HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

(1)

HONOUR AND SHAME

IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

I INTRODUCTION

WRDOMERIS

A:;

ancient and iSilor to the Middle modem. existing more or East is confronted by a bewildering mixture less happily side by side. Outside of f an archaeological excavation, or a museum, there remains very little 10 put him or her in lOuch with the world of the Bible. But, at the same time, the Middle East is sufficiently different to awaken a sense of strangeness within the visitor, and an awareness of the distance between themselves and this world.

Unfortunately, when we read the Bible, familiarity with the text has virtually destroyed any sense of strangeness one might once have felt and the necessary

sense of distance is lost. Consequently we recreate the biblical stories and characters in the garb of our own time. and invest them with our own sets of values and culture. In the process we loose much the original setting and colour. Cultural anthropology is one of the methods used by scholars of the Bible, to remind people of the gulf between Twentieth Cemury Christianity and the world

of Jesus, the wandering teacher from Galilee. The careful use of models, drawn from contemporary societies, enable us to re-enter the world of the Bible and to re-capture something of its rich diversity.

2 A VISIT TO THE WEDDING FEAST

(2)

284 HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

immediately terms like shame, exaltation, being humbled, and honour. From the context, one may deduce that honour is a grant of recognition accorded to a person by their community. While the precise factors which determine a per-son's honour are not spelled out, what is clear is that one can lose honour through one's actions and so be shamed, or gain honour and so be exalted. Finally the parable stresses a sense of competition for the best places at the meal. Apparently all social interactions with people of similar status is, in some form, a challenge of honour

Noting how the people vie for the best seats (those signifying the highest honour), Jesus suggests that it is more honourable deliberately to choose the lowest seat. That way the host would come and say 'Friend take a higher seat' and you would be singled out among the group as deserving of honour (Lk 14: 10), for the host has given special attention to you. Jesus advises against assuming that you are deserving of the best seats. He gives the example (vv8-9) of a person who takes the seat of honour only to find that it is reserved for someone else. By that stage all the other seats are taken, so that he/she is forced to take the lowest seat, and is shamed in the process.

The parable has a double significance for our quest for the values of shame and honour in the New Testament. Firstly it demonstrates that the readers of Luke were familiar with a set pattern of shame and honour. Secondly, the Evangelist suggests that Jesus corrects this pattern and offers a novel alternative. Were we to continue reading the same chapter of Luke, we would discover that Jesus then addresses the issue of inviting guests to a dinner. Instead of calling in family, friends or rich neighbours who would be obligated to return the favour and so recompense you, Jesus suggests a rather radical alternative. 'When you give a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind' (v13). Such people would not be able to offer recompense for they lack wealth and means. So we realise that Jesus is speaking of being a benefactor (patron) without making the recipients of one's generosity into one's clients (see further Moxnes 1988: 129-134). Left unanswered is the motive for Jesus' reordering of values. Beginning with the New Testament, we shall attempt to find an answer to this question.

J

GREEK TERMS FOR SHAME AND HONOUR

I

n the Pauline Epistles honour and shame figure prominently. The cross is frequently associated with shame (eg I Cor 1: 18-25), while obedience to God and Christ are linked with honour (eg I Cor 1:27, 4: 14, Phlp 2:9). The main terms used in the New Testament for honour are M~a and 'tt~i] (see the detailed study by V orster 1979). Both have histories in the classical tradition and in the LXX. The noun M~a occurs 165 times in the NT. However, the classical Greek meaning of opinion does not occur, and instead M~a approximates the Hebrew

lj~, with the meaning of honour, fame or repute (eg Mt 4:8 and I Pet 1:24).

(3)

The verb oososw on the other hand follows the usage of classical Greek, with the sense of to receive honour. Typical biblical expressions reminiscent of the LXX are also found (cf 'to give God glory' in Lk 17:18).

The noun lql1i is found 41 times and the verb 'ttJlOW 21 times. The use of the verb 'ttJlOW with the typical classical sense of to show honour is rare (eg Ac 28: 10 var reading), but the noun is often used of the dignity of officials, and secular authorities (eg Rm 13:7), slave owners (I Tm 6:1), wives (I Pt 3:7) and of a couple towards each other (I Th 4:4).

The idea of shame is rendered by several terms most of which occur only once in the New Testament. The most important of these is 01.oXp6<; (I Cor 11:6, 14:35 and Eph 5:12) and 01.0xuvT\ (Lk 14:9, Phlp 3:19, Heb 12:2, Jude 13 and Rv 3:18). Of these uses the Hebrews passage stands out, for it gives a positive nuance to the term, arising out of the Christian interpretation of the cross of Jesus. Contrary to the type of thinking ascribed to the Mediterranean person, the process of being shamed through such a cruel death has a positive side, for Jesus is honoured by God. This reversal of standards is in line with the Old Testament (Is 53:3) and apocryphal writings (cf 4 Macc 1:10 of martyr-dom).

The New Testament use of terms for honour and shame thus indicates links with classical Greek thinking on these values, but at the same time shows sig-nificant variations, in line with traditional Jewish thinking. This means that no study of these values in the New Testament is complete without taking into account both the Greek and Jewish background.

4 HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE JEWISH WORLD

T

he Old Testament has a very rich tradition with regard to the concepts of honour and shame, but which receives scant attention by New Testament scholars. The two most important terms are 1j~ and ilii:l. The primary meaning of ilii:l is 'to fall into disgrace' as a result of some defeat, such as in battIe or at the hands of one's enemies (Mi 1: 11). One of the secondary mean-ings is that of being shamed as a result of impudent or immoral behaviour (I Sm 20:30). Proverbs uses the hiphil participle to describe the actions of those people who bring disgrace upon their family (Pr 10:5, 12:4). 1j~ carries the primary meaning of 'to be heavy' and the implied meaning of reputation. A person of high social position and accompanying wealth would be a person of honour as in Numbers 22:15 (so Oswalt 1980:426). Similarly, people in positions of respon-sibility, like parents are deserving of honour and respect (Ex 20: 12 and MI 1 :6). Fin.ally feats of courage were recognised as honourable (I Ki 11:21).

In the LXX, honour applied to God (Hb 1j~) is rendered by the term Mso, which in secular Greek meant simply 'opinion'. Aalen defmes Mso in this

(4)

context as 'the luminous manifestation of his person, his glorious revelation of himself' (1976:44). By contrast the LXX uses n~~ of humankind (eg Ps 8:3-8), and of the honour due to categories of people like parents (Ex 20: 12), one's neighbour and in contrast to most societies also the poor (Sir 10:23 and Pr

14:21,31).

The Wisdom of Ben Sirach is probably the most important source for honour and shame, with several sections devoted to seeking honour (eg 3:2-16 regard-ing parents,) and avoidregard-ing shame (eg 9:2 allowregard-ing a woman to dominate a man). In particular Sirach 10 is important as it details to whom honour is due (people who fear God and who show wisdom) and warns against the wrong motives for seeking honour (pride). Significantly the writer elevates honour above wealth as he concludes 'The wisdom of a poor man lifts up his head, and causes him to sit among princes' (Sir 11:1).

Rabbinic anthropology is the title of a study by Stiegman (1979) and deals with the various rabbinical view on humankind. While much of the material is devoted to theological issues like the relation of the body to the soul, and the hope for the messiah, enough information may be gleaned in order to develop some sense of honour and shame for the rabbinic writings.

The keynote for both the biblical and rabbinic view of humankind is that people are created in the image of God. This has an important bearing on any anthropological study, for it determines the way in which both the OT and the rabbis saw humankind. The honour of any person derives ultimately from his or her possession of the image of God. This in part accounts for the concern, expressed in a range of Jewish writings, for the poor, orphans, widows and the marginalised of society. Thus the words and deeds of Jesus are not out of keep-ing with traditional Jewish thinkkeep-ing with regard to honour and shame.

The second factor to playa significant role in the honour/shame game was the Jewish law and the human response to this law. Obedience to the law lifts the individual above his or her peers, while some men may achieve great glory through their study and knowledge of the law. Simply put, honour is the reward given to a person for obedience to the law. Shamelessness is the sign of a person (perhaps like the am M-aretz) who through particular circumstances is ignorant of the demands of the law. Women were considered less likely to benefit from the study of the law, and so were even actively discouraged from this path, although they would still be judged by the demands of the law. On this level Jesus distances himself from traditional Jewish thinking.

5 HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE GREEK WORLD

I

n order to situate the NT in its geographical, chronological and cultural context we turn now to a consideration of the values that marked the hellenis-tic society of that part of the Mediterranean. One is immediately struck by

(5)

the paucity of work among classicists on the concepts of shame and honour. However, a basic framework may be established for understanding these ideas.

In classical Greek, ttj..lll is used in three different ways (Aalen 1976:48) for esteem or honour of people, for the price or worth of an object, and in a legal sense of compensation or penalty. Aalen defmes ttj..lll as 'the proper recognition which a man enjoys in the community because of his office, position, wealth .. .It is a personal position. Slaves had no

time'

(1976:48). Honour (ttj..lll) was also shown towards the various deities, by means of sacrifice or praise.

Malherbe (1986) quotes a number of Greek writers in his book on moral exhortation, of which several deal with the issue of honour and shame. So Musonius Rufus (Malherbe 1986:31) discusses self control as a form of training which brings a sense of shame, discipline and guidance for actions and bearing. By shame, Musonius means not embarrassment or guilt as the English implies but rather a sense of respect and distance from anything which would bring dishonour. The same meaning is given to shame in the writings of Lucian who speaks of a corrupt man, surrendered to 'dissipation and to light women, so that he had not the slightest remnant of shame' (Malherbe 1986:56).

Plutarch, uses Plato to argue for a more conservative path in which elderly men should have a sense of shame before the young in order to engender respect and deference. Similarly the husband should show a sense of shame in front of his wife since 'their chamber is bound to be for her a school of orderly behav-iour or of wantonness' (Malherbe 1986: 108). He then goes on to argue for the education of women so that they might be 'neither ignorant, nor superstitious nor immoral' (Malherbe 1986: 109).

The use of the values of shame and honour in classical texts follows a fairly regular pattern. Thus Meeks (1986:37) refers to Aristotle's belief that 'the exchange of goods, services, and prestige, in proportion to the socially assigned "worth" of each participant, was the process that made society work.' Meeks goes on to say that 'honour and shame were the reciprocal sentiments that enforced the unwritten rules of these continual transactions' and that 'what was fair, what was expected, what was honorable depended upon one's place in the social pyramid' (1986:37).

However, not all people were prepared to allow their lives to be dictated by the ethics of society at large. The Stoics and the Cynics disdained outward societal values and dependence upon the norms of their society, preferring to stand by their own inner philosophical sense of value and ethics (Meeks 1986:52). Thus Julian cites the Cynic who questions whether he is 'the slave of rewards and of the opinion of men' and Lucian reports on the praise of philoso-phy as a means to freedom from 'the things that are popularly considered bless-ings-wealth and reputation, dominion and honour ... things accounted very desirable by most men' (Malherbe 1986:57).

(6)

288 HONOUR AND SHAME IN THE NEW TEST AMENT

The unorthodox views of the Cynics may help one to understand why Cros-san goes on to depict Jesus as a peaCros-sant Jewish Cynic (1991 :421-422), whose 'strategy, implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the combi-nation of

free healing and common eating,

a religious and economic egalitarian-ism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalicies of Jewish religion and Roman power' (1991:422). Whether it is necessary to call such a position 'cynic' in the light of the writings of Sirach (absent from Cros-san's extensive list of texts 1991:490-505), is a moot point. Our cursory look at the Jewish background to shame and honour (above) suggests we should first look closer to home before considering Cynic philosophy. However, at the same time, Crossan is quite correct in indicating the interesting parallels between the thinking of Jesus and the Cynic philosophers. For our purposes, the fact that there were debates among both Jewish writers and Greek philosophers regarding the pursuit of honour and that Jesus positioned himself within the spectrum of the debate is very significant. Rather than operating as fixed values, as early cultural anthropologists assumed, honour and shame varied from one community to another, with significant changes in nuance. We turn therefore to a consideration of the work by different Mediterranean anthropologists and the present debate on shame and honour.

6 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

T

he anthropological study of the peoples of the Mediterranean has occupied the minds of some of the great figures in the field of anthropology, of the likes of Durkheim, Robertson-Smith, and Evans-Pritchard to name just a few. The period since the sixties has produced a number of classical works, including the collections of Peristiany (1965, 1968), Gellner and Waterbury (1977) and monographs like those of Pitt-Rivers (1977), Davis (1977), Camp-bell (1964), Boissevain (1974,1979) and Gilmour (1982,1987). Several Mediter-ranean societies have come under the careful observation of such cultural an-thropologists ranging from Cypriot villagers to the Bedouin of western Egypt and from Greek Sarakatsan shepherds to Lebanese peasants. Such studies, which involved lengthy periods of field work, led to an increasing interest in aspects like patron-client relationships (see Gellner and Waterbury 1977,and Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984) and particular societal norms, most significantly shame and honour (see Peristiany 1965, 1968 and Pitt-Rivers 1966,1977). 6.1 The structural functional approach

Structural functionalism is one of the two main approaches used by anthropolo-gists. Many more approaches exist (see Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984:23-26, 308-9), but the dominance of the structural functionalists has long been evident. In 1977 Davis severely critiqued the model, within a book that was to prove a

(7)

landmark in cultural anthropology. This was followed by a series of key articles by scholars like Boissevain (1979), and more recently by Gilmore (1982,1987), which inter alia blew the myth of a uniform understanding of honour and shame for the various communities of the Mediterranean.

Structural functionalism views society as 'a system of enduring groups composed of statuses and roles supported by a set of values and related sanc-tions which maintain the system in equilibrium' (Boissevain 1974:9). The char-acteristics of such a projected society are consensus, cohesion, reciprocity, cooperation and stability. Another view of society is that of the coercion or conflict model (see Boissevain 1974: 10), which understands society as divided into contending groups, separated by divisions, which coerce certain types of behaviour and in which there is both conflict and the possibility of change, whether violent or peaceful.

The structural functionalist attempts to understand, by means of field work, how the structure of a particular society functions within that society. What are the norms which control the behaviour of the individuals? How do the various individuals relate to each other? How does the society control deviant behav-iour? Such questions lead to a picture of that society (almost akin to an anthro-pological still photograph-see Malina 1981: 19), which can then be compared with other studies and similarities noted. In this way, early anthropologists assayed to map a type of societal blue print for the Mediterranean region, in spite of the diversity of groups studied, as later scholars have emphasised (Gilmore 1990:6 points out that there is still no agreed method for such com-parati ve work).

The domination of the structural functionalist model of society is obvious from even a brief of the anthropological work on the Mediterranean region. But this has not gone unmarked and the clear criticisms of anthropologists like Boissevain (1974), Davis (1977) and Schneider (1971), leveled against the methodology should serve to warn scholars of the existence of an academic minefield. The main objections of Davis (1977:1-16) and Boissevain (1974:1-20) are the following:

a) The method creates an artificial time-island unrelated to either historical or geographical factors (Davis 1977:6, 239-258). So using the analogy of a photograph, one does not know what happened before or after the frozen moment of the study. Boissevain labels this 'immaculate social conception' (1974: 13-14).

b) Attention is diverted from so-called deviant behaviour towards the ideal of the norm for that society. By so doing, one moves from the real into the ideal world, and the factors which cause deviant behaviour are ignored

(8)

(Boissevain 1974:14). Paradoxically, examples from such a real world are cited in support of the ideal, even where a blatant contradiction is in evi-dence (see Boissevain 1974:14-17).

c) Studies have tended to select marginalised rural communities, and communi-ties which are geographically isolated, while ignoring the complex sociecommuni-ties of the cities (Davis 1977:7-10). At the same time, because the focus is upon the ideals which are believed to make up the Mediterranean society, insuffi-cient attention is paid to localised variations from the norm, and to the proc-ess of comparison. Davis writes of his work, 'It is a constant theme of this book that mediterraneanists have failed in their plain duty to be comparative and to produce even the most tentative proposition concerning concomitant variations ... ' (1977:5).

Societies are not static, but changing. Individuals are different and few conform completely to the norm. Yet such conformity is assumed in the model of struc-tural functionalism. Boissevain writes,

If the individual behaviour of real people has been systematically eliminated from the data used to construct a model, the model so constructed can obviously not be used to explain their behaviour. yet it is. What has been constructed is in fact a model of an ideal system that has the same relation to what actually happens as myth does to his-tory (1974: 12).

6.2 The conflict model

People make decisions for a variety of reasons, and may well act out of self interest rather than societal compUlsion or moral norms (so Boissevain 1974:8). Some societies may be perceived as an harmonious working machine, but others are different and conflict plays a major role in those societies. Historical situ-ations impact upon the norms of a society and indeed one society may be host to various norms, including contradictory values, and contending ideologies. All these factors necessitate a model which is more dynamic than the rigid structural functionalist approach, and explain the alternative conflict model. This model, which underlines the historical and economic aspects of society as well as the power struggle within different societies as people compete for scarce resources, is most clearly amplified in the work of Davis (1977).

In the New Testament world sociological studies based on the functionalist or structural functionalist approach tend to describe Jesus, as a person who challenged the order of his society, but nevertheless remained within the bounds of convention as either a itinerant wandering charismatic (Theissen), or a Jewish Cynic peasant (Crossan). By contrast, the conflict approach is typified by

(9)

ers like Nolan (1976) and Pixley (1983), both of whom use the Zealot myth to recreate a revolutionary Jesus.

6.3 Shame and Honour as Mediterranean concepts Pitt-Rivers (1977) defines honour as follows:

Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledg-ment of that claim, his excellence recognised by society, his right to pride (1977: I). Substantially the same definition occurs in his earlier writing (1966). In contrast to this structural functionalist definition, Gilmore writes:

The Mediterranean honor concept is not monolithic, but a polysemic concept that needs the kind of clarification the comparative emic study or componential analysis could provide (1982: 191).

In other words, comparative studies of individual societies will assist in building up both the spectrum of meaning attached to honour and shame by such socie-ties, as well as establishing key factors which may account for inter-regional variations. Gilmore makes mention of recent work (eg Davis 1977) which has helped refine the notion (of honour) beyond the undifferentiated moral

'reputation' found in earlier Mediterranean ethnographies (1982:191).

Gilmore suggests that the competition for honour occurs within three sepa-rate vectors-wealth, status or respect and masculinity (virility). Furthermore, one needs to distinguish between the honour of position, 'which is an ascribed category related to possessions' and a moral category which refers to an 'achievement of reputation among social peers' (1982:191). This distinction is not unlike that made by Ben Sirach, in his elevation of the wise but poor man to the level of princes.

7 NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES OF HONOUR AND SHAME

I

n the circles of New Testament studies, the credit goes to Malina, for pio-neering the application of cultural anthropological studies of the Mediterra-nean to the New Testament. His major works (1981,1985 and with Neyrey 1991) deal with a broad range of anthropological insights, often with only the briefest of introductions to the particular approaches utilised by himself (eg 1981:16-24), and to the question of the relevance of such insights for the Bible (eg 1981:1-7). His second book (1986), deals expressly with the work of Mary Douglas and will not be discussed here (but see Domeris 1991). Instead we shall focus on his most recent work on honour and shame-the chapter written by

(10)

Neyrey and Malina (1991) of the pivotal values for the world of Luke-Acts, with occasional reference back to his formative 1981 book.

7.1 The work of Malina

A comparison between Malina's two studies of shame and honour (1981 and 1991) although ten years apart show remarkable similarity. In fact the study of honour and shame found in Malina's first book (1981:25-50) is repeated virtu-ally word for word in his latest essay (1991:25-66). Moreover, the bulk of both studies may be traced directly to the writings of Pitt-Rivers with very close ver-bal correlations (eg Malina 1981:44 cf Pitt-Rivers 1966:45-6). Yet because he does not openly acknowledge his primary source (apart from a general note in his bibliography 1981: 156), the reader does not realise that a twentieth century Christian community (in Andalusia, Spain) is being used as a basis for recon-structing the values of first century Judaea!

The second reason for the concern is Malina's apparently uncritical adoption of the structural functional model, in spite of his own recognition of its limita-tions (1981:20). To make matters worse, when speaking about challenge and response (again following Pitt-Rivers), he describes this as 'a sort of conflict model' (1981:47), which is simply not true. The challenge between equals is typical of structural functionalism and is quite different to the competition for economic and other resources found in even the most basic of conflict models (which we shall discuss below).

Thirdly these specific studies by Malina show no understanding of the present debate within the circles of cultural anthropology, regarding the prob-lems of the creation of a Pan-Mediterranean mentality and the dangers of indis-criminate shifting of cultural concepts without examining factors like ecology, geography, history and religion (see particularly Davis 1977, Boissevain on Davis 1979 and Gilmore 1982, 1987 and 1990).

Finally Malina appears unable to offer any guidelines for interpreting stories like the parable of Luke 14, where there is a conflict between the prevailing norms and the teaching of Jesus. His examples only deal with instances of conformity with the Mediterranean 'norms' (1981 :49-50).

Malina's cultural anthropological studies of biblical societies thus raise a host of questions. One is moving from the study of rather unusual twentieth century societies directly to a set of first century societies, without even a glance at either the classical or rabbinic texts. Curiously those who follow his lead overlook this question, and seem quite content to apply studies of Cypriot highland villagers to the urban context of Paul, or the values of Bedouin nomads to Jesus of Nazareth. Similarities, there may be, but the gaps in history and geography cannot simply be ignored. One encounters here, the same problem which bedeviled the History of Religions Schools of the fifties and sixties,

(11)

where similar symbols were understood to have the same meaning or range of meanings regardless of the context-a form of illegitimate totality transfer. So terms like honour and shame in modern Mediterranean societies are translated into the societal norms of New Testament communities without any considera-tion of the context of the society of that time, such as a study of the rabbinic or hellenistic writings outlined above.

7.2 A society in transition

Bearing in mind the limitations of any model, we would emphasise the conflict model, particularly since historical indications typify the world of the New Testament as one of society in transition. Modes of production are changing under the impact of the Roman slave-mode on traditional patrimonial land tenure. Pressures upon scarce resources are increased as the balance of power shifts from community leaders to the high priestly families. Commenting on the features of the Mediterranean world, Gilmour writes:

The Mediterranean societies are all undercapitalised agrarian civilisations. They are characterised by sharp social stratification and both a relative and absolute scarcity of natural resources ... There is little social mobility. Power is highly concentrated in a few hands, and the bureaucratic functions of the state are poorly developed. These conditions are of course ideal for the development of patron-client ties and a depend-ency ideology (1982:192).

Gilmore is referring to modern societies, but the geographical and economic factors are little changed from earlier times, and his description would easily fit the Palestine of Jesus' day as Oakman (1986) and Moxnes (1988) make clear. That society knew well the sense of competition for limited resources. In such a society, honour meant prestige and prestige meant power and access to eco-nomic and other resources. 'Honour and class are related to individual control of resources' (Davis 1977:91). Challenges for honour should not be separated from the competition for wealth and economic resources as earlier anthropolo-gists (like Pitt-Rivers 1977:6-13) tended to do. Rather,

From these differences are derived differences in honour: poor people have less hon-our than richer ones and may therefore be insulted, treated as dishonhon-ourable, without damage to the honour of their superiors. In particular, the women of honour inferiors can be seduced with impunity (Davis 1977:91 and see Boissevain 1974:228-230).

In contrast to the work of Malina, the conflict models I study of honour and

shame emphasises the competition for valuable but scarce resources. These are not evenly distributed in society and consequently a tension exists between those who have access to a greater number of resources and those who are

(12)

ised. Coalitions, patronages, and social values like shame and honour are ma-nipulated in the interests of the powerful in order to protect what they have and even to increase their resources (see Boissevain 1974:228-230). Schneider for example argues that honour is really an ideology of defense for patrimony. Women are reduced to things, and become part of a system which men defend as a part of their own integrity (1971:21).

The weakness of the structural functionalist model (and of the work of Ma-lina) is its failure to take account of the coercive aspects of society. Little atten-tion is paid to differences in wealth. Indeed Davis argues that anthropologists have often failed to record data about the distribution of resources (1977:89). He goes further when he critiques the work of Pitt-Rivers and Campbell, both of whom deny the link between wealth and honour, yet provide evidence to the contrary (1977:91).

7.3 Christianity as a Counter Culture

We return to the question which we posed at the outset of this paper, namely what motivated Jesus to challenge the norms of his time. The society of Jesus' time, we know (following Horsley, Oakman and Moxnes), was radically divided by status, wealth, power and gender. Boissevain, referring to modern studies of conflict and power, describes the manner in which such societies operate:

The establishment defends tradition. It has a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo. Tradition provides the charter for its existence. It claims to interpret the norms and defend the moral order. Because it controls most of the formal offices, it can often make use of legally sanctioned physical force, public funds, office and ritual to recruit followers and to defend itself. Moreover, because it defines, defends and in-terprets tradition and the moral order and has more resources at its disposal than its rivals, it is able to monopolise the most important ideological symbols (1974:229).

The opposition groups like Jesus have a double task, namely to win followers and to create alternative symbols. Boissevain writes of the typical opposition leader:

Since he does not have access to the resources controlled by the establishment leader, and thus cannot recruit as many followers through patronage, he is more likely to be attracted by new techniques and ideologies, which he may also develop himself to meet the anti-establishment interests of his potential follower. Besides using new ideologies and symbols to bind his followers to him and his cause, he will also try to fashion his coalition or party into a better, more tightly organised instrument

(1974:230)

The Gospels do in fact represent Jesus as re-ordering the norms of his day,

(13)

promoting a society with upside-down estimations of honour and shame, and with particular appeal to the misfits of society (cf Boissevain 1974:228). For example, Jewish society elevated the Jewish educated male as the pinnacle of the created order and thus of the hierarchy of honour, and ordered the rest of society within the limits of sex, age and education. Entrance to the kingdom of God was probably the most sought after of any of the 'resources' of Judaea or Galilee, and this was strictly reserved for educated Jewish males, and then with-in limitations other groupwith-ings. As the holders of the kwith-ingdom they were able to make demands upon the other societal members, projecting the notion that their own honour was derived directly from God, and that such honour diminished the further one moved from their interpretation of Jewish law. This form of hegemony guaranteed both the continuation of the status-quo and the coercive nature of the societal norms they propagated. The roots of such action lay in the competition for wealth and power. In contrast to such an hierarchy Jesus raises

up a child (Mt 18: 1-5) and declares that such is his model for entry into and possession of God's kingdom. Thus Jesus redefines the ideal man/woman!

The beatitudes found in both Luke and Matthew deal implicitly in honour and shame. The people blessed by God are those deemed worthy of honour and those cursed by God (the woes in Luke 6) of dishonour. Included here are the social class of the poor and oppressed, who contrary to popular opinion are the recipients of both the land of Israel and the kingdom of God. This is further emphasised by the types of people with whom Jesus is said to associate, namely sinners, tax-collectors and prostitutes (Mt 21:31).

The place of the Jesus movement within Palestinian society, becomes clear. Theorists, like Carney (1975), have long recognised that the great religions, including Christianity, began as counter-culture movements. Of Christianity he remarks that 'It was to enhance the dignity of the individual man (and woman) over against the state' but that when the church chose to work within the politi-cal situation of its day, it lost the cutting edge of its revolutionary origins (1975:127).

6 CONCLUSION

R

ecognition of the role of early Christianity as a counter culture move-ment, albeit initially on a very small scale, urges us to explore more fully the way in which values like honour and shame were reinterpreted by the Jesus' movement. The important work started by Willem Vorster, with his exegetical study of shame and honour needs to be carried through to its logical conclusion in combination with the insights of modern anthropology and a comprehensive survey of classical and Jewish sources. I dedicate this cautious first step to the honour and memory of Willem.

(14)

WORKS CONSULTED

Aalen, S 1976. s v 'Glory', 'Honour' NIDNIT.

Abou-Zeid, A 1966. Honour and shame among the Bedouins of Egypt, in Peristiany 1966:243-259.

Boissevain, J 1974. Friends of friends: Networks, manipulators and coalitions. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Boissevain, J 1979. Towards a social anthropology of the Mediterranean. Current An-thropology 20, 81-93.

Campbell, J K 1964. Honour, family and patronage. A study of institutions and moral values in a Greek mountain community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Carney, T F 1975. The shape of the past: Models and antiquity. Lawrence, Kansas:

Coronado.

Corrigan, G M 1986. Paul's shame for the Gospel. BTB 16,22-27.

Crossan, J D 1991. The Historical Jesus. The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant.

Edinburgh: T and T Clark.

Davis, J 1977. People of the Mediterranean. An essay in comparitive social anthropol-ogy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Domeris, W R 1991. The farewell discourse. An anthropological approach. Neotesta-mentica 25, 233-250.

Eisenstadt, S N & Roniger, L 1984. Patrons, clients andfriends. Interpersonal relations and the structure of trust in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gellner, E and Waterbury, J (eds) 1977. Patrons and clients in Mediterranean societies.

London: Gerald Duckworth.

Gilmore, D D 1982. Anthropology of the Mediterranean Area. Annual Review of An-thropology 11, 175-205.

Gilmore, D D 1987. Honour and shame and the unity of the Mediterranean. Washington:

American Anthropological Association. (American Anthropological Association spe-cial publication 22.)

Gilmore, D D 1990. Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New

haven: Yale University Press.

Gottwald, N K (ed) 1983. The Bible and liberation: Political and social hermeneutics.

Maryknoll, New York: Orbis.

Malherbe, A J 1986. Moral exhortation, a Greco-Roman source book. Philadelphia:

Westminster.

Malina, B J 1981. The New Testament world, insights from cultural anthropology.

At-lanta: John Knox.

Malina, B J 1986. Christian origins and cultural anthropology: Practical models for Biblical interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press.

Malina, B J & Neyrey, J H 1991. Honor and shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal values of the Mediterranean World, in Neyrey 1991:25-66.

May, D M 1987. Mark 3:20-35 from the perspective of Shame/Honor. BTB 17, 83-87.

Meeks, W A 1986. The moral world oftheftrst Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Moxnes, H 1988. The economy of the kingdom: Social conflict and economic interaction

in Luke's gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Neyrey, J H (ed) 1991. The social world of Luke-Acts. Models for interpretation.

Mas-suchusetts: Hendrickson.

Nolan, A 1976. Jesus before Christianity. The Gospel of liberation. London: Darton,

Longman and Todd.

Oakman, D 1986. Jesus and the economic questions of his day. Lewiston, Queenston:

Edwin Mellen. (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 8.) Oswalt, J N 1980. s v 'Kabod' in ]wOT.

Pixley, G V 1983. God's kingdom in first century Palestine: The strategy of Jesus, in Gottwald 1983:378-93.

Peristiany, J G (ed) 1966. Honour and shame. The values of the Mediterranean society.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

(15)

Pitt-Rivers, J (ed) 1963. Mediterranean countrymen. Essays in social anthropology of the Mediterranean. Paris: Mouton.

Pitt-Rivers, J 1966. Honour and socii status, in Peristiany 1966: 19-78.

Pitt-Rivers, J 1977. The fate of Shechem or the politics of sex: Essays in the anthropology of the Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, J 1969. Family patrimonies and economic behaviour in western Sicily. An-thropological Quarterly 42, 109-129.

Stiegman, E 1979. Rabbinic anthropology. ANRW 2.19.1, 488-579.

Vorster, W 1979. Aischunomai en stamverwante woorde in die Nuwe Testament. Preto-ria: UNISA.

Dr W R Domeris, Religious Studies Department, University of Wits, P 0 WITS, 2050 Republic of South Africa.