Back of the Envelope

These are notes on last week's Thursday Night Bible study, written by the group leader, Brian Bucher, then cleaned up by myself. Brian warns that these are a rough draft, and may be replaced later.

---

High context situation/society- people are assumed to be familiar with the relevant context
Low context situation/society - people are not assumed to be familiar with the relevant context

Quiz: You walk into the home of someone in the ancient Near East (ANE). He says, "You have honored me by coming into my home. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours. You may burn it if you wish." What is your reaction?

1. Leave quickly because he's gone nuts.
2. Woo hoo! Free house!
3. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."

People in that society were expected to recognize this use of language as literary and not 'literal'. Someone who is unfamiliar with such language might well be confused.

The New Testament was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society. People who communicate with each other in high-context societies presume a broadly shared, well-understood knowledge of the context of anything referred to in conversation or in writing. For example, everyone in ancient Mediterranean villages would have had a clear and concrete knowledge of what sowing entailed,largely because the skills involved were shared by most (male) members of that society. no writer would need to explain. Thus writers in such societies usually produce sketchy and impressionistic writings, leaving much to the reader's or hearer's imagination. They also encode much information in widely known symbolic or stereotypical statements. In this way, they require the reader to fill in large gaps in the unwritten portion of the writing. All readers are expected to know the context and therefore to understand the references in question." [Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, pg 11.]

Low context readers often assume that they are free to fill in the gaps (read between the lines) of the New Testament from their own experience. When our modern context doesn't match the ancient Near East context, we fill in the gaps with ideas that are different from theirs. This causes problems. Here are some examples:

Luke 14:25-26

Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

I have to hate my own family? When one isn't used to the type of extremist (hyperbolic) language used so commonly in the ANE, then one might think one is literally to 'hate' his family and not recognize that the meaning is just to 'love less' things other than Jesus.

Lev 13:9-13

When someone has a diseased infection, he must be brought to the priest. The priest will then examine it, and if a white swelling is on the skin, it has turned the hair white, and there is raw flesh in the swelling, it is a chronic disease on the skin of his body, so the priest is to pronounce him unclean. The priest must not merely quarantine him, for he is unclean. If, however, the disease breaks out on the skin so that the disease covers all the skin of the person with the infection from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see, the priest must then examine it, and if the disease covers his whole body, he is to pronounce the person with the infection clean. He has
turned all white, so he is clean.

Hmmm, so

1. If he has a skin disease he's unclean.
2. If the skin disease covers the whole person he's clean.

HUH?

This is another example of where we fill in the gap of 'clean/unclean' with our own context. Is it the right context? We'll see in the next biblestudy. :)

Recontextualization - putting a text back into the correct context

This is what we do to understand what the text means. We begin to fill in the gaps with the right context instead of our own experience.

Group-oriented culture versus Individual-oriented culture

Question: What makes a person?

One of the major differences between our modern Western society and the societies of the ANE is the difference in how people understood themselves in relation to the rest of society.

Modern peoples in the 'West' are individual-oriented:
We are persons with identities independent of our family group. They do not define who we are. We are supposed to form our own opinions. My behavior reflects on me and should not be considered to reflect on whatever group I belong to.

Ancient peoples were group-oriented, or 'collectivistic':
A person is embedded in others and his identity defined in relation to the group(s) in which he belonged. Groups included ethnicity, citizenship, nation/clan/family with kinship (family) generally being the most important.

We are not independent of our family group. What one member is, all members are. We are expected to adopt the opinions of others, especially those in high esteem. My behavior reflects on my group.

Individuals depend on others for:

• sense of identity
• understanding of status and role in society
• understanding of duties and rights they have
• understanding what is honorable and shameful behavior

They will internalize the expectations of the group and consider themselves successful when they fulfill them.

Acts 21:37-39

As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?"

"Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?"

Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people."

Paul is saying in effect "I am from Tarsus, so you should accord me the credibility that is given to all citizens of Tarsus."

Phil 3:4-5

If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee.

Paul has great 'human credentials' because of which groups he belongs to.

Because one's identity is embedded in the group, groups and group stability were of the highest importance. Societal/group stability was extremely important because of the tenuous nature of life. People were a lot closer to disaster and death than those of us in the modern west. Instability for us means losing one of our cars. For them instability means death.

A high value was placed on structure in society because structure contributes and provides for stability. This is like a company where good structure is necessary for stability. One 'president' and ten thousand workers without any chain of command would be chaos.

Question: How does one promote social stability and retard social deviancy?

Next time: Honor and Shame, Patronage and Reciprocity

If you can, get Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity by David Desilva. It's a great (and inexpensive) introduction to these four core concepts in the ancient Near East.

Other good ones:
Handbook of Biblical Social Values by Pilch and Malina
Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew by Jerome Neyrey

This is a continuation of Brian's notes from last week's Bible Study. Once again, this is a rough draft.

---

"The one firm conviction from which we move to the proof of other points is this: that which is honorable is held dear for no other reason than because it is honorable."
Seneca (De Ben. 4.16.2)

Honor and Shame - these are the core values in the Mediterranean world, including the world of the Bible. The concept of honor is fundamental to the thinking of these people.

Honor - a claim to worth that is publicly acknowledged by the relevant group of 'significant others'
To "have honor" is to have publicly acknowledged worth. It is a group-given value, not just internal. This is contrast to self-respect. One's self-respect could be high, but honor low.

Shame - generally, a claim to worth that is publicly denied

To "be shamed" is negative, meaning to be denied or diminished on honor.

However - To "have shame" is positive, meaning to be sensitive to one's honor and behavior that could damage it. This is a secondary meaning. For now think of shame as dishonor.

A man born in these cultures is to seek honor and avoid dishonor (disgrace, shame of the negative sort). Honor comes form the affirmation of a person's worth by peers and society, awarded on the basis of the individual's ability to embody the virtues and attributes the society values. Women have different 'rules' - generally they have honor and are expected to keep it by remaining sexually pure until marriage.

Two ways of getting honor:

• ascribed honor - given, not earned (birth/adoption into a powerful family, ethnicity, political appointments)
• acquired/achieved honor - performing actions that earn honor (virtues such as piety, courage, reliability, military prowess in waging war)

The honor/shame dynamic allows for group stability - to reward group-approved behavior with honor and to bring deviants back in line through the threat of dishonor helps to prohibit socially destructive behaviors.

Courage in battle wins honor, because it contributes to the good of the group. Cowardice and fleeing means dishonor, because it places the interests of the individual above the group.

shaming tactics - range from mild scorn to physical assault and execution

What exactly constitutes things that are honorable is culturally dependent. Education in Torah (the Jewish law) is honorable among the Jews, but irrelevant among Gentiles.

It is essential to define who are the 'significant others' (the court of reputation) and to insulate group members from concern about the honor/dishonor they receive from people outside the group. "They don't matter because they are ignorant." This is very important for minority cultures. "We are not the deviants even though we are a minority. We have a higher court of reputation." A group can offset minority status by claiming God/reason/nature agrees with the minority. Also available are ancestors in the faith and the angels in the court of God.

Hebrews 12:1

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us

Challenge-Riposte - this a very significant means of achieving honor

1. challenge
• positive challenges (eg. gifts, compliments) leave one indebted if accepted, response is required
• negative challenges (eg. insults, challenge questions) cause loss of honor if not responded to adequately
2. perception of the challenge
   • by the person challenged
   • by the public (the judges who determine who gains/loses honor)
3. riposte - response by the challenged
   • positive rejection - if the challenger is inferior, the correct response is a rejection of the challenge (scorn)
   • negative rejection - cowardice results in dishonor
   • accepting the challenge requires a response that meets or exceeds the challenge
   • failure by offering an inadequate response is less dishonoring than not responding (cowardice)
4. public verdict by the observers

Arenas for Challenge-Riposte game

Within a grouping/family one ethic applies - the individual's honor is embedded in the group so there's no competitive honor challenges within the group. Brothers don't try to take honor from each other since this doesn't increase the honor of the group.

Between groups - social equals interact in a zero-sum game and 'public opinion' is determinative.

The Challenge-Riposte game is played between equals. A social superior wouldn't bother to challenge an inferior. If an inferior tried to challenge a social superior, the social superior would just punish the insubordination. This would be one form of 'positive rejection'.

Also, the game is played by males. It falls to the males to defend and increase the family's honor, so they are the ones that engage in this risk-taking game.

Turning Dishonor into Honor

As part of the task of helping believers make sense of their dishonor in the eyes of nonbelievers, the NT authors show that the experiences of dishonor are actually marks of honor in the sight of God, the true court of reputation.

1 Peter 4:13-16

But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker. But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name.

Noble Contest - Hardships are turned into an opportunity to manifest the virtues of courage and endurance. The hostility of the world is the challenge over which the believer can win an honorable victory and show their loyalty. It's easy to just say you have loyalty to someone, it's another to show it during times of testing. The metaphor of an athletic contest is used often in Jewish literature and in the NT.

Hebrews 12:1-2

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, we must get rid of every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and run with endurance the race set out for us, keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith. For the joy set out for him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.

This is the third and final post based on the notes from last week's Thursday night Bible study. Next week, maybe I'll post the notes from this week's Bible study.

---

One of the societal relationships that contributed to the stability of the society was the patron-client relationship. "It's not what you know, but who you know"

Think of mob movies - I do this for you, you don't do this for me? No laws, but a code of sorts.

Patronage was expected and publicized - Seneca said that the giving and receiving of favors was the practice that constituted the chief bond of human society.

In the world of the NT, it was essential for acquiring access to certain out of the ordinary goods, employment and advancement.

"For anything outside the ordinary the person sought out the individual who possessed or controlled access to what the person needed and received it as a favor."

• money to start a business
• appointment to political office
• advancement of some sort
• citizenship (access to Emperor, etc)

If the patron granted the petition, the petitioner would become a client and a long-term relationship would begin.

Mutual exchange of good/services

• patron available for assistance
• client doing everything to enhance the patron's fame and honor (publicize the benefits, showing respect, remaining loyal and ready to help if needed
• client available for assistance

Big Gift - access and influence with another patron who had power over the sought benefit

Patron 2: Trajan - Roman Emperor
Patron 1/Broker: Pliny - governor of Bithynia
Client: Voconius - petitions for senatorial appointment

Pliny offers his own character as a guarantee of his client's character - he vouches for him. Trajan's favorable judgment of Pliny is the basis for Trajan granting this favor. Voconius becomes indebted to both. Pliny becomes further indebted to Trajan.

Client indebted to both patron and broker

In a relationship among persons with unequal social status:

1. the patron provides material gifts or opportunities for advancement
2. the client contributes to the patron's reputation and power base

Another name for a broker is a 'mediator' - Jesus is a broker/mediator for God's favor (though this does not exhaust his relationship, of course)

Reciprocal relationship - not law based/enforced but enforced by honor/shame values. Client clearly refers to patron as patron, but not reverse to avoid mention of inferiority

Social equals can engage in the same - 'friendships' still have reciprocity and mutual fidelity as bedrock
Farmer who does more favors than he receives becomes a local patron of sorts

Public Benefaction - wealthy benefactors gave public entertainments (feasts, festivals, etc) and civic improvements (temples, theaters, etc) to the city. Also they would supply aid in times of crisis. There was public indebtedness to the benefactor but no personal relationships formed

• public honors like crowning at a festival, special seating at games, honorary inscriptions, statues
• extreme form of response is the offering of worship

The Social Context of Grace

These make up the social context of 'grace'

1. The willingness of a patron to grant some benefit to another person or group
   • favor or favorable disposition
   • Aristotle quote
2. Denotes the gift itself, the result of the giver's beneficent actions
3. The response to a benefactor - aka gratitude

Grace can be used to speak of both the act and response. Grace must be met with grace in the "dance of grace"

Code of conduct for the giver: (guidelines that sought to preserve the nobility of the generous act)

Motive - the giver must act not in self-interest, but in the interest of the recipient. If the motive is primarily self-interest, the sense of 'favor' is nullified and any deep feelings of gratitude and obligation are negated
Aristotle quote from Rhetoric 1385a35-1385b3

Wrong - Not out of the virtue of generosity, but anticipation of profit

Eg: Do not give to an elderly person to get into their will