As I mentioned earlier, I am working through Philip Harland’s Dynamics of Identity (courtesy of T & T Clark), which looks into early Judean and Christian gatherings as related to other unofficial associations in the Greco-Roman world. One of the themes in the back cover endorsements, and rightly so, is Harland’s challenge to many scholarly assumptions about the uniqueness of early Christian identity. He doesn’t state that early Christian groups are not unique, but argues against the grain of those who emphasize distinction and separation.
This is from his conclusion:
This study has focused on what was common among many groups while also paying attention to certain distinctive features of ethnic groups and cultural minorities. The attention to shared modes of identity construction, negotiation, and communication is not meant to suggest that Christians were not unique. However, Christians were unique or distinctive insofar as every association, minority group, or ethnic group was unique or distinctive, each in its own way. Among the distinctive characteristics of Christians and Judeans that stood out to many insiders and outsiders was their attention to one, Judean God to the exclusion of other deities. This also entailed refraining from involvement in certain social settings where those other gods were honoured. This distinction was a potential source of tensions with many other groups and individuals within their contexts, and it could lead to social harassment and persecution on particular occasions.
When I read this, it hit me as extremely level-headed. This is the kind of balanced and nuanced scholarship that I aspire to in my own research. It also seems to be an excellent concise description of the identity formation of early Christian groups. I just had to pass it along!
The conclusion sounds very reasonable, so much so, in fact, that I’m curious about how much does Harland actually advance the ball in our understanding of the perceptions of early Christianity.
Thanks, Stephen. It’s a fair point. That’s one of the issues I will hope to address in my blogged review. But my initial thought about its value is in his reasonable utilization of social scientific methodology, his presentation of the epigraphical data, his challenge to the use of “sect” as a sweeping category (already put forth in his previous book), and his challenge to those who only emphasize the uniqueness of early Christian groups. It seems to me that the book helps paint a balanced and nuanced picture of the formation of early Christian identity, solidly rooted within its social historical context.
Sometimes I think that what we need is a good dose of reasonableness, balance, and nuance. Particularly if it’s based on thorough-going attention to tangible evidence.