Review of "Home for the Homeless"

Keith Jagger. Review of John H. Elliott, “A Home for the Homeless: a social scientific criticism of I Peter, its situation and strategy”, 1990. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000).

Twenty-five years post publication, John Elliott's, “A Home for the Homeless” remains an essential contribution to both the study of 1 Peter and to the burgeoning Social Scientific method of biblical criticism. Centering his study on the social, linguistic, and textual relationship between paroikoj and oikoj tou qeou, Elliot seeks to produce a fresh exegesis of 1 Peter which considers how the social situation of the Petrine group impacts the text’s message.1 Time has proven that his approach is indeed fruitful and beneficial to the exegetical study of the Bible and to 1 Peter.

Elliott utilizes the Social Scientific method maintaining that 1 Peter was written in the latter portion of the 1st century, by a pseudonymous author, and from within a Petrine congregation in Rome.2 In order to conclude this, Elliott uses the model of conversionist sect and a five-fold strategy: first a close reading of the text, second an examination of the social identity and situation of the group gleaned from the text’s general strategy of persuasion and ideological undercurrents, third an examination of the writer’s anticipation of how his audience will respond, fourth an examination of the author's analysis of the congregation’s current situation, and finally an examination of the social identity of the author.3

Not a replacement of but an addition to classic Historical Criticism, Social Scientific Criticism4 seeks to understand the synchronic as well as diachronic situations of a given text, which as Elliott points out, “are often more implicit than explicit”.5 Therefore, notes Elliott, the goal of SSC is not to locate the Sizt im Leben of a particular community; rather, SSC seeks to discern the situation and strategy of the particular author as he relates to his community audience.6 In regard to Elliott’s contribution, and of particular note, his study has shed light on the social situation and status of the emerging Christian movement and contributed to the understanding of the “household of God” as a key concept used by the early Christians.7 As an example of early SSC therefore, “Home for the Homeless” proves to be both an example of the limits of contemporary SSC and an example of the potential benefits that its method could offer the exegetical process.

In chapter one, Elliott begins his study by exploring how the word paroikoj was used by the early Christians circles in relation to its usage in their surrounding social context. He does so in order to examine the possible socio-political reality of the paroikoj as a real social entity. Within the semantical family of diaspora and parepidemoi, Elliott suggests that pariokoj should best be translated “alien residence” or “visiting strangers”.8 Inter-canonical and extra-canonical evidence, he says, points to the paroikoj as the visiting stranger or the foreigner who does not share similar traditions, patterns of thought, or cultural roots and thus enjoys less privilege than the resident citizen. Elliott stresses here that we must understand the socio-political overtones of “pariokoj” and the implications of how the early Christians truly perceived themselves. In order for us to fully understand the social situation of 1 Peter, he concludes, we should understand paroikoj both metaphorically and literally (socially).

Next, in chapters 2 and 3, Elliott utilizes what he calls a comparative typology “to examine the sectarian character and problems of the communities addressed” in 1 Peter.9 Chapter two examines the addressees of 1 Peter and those actors that influenced them geographically, legally, economically, socially, and religiously. His purpose here is to further elucidate the social situation of the letter and its audience or their “social profile”.10 Elliott contends that the regions of Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia were, by the time 1 Peter reached them, largely rural and ethnically diverse. They included diaspora communities of both Jews and gentiles. This very well might, he notes, account for a large number of strangers and resident aliens living in these somewhat politically untouched provinces. Furthermore, Elliott notes that, economically and politically, the early Christians began to lose the protected pariokoj status that the Jews enjoyed as they began to distinguish themselves in what can be liked to a 'conversionist sect'. Therefore, the early Christians as pariokoi found themselves both in growing conflict with their surrounding society and with continued social responsibility demanded of the 'resident alien'.11 Ultimately, concludes Elliott, the salvation-promises of the Christian sect likely attracted the growing population of those who were socially estranged.

Chapter three examines the socio-religious strategy of 1 Peter as a further means to elucidate the social situation of the recipients and author. Elliott notes that the religious strategy of 1 Peter utilizes the social marginalization of the early Christians as a way to bolster group identity and as a rally point where which to distinguish themselves from the larger community. Furthermore, this strategy, says Elliott, sought to imbibe notions of election among the audience and therefore create a new elite status for those previously downcast. Therefore, as Elliott elaborates upon his conclusion that the early Christians were a missionary conversionist sect, he thus ponders the dichotomy of the evangelistic yet exclusivist nature of the group.12 He thus concludes that 1 Peter, by using the strategy of group cohesion, offered the marginalized paroikoj of Asia Minor explanation, even theodicy, for the existence of their socio-politically based conflict, massaged group unity by creating group solidarity and distance from the surrounding culture, and bound together the larger Christian movement which was then stretched across Asia Minor. It is this “Household of God” to which Elliott next turns his attention.

In chapter four, Elliott provides his most substantial section in terms of length by examining the significance of the oikoj in the Greco-roman world, in the Old and New Testaments, and in 1 Peter. He does so in order to argue that the author of 1 Peter used themes of paroikoj and oikoj tou theou (a Christianized rendition of a Greco-Roman social value) as a general strategy for persuasion. Ptolemic Egypt, Greece, and Rome, notes Elliott, all utilized the model of oikoj for their social organization of micro and macro institutions. In addition, Elliott argues that during the time of 1 Peter, society at large was in such desire for a social form 'wider than the family' and 'smaller than the state', that the psychological importance of sub-group oikoi provided many with outlets through which to engage and in which to live life. For Israel the oikoj tou qeou (LXX) formed the primary form of social and religious cohesion, particularly referencing its temple unit. For the New Testament communities, on the other hand, notes Elliott, the oikoj tou qeou constituted a communal, private, and rival social institution standing against Caesar and the temple both. For the author and audience of 1 Peter, therefore, oikoj tou qeou served as the primary and underlying social and ideological principle. This accounts not only, says Elliott, for the seemingly complex system in early Christianity based on household codes and household leadership structures, but it also accounts for the clearly social exhortation given by 1 Peter to a 'typical set of problems created by the tension between sectarian particularism and societal pressures for conformity'.13 This is another juncture in which Elliott claims that the paroikoj and oikoj tou qeou must be understood both theologically and functionally (socially).

After expounding on the social implications of the pariokoj, Elliott, in his final chapter, turns to the ideological implications of the paroikoj theme by surveying the possible groups from which 1 Peter arose. Elliott takes care to distinguish ideological implications from ideology noting that the addition of 'implication' points to intended function in addition the sole content of a certain ideology. With that in mind, Elliott narrows the search to a post-martyrdom Petrine group in Rome who wrote 1 Peter in order to strengthen and enhance the position of its influence and authority in Rome and throughout the widespread early Church as well. Elliott spends a significant space outlining the possible people who could have comprised this Petrine group, who, as he says, sought to bolster the position of the Roman church and give comfort to the surrounding paroikoi by creating a quasi familial unit which was distinct from the surrounding oikoj of the Greco-Roman society. In this way the oikoj tou qeou was a true home for the socially homeless.

In all, Elliott's work can be seen as a mature and seminal work both for 1 Peter studies and for SSC’s methodology and form. The true importance of Elliott's work also lies in its approach. Elliott links together oikoj tou qeou and pariokoj, creating a conceptual bridge between two important social realities. He argues convincingly that the author of 1 Peter intended not only to persuade his audience of their true family, but he also argues convincingly that 1 Peter testifies to the social form of the early Christians and how that form operated in the surrounding society both distinguishing the group and offering a home for those socially estranged.

The best example of Elliott's important effort is perhaps his investigation into the importance of household imagery and form in the New Testament and surrounding culture.14 In this section, Elliott proves what good knowledge of early Judeo and Greco-Roman literature can produce: a nuanced vision of important socio-political conceptions in the ancient world. The implications of the household as utilized by the early Church are so important that any student of the ancient world should peruse this section of Home for the Homeless. I only wish he had taken such care upon his initial exhibition of pariokoj as an important cultural reality.

It was in this earlier section that Elliott began to build his case. It seems that he constructed his conception of pariokoj sometimes too heavily on secondary sources. Elliot relies on the interpretations of Hans Shafer, Michael Rostovtzeff, and Karl Ludvig Schmidt among others to conceptualize the social role of the paroikoj. While these are credible sources, one wonders about their context and about the particular biases these men might have brought to the primary texts. Elliott would have served himself better by offering, even in shorter form, a version of his initial exposition as an inductive investigation and interpretation of our primary sources to conclude the role of paroikoj.

In this way, one must wonder, reading through the central portion of his text, if he doesn't try to push his case a bit too heavy-handedly. This can be seen in a variety of his interpretations regarding the early Christian movement, the subsequent implications, and even basic methodological assumptions inherent in his social-scientific approach. For example, Elliott relies heavily on the model of the conversionist sect to conceptualize the audience of 1 Peter. The problem is not so much that the conversionist sect provides a seemingly clear parallel to the material we find in 1 Peter. The problem is that Elliott appears to envision the early Christians like Roman government before him. One such characterization is that the early Christian message seemed to appeal only to the politically and socially estranged. This probably was not the reality. There seems to have been a diverse range of early Christians from the politically estranged to even some from Caesar's house. Such a characterization gives way for Elliott to question what he calls the centripetal and centrifugal tensions of the early Christian strategy. Based only off the model of the conversionist sect, Elliott wonders how such a seemingly closed-off community could be a missionary movement as well. Elliott thus paints the picture of early Christian zealots closed off from their tempered surrounding culture. This does not seem to be the full picture. In fact it seems to be a smudged version of what the NT records.

In conclusion, while Elliott's method and consequent interpretations need to be challenged, his overall aim has proved extremely helpful where traditional historical criticism has badly lacked.