john elliot. jesus movement..not egalitarian

the jesus movement was not egalitarian 173

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2003 Biblical Interpretation 11, 2Also available online www.brill.nl

THE JESUS MOVEMENT WAS NOT EGALITARIANBUT FAMILY-ORIENTED

JOHN H. ELLIOTTUniversity of San Francisco

Introduction

A current theory espoused by scholars including John DominicCrossan, Gerd Theissen, and Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza is thatJesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary egalitarian and founded acommunity that put into practice a discipleship of equals. Thepresent essay is the latter half of a two-part paper challenging thattheory and finding it wanting.1 The first part of that paper focusedon the teaching and activity of Jesus prior to his death.2 Thesubstance of this essay concerns the Jesus Movement from theperiod following Jesus death to the end of the first century. Sincesome proponents of the egalitarian theory regard a discipleshipof equals as antithetical to patriarchy and conventional householdstructures and relations, the nature, significance and role of thehousehold in the Jesus Movement will figure prominently in ouranalysis, as it did in my earlier examination of the Jesus tradition.In general, the conclusion of the present analysis accords with thatof the earlier study: after as well as before Jesus death the domi-nant basis, focus, locus and model for the Jesus movement and itslocal assemblies was the household, an institution organized onstratified, not egalitarian, lines. As no discipleship of equals wasfounded by Jesus, so none was introduced following his death.Attention to household and family following Jesus death and in-struction on household conduct did not entail an abandonmentof equality and a reversion to patriarchalism (as argued espe-cially by Schssler Fiorenza), but continuation of a concentrationon household and family initiated by Jesus.

1 This paper was delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature in Denver, Colorado, November 2001, in the Early Christian FamiliesGroup.

2 This was published under the title Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critiqueof an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory, in BTB 32,3 (2002): 75-91.

john h. elliott174

A summarization of conclusions reached concerning the Jesustradition (Elliott 2002) may serve as a point of departure for ex-amining the egalitarian or familial character of the Jesus Move-ment following Jesus death.3

A close examination of texts of the authentic Jesus traditionalleged to attest Jesus creation of a discipleship of equals revealsthat the egalitarian argument is fatally flawed in several respects.Most of these problems also plague egalitarian interpretations ofthe New Testament evidence of the Jesus movement subsequentto Jesus death.4

1. Egalitarian theorists have left undefined the key terms underdiscussion; namely, equal, equality, egalitarian, egalitarian-ism. Consequently the nature of the equality proposed is leftunclear and the idea of equality is often confused with its concreteeconomic and social manifestation, a manifestation never demon-strated by the theorists. When the family of terms is clarified,however, their applicability to the social realities of the biblicalworld is immediately open to question. For purposes of our dis-cussion here, equal and equality are defined as meaning thesame in quantity, quality, degree, value, merit, rank, level, status,position; parity in social status, rights, responsibilities, or eco-nomic opportunities.5 Egalitarian, is defined as meaning as-serting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equalityof all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.6 Thisconcept that all persons are equal in respect to economic, social,legal, and political domains is of modern, Enlightenment originand has been shaped by momentous economic, social, and politi-cal changes dramatically distancing our modern world from thatof the biblical writers. The equality celebrated in the Americanand French revolutions, has little, if anything, in common withthe comparatively rarely discussed concept of equality (more fre-

3 To avoid repeating myself in this present study, I shall refer the reader atpoints to issues discussed and documentation presented in my BTB 2002 article.

4 For other independent critiques by feminist scholars see, among others, thestudies of Kathleen Corley (1998), Amy-Jill Levine (1994), and Rose DAngelo(1992). A collection of Corleys essays is now available in Women and the HistoricalJesus. Feminist Myths of Christian Origins (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2002).

5 For operating definitions and discussion see Elliott 2002:75-77, 88; see alsoTawney 1931; Kristol 1968; Oppenheim 1968; von Leyden 1985; and Halsey 1989.

6 Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1987, s.v.), notes that thefirst attested use of this term was in 1880-85.


quently equity or proportional equality) in the ancient world.7

Accordingly, searching for instances of egalitarianism in theNew Testament communities, indeed in the ancient world on thewhole, is as pointless as hunting for modern needles in ancienthaystacks.

2. There are no historical analogues of actual egalitarian move-ments in antiquity. The examples offered, such as voluntary asso-ciations, were not egalitarian but rather stratified in structure.Kathleen Corley (1998:302) registers the same objection. Thus, ifthe Jesus movement had been a community of equals, it wouldhave constituted a historical novum and sociological unicum (Elliott2002:77-78).

3. The New Testament texts put forward as witnesses to an egali-tarian community or to Jesus egalitarian teaching are all open todifferent and contrary interpretation. There is no textual evidenceof an actual, concrete economic and social equality establishedby Jesus in his group of followers (Elliott 2002:78-85).

4. Egalitarian argumentation resorts to inference and restsprimarily on a web of unsupported assumptions. In SchsslerFiorenzas case this also involves an inadequate clarification of pa-triarchy and an assumption (left unproved) that Jesus and hisfollowers replaced the complex system of patriarchy with egalitar-ian structures.8

5. Egalitarian theorists have provided no evidence of actual,concrete economic and social equality established by Jesus amonghis first followers. Nor have they considered how such a revolu-tionary change in social structure could ever have been accom-plished, and then subsequently itself overturned in the mannerSchssler Fiorenza proposes (see below). Their theory is uncon-vincing historically and sociologically.

6. The theory ignores or glosses over the actuality of social andeconomic disparity within the Jesus movement from its very be-ginning and throughout its later history.

7. An especially disastrous element of this theory is its obscur-ing or misconstruing the prominence of the household/family inthe teaching of Jesus, the manner in which the household/family

7 On the important distinction between quantitative equality and propor-tional equality or equity in antiquity see the texts discussed in Elliott 2002: 77.

8 For clarification of patriarchy from an anthropological perspective seeElliott 2002: 80-81.

john h. elliott176

is employed by Jesus to illustrate the nature and values of the king-dom of God (domestic metaphors for explaining political meta-phors), its central role in the mission of the Jesus movement, andits significance as chief metaphor for clarifying the divine-humanrelationship and life under Gods rule (as, for example, obedientchildren trusting in a heavenly father or as intimate siblingsof Jesus, or as practicing the domestic values of generosity, hospi-tality, familial loyalty and support etc.) (Elliott 2002:85-88).

8. Egalitarian theorists have succumbed to the idealist fallacyof regarding assumed visions, ideas and ideals of equality as con-crete economic and social realities.

9. Too many questions concerning the nature of the equalityimagined and the manner of its establishment and then elimina-tion are left unasked and unanswered.

Accordingly, efforts at discovering an egalitarian character oragenda in the authentic Jesus tradition can only be judged un-successful and indeed futile from the outset. There is no cogentevidence that Jesus ever did or ever could reject the patriarchalismof his time and establish a discipleship of equals during his life-time.

What of the movement following Jesus death, however? Is itpossible that groups of followers prior to the Pauline mission wereegalitarianagain, not simply in vision but in concrete economicand social terms? Egalitarian theorists assume this to have beenthe case and consider this situation to have been an extension ofthe new relations put in place by Jesus. Equality, according toSchssler Fiorenza, prevailed in the believing communities untilPaul, who was the first to revert to patriarchal thinking andmodels and commence a process leading eventually to the com-plete loss of the vision and reality of equality in the early church.Since it now has been shown that Jesus never established a com-munity of equals in the first place, one cannot speak of his follow-ers maintaining such a community after his death. If evidencesuggests the existence of such a community of equals after Jesusand before Paul, then on theory it must have been brought intobeing by influential persons or groups after Jesus. Does such evi-dence exist? Was the messianic movement prior to Paul egalitar-ian in spirit and structure? How would such equality have beenestablished and how would it have manifested itself in the struc-ture of the house churches and the social relations within thebelieving communities? Let us consider now what proponents of


the egalitarian theory put forward as evidence and how they dealwith these questions.

The Jesus Movement After Jesus Death and Prior to Paul

After Jesus death, the followers who regathered and regroupedassembled in households. As they moved within and beyond Pal-estine, it was such households and families that served as the fo-cus, basis, and locus of the mission. In accord with the familialfocus of Jesus teaching, they continued to conceive of themselvesas constituting a new surrogate family/household of God anddescribed their social relations and responsibilities in familialterms. God continued to be viewed as Father, whose saving ac-tion is portrayed as adoption (Rom. 8:14-23; Gal. 3:26-4:7) orregeneration ( John. 3:3-6; Tit. 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23) intothe new family of God. In this new household of faith (Gal. 6:10)or household of God/the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 3:1-6; 10:21;1 Pet. 2:5; 4:17) or brother/sisterhood (adelphots, 1 Pet. 2:17;5:9), all the reborn infants (1 Pet. 2:2-3) are children of God(Rom. 8:16, 17, 21) and brothers (Rom. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet.5:12 etc.) and sisters9 united to God and Jesus Christ by faith/trust and obedience (1 Pet. 1:14) and to one another by brother-ly-sisterly love/loyalty (philadelphia, Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb.13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22, 3:7; 2 Pet. 1:7) and other actions of familial con-duct.

This household orientation of the Jesus movement, to which Ihave been calling attention since the 1970s,10 has been widelyacknowledged and discussed in the last thirty years and requiresno further rehearsal here.11 What does require examinationin

9 Occasionally the term for sister, adelph , is explicitly used for a female be-liever, especially where a female is particularly in view ; see Mark 3:35/Matt. 12:50;Rom. 16:1, 15; 1 Cor. 7:15; 9:5; Phlm. 2; Jas 2:15; 2 John 13. More often, refer-ence to sisters in the faith is implied when brothers in the faith are addressed,just as their inclusion is implied in the terms adelphots, philadelphia , and phila-delphos. This implied inclusion is a consequence of the perception of ancientpatriarchal societies that all honorable females were socially embedded in, andunder the tutelage of, honorable males. It is for this reason, among others,that non-embedded females such as widows and prostitutes represented suchdangerous anomalies.

10 Elliott 1976:253, 1979:37-59; 1981/1990, 1984, 1991a, 1991b, 2000, 2002,2003.

11 On the house churches, the church as fictive kin group, and familial ter-

john h. elliott178

respect to the egalitarian theoryis how this domestic orientationsquares or does not square with the notion that the Jesus move-ment was egalitarian in nature. To pursue this question we willexamine New Testament texts alleged to indicate the egalitariancharacter of the Jesus movement in the three periods followingJesus death (prior to Paul, Pauline, post-Pauline) and we will askhow the theory fares when analyzed in the light of the domesticorientation of the Jesus movement and its economic and socialdisparities.

The text most often cited by egalitarian theorists as indicativeof the egalitarian character of the Jesus movement prior to Paulis Gal. 3:28. Scholars generally agree that this text reproduces inpart or in whole a baptismal formula in threefold form that pre-dates the Pauline mission and that is cited by the Apostle to assertthe new social reality brought about by affiliation with Jesus Christand baptismal conversion.12 While consensus prevails concerningthe antiquity and baptismal mooring of this language, dissensusreigns concerning its meaning.

The first thing to note is that the text says nothing explicit aboutequality. Greek terms for equal (isos, -a, -on) or equality (isots)are not present. This is true, by the way, of all New Testamentpassages presented by egalitarian theorists in support of theircase.13 Thus we are dealing here, at best, with perceived implicationsof equality. Those assuming that Gal. 3:28 and its three pairs im-ply something about equality are in a decided minority, with mostscholars agreeing that the issue in both the formula and as Paulunderstands it concerns the inclusiveness of the believing com-munity and oneness and unity of persons who are in Christ, nottheir equality.

minology see also Martin 1980; von Allmen 1981; Klauck 1981a, 1981b, 1992;Vogler 1982; Malherbe 1983; Verner 1983; Aguirre 1984; Schllgen and Dass-mann 1986; Knoch 1987; Lorenzen 1987; Crosby 1988; Pilch 1988; Becker 1989:255-70; Branick 1989; Schfer 1989; Oliver and van Aarde 1991; Lampe 1992;Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992:100-01; de Vos 1993; Love 1993; Rusam 1993; Banks1994; Barton 1994, 1996; Blue 1994; Wagner 1994; Guijarro Oporto 1995, 1997,1998, 2001; Joubert 1995; Matson 1996; Osiek 1996; White 1996, 1997; Esler 1997,1998: 215-34; Moxnes 1997; Sandnes 1997; Osiek and Balch 1997; Penna 1998;Bartchy 1999.

12 On Gal. 3:28 see Betz 1979:181-201 and Gal. 3: 26-29, and, more recently,Martyn 1997: 378-83.

13 For the passages involving terms of the isos family and on their irrelevancefor the egalitarian theory see Elliott 2002:78.


One vocal representative of the minority is Elizabeth SchsslerFiorenza who has commented on this text on various occasions(1983:205-41; 1993:222-23). The triadic baptismal formulationcited in Gal. 3:28, she maintains, is evidence of an equality thatexisted among believers prior to Paul. She translates it as follows:

For you are all children [hyioi] of God. For as many as were baptized intoChrist have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, There is neitherslave nor free, There is no male and female. For you are all one (in ChristJesus she regards as secondary).

In this text, she claims, is an implication of freedom for slaves(1983:209-10), a statement of the abolition of the religious distinc-tions between Jew and Greek and an affirmation of the equalityamong all those who call upon the Lord (1983:210). The husband-wife relationship, however, receives the bulk of her attention.There is no male and female asserts, in her opinion, that patri-archal marriageand sexual relationships between male and fe-maleis no longer constitutive of the new community in Christ(1983:211). Insofar as this egalitarian Christian self-understand-ing did away with all male privileges of religion, class, and caste, itallowed not only gentiles and slaves but also women to exerciseleadership functions within the missionary movement (1983:218).Not the love patriarchalism of the post-Pauline school, but thisegalitarian ethos of oneness in Christ preached by the pre-Paulineand Pauline missionary movement provided the occasion for Paulsinjunction concerning the behavior of women prophets in theChristian community (1983:218). Pauls interpretation and ad-aptation of the baptismal declaration Gal. 3:28 [in 1 Corinthiansand other letters] unequivocally affirm the equality and charismaticgiftedness of women and men in the Christian community. Womenas well as men are prophets and leaders of worship in the commu-nity. Women as well as men have the call to a marriage-free life.Women as well as men have mutual rights and obligations withinthe sexual relationships of marriage (1983: 235). Thus the pre-Pauline baptismal formula, according to Schssler Fiorenza, ex-pressed and affirmed an equality among all in Christ, and inspiredin Paul a similar notion of equality that is found in several of hiswritings.

Several serious problems attend this line of interpretation. First,since she fails to define the terms equality and egalitarian, thedomains of reference of these terms remain unclear. What kindof equality does she envision and with reference to what areas of

john h. elliott180

life? Equality before God or before both humans and God? If it isthe latter, as seems to be her assumption, and if she is imaginingequality in historical, concrete terms, then how have Judaeans andGreeks, slaves and free persons, males and females become equaland in what manner is this equality manifested? Is she thinking ofequality as parity in social standing and prestige? Or do they nowenjoy equal access to, or control over, economic resources, so thatall are now equally poor or equally wealthy? Do they now haveequal voice in the determination of all group affairs? Other thanmention of equal access of women to leadership roles, the natureof this equality is left unclear. Nor is it clear how equality is imag-ined to prevail in groups where some are leaders but others arenot. More problematic is an inattention to the practical questionof how this equality might have been put into place, how conven-tional roles, relations, and lines of authority were terminated anddisplaced, how equality was enforced and justified among thosewho had been deprived of their status and roles. The greatestproblem with this reading of Gal. 3:28, however, is that it mistakesunity for equality. Gal. 3:28 speaks explicitly of the former but nota word about the latter. The statement, You are all one in Christ,affirms the ethnic and social inclusiveness of the Jesus movementand the unity of all who are in Christ but says nothing about anyequality of those included. The statement speaks not of beingequal in Christ, but of being one in Christ. The Greek em-ployed here is not isos, equal, but heis, one. One denotesinclusion and unity, not equality.14

The context of Gal. 3 concerns the issue of faith supplantingobservance of the Law as the means of union with God, so thatGentiles who believe are now also recipients of Gods grace. Thoseformerly excluded from Israel as goiim are now included on thebasis of their faith. The issue is inclusion over against exclusion,not equality versus non-equality. And this is the point supportedby the reference to the baptismal formulation of Gal. 3:28.

The three-fold affirmation of Gal. 3:28 declares that ethnic, so-cial, and gender distinctions conventionally made in society areirrelevant for determining who is in Christ as a result of bap-tism and confession of Jesus as Christ and Lord. This inclusion in

14 The sense of heis here is like that of hen in John 10:30. When Jesus, accord-ing to John, states that I and the Father are one (hen), he is asserting his unionwith the Father, not his equality to the Father.


Christ is determined rather by baptism and faith in God and inJesus as the Christ, a faith of which Judeans and Greeks, slavesand free persons, males and females are all capable. In contrastto a previous Israelite conception of salvation and union with Godaccording to which only the house of Jacob with whom God hadcovenanted at Sinai were the people of God, Greeks, the termfor all who comprised non-Israel, are no longer cut off from Godand Gods people. Access to Gods grace is now available to allwho trust/believe, and trust/belief is possible for all. Union withGod was no longer sealed and signified by a circumcised penisand hence was no longer a male prerogative. Union is effected,instead, through trust/faith and baptism under water, both ofwhich could be experienced by females as well as males. Slaves,like women, are no longer excluded from the company of Godspeople, but are now regarded as full persons and independentmoral agents capable of making choices independent of theirowners. Differences remain, but are no longer relevant fordetermining inclusion among the redeemed. This amounts to anelimination of discrimination, not an abolition of differentiation.Ethnic, legal, and social differences remain, but for followers ofJesus are not determinative of union with Christ Jesus; faith aloneis.

Commenting on Gal. 3:26-29, J.L. Martyn (1997:378-83) sees thetext affirming an inclusive incorporation and a loss of the dis-tinctions that formerly separated you from one another, you arenow one in Christ (1997:379). Non-discriminatory inclusion is thepoint, not equality, which Martyn rightly never mentions. Thethree distinctions, Martyn asserts (1997:380), are not eliminated,but are declared to be irrelevant to the issue of who is in Christ(so also Betz 1979:193). With this formula, he notes, Paul devel-ops the idea of a new-creational family no longer determinedby religious or ethnic factors (Martyn 1997:381-82).

The manner in which Paul employs this baptismal formulamakes it clear that he too, its first extant interpreter, regards it asan affirmation of inclusion and oneness in Christ, not a statementabout equality. With faith and baptism as the means of access ofall to God, in Christ Jesus you are all sons [and daughters] ofGod through faith (Gal. 3:26) and as many as were baptized intoChrist have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). Faith and baptism allowuniversal inclusion in Christ, not the elimination of disparity.

Other comments of Paul relating to these three pairs similarly

john h. elliott182

show that his consistent concern was with inclusion and unity, notequality. 1 Cor. 12:13 appears to be a Pauline allusion to the pre-Pauline formula. However, only the Judeans-Greeks, and slaves-free persons distinctions are mentioned, suggesting that Paul wasless interested in the male-female contrast. In any case, the textand its context again indicate that the units of the formula, as inGalatians 3, were meant to illustrate the oneness and unity of thecommunity, the body of Christ into which all are incorporatedthrough baptism (one body one Spirit one body oneSpirit). That equality is not at all the issue is also clear from theverses that follow. 1 Cor. 12:14-27 mention inferior and supe-rior members with lesser and greater honor. Unequal thoughthese members are, they are united in and serve one single body,the body of Christ. Pauls enumeration of various functions in 1Cor. 12:28-31 presupposes not equality but rather variation notonly in types of spiritual gifts but also in the higher and lowerquality of these gifts, with love constituting the more excellentway. Notice also the ranking of functions in 14:1-40 where unityand the building of community, not equality, is Pauls concern.Col. 3:11, constituting a yet later use of the baptismal formula,like 1 Cor. 12:13, makes no mention of the male-female distinc-tion and is immediately followed by a call for the subordinationof wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to owners(Col. 3:18-25). Col. 4:1 speaks of isots but the term clearly meansnot the equality of owners and slaves but the equitable treat-ment of latter by the former. Paul or the Paulinist author clearlydid not have any notion of equality in mind.

According to Martyn (1997:380), Pauls main interest in Gala-tians was in the Judean-Greek distinction, as is evident in bothGalatians and Romans where this distinction received the lionsshare of Pauls attention. To this observation one might add thateven when Paul affirms Gods impartiality in Romans, he ranksthe Judean first and then also the Greek (e.g. Rom. 2:9-11);for this ranking see also Rom. 1:16. The point of the statement,there is no distinction between Judean and Greek (Rom. 10:12a)is obviously not that the difference between Judeans and Greeksdisappears, but, as the verses continuation shows, that the sameLord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call uponhim (Rom. 10:12b). The lordship of Christ, in other words, en-compasses all persons, with faith or non-faith constituting the onlyfactor distinguishing those who are Christ or outsiders.


That Paul did not regard the baptismal formula he cited inGalatians 3 to imply anything about equality is most clearly dem-onstrated by what he said about slaves and free persons elsewherein his letters. As Greeks/Gentiles are still secondary grafts ontothe primary stock of Israel, Gods first favored people (Romans911), so even after baptism slaves remain different from and sub-ordinate to their free owners (1 Cor. 7:20-24). Philemon andOnesimus are brothers in Christ, but the former remains theowner and the latter, a slave. Neither Paul nor any other NewTestament writer ever advocated manumission of slaves, let alonethe abolition of slavery. Betz (1979:193) observed in regard to thefree-slave distinction that the possibilities for implementing theabolition of slavery were extremely limited (1979:194)an un-derstatement if ever there was one. How could this ever have beenaccomplished by or in the Jesus movement? How could this tinysect of Israel have ignored or transcended or eliminated the eco-nomic, legal and social distinctions demarcating free persons fromslaves at that point in history? The conditions and attitudes neces-sary for such a revolution were not even in place when the wordsequal and egalit began to resound in eighteenth centuryPhiladelphia and Paris. The fact is that even after baptism theactual difference and disparity between free persons and slavesremained intact among believing Christians for centuries. Theslave-free person component of the pre-Pauline baptismal formula,as viewed by Paul, was also illustrative of communal integration,not of destratification or equalization. The free and the enslaved,once distinguished by law and separated in social practice, are, bybaptism into Christ, integrated into one single community. Thesame holds true of the final element of the baptismal formula,the male-female pair.

The male-female pair of the baptismal formula in Pauls under-standing also had nothing to do with equality. To the contrary,Paul, like all early Christian writers, continued to view females andwives, even after baptism, as inferior to males and husbands; seeElliott 2000: 550-599. He did encourage mutuality and commonconsent in the marital relationship (1 Cor. 7:1-7, 12-16), but thisdid not entail or imply a social or economic equality of thespouses. This is acknowledged even by scholars like William Coun-tryman (1981:122-23) and Hans Dieter Betz (1979: 196, 199-200)who allow that Gal. 3:28 might contain some hints of equality or

john h. elliott184

female emancipation, but conclude that Paul did not take it inthis sense. Indeed, Paul did not regard the baptismal tradition ofGal. 3:28 as establishing any kind of social or economic equalitybetween males and females, husbands and wives. This is clear fromthe fact that he took as natural the subordination of wives tohusbands in his discussion of womens head coverings (1 Cor. 11:2-16), which he also attempted to justify with his everything butthe kitchen sink argumentation (and that he or the Paulinistfurther reinforced with the interpolation of 14:33b-37). Contest-ing that Paul was an egalitarian with regard to gender, Dale Mar-tin (1995:199) aptly notes that in fact his writings confirm theGreco-Roman gender hierarchy. Despite assigning women largerroles and more respect in his churches, he never makes the claimthat the female is equal to, much less superior to, the male (1995:199). Neither Pauls androgynouse statement in Gal. 3:28 nor hisadmission of women to important positions within his churchesdemonstrates that he was a gender egalitarian (1995: 232). Thereason for this Martin rightly finds in the physiology of genderdominant in Greco-Roman society, which is taken over by Paul asan unquestionable given (1995:199). This is true for all NewTestament authors; see Elliott 2000:550-99. Pauls point in 1Corinthians 7 was not that wives and husbands were in any wayequal (against Schssler Fiorenza 1983:224), but that consent andharmony should prevail in marriages (7:3-5, 13-15) and that theserelationships were opportunities of sanctification and salvation (1Cor. 7:14-15). That women were prophets is no indication of anegalitarian revolution (against Schssler Fiorenza 1983:235), sincewomen prophets existed in the patriarchal world prior to the Jesusmovement (Luke 2:36-38). That women assumed leadership rolesin the Jesus movement likewise can be attributed to their priorsocial status rather than to the egalitarian revolution imaginedby Schssler Fiorenza (1983: 235). Indeed, the higher social statusenjoyed by such female leaders as Prisca/Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe,Mary, mother of John Mark, and others is indicative of the socialand economic disparities prevailing in the Jesus movementthroughout its existence.

Schmeller (1995:83-85), like others, considers whether Gal. 3:28represents a social reality or only an ideal. He curiously concludesthat Gal. 3:28 actually corresponded to the social reality and thatthe [Pauline] communities developed a high degree of unity andequality (1995:92), despite the fact that the evidence he put


forward supports only the case of unity, not that of equality. Con-sidering possible hints of egalitarianism in the early churches,Countryman sees in Gal. 3:28 a hint of a utopian vision of equal-ity, framed most often in eschatological terms (1981:117). Headds, however, that there is much evidence indicating that sucha vision of equality was seldom if ever put into practice (1981:121-23). Thus the churchs egalitarianism had it limits (1981:123),especially in regard to the churchs ministry and clerical superi-ority (1981: 127-36). Countryman (1981:134-36) sees Gal. 3:28and baptism as pointing to a condition of liminal communitas inwhich the baptized experienced a sense of equality. However, heimmediately concedes that It did not follow that equality mustpervade every aspect of the Christians life from Baptism onward.Thus, Paul could proclaim that in Christ there is neither slavenor free and then tell slaves to continue as slaves and to obeytheir masters (1981:135). This so-called original communitassoon ceased, he maintains, when it was necessary to take somesmall number of people out of that equality and assign them tomake provision for social control. The divinely sanctioned in-equality of the ministers, then, served to preserve the equality ofthe people, he asks his readers to believe. Some of them will recallthe equally self-contradictory statement during the Vietnam War,We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Klaus Thraede(1981:143-144), commenting on 1 Cor. 12:13 and Gal. 3:28, speaksof an eschatological vision of equality, but likewise notes thatthis involved no actuality of social freedom. Gerd Theissen, inregard to Gal. 3:28 (1982b:109, 110), also speaks of an equalityof status extended to all. He too, however, immediately qualifiesthis notion of equality by claiming that at the same time, however,all of this was internalized; it was true in Christ. In the politicaland social realm specific differences were essentially accepted,affirmed, even religiously legitimated (109). With this qualifica-tion Theissen acknowledges, as Schssler Fiorenza does not, thedifference between utopian vision and actual historical reality. Butwhat is gained by speaking of internalization if the social realityis not restructured? Theissens notion of internalization is just asephemeral as Crossans and Countrymans notion of vision orThraedes qualifier eschatological.

Even if the existence of an egalitarian ideal or vision is con-ceded, it was an ideal not realized in historyan essential objec-tion acknowledged by virtually all but Schssler Fiorenza. Thus

john h. elliott186

Countryman, who sees in this baptismal text some indication ofequality (1981:124-25), concedes that despite the ancient procla-mation that in Christ there is neither slave nor free, male norfemale, the early Christians expected their converts to continueobserving the social distinctions of contemporary culture in a basicway. Slaves continued to be slaves; women continued to be subor-dinate to their husbands (1981:123) and ministers were accordedspecial status in the church from the apostolic age onward (1981:127-28). How, then, is it possible to imagine a pre-Pauline periodof thorough-going egalitarianism?

In sum, Gal. 3:28, the chief text on which the egalitarian theo-rists rest their claim, in actuality says nothing about an equaliza-tion of statuses, roles, or relations in the Jesus movement in thedecades after Jesus and before Pauls mission. The pre-Paulinebaptismal formula affirms the all-inclusive oneness of all whothrough faith and baptism are in Christ. The formula, also asunderstood and employed by Paul, affirms that former conven-tional ethnic, economic, and social distinctions remain but are nolonger determinative of who is or can be in Christ. Universalintegration into a new single community of Jesus followers is itspoint, not equalization of all members. This is clear from thecontent and context of Galatians 3 as well as from the use madeby Paul of this formula. Gal. 3:28 concerns desegregation and in-tegration, not equalization, and thus provides no evidence of theexistence of a community of equals prior to Paul. Nor is thereany historical or material evidence that would suggest viewing Gal.3:28 in this way. With the elimination of Gal. 3:28 as evidence ofan egalitarianism prevailing among Jesus groups prior to Paul, theprime witness for such an alleged egalitarianism in the Jesus move-ment subsequent to Jesus death and prior to Paul is eliminated.It has been shown (Elliott 2002) that the movement inauguratedby Jesus prior to his death was by no means egalitarian in na-ture, but was stratified economically and socially. New Testamenttexts alleged to express an ideal or spirit of equality are opento a differing interpretation and in any case are no proof that anequality was established in concrete social and economic terms.To pass off visions, ideas, and ideals as concrete realities is toengage in the idealist fallacy. Given, then, the absence of any evi-dence of a community of equals having been brought into exist-ence prior to Paul, Schssler Fiorenzas proposal (1983:233-36;1993:221-24) that Paul and his successors rejected egalitarianism


and reverted to a pre-egalitarian, patriarchal form of social or-ganization has nothing to commend it.

The Pauline Period: Various Theories on the House Churches andEgalitarianism

A key feature of the Jesus movement in the Pauline period,scholars agree, was its household orientation: its mission focusednot on individuals but household groups; believers assembled inhouses for worship; and the household or family (oikos) provideda chief metaphor, as it did for Jesus, for characterizing relationsand responsibilities within and among the believing communities.On the other hand, to what extent these house churches wereegalitarian communities is a highly debated issue. Theories areas diverse as they are numerous, as the following sampling illus-trates.

Some scholars claim that the house churches were divested oftheir patriarchal features and were thoroughly egalitarian in struc-ture and spirit like voluntary associations were assumed to be.Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, for example, imagines that in thePauline period the house churches were structured not like patri-archal families but like religious associations, which, she claims,were associations of equals presumably structured along egali-tarian lines. Regarding the household of Prisca/Priscilla andAquila in Corinth (1983:179) she opines that Their house church,therefore, most likely (italics added) was structured like a religiousassociation rather than a patriarchal family Those who joinedthe Christian house church joined it as an association of equals.This is a claim based, however, on two dubious assumptions: (1)that voluntary associations lacked hierarchical structure in contrastto patriarchal families; and (2) that the house church was modeledafter the structure of these imagined associations of equals. Themost extensive investigation of this question to date, ThomasSchmellers Hierarchie und Egalitt (1995), provides little, if any,support for these assumptions.

Comparing the Pauline house churches with the Greek andRoman voluntary associations, Schmeller claims to find elementsof both hierarchy and egalitarianism in both collectivities. Whilehis description of the social and economic stratification of bothassociations and house churches (1995:19-49, 54-92) is convinc-

john h. elliott188

ing, his attempted identification of egalitarian features is not.House churches, like associations, had certain persons who per-formed supervisory and leadership functions that distinguishedthem from, and ranked them above, the other members. Patronbenefactors of the associations, like patron householders of thehouse churches, were even more distinguished in these groupsthan the hoi polloi and enjoyed even higher prestige and status thanthe groups functionaries. Both collectivities had members of di-verse social and economic strata. On the other hand, supposedtraces of egalitarianism (e.g. each association member having avote in the assembly, rotation of functions in the associations,brother/sister language, functions viewed as service, the mix ofmembers, 1995:43-44, 50) are unconvincing. The first two featurescharacterize associations but not house churches; the rest arehardly typical of only egalitarian groups. Even less convincing isSchmellers notion, expressed in the title of his study, that asso-ciations and house churches were simultaneously both hierarchi-cal and egalitarian in structure. Not only is the evidence for thisstatement lacking; the very notion itself is sociologically implausi-ble. From a sociological perspective, hierarchy and egalitarianismare mutually exclusive. Organizations that are hierarchical are, bydefinition, the opposite of those that are egalitarian. Social groupscan be one or the other but not both simultaneously. Imagininga group to be predominantly hierarchical but a little bit egalitar-ian (1995:52-53, 92-93) is like imagining a virgin to be a little bitpregnant. Except in rare instances left to the religious imagina-tion, the former state is eliminated by the latter. Evidence thatassociations met in homes or regarded themselves as fictive fami-lies is minimal (Schmeller 1995:48).15 This is in contrast to theJesus movement where the oikos served as the basis, locus, andfocus of the movements mission from the time of Jesus onward,as Schmeller grants, noting that the fiction of the family hadmuch greater significance quantitatively and qualitatively in the(Christian) communities than in the association (1995:85). Insum, although searching for traces of egalitarianism, Schmellerhas proved only that both associations and house churches werestratified or hierarchical in structure. Accordingly, the associa-

15 See Schmeller 1995:96-99 for the text of a now famous inscription of onesuch examplethe Dionysiac cult association in Philadelphia, second to first cent.bce.


tions provided no historical egalitarian analogue for the housechurches. Nor has evidence been presented of social or economicequality in the Jesus groups he surveyed, but only indications ofnew forms of inclusiveness and integration. In the light of thisstudy, Schssler Fiorenzas notion that the house churches consti-tuted assemblies of equals similar to the associations has nothingto commend it.

A related theory of Klaus Schfer, advanced in his Gemeinde alsBruderschaft (1989), is equally unconvincing. Schfer proposed thatthe ecclesial model of the community as household was differentfrom that of the community as brotherhood and that the latterconstituted an egalitarian fellowship contrasting to the patriar-chal structure of the former. The Pauline house churches, hemaintains, were antitypes of the ancient family. In a cogent cri-tique, Karl Olav Sandnes (1997) has shown that household andbrotherhood models are not alternative models but rather con-verge, as, it might be added, is clearly evident in 1 Peter; see Elliott1990, 2000. Sandnes justly concludes that the New Testamentshows not egalitarian groups replacing or being replaced by patri-archal structures but rather the brotherhood-like nature of theChristian fellowship in the making, embedded in household struc-ture (1997:151, 162-63).

Other scholars envision house churches structured on conven-tional lines but also embodying a few egalitarian features. Thisboth-and position (stratification and equality) has been advanc-ed, for instance, by Schmeller (1995), as discussed above, andearlier by William Countryman (1981). Countryman, while claim-ing to find some traces of egalitarianism in the Pauline housechurches, conceded that Paul himself was less than completelyegalitarian where women were concerned, citing 1 Cor. 11:8-9(1981:122). Likewise, in the case of slaves and masters, the slaveremains slave and the master remains master so that conversionto Christianity, then, did not change the legal relationship betweenmaster and slave (1981:122). If the latter half of the sentence isaccurate (and it is), what possible sense is there to speaking of apartial egalitarianism. This oxymoron prompts the same partiallypregnant virgin objection directed above against Schmeller. Un-fortunately such lapses in logic cripple much egalitarian theoriz-ing.

Another mode of relating a concept of equality to the Paulinehouse churches acknowledged to be patriarchal in structure has

john h. elliott190

been to describe equality as eschatological in nature. KlausThraede (1981:145) illustrates this popular position. Some of Paulscomments, he opines (1981:145), express a notion of eschato-logical equality, as exists, for instance, between married believers(1 Cor. 7:2-5) or between circumcised and uncircumcised believ-ers (1 Cor. 7:17-20) or between believing masters and slaves (1 Cor.7:21-23). These texts, he notes however, illustrate only an escha-tological equality of persons who are in Christ, an equality onlycoram Deo, with no concern for change in the societal hierarchy.They thus present no evidence of an establishment of actual equal-ity in the social structure of the Jesus movement and the housechurches. What the label eschatological means remains unclari-fied. If, as seems likely, it refers to something to be effected at thefinal consummation, this eschatological equality has no relevancefor assessing the actual concrete structure of the house churches.

Along similar lines, some scholars find Paul affirming the idealof equality but not putting that ideal into practice. Aloys Funk, inhis 1981 study of status and roles in the Pauline letters, is repre-sentative of those taking this position. He raises the issue of equal-ity on several occasions. Paul, according to Funk (1981:75),certainly espoused the ideal equal valuation of gender status, buthis ideal and real valuations were not congruent (as shown inTables 4-13, 1981:73-125). He concludes that Paul held that be-ing in Christ conferred an equality that was only an ideal andthat was legitimated only metempirically and never put intoplace socially (1981:193-94, 207). Paul anticipated the full real-ization of the ideal equality of gender- and class status not sociallyin the present, but metasocially in the eschatological world (1981:193, 204). This realization would be effected by Gods eschato-logical act and not by the believers (1981:193, 204, 209). Paul andhis hearers, Funk observes, knew and respected the differencebetween the ideal of social equality in the eschatological futureand its incomplete realization in the everyday world of the present(1981:193, 199). This distinction, Funk explains, made it possiblefor these Christians to maintain an indifference toward, and avoida critique of, the present social order, including its institutions ofmarriage and slavery, without rejecting them entirely (1981:194).Pauls contribution to the overcoming of social differences wasnot to abolish actual social or economic disparity in respect tostatus and roles, but to reduce social conflict in his communi-ties, but without eliminating their social basis, thereby allowing


the continuation of social and economic inequity within his chur-ches (1981:200). Metempirical legitimation, of course, whether ofthe elimination of religious distinctions among believers who arein Christ (as Funk 1981:75 takes to be the point of Gal. 3:28) orof the equalization of male-female functions (as Funk 1981:74-87finds indicated in 1 Cor. 7), by definition cannot be empiricallyverified or falsified, as Funk himself notes (1981:203, 212). Funk,like Schssler Fiorenza and others, infers from certain texts thatPaul entertained egalitarianism as an ideal. He differs, however,from Schssler Fiorenza in recognizing and acknowledging thatPaul never translated this alleged ideal into economic and socialreality. These real-ideal, empirical-metempirical, social-metasocialdistinctions he makes are instructive but in no way alter the factthat stratification, status differentiation, and socio-economic dis-parity prevailed in the house churches of Paul and beyond.

Yet another and more cogent approach has involved acknowl-edging the patriarchal nature of the house churches and not rais-ing the anachronistic issue of egalitarianism. Gerd Theissen isrepresentative of the many who follow this course in respect tothe Pauline period and beyond. Theissen, in contrast to SchsslerFiorenza, draws a distinction between what he considers the non-familial ethical radicalism of Jesus as attested in the Synoptic tradi-tion and the so-called familial love patriarchalism of Paul (1978:111-19). The former, he has proposed, flourished in Palestine inJesus lifetime, but was replaced by a love patriarchalism whenthe movement spread throughout the Greco-Roman world. But ifit is the case that an egalitarian movement was never instituted asa social reality by Jesus, and if it is clear that Jesus established asurrogate family to replace the biological family, then the use ofthe family as a basis and model of community by Paul and othersafter Jesus death is not a new shift to a family model but rather anelaboration of a family model already in place with Jesus. Thesurrogate family of which Jesus spoke encompassed not only itin-erant missionaries but also local supporters (as Theissen himselfhas shown, 1978:17-23). Thus households and families were notabandoned by all since household bases of the mission and do-mestic hospitality were essential to the movements survival andgrowth. Nor was the family as a communal model rejected; it wasinstead redefined. In this surrogate family, Theissen has shown(1982:69-119, 121-43, 145-74), economic and social disparitiesremained. Familial statuses, roles, and relations remained present

john h. elliott192

but were reassigned on the basis of faith, trust, and obedience.Traditional familial values were upheld but now applied to thesurrogate family in which God is Father, believers are children sub-ordinate to God and the Fathers will, and brothers and sistersare assigned roles and statuses appropriate to their capacities andgifts as apostles, prophets, teachers, hosts and the like.

Scott Bartchy (1999) recently has challenged Theissens notionthat the Pauline communities were patriarchal in character on thebasis of Pauls insistence on a reversal of traditional, patriarchalvalues in the interactions among the Corinthians in the Body ofChrist (1999:76). Paul, Bartchy observes, urged that elites wereto show greatest honor not to each other but to the inferiormembers (1999:76). A reversal of values, however, as I pointedout in connection with the teaching of Jesus (Elliott 2002), is noproof that statuses and social stratification have been or were in-tended to be eliminated altogether. Reversal is the inversion ofexisting positions of status rather than the eradication of stratifi-cation altogether. Bartchys critique of R.A. Atkins study, Egali-tarian Community (1991) is well taken, as is his insistence thategalitarianism is not the opposite of patriarchy (1996:77) andthat a critique of the latter does not require or imply an embraceof the former (as seems to be the trap into which Schssler Fio-renza and others have fallen). That Paul sought to underminepatriarchal ideology (1999:77) and that his basic model for hiscommunities was a family of siblings without an earthly father(1999:69) is less convincing. For father is precisely the term Paulused of himself in portraying his relation to these same Corin-thians (1 Cor. 4:15) and is an image that implies the traditionalauthority of a patriarch as well as the activity of nurturing (Bart-chys gloss; see also 1999:73). The correlative terms children orchild imply the same superordinate/subordinate relationship ofPaul to others; see 1 Cor. 4:14-17; 2 Cor. 6:13; 12:14; Gal. 4:19;Phil. 2:22; Philemon 10; 1 Thess. 2:12; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2;2:1; Tit. 1:4. It is true that Paul adopted the concept of the ekklsia,which appears more democratic than the concept of monarchyemployed by Jesus. But even the Hellenistic ekklsia of Pauls worldwas restricted in its membership and stratified in its structure,made up only of freeborn, propertied males with different statusratings determined by the social ranking of the families to whichthey belonged. The inclusion of women, erstwhile antagonist eth-nic groups, and slaves into the Christian ekklsia and Pauls appeal


to sibling values (Bartchy 1999:75-76) continued the focus ofJesus on inclusivity and intimacy, but none of this led to an elimi-nation of economic disparities or a levelling of all social rankings.

Economic and Social Disparity Within the Pauline House Churches andthe Household of Faith

Not one New Testament text points to an instance of actualeconomic or social equality among the house churches of thePauline period. This alone is a fatal blow to the egalitarian theory.Compounding this fatality is the further fact that the house chur-ches of Paul and of later time were stratified along conventionallines and marked by a plethora of economic and social dispari-ties.

The Corinthian community, a hunting ground for traces ofegalitarianism, actually was rife with economic and social conflict.Social and economic disparities underlay the conflicts betweenwould-be wise and foolish, rich and poor (1 Cor. 1:26-31; 11:17-34); rich vs. poor litigants (6:1-11), strong and weak (1 Cor.8-10). Prompting these conflicts, Gerd Theissen (1982b, 1982c,1982d), A.C. Mitchell (1993), and Dale Martin (1995) have shown,were perspectives and modes of behavior shaped by economic andsocial differences. Pauls proposed solution in every case was notto criticize or condemn the inequities, but to encourage those ofsuperior status not to scandalize and rather respect brothers andsisters of inferior status. This response Theissen has described asa Liebespatriarchalismus where patriarchal structures still char-acterize the Christian house churches while love, that force thatholds together the social body, now shapes the conduct of thebaptized. As to the charismata (1 Cor. 12:1-31), they too were notall equal but of varying quality (12:4-11, 14-31a), with love reck-oned the greatest of all (12:31b-13:13). Baptism creates a unifiedsocial body, where, as expressed in Gal. 3:28, previous distinctionsare still in evidence but not longer determine ones membershipin the body of Christ (12:12-13).

Types of leaders also were distinguished and declared distinctfrom, and superior to, others by virtue of their divinely conferredauthority (1 Cor. 12:28-30), with Paul himself appealing frequentlyto authority and superior rank as apostle (1 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1and passim). The struggles between Paul and the Jerusalem au-

john h. elliott194

thorities (Gal. 1:11-2:10), between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal.2:11-21), and between Paul and the super apostles at Corinth (2Cor. 11:1-12:21) attest to tensions and uncertainties over author-ity and status rather than to a prevailing egalitarian spirit. Withthe super apostles Paul even engaged in a game of one-up-manship(2 Cor. 11:21-12:13). Those spreading discord at Corinth claimeda higher status than others (1 Cor. 1:11-12, 3:1-4:21): the strongclaimed superiority over the weak (1 Cor. 8:1-11:1) and thewealthy eschewed full commensality with the poor (1 Cor. 11:17-34); see Theissen 1982b, 1982c. As a resolution to the problem ofa proper eating of the Lords supper, Paul did not insist on elimi-nating the social and economic disparity evident among the din-ers, but rather urged the wealthy to avoid humiliating the poor atthe assembly by first sating their hunger at home (1 Cor. 11:22,33-34). Marital partners Paul advised to make decisions by con-sensus (1 Cor. 7:2-5) but, as already noted above, females wereconsidered inferior, not equal, to males and believing wives wereexpected to continue to subordinate themselves to their husbands(1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:33-35). He knew the standing inequity betweenslaves and owners (1 Cor. 7:20-23; Philemon) but never advocatedmanumission or the elimination of slavery altogether. In the Pau-line and later communities, wealthy patrons and patronesses hadmore material resources than their clients and thus could serveas hosts and leaders of local house churches (Prisca and Aquila,Philemon and Apphia, Phoebe; see also the households and hostsmentioned in Rom. 16:3-16). To one such patron-host, Stephanasand his household, the Corinthians were told to be subordinateas a sign of respect for this familys service of the holy ones (1Cor. 16:15-16). As another example of inequality, Paul reckonedIsrael, the recipient of Gods promise, to be, as stock, prior toand thus superior tothe Gentiles, though both were recipientsof Gods grace. As founder of churches, Paul was a father, con-cerned for, but superior to, the congregants, his children (1 Cor.4:15; Gal. 4:9). Like Jesus, Paul understood the reversal of statusnot as the elimination of status but as the inversion and relativizingof status (1 Cor. 1:18-31) and reassignment of roles (e.g. womenand youth as leaders on the basis of quality of service and seniorityas believers).

In sum, however one might be inclined to detect in Paul anegalitarian spirit or vision, it is clear that this vision (imagined orreal) was never put into actual practice. The advice he gave con-


cerning social relationships within the house churches involvednot the elimination of economic or social disparities but ratherways of negotiating these differences so as to maximize mutualsocial respect, communal cohesion, and group loyalty and com-mitment. The house churches of the Pauline period were notgroups of equals but were stratified economically, socially andculturally. They were marked not by an economic or social level-ing of all members, but rather by an openness to allregardless ofethnicity, class, or genderand by an intimacy, spirit of solidarity,generosity and commitment to God, Jesus Christ and one anotheras typical of an ancient family. Thus it was fitting that Paul re-garded his fellow believers as brothers [and sisters], and de-scribed the Galatian believers as house members of the faith(oikeioi ts pistes, 6:10).16

The Post-Pauline Period

Families and households, patriarchally structured, remained thefocus of mission and the locus of assembly as the messianic move-ment continued its spread across the Mediterranean world. Fewhints of equality are traced to this period by egalitarian theorists.One explanation offered for this absence of evidence involves theclaim that egalitarianism, once flourishing, was now deliberatelysuppressed within the Jesus movement and patriarchal structureswere reintroduced in order to facilitate an assimilation to Greco-Roman society.

Egalitarianism Eliminated or Never Present?

William Countryman suspected early Christian intimations ofequality in the emphasis on humility, in the praise of poverty, inthe theme of reversal between rich and poor or strong and weak,in a critique of pagan morality, in warnings against self-confidence,and in pleas for unity among the people of God (1981: 115).

16 On Pauls employment of familial terminology and imagery in general seethe pioneering study of Daniel von Allmen (1981). On the aim of such employ-ment in Galatians to create a distinctive social identity, see the instructive stud-ies of Philip Esler (1997, 1998: 215-34).

john h. elliott196

None of these themes, however, as we have already noted above,expressly concerns the issue of equality and none requires thepresumption of a community structured on egalitarian ratherthan patriarchal lines. Crossan, in his study The Birth of Christianity,uses the title A Egalitarian Community? as a heading for a de-scription of the communal sharing of goods narrated in Acts 25(1998:445-76). His concern, however, is that such sharing as Actsrecounts actually took place and constituted an act of resistance(1998: 470-72). However that might be, sharing of goods is quitedifferent from having equal portions of goods and Crossan leavesunclarified and unjustified his use of the term egalitarian. Not-ing also instances of patronal sharing (Acts 4:325:11), he of-fers no explanation of how the same community could be markedby two seemingly mutually exclusive modes of organization.

Schssler Fiorenza, on the other hand, recognizes the lack oftraces of egalitarianism in the period and claims to have an expla-nation. In the post-Pauline period, she avers, there occurred aconscious abandonment of egalitarianism and a reversion to theconventional patriarchal family as a model for the believing com-munity and its organization (1983: 245-342; 1993b:223-24). Thisreversion she finds indicated in the adoption of a householdmanagement tradition (which she calls household codes) forinstruction on communal roles, relations, and responsibilities.These codes and their Christian adaptation in Colossians, 1 Peter,Ephesians, and the Pastorals all presumed stratified householdsordered patriarchally and urged the subordination of women,children, and slaves to the paterfamilias. The introduction ofthese household codes, she maintains (1983:251-84), was aimedat readapting the Christian movement to prevailing patriarchalGreco-Roman structures so as to minimize the perception thatChristianity was a counter-cultural movement causing conflict andundermining the patriarchal structures of the Greco-Roman politi-cal order. This supposed capitulation to the structures and valuesof Greco-Roman patriarchal society then set the pattern for thesubsequent centuries (Schssler Fiorenza 1993b: 224-25). By re-inforcing the patriarchal submission of those who according toAristotle must be ruled, Schssler Fiorenza maintains (1993b:223-24), the household-code injunctions rob the early Christian ethosof co-equal discipleship of its capacity to structurally transform thepatriarchal order of family and state. In seeking to adapt the Chris-tian community to its patriarchal society (italics added), these late New


Testament texts open it up to political co-optation by the Romanempire. The fact that this Christian introduction of an Aristo-telian pattern of patriarchal submission became necessary, shemaintains, indicates that the communal praxis and life of thechurches in Asia Minor at the end of the first century were notyet patriarchally structured (1993b: 223).

This interpretation and view of things, however, rest on Schss-ler Fiorenzas fundamental and persistent assumption that Jesusand his early followers had established a community devoid ofpatriarchal-hierarchical structure. According to this assumption,any New Testament reference to Christian house churches andcommunities manifesting conventional patriarchal patterns mustbe treated as evidence of an introduction of something alien tothe thought and practice of the Jesus movement. This assumption,however, has already been shown to be unsupported and unwar-ranted. The surrogate family created by Jesus and continued byhis followers was always patriarchal in structure and the house-hold management tradition was known and continuously used formoral instruction from Aristotle through the first century ce andbeyond in both Israel and early Christianity.17 Use of this house-hold instruction was entirely appropriate for a community that sawitself as the household of faith (Gal. 6:10) or the household ofGod (1 Pet. 2:5; 4:17; Heb. 3:6; 10:21; 1 Tim. 3:15; also 3:5)(Elliott 1981/1990:182-200). This is especially clear in the case of1 Peter where the concept of household of God served as the coresymbol of Christian communal identity. This letter also disprovesthe notion that the household tradition was employed to fosteraccommodation to Greco-Roman society and moral standards,since the author expressly urges resistance of societal pressures toconform and encourages rejection of societys modes of conduct(1 Pet. 1:14-19; 2:11-12, 17; 3:8-9, 13-17; 4:1-4, 12-19; 5:2-3, 6-7, 8-9).18 Contrary to Schssler Fiorenza , instruction concerning man-agement of the household was not intended as a repudiation ofalleged egalitarian visions and structures but as a response to theneed for communal internal order in the house churches and asan implicit protest against the claims of the Roman emperor tobe the pater patriae with supposed father-like solicitude toward all

17 See Elliott 1981/1990: 208-220 and Elliott 2000: 503-11 and the literaturecited on 2000: 510-11.

18 On 1 Peters aim and strategy see Elliott 1981/1990: 101-64 and Elliott 2000:97-118.

john h. elliott198

his subjects, including the Christian community. On the latterpoint see Elliott, 1981/1990:175-80.

Finally, Schssler Fiorenzas construal of the vacillating historyof the early Jesus movement, built as it is on a web of unprovedassumptions, must be rejected on multiple counts. The allegedegalitarian revolution left not a single trace in the historical re-cord. There is no incontestable evidence of a supposed egalitar-ian phase of the Jesus movement prior to Paul and hence noevidence that Paul and his successors undermined and reversedthis egalitarianism. To the contrary, after Jesus death the move-ment was marked by the same social, economic and legal inequali-ties that prevailed earlier. Complex economic, social, and culturalchanges would have had to precede and accompany the dramaticshifts in the movements internal structure from patriarchy toegalitarianism back to patriarchy.19 Of such changes there is notthe slightest evidence in the historical record. That this all oc-curred within some seventy years, as postulated by Schssler Fio-renza, defies imagination. Her theory is sociologically implausibleand historically indemonstrable.

Expanded Use of the Household Model and Household ManagementTradition

The family and the household continued to serve as a major orroot metaphor of the believing community locally and worldwide.This is shown by the continued employment of familial terminol-ogy (brothers, sisters, brotherhood, familial love, house-hold of God, children of God, father/son, etc.) to describethe community of the believers and the intimacy of their relationto God, Jesus Christ, and one another (Gospels, Acts, Heb., Jas.,1 Pet., 1-2 Tim., Tit., 1-3 John, Rev.). Use was made of house-hold management tradition in order to encourage a respect fororder and harmony within the community (Col., Eph., 1 Pet., 1-2Tim., Tit., 1-3 John, Gospels). Such order was crucial for achiev-ing the social cohesion necessary for ensuring the independentviability of the movement and its resistance to external social andpolitical pressures urging conformity and assimilation. In contrastto Schssler Fiorenzas assessment, use of this household manage-

19 For an extensive list of such required changes see Elliott 2002: 85.


ment tradition served the aim not of assimilating to Greco-Romanpatterns of domination, but of resisting pressures to conformunder the assurance that ones place of belonging was in the oikostou theou, not the emperors patria, that ones father was not theRoman emperor claiming to be pater patriae,20 but the mercifulheavenly father/progenitor who raised Jesus from the dead andbrought about a regeneration to new life (1 Pet. 1:3; Tit. 3:5-7;John 3:1-18), that ones closest allies and supporters were broth-ers and sisters in the faith, and that ones ultimate familial loy-alty (= pistis) was to none but this heavenly father, his resurrectedchild, and ones fellow siblings in the faith.

The evangelists underscored the importance of household andfamily in several ways. First, they preserved and recorded the tradi-tion involving the authentic teaching and activities of Jesus wherehousehold and family figured prominently. On this material seeElliott 2002:78-84. Secondly, in their own narratives and redactionsof the tradition they actually increased the number of instanceswhere houses and households form (a) the setting of Jesus teach-ing and ministry21 and/or (b) its focus.22 Third, a use of the house-hold management tradition is possibly evident in Mark and thenMatthew. Mark 10:2-31 is organized as instruction pertaining todomestic responsibilities and household management (vv.2-12

20 On the cunning claim of the Roman emperor to be father of a subju-gated fatherland and Christian political resistance see Elliott 1981/1990: 170-82.

21 For additional domestic settings of teaching and proclamation see Mark 1:16-20/Matt. 4:18-22; Mark 5:19-20/Luke 8:38b-39; Mark 6:1-6a/Matt. 13:53-58; Mark12:40/Luke 20:47; Mark 13:15/Matt. 24:17-18; Mark 3:20-35; Matt. 13:36-43; 13:52;17:25-27; 23:8-12; Luke 7:36-50; 10:5-7; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 14:1-24; 19:1-10; 22:24-38; cf. also Acts 2:42; 5:42; 18:11; 20:7-12, 20; 28:30-31.

For increased domestic settings of healings see Mark 7:24-30; Matt. 9:27-31;Luke 14:1-6; John 4:46-54; cf. also Acts 9:10-19, 32-35, 36-43; 20:7-12; 28:7-10.

For additional eating scenes in domestic settings see Mark 14:3-9/Matt. 26:6-13;Luke 7:36-50; 10:38-42; 11:37-52; 14:1-6, 7-11; 15:11-32; 17:7-10; cf. also Luke 15:2;22:7-38; 24:28-32, 36-49; John 12:1-8. For the house/household as a setting forepiphanies see Luke 24:28-43; John 20:19-29. See also the addition of genealogiesof Jesus (Matt. 1:2-17; Luke 3:23-38) and of other familial information about Jesusand his relatives (e.g. Matt. 1:18-2:23; Luke 1:5-2:52; see Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2; John2:1-11, 12; 6:42; 7:3-10;19:25-27).

22 For increased references to households and domestic conduct and added familialimagery in the teaching of Jesus see Mark 10:2-9/Matt. 19:3-8; Mark 13: 33-37; Matt.5:14-16, 22-24, 47, 48; 10:21, 25; 13:24-30; Matt. 18:16-18; 20:1-16; 20:20, cf. Mark10:35; Matt. 21:28-32; 21:33, cf. Mark 12:1/Luke 20:9; Luke 6:36; 7:11-17; 12:3;24:28-35; 13:25-28, 35; 15:8-10, 11-32; 16:1-9, 19-31; 17:7-10; 18:9-14; 19:1-10.

john h. elliott200

affirming marriage and proscribing divorce; vv. 13-15, children asmodels for the household of faith; vv. 17-22, 23-31 on possessionsand property). The arrangement is adopted and augmented byMatthew (19:3-30), immediately following a discourse concerningbrotherly and sisterly conduct and forgiveness within the commu-nity (18:1-35). Finally, in regard to portraits of the believingcommunity in the Gospels, it has been shown how the family/household was developed in varying ways as the basic ecclesialmetaphor for Mark (Donahue 1983:31-56; Elliott 2003), Matthew(Crosby 1988; cf. also Duling 1995, 1997) and Luke (Elliott 1991a).Given the abundance of familial terminology in the Fourth Gos-pel (God as father, Jesus as son, believers as children of God, etc.),a similar case, I believe, could be made for John as well. This allbears out S.C. Bartons point (1994:224) that even the intra-famil-ial tensions among the followers of Jesus mentioned in the Synop-tics are no indication that the evangelists adopted an anti-familialstance as such, contrary to the position of egalitarian theorists.Their point is rather that the new primary allegiance of followersof Jesus is the new solidarity which consists of the eschatologicalfamily of God.

Economic and Social Disparities

The Jesus movement and the house churches of this period con-tinued to be shaped by a wide range of social and economic ineq-uities and numerous distinctions of roles and status. Economicinequity and actions of partiality plagued the believers addressedby James (2:1-5:6). The rich oppressed the poor (James 2:6-7; 5:1-6) while the poor nevertheless deferred and sucked up to the rich(2:1-4). Social and economic inequity is acknowledged, but it isinstability and fragmentation that is condemned, not inequity. 1Peter, like Pauls letters, attests the existence of both socially su-perior free persons and inferior slaves in the Christian commu-nity (2:16, 18-25) and, like Paul, encourages the subordination ofwives to their husbands (3:1-6; see also the subordination of recentconverts to their presbyter-leaders, 5:5a). Similar stratification andcalls for subordination are found in Colossians (3:18-4:6), Ephe-sians (5:21-6:9), and the Pastorals (1 Tim. 4:11-6:2; Tit. 2:1-3:2).Exhortations to mutual humility presupposed situations where


persons could exploit rank (e.g. 1 Pet. 5:5b-7; James 4:6-10; Mark10:35-45; see also Phil 2:3).

Although in Matthews Gospel believers are called brothers/sisters (5:21-26; 7:1-5; 12:46-50; 18:15-22, 35; 23:8-10; 25:40; 28:10),the community of Matthew was one that was stratified socially andeconomically, constructed on the model of the patriarchal house-hold, and instructed as a household (so Crosby 1988; Love 1993;Duling 1995; 1997). Luke-Acts highlights the shift of the commu-nity from the Temple and its purity system to the household andits domestic sphere as the new locus of the Spirits action (Elliott1991a, 1991b). The mode of interaction encouraged within thecommunity was that of generalized reciprocity, as would have beenappropriate of groups assuming the identity of fictive kin (Elliott1991a, 1991b).23 Characteristic of Luke-Acts at the same time isthe specific prominence accorded the apostle as one who was withJesus from the beginning (Acts 1:21-26) and the precedence as-cribed to the twelve apostles (Luke 6:13) as honored guaran-tors of the tradition. The sharing of resources recounted in Acts(Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35) implies the unequal distribution of resourceswithin the community and hence the need for a generous shar-ing of goods by the economically better off with those less wellsituated economically and socially. The account of Ananias andSapphira (Acts 5:1-11) points to the reluctance some had even toact in accord with this ideal of sharing (or the reluctance consid-ered plausible by Luke, if this should be judged an ideal scene).Acts also attests the fact that James, Jesus brother, had highersocial status by virtue of his blood relation to Jesus, which quali-fied him for leadership of the Jerusalem community after Jesusdeath (Acts 15:13-21; see also Gal. 1:19; 2:2:6, 9-10). In the Johan-nine community, according to John 120, the Beloved Discipleenjoyed higher social status than Peter or other disciples. Theinterchanges presented in John 21:15-23 reflect disagreement overthis issue of status and appear to offer a correction in favor of arehabilitation of Peters rank in consonance with the Synopticview. In this same Gospel, Mary Magdalene is uniquely accordeda preeminent status as first witness of the risen Christ, thus attest-ing how unsettled and disputed the issue of rank was in the early

23 On the concept of generalized reciprocity (meeting needs without keep-ing score, as with kin) as distinguished from balanced reciprocity (quid pro quo,as with neighbors) and from negative reciprocity (maximized gain and mini-mized loss, as with strangers), see also Malina 1986: 98-111.

john h. elliott202

movement and how nothing like a discipleship of equals pre-vailed.

In regard to women generally, numerous women indeed wereextolled as extraordinary witnesses to the gospel and exemplarsof faith. This included Mary, the mother of Jesus; the praised butunnamed woman of Mark 14 who anointed Jesus body and whois to be inseparably linked with the proclamation of the gospel(Mark 14:3-9); the hemorrhaging woman and dead girl (Mark5:21-43 par.); the Syrophoencian woman (Mark 7:24-30/Matt 15:21-28) as well as Mary Magdalene, first witness of the resurrectedChrist (John 20:1-18). But in none of these several cases were anyconclusions drawn about their social equality with others. Themessianic sect shared with its parent body, the House of Israel,the assumption prevalent throughout the ancient word that fe-males were not equal to but inferior to males, a condition deter-mined by nature, God and the gods. See Elliott 2000:550-94. TheNew Testament evidence further indicates that in the messianiccommunity some women enjoyed roles of patronage and leader-ship, such as Phoebe (Rom. 16:1); Prisca/Priscilla (Rom. 16:3; Acts18:3; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19); Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11); Apphia(Phlm.); Mary, mother of John Mark (Acts 13:12), Lydia (Acts16:14-15, 40) and the elect lady of 2 John (2 John 1). Junia andher husband Andronicus were saluted by Paul as persons of noteamong the apostles (Rom. 16:7), indicating that she too rankedamong the apostles. Those enjoying these apostolic credentialswere distinguished from, and superior to, other leaders and be-lievers, as 1 Cor. 12:28-30 makes clear. In the case of other womenleaders, in addition to their divinely conferred charismata, it ap-pears to have been their elevated economic and social status thatpositioned them, as it did their male counterparts, to serve aspatrons and hence as leaders in the churches meeting in theirhomes. Thus, it was not to some abstract notion of equality thatthey owed their role and status as leaders but to concrete eco-nomic and social realities, contra Schssler Fiorenza (1993b).

In the case of leadership, there was the obvious disparity betweenleaders and followers. Those acknowledged as leaders enjoyedhigher social status than others, whatever the reasons for this ac-knowledgment (whether because of their extraordinary call byGod as apostles or prophets, or because of their seniority in physi-cal years or in the faith, or because of the quality of their servicewithin the community). Throughout the New Testament believ-


ers were urged to render to these leaders the respect and honorthat their status and responsibilities deserved (e.g. 1 Cor. 16:15-15; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:17-19; Heb. 13:7, 17; 1 Pet. 5:2-5a).Paul and other named authors of New Testament compositionspresumed that it was their authoritative status that, along with thecontent of their message, would gain for their writings a favor-able hearing. This superior status points not to equality but tostatus differentiation within the Jesus movement.

In sum, in the final third of the first century the organizationand shape of the messianic movement underwent no majorchanges but remained based on the house churches and theirpatriarchal arrangements. Household heads (males and females)offering, as patrons, the hospitality of their homes for assemblyand worship, served as leaders and were rendered respect andgratitude from the rank and file. Beside the role and status differ-entiations distinguishing leaders and led, there also remained notonly difference but also disparities between free and slave, wealthyand poor, the whole and the ill, the old and the young, malesand females, parents and children, seniors in the faith and recentconverts. There is no evidence indicating that this stratificationwas reintroduced in this period to replace an egalitarian com-munity alleged to have been established by Jesus. Increased atten-tion to domestic relations, issues of household management, andorder within the brother/sisterhood of faith and household ofGod, and increased interest in the oikos/oikia as root metaphor forthe believing community were not part of a repatriarchalizingof the Jesus movement in an effort at assimilation to Greco-Ro-man structures of domination. They were rather evidence of aneffort at establishing the distinctive social identity of the householdof God, enhancing its order and social cohesion, and encourag-ing unqualified commitment of its members to God, Jesus Christ,and one another.

Summary and Conclusions

The egalitarian theory fares no better in clarifying the structureof the Jesus movement after Jesus death than it does in explain-ing the nature of the community established by Jesus. The con-cept of equality/egalitarianism, as utilized by egalitarian theorists,is of recent modern vintage and historically incompatible with the

john h. elliott204

conditions and perspectives of first century persons. It is thus notsurprising that neither the New Testament nor any other ancientsource presents evidence of egalitarian communities or even egali-tarian visions. The evidence required, of course, is not simplyinferences of egalitarianism or eschatological visions of equalitybut historical proof that existing economic and social disparitieswere eliminated in the Jesus movement and replaced by structuresensuring economic and social parity among all believers. Thisevidence has not been provided because it cannot be provided.Texts averred by proponents of this theory to indicate or hint attraces of Christian egalitarianism are open to other and contrast-ing interpretation. To imagine what amounts to two sea changeswithin half a centurya revolutionary shift from traditionallypatriarchally structured households to households structured ascommunities of equals and then within a generation a reversionback to patriarchal arrangementsis as sociologically nave as itis historically indemonstrable. Nor has consideration been givento the complex change in economic, social, and cultural arrange-ments that would have had to occur for such an egalitarian revo-lution to have taken place. This complexity of factors helps toexplain why there was no historical instance of an egalitarianmovement and no historical analogue for the situation SchsslerFiorenza imagines. If some form of egalitarianism actually hadbeen established, we also would expect to find some lament of itsloss by those who had previously benefited from the old arrange-ment. But of such a lament there is also no trace. Nor is thereevidence of any attempt to justify a latter return to patriarchalpatterns, as would be required in order to gain compliance frompersons prospering from previous egalitarian arrangements. Re-garding a focus on the household in the negative fashion ad-vocated by Schssler Fiorenza, finally, distorts or obscures thepositive role played by the household/family metaphor and thefiction of surrogate kinship in the theology and ongoing survivalof the early church. The theory fails on textual, social-scientific,historical, and interpretive grounds.

The household formed the basis, locus, and focus of the Jesusmovement from its inception. The house churches were stratified,not egalitarian, and were marked by economic, social, legal, andcultural disparities, along with differences of age, gender, class,ethnicity and the disparities they entailed. The available evidenceindicates that these conventional differences were not eliminated


but relativized: the differences no longer determined who haddirect access to God and to the media of salvation; they no longerdetermined who were and were not members of the Israel of God;they no longer defined insiders and outsiders, friends and en-emies. But they did continue to define and determine, for betteror worse, the statuses, roles and relations within the Jesus move-ment and its local expressions throughout the first century andbeyond. At no point, the evidence suggests, did the Jesus move-ment ever constitute a discipleship of equals. The concern ofthe nascent church was not to make all equal but to be all-inclu-sive. To put it in a musical idiom, the concern was to get as manypersons as possible into the same choir and on the same pageconceptually, religiously, and emotionally, not to make them allorganists, directors or one mass Favoritchor.

However much we moderns and heirs of the American andFrench revolutions cherish the hard won prize of political andlegal (and in some domains economic and social) equality, wemust as honest historians acknowledge that this is a developmentof the modern era and not to be found in the societies and evenmentalities of antiquity. Equality and egalitarianism in concreteeconomic and social terms is not in the material traces or literaryrecord of the nascent Jesus movement, claims to the contrarynotwithstanding. Jesus turned to the oikos and the family as thefocus of his ministry and basis of his teaching concerning the reignof God. This focus on household and family as both basis andmodel for the movement was maintained by his followers after hisdeath and well into the second century. The household providedone of the chief models, if not the root metaphor, for depictingthe communal identity, unity, intimacy, and loyalty of the believ-ers in relation to God, Jesus Christ, and one another.

On a personal note, I must confess that I have not enjoyedmounting this critique. With every fibre of my egalitarian being Iwish it were demonstrable that the Jesus movement had beenegalitarian, at least at some point in its early history. This surelywould make it easier for todays advocates of equality, amongwhom I count myself, to appeal to our past as a source of inspira-tion and moral guidance for the present. But, as the historical andideological critic in all of us insists, wishing and politically correctideology cannot not make it so. Ultimately, this well-intentionedtheory is an unhappy example of anachronism and idealist think-ing that must be challenged not just because it is indemonstrable

john h. elliott206

or an example of flawed interpretation but also because it is soseductive. The notion that the Jesus movement ever formed acommunity of equals founded by Jesus is a phantasm, a fatamorgana, a wish still awaiting incarnation. If the church were everto put an egalitarian vision into practice, it would be a first-timeevent and an accomplishment that eluded even Jesus and his firstfollowers.

Abstract

The theory that Jesus founded a discipleship of equals that after his deathassumed the shape of egalitarian structured house churches, which by the endof the first century abandoned their egalitarian ethos and organization andassimilated to the conventional patriarchal household pattern of their Greco-Roman environment, fails to stand up under close scrutiny. The theory lacksprobative textual and historical support, is sociologically implausible, conceptu-ally anachronistic, and appears ideologically driven.

Bibliography

Aguirre, R.1984 La casa como estructura base del cristianismo primitivo: las iglesias

domesticas, Estudios Eclesisticos (Madrid) 59/228:27-51. Translatedinto English as Early Christian House Churches, Theology Digest 32/2(1985): 151-55.

Allmen, D. von.1981 La Famille de Dieu. La symbolique familiale dans le Paulinisme . (Orbis

Biblicus et Orientalis 41; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Atkins, R.A.

1991 Egalitarian Community. Ethnography and Exegesis (Tuscaloosa, AL: Uni-versity of Alabama Press).

Banks, R.1980 Pauls Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Historical Set-

ting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Bartchy, S. Scott.

1999 Undermining Ancient Patriarchy: The Apostle Pauls Vision of a Socie-ty of Siblings, BTB 29: 68-78.

Barton, S.C.1994 Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew (SNTSMS 80; Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press).Barton, S.C. (ed.)

1996 The Family in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).Becker, J.

1989 Paulus. Der Apostel der Vlker (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck).Betz, H. D.

1979 Galatians. (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).


Blue, B.1994 Acts and the House Church, in D.W.J. Gill and C. Gempf (eds.), The

Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 119-222.

Bossman, D.M.1996 Pauls Fictive Kinship Movement, BTB 26: 163-71.

Branick, V.P.1989 The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Gla-

zier).Carter, W.

1994 Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 1920 ( JSNTSup 103;Sheffield: JSOT Press).

Corley, K.E.1998 The Egalitarian Jesus: A Christian Myth of Origins, Forum 1-2: 291-

325.Countryman, W.

1981 Christian Equality and the Early Catholic Episcopate, ATR 63/2:115-38.

Crosby, M.H.1988 House of Disciples. Church, Economics, and Justice in Matthew (Maryknoll:

Orbis).Crossan, J.D.

1998 The Birth of Christianity. Discovering What Happened in the Years Immedi-ately After the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco).

DAngelo, M.R.1992 Theology in Mark and Q: Abba and Father in Context, HTR 85:149-

74.De Vos, C.S.

1993 Kai O OIKOS ... The Nature and Religious Practices of Graeco-Roman House-holds as the Context for the Conversion and Baptism of Households in the Actsof the Apostles (PhD diss., Flinders University, Adelaide).

Donahue, J.R.1983 The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (The 1983

Pere Marquette Theology Lecture; Milwaukee: Marquette University).Duling, D.C.

1995 The Matthean Brotherhood and Marginal Scribal Leadership, in P.F.Esler (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity (New York: Routledge):159-82.

1997 `Egalitarian Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict Within theMatthean Group, BTB 27/4: 124-39.

Elliott, J.H.1976 The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: I Peter in Recent

Research, JBL 95/2: 243-54.1979 I Peter: Estrangement and Community (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press).1981 A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and

Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress).1984 Philemon and House Church, The Bible Today 22/3: 145-50.1991a Household and Meals vs. Temple Purity. Replications and Patterns in

Luke-Acts, BTB 21: 102-08.1991b Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institu-

tions, in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson): 211-40. Published also in Hervormde Theologiese Studies47/1 (1991): 88-120.

2000 I Peter. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible37B; New York: Doubleday).

john h. elliott208

2002 Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian. A Critique of an Anachronistic and Ide-alist Theory, BTB 32/2: 75-91.

2003 Household/Family in the Gospel of Mark as a Chief Symbol of Com-munity, forthcoming in G. Bloomquist,

john elliot. jesus movement..not egalitarian

Documents

authentic jesus

jesus creation

jesus tradition

activity of jesus

title jesus

egalitarian theory

egalitarian theorists

egalitarian argument