116 John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 7–8.
117 Dale Martin, “Social-Scientific Criticism,” in To Each its Own Meaning, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 103–20.
118 Ibid., 107. Martin identifies John G. Gager, Wayne A. Meeks, L. William Countryman, and Howard Clark Kee as “social historians.”
119 Martin, “Social-Scientific Criticism,” 107. Martin identifies John H. Elliott, Jerome H. Neyrey, Bruce J. Malina, Antoinette Clark Wire as “social scientists”.
120 Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972) 44–72.
121 See Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).
122 Meeks, “The Man from Heaven,” 70.
123 Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism,” 81.
124 Ibid.
125 Ibid., 82.
126 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3d ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 161–97.
127 Ibid., 164.
128 Ibid., 165.
129 Ibid., 170.
130 Malina distinguishes between the dyadic personality and the individual personality. The dyadic personality describes someone who perceives himself or herself in terms of how others see him or her. He or she needs others to know and define who he or she is. The individual personality describes someone who sees others as distinct and unique and forms his or her own definition of self. Malina argues that the individual personality was quite foreign to the ancient world, which was dominated by the dyadic personality; ibid., 62–63.
131 Ibid., 185–86.
132 Ibid., 188.
133 Ibid., 191–96.
134 William Lane, “Social Perspective on Roman Christianity During the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 196–244.
135 Lane’s argument for Rome as the location of Hebrews is as follows: 1) The generosity of those addressed in Hebrews is consistent with an affluent Roman church (Heb 6:10-11; 10:33-34, cf. Ignatius, Romans, Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Church History 4.23.10); 2) the description of sufferings is consistent with the edict of Claudius in Rome in 49 AD; and 3) the leadership identified as h3goumenoi in the epistle is consistent with the community of Rome (Heb 13:7, 17, 24); ibid., 215.
136 Ibid., 216.
137 Ibid., 218.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid., 222.
140 Ibid., 224.
141 Ibid., 223.
142 Koester, Hebrews, 64–72.
143 Ibid., 66–67.
144 Ibid., 67.
145 Ibid., 71–72.
146 Ibid., 77.
147 Ibid., 79.
148 Harold W. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo/goj paraklh/sewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990) 211–26.
149 Leo G. Perdue, “The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature,” Semeia 50 (1990) 5–39, esp. 23–26.
150 Attridge, “Paraenesis,” 218.
151 Ibid., 219–20.
152 Ibid., 223.
153 Perdue, “Social Character,” 25–26.
154 Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews, JSNTSS 219 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 5.
155 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).
156 Salevao, Legitimation, 6, 53–54.