the social
reality of ancient religious groups as well. According to Stark,
. . . it is the abstract generality of science that makes it possible for
social science to contribute anything to our understanding of his-
tory, let alone to justify efforts to construct history from social
scientiªc theories. (Stark 1997, P. 23).
Stark also states that
. . . there is no reason to suppose that we cannot reason from the
general rule to deduce the speciªc in precisely the same way that
we can reason from the principles of physics that coins dropped in a
well will go to the bottom. (Stark 1997, P. 26).
Because Stark is originally a sociologist (of modern religions) und ist
without training in languages required for the study of ancient texts, Es
has been easy for scholars who have specialized in the study of early Juda-
ism and/or early Christianity to point out some problems in Stark’s work
(Schmied 1997, Bd. 102; Pearson 1999, Bd. 29. For more positive evalua-
tions see Blasi 1997, Bd. 75; Eisenbaum 1998, Bd. 66; Treviño 1996,
the relation of C to D. As Mäki notes, description D also plays an important role in facili-
tating idealization in modeling.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
209
Bd. 35). He has also received extremely critical comments from some
of the leading proponents of biblical social-scientiªc criticism. Bruce
Malina, zum Beispiel, characterizes Stark’s results as “the usual ethnocentric
anachronisms we have come to expect from those who have applied North
American or Northern European sociology to Mediterranean antiquity”
(Malina 1997, Bd. 59).
Although Stark basically assumes a similar hierarchy from abstract the-
ories to observations and testing of hypotheses as do the scholars who have
drawn on Carney (see above), in practice, his analysis does not take much
note of the intermediate level. Stark does not regard middle-range theoriz-
ing to be sufªcient in sociology. He makes his stance clear in Cities of God
where he discusses Merton’s approach (2006, P. 18–19). I have elsewhere
(Luomanen forthcoming ) discussed Stark’s approach in detail and noted
that he often makes quite direct deductive leaps from his theories to con-
crete conclusions, thereby ignoring the discussion about the differences
between ancient and modern contexts. It seems clear that Stark is ex-
tremely conªdent—I would say overconªdent—on the validity and appli-
cability of generalized covering law explanation in sociology.
Stark is also very well known for A Theory of Religion, which he co-
authored with William Sims Bainbridge (1987). In this theory, Stark and
Bainbridge analyze religion from the viewpoint of religious markets,
drawing on principles of rational choice theory (or exchange theory).
Apart from standard criticisms against rational choice theories (sehen, für in-
Haltung, Bryant 1997, P. 191), Stark and Bainbridge’s theory has been criti-
cized for not paying enough attention to ritual, morality and emotions
(Collins 1993, P. 404–6).
In 1999, Stark published a major update to the theory, modifying it to
meet some of the criticism that had been presented against it (1999, Bd.
17). Among other things, Stark replaced a very thin formulation of ratio-
nal choice with a more sociological version that concentrated more on
choices as they appear to persons themselves. In another context, Stark has
also stated that his version of rational choice theory leaves open the con-
tent of the rewards people prefer. According to Stark, “This leaves all the
room needed for people to be charitable, brave, unselªsh, reverent and
even silly” (1997, S. 169–72, especially p. 171). This move saves Stark’s
version of the rational choice theory from accusations that the theory con-
tains unrealistic assumptions about people’s capability to make objectively
rational choices. This is a relatively common strategy among rational
choice theorists (vgl. Hedström 2005, P. 62). Jedoch, this does not im-
prove the usability of the general theory. Andererseits, if peoples’
choices can vary freely according to their personal preferences, all decisions
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
210
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
they make can be declared rational—but only afterwards (Bryant 1997,
P. 194). The theory has no predictability at all.
Does this mean that all the conceptualizations and propositions of Stark
and Bainbridge’s theory are useless? Not necessarily. Although the theory
has an extremely formal deductive structure, its deªnitions and proposi-
tions are not constructed in a vacuum. Several propositions of the theory
are actually based on a good deal of empirical research. Insbesondere, Die
parts that describe conversion, as well as formation and development of re-
ligious movements, are based on valid sociological research that Stark and
his colleagues have conducted. Daher, even though Stark and Bainbridges’
general approach has its limits, there are some concepts in their theory
that may help make useful distinctions in the study of early Jewish and
Christian sectarianism. The example in the last section of this article ap-
plies key concepts from Stark and Bainbridge’s theory in order to develop
a model for the analysis of early Jewish and Christian communities be-
zwischen 70 c.e. and ca. 100 c.e.
6. Example: A Model for the Analysis of Jewish and Christian Movements
The model described here was developed about ten years ago (Luomanen
2002) but here its components are described and assessed using the frame-
work of Uskali Mäki’s functional decomposition approach (vgl. über). NEIN-
tabellarisch, one should assess the following model by paying attention to all as-
pects of the model’s following decomposition (E, P, D1-D2, C and M-R
relation), instead of, zum Beispiel, trying to understand the model solely on
the basis of the diagram D1, which may not be fully self-explanatory.
Model audience E:
The background of the following model lies in discussions about the sec-
tarian character of the community behind the Gospel of Matthew. Während
the 1990s, three well-known New Testament scholars presented social-
scientiªcally informed analyses about the sectarian character of Matthew’s
(d.h., the editor of the gospel) Gemeinschaft (Overman 1990; Saldarini 1994;
Stanton 1992). An analysis of these contributions revealed clear discrepan-
cies between what the sectarian models assumed about the surrounding
social reality to which the sects responded, on the one hand, and how the
scholars ended up describing the actual relation between Matthew’s com-
munity and its opponents, auf dem anderen. The scholars were drawing on
Bryan Wilson’s and Benton Johnson’s sectarian models that discard simple
church-sect opposition in favor of a more general approach that is inter-
ested in a sect’s response to its social surroundings (or “the world”) at large
(Wilson 1973, S. 22–26; Johnson 1963, S. 539–49). Trotzdem,
scholars ended up describing the opposition mainly in religious terms or
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
211
assuming oscillating roles for the opponents both as a parent body and as a
competing sect. Außerdem, although the scholars assumed that after
70 c.e. Judaism did not have any centralized governance—different fac-
tions and groups were competing over power—Matthew’s community was
still thought to be in opposition with “Judaism,” understood as the major-
ity or more powerful parent religion.
Model purpose P:
The above observations of scholarly discussion showed that the presuppo-
sitions of the models did not really match the scholars’ understanding of
Matthew’s socio-religious position. Obviously, a more informed discussion
of the parent body and a more thorough assessment of the match between
the model and the social reality to be described was needed before sectar-
ian models could be applied. Außerdem, a model that would enable the
depiction of different minority positions—instead of labeling all minori-
ties simply as “sects”—would also be helpful. Daher, the key questions that
had to be explained better with the new model were: (1) reasons for the
genesis of the minority groups, (2) relations of the minority groups to
their parent bodies, Und (3) differences between the minority groups.
Without going into details in this regard, my argument was that given
the nature of the available sources and their topics (religious writings and
disputes), it is actually preferable to use more traditional models of sectar-
ianism that focus on the analysis of religious aspects of social interaction.
Außerdem, I argued that even after the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 c.e., the “Common Judaism” had such a central role in Jewish social
memory6 that it practically functioned as a parent body against which dif-
ferent factions and groups deªned their positions. Building on these pre-
suppositions and drawing on Stark’s and Bainbridge’s conceptualizations,
I developed the model that is described in more detail below.
6. Um sicher zu sein, I did not use the term “social memory” in the original article but the ba-
sic idea was there.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
212
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
Model Description D1: The Diagram
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Model Description D2: The Concepts
A basic distinction that Stark and Bainbridge make is the one between re-
ligious institutions and religious movements. In contrast to religious in-
stitutions, which accept the social environment in which they exist and
adapt to its changes, religious movements “wish to cause or prevent
change in a system of supernaturally-based general compensators” (d.h., In
religion). Institutions and movements can be imagined as the two oppo-
site poles of one axis that permits different degrees of institutionalization.
The beneªt of this kind of conceptualization is that it allows for degrees of
tension instead of adopting a predetermined number of types, which sel-
dom perfectly match the case under examination, resulting in the prolifer-
ation of new terms and categories. (Stark and Bainbridge 1987, S. 16–
17; vgl. Elliott 1995, S. 80–89).
According to Stark and Bainbridge, there are two basic avenues by
which new religious movements emerge. Sects come into existence
through schisms with existing religious organizations. Cults, for their
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
213
Teil, come into existence when invented or imported new religious ideas
gain social acceptance. Folglich, Stark and Bainbridge deªne sect
movements as deviant religious organizations holding traditional beliefs
and practices, contrasting these to cult movements, which are deviant reli-
gious organizations with novel beliefs and practices. (Stark and Bain-
Brücke 1987, S. 124–28, P. 156).
The theory of Stark and Bainbridge implies that, just as religious insti-
tutions and religious movements represent the two opposite ends of one
axis, there is also a continuous spectrum of degrees of novelty between sect
movements and cult movements.
Stark and Bainbridge think that religious movements can also be
classiªed according to the direction of their development. It is under-
standable that sect movements, deviating from religious institutions and
churches that are in low tension with their sociocultural environment,
move toward the high tension pole. Jedoch, there may, at times, also be
developments in the opposite direction. When religious movements move
toward less tension with their sociocultural environment, they are called
church movements. (Stark and Bainbridge 1987, P. 126).
Model Commentary C:
The diagram presents a theoretical model of a post-70 c.e. situation in the
context of early Jewish and Christian religious movements and institu-
tionen. It is not an exhaustive description of the actual historical situation,
nor does it imply that all the groups presented by it existed. Stattdessen, Es
sets forth a set of concepts derived from Stark and Bainbridge’s model,
presented in the context of post-70 c.e. situation. Außerdem, the dia-
gram should not be read as a strict mathematical model (such as a graph
with X and Y axes). Rather it should be taken as symbolic representation
which uses some relevant aspects of vector space—but not in a strict
mathematical sense so that one could actually count with these vectors;
the diagram has no direct explanatory potential—in order to describe con-
tinuous changes, impulses and tensions in a reality that is ultimately
sozial.
The diagram includes arrows referring to the relativity of cultural clo-
Sicher; societies and cultures usually interact with outsiders (foreign im-
pulses) and change over the course of time (velocity of cultural change;
vgl. Stark and Bainbridge 1987, S. 60–67). Since churches and religious
institutions adapt to change, the direction and speed of their development
matches the velocity of cultural change. Dotted lines leading to cult
movement indicate that even new cults usually draw on tradition to some
extent.
Im Großen und Ganzen, this symbolic description of the post-70 c.e. situation
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
214
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
with some relevant aspects of vector space facilitates the discussion of
more concrete historical examples, such as the community where the Gos-
pel of Matthew was produced. In der Praxis, this means that relevant aspects
of the community’s relation to other Jewish and Christian movements and
institutions as well as to pre-70 c.e. traditions are assessed in the light of
the diagram and the concepts of the model. Infolge, die Gemeinde
ªnds its place in the symbolic vector space of the diagram.
In contrast to earlier sect analyses, the model presented here allows
much more variation in the social surrounding if it is applied to Mat-
thew’s gospel. The starting point for the application is to realize that the
role Matthew gives to Jesus marks the boundary between Matthew’s
group and his Jewish contemporaries. This new “Jesus cult,” connected
with a liberal interpretation of the law, characterized Matthew’s commu-
nity and distinguished it from contemporary Jewish groups (Luomanen
1998, S. 263–65, S. 278–84). Daher, on the axis between sect and cult
Bewegungen, Matthew’s community ªnds its place closer to the cult end of
the axis and can thus be characterized as a cult movement. Jedoch, Die
community displays a mixture of cult and sect features: it is a cult move-
ment as far as practice is concerned, but there are still many sectarian fea-
tures in its ideology. In the long run, the form of Christianity which took
over Matthew’s gospel became institutionalized within the superstruc-
tures of the Roman Empire.7
M-R Relation and the Truth Value of the Model:
It is clear that my own assessment of the applicability of the model will
probably be biased to some extent and therefore readers should feel free to
judge for themselves how well the model does it job. Jedoch, the main
point in this discussion is not to prove the model correct (though I would
not be disappointed if these considerations add to the acceptability of my
Modell!), but to exemplify how functional decomposition might help to
clarify the central purpose and function of modeling.
The truth value of the above model description, commentary and appli-
cation to Matthew’s gospel can be assessed on two levels: (1) The ability of
the general model to resemble the post-70 c.e. situation among different
Jewish and Christian movements, Und (2) its application to Matthew’s
gospel.
As regards the ªrst level, I would claim that the model has the poten-
tial to prompt “genuine issues of resemblance” (vgl. Mäki’s approach above)
because its key components are based on generally accepted characteristics
7. Cf. proposition 300 in Stark’s and Bainbridge’s theory: Successful sects and cults
tend to move toward lower tension.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
215
of the historical situation after the fall of the Jerusalem temple in 70 c.e.
It is largely accepted that after this event the situation among “Jewish”
and “Christian” groups8 was characterized by factionalism: there was no
centralized control, some groups were more traditional as regards Juda-
ism, some more liberal. Christianity emerged as a new phenomenon
within Jewish culture but Judaism was also affected from the outside by
Hellenistic culture and Graeco-Roman religions. The description of the
Modell, d.h., the diagram and the concepts, takes all this into account,
making it possible to map different kinds of groups as regards their rela-
tion to pre-70 c.e. Judaism and the stance they take towards overall cul-
tural developments. The commentary reminds us of the purpose of the
Modell: it is not an isomorphic model of the post-70 c.e. situation, nor
does it claim to fully explain the genesis of all the groups that existed by
that time because the historical scene is simply too vast to be grasped by
any one model. It is only a model that facilitates the comparison of certain
relevant characteristics of early Jewish and Christian movements in a sym-
bolic vector space. The key issue is that there should be enough correspon-
dence between the model and the historical data only on those points that
the model seeks to explain. On the general level there seems to be enough
correspondence, so that it is meaningful to apply the model into a more
particular historical case, such as the Gospel of Matthew. Vor allem, in my
view, the explanatory potential of the model (vgl. above the purpose of the
Modell) lies in the causal relations it sees between parent bodies and the
minority groups (zum Beispiel, if the group is a sect or a cult) and the inner
characteristics of the groups that evolve from this dynamic (zum Beispiel,
sects are conservative, cults open to new ideas).9
Jedoch, the question about the truth value of my application of the
Modell (the second level) to Matthew’s community, as summarized above,
is a more complex one because it requires a reconstruction of life and
convictions—or at least the most central characteristics of these—of the
people among whom the editor of the gospel gave shape to his (less likely
ihr) account of the story of Jesus. Here the discussion easily turns into a
debate among scholars specialized in the study of Matthew’s gospel. Dort
is no need to go into details of that dispute in the present context. Es
8. The term “Christian” is, Natürlich, anachronistic at this stage of development, but if
we take it simply as a term that refers to the centrality of Jesus’ teaching and Jesus worship
among communities which had various other “Jewish” (and later on, “Gnostic”) Praktiken Methoden Ausübungen
and beliefs, it may serve as useful shorthand for facilitating our understanding. Für mehr
detailed discussion of the problem of deªning “Jewish Christianity,” see Luomanen 2012,
Kapitel 1.3.
9. Cf. Read’s article in this volume and Marchionni’s discussion of it. The approach to
modeling adopted in this article seems to be closer to that of Marchionni.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
216
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
sufªces to conclude by noting that even if I fail to convince Matthew spe-
cialists about my application of the model to Matthew’s community, Und
of the truth value of the explanations for the characteristics of Matthew’s
community that evolve from the model, there still remains the possibility
that the model itself prompts “genuine issues of resemblance” for the
purpose of comparing post-70 c.e. Jewish and Christian movements in
the context of academic, social-scientiªcally informed historical-critical
Forschung.
Verweise
Blasi, Anthony J. 1997. “Review of Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christian-
ität: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Book).” Social Forces 75:1499–
1501.
Bryant, Joseph M. 1997. “Review of Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christian-
ität: A Sociologist Reconsiders History.” Sociology of Religion 58:191–95.
Collins, Randall. 1993. “Review of Rodney Stark and WilliamSims Bain-
Brücke, A Theory of Religion.” Journal for the Scientiªc Study of Religion
32:402–6.
Craffert, Pieter, F. 2001. “An Exercise in the Critical Use of Models: Der
‘Goodness of Fit’ of Wilson’s Sect Model.” Pp. 21–46 in Social-Scientiªc
Models for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honor of
Bruce J. Malina. Edited by J. J. Pilch. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Liter-
ature.
Eisenbaum, Pamela M. 1998. “Review of Rodney Stark, The Rise Chris-
tianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History.” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 66:469–71.
Elliott, John H. 1981. A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientiªc Criticism of
1 Peter, Its Situation, and Strategy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Elliott, John H. 1986. “Social-Scientiªc Criticism of the New Testament:
More on Methods and Models.” Semeia 35:1–33.
Elliott, John H. 1993. What is Social-Scientiªc Criticism?. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress.
Elliott, John H. 1995. “The Jewish Messianic Movement: From Faction to
Sect.” Pp. 75–95 in Modelling Early Christianity: Social Scientiªc Studies
of the New Testament in Its Context. Edited by Philip F. Esler. London:
Routledge.
Elliott, John H. 2001. “On Wooing Crocodiles for Fun and Proªt: Confes-
sions of an Intact Admirer.” Pp. 5–20 in Social Scientiªc Models for Inter-
preting the Bible. Edited by John J. Pilch. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Elliott, John H. 2008. “From Social Description to Social-Scientiªc Criti-
Cismus: The History of a Society of Biblical Literature Section 1973–
2005.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 38:26–36.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
217
Esler, Philip F. 1987. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: Social and Politi-
cal Motivations in Lucan Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Drücken Sie.
Esler, Philip F. 1995. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–22 in Modelling Early Chris-
tianity: Social-Scientiªc Studies of the New Testament in its Context. Edited
by Philip F. Esler. London: Routledge.
Esler, Philip F. 1998A. “Review of David. G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of
Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from I Corinthians
to I Clement.” The Journal of Theological Studies 49:253–60.
Esler, Philip F. 1998B. Galatians. London: Routledge.
Esler, Philip F. 2000. “Models in New Testament Interpretation: A Reply
to David Horrell.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 78:107–13.
Esler, Philip F. 2003. Conºict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of
Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Esler, Philip F. 2004. “The Context Group Project: An Autobiographical
Account.” Pp. 46–63 in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Ap-
proach. Edited by Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar. Leiden: Deo
Veröffentlichung.
Gager, John G. 1975. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early
Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Garrett, Susan R. 1992. “Sociology of Early Christianity.” Anchor Bible
Dictionary 6:89–99.
Hedström, Peter. 2005. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical
Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hochschild, Ralph. 1999. Sozialgeschichtliche Exegese: Entwicklung, Ge-
schichte und Methodik einer neutestamentlichen Forschungsrichtung. Göttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Holmberg, Bengt. 1978. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the
Primitive Church as Reºected in the Pauline Letters. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Holmberg, Bengt. 1990. Sociology and the New Testament: An Appraisal.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Horrell, David G. 1996. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: In-
terests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark.
Horrell, David G. 2000. “Models and Methods in Social-Scientiªc Inter-
pretation: A Response to Philip Esler.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 78:83–105.
Horrell, David G. 2002. “Social Sciences Studying Formative Christian
Phenomena: A Creative Movement.” Pp. 3–28 in Handbook of Early
Christianity: Social Science Approaches. Edited by Anthony J. Blasi, et al.
Walnut Greek, CA: AltaMira.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
218
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
Johnson, Benton. 1963. “On Church and Sect.” American Sociological Re-
view 28:539–49.
Jokiranta, Jutta. 2007. “Social identity in the Qumran Movement: Der
Case of the Penal Code.” Pp. 277–98 in Explaining Christian Origins and
Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited by
Petri Luomanen, et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Lawrence, Louise J. 2004. “A Taste for ‘The Other’: Interpreting Biblical
Texts Anthropologically.” Pp. 9–25 in Anthropology and Biblical Studies:
Avenues of Approach. Edited by Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar.
Leiderdorp: Deo Publishing.
Luomanen, Petri. 1998. Entering the Kingdom of Heaven: A Study on the
Structure of Matthew’s View of Salvation. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Luomanen, Petri. 2002. “The ‘Sociology of Sectarianism’ in Matthew:
Modeling the Genesis of Early Jewish and Christian Communities.”
Pp. 107–130 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conºicts in Early Christianity:
Essays in Honour of Heikki Räisänen. Edited by Ismo Dunderberg, et. al.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Luomanen, Petri. 2012. Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Luomanen, Petri. bevorstehend. “Rodney Starks ‘wahrhaftige Sozialwissen-
schaft’ im Lichte der Forschung an Sozialen Mechanismen.” Pp. xx. In
Alte Texte in neuen Kontexten: Sozialwissenschaftliche Interpretationen zum
Neuen Testament. Edited by R. E. DeMaris and W. Stegemann. Stutt-
gart: Kohlhammer.
Luomanen, Petri, Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Risto Uro. 2007A. Explaining
Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and So-
cial Science. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Luomanen, Petri, Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Risto Uro. 2007B. "Einführung:
Social and Cognitive Perspectives in the Study of Christian Origins and
Early Judaism.” Pp. 1–33 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Ju-
daism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited by P. Luo-
manen, et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Mäki, Uskali. 2009. “Models and Truth: The Functional Decomposition
Approach.” Pp. 177–87 in EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science:
the European Philosophy of Science Association. Edited by
Launch of
M. Suárez, et al. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mäki, Uskali. 2011. “Models and the Locus of Their Truth.” Synthese
180:47–63.
Malina, Bruce J. 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural An-
thropology. London: SCM.
Malina, Bruce J. 1982. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation.”
Interpretation 36:229–42.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Perspektiven auf die Wissenschaft
219
Malina, Bruce J. 1986. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practi-
cal Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox.
Malina, Bruce J. 1997. “Review of Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christian-
ität: A Sociologist Reconsiders History.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly
59:593–95.
Martin, Dale B. 1999. “Social-Scientiªc Criticism.” Pp. 125–41 in To
Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Ap-
plication. Edited by Stephen R. Haynes and Steven L. McKenzie. Louis-
ville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Meeks, Wayne. 1972. “The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarian-
ism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91:44–72.
Meeks, Wayne. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the
Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Neyrey, Jerome H. 1986. “Body Language in 1 Corinthians: The Use of
Anthropological Models for Understanding Paul and His Opponents.”
Semeia 35:129–70.
Osiek, Carolyn. 1992. “The Social Sciences and the Second Testament:
Problems and Challenges.” Biblical Theological Bulletin 22:88–95.
Overman, J. Andrew. 1990. Matthew’s Gospels and Formative Judaism: Der
Social World of the Matthean Community. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Pearson, Birger A. 1999. “On Rodney Stark’s Foray into the Early Chris-
tian History.” Religion 29:171.
Pilch, John J. 2000. Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and
Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Rohrbaugh, Richard, Hrsg. 1996A. The Social Sciences and New Testament Inter-
pretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Rohrbaugh, Richard. 1996b “Introduction.” Pp. 1–15 in The Social Sci-
ences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by R. Rohrbaugh. Pea-
Körper, MA: Hendrickson.
Saldarini, Anthony J. 1994. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Schmied, Jonathan Z. 1997. “Review Essay: The Rise of Christianity: A So-
ciologist Reconsiders History.” American Journal of Sociology 102:1163–
165.
Stanton, Graham N. 1992. A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Stark, Rodney. 1997. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Je-
sus Movement Became the Dominant Force in the Western World in a Few Cen-
turies. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Stark, Rodney. 1999. “Micro Foundations of Religion: A Revised Theory.”
Sociological Theory 17:264–89.
Stark, Rodney. 2006. Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
220
Social-Scientiªc Modeling in Biblical and Related Studies
Became and Urban Movement and Conquered Rome. New York:
HarperCollins.
Stark, Rodney and William Sims Bainbridge. 1987. A Theory of Religion.
New York: P. Lang.
Stowers, Stanley K. 1985. “The Social Sciences and the Study of Early
Christianity.” Pp. 149–81 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Studies in Ju-
daism in Its Greco-Roman Context. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Theissen, Gerd. 1977. Soziologie der Jesusbewegung: Ein Beitrag zur Ent-
stehungsgeschichte des Urchristentums. München: Kaiser.
Treviño, A. Javier. 1996. “Review of Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christian-
ität: A Sociologist Reconsiders History.” Journal for the Scientiªc Study of
Religion 35:448–49.
Watson, Francis. 1986. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Ap-
proach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Bryan. 1973. Magic and the Millennium: A Sociological Study of Reli-
gious Movements of Protest among Tribal and Third World Peoples. London:
Heinemann.
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
Ö
S
C
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
7
8
9
8
2
9
P
Ö
S
C
_
A
_
0
0
0
9
4
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3