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!

I’m reading through Philip Harland‘s Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities, kindly sent along to me by T & T Clark for review, and I’d like to first highlight his excellent introduction, which provides a very helpful review of scholarship on social-scientific issues, identity theory, and associations in the ancient world.

I thought this paragraph, in particular, was a well-stated and well-balanced approach to the use of social-scientific methods in biblical studies:

Building on contributions from both of these scholarly areas [social history as (1) "from below" scholarship or (2) social scientific research], I approach the social sciences as heuristic devices, as things that help the social historian develop questions and find or notice things that might otherwise remain obscure. I tend to draw on social-scientific insights to develop a research framework for analysis, and I am less focused than some other scholars on testing models specifically. In this respect, I consider myself more a social historian than a social scientist. Throughout this interdisciplinary study, I explain and adapt social-scientific concepts and theories in order to further our understanding of specific historical cases in the ancient context. [5]

Though I am nowhere near as accomplished as Harland in the field social-scientific research, of course, I feel like he took the words right out of my mouth.