Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ISSN0142-064X
REVIEW ESSAY:
Dale B. Martin
Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
PO Box 208287, New Haven CT 06520-8287
first-century society' and that the evidence used to support the New
Consensus 'cannot stand up to close scrutiny' (p. 100).
Meggitt argues, on the contrary, 'that Paul and his followers should
be located amongst the "poor" of the first century, that they faced the
same anxieties over subsistence that beset all but the privileged few in
that society' (p. 179). By 'the poor', Meggitt means the 'destitute',
people who live 'at or near subsistence level' (p. 5). In the words of
Peter Garnsey, on whom Meggitt here depends, the poor are those
'whose prime concern it is to obtain the minimum food, shelter, and
clothing necessary to sustain life, whose lives are dominated by the
struggle for physical survival' (p. 5).2 It is precisely among this social
class that Meggitt places all members of the Pauline circles. Not only
does he insist that they were not members of the 'lite', he insists that
they were 'indigent' and 'destitute' (p. 4), they all lived 'brutal and
frugal lives, characterised by struggle and impoverishment' (p. 73), and
they existed in 'abject poverty' (p. 50). The level of poverty to which
Meggitt assigns the early Christians and his insistence that they all
were members of the same economic group do indeed provide a sharp
contrast to what may fairly be called a current consensus on the socio-
economic realities of the Pauline churches.
Meggitt spends a great deal of his energies in this book attacking the
current consensus, which is understandable given its popularity among
so many scholars of early Christianity. One short chapter offers a more
'constructive' portrait of Pauline Christianity. He argues that, once we
understand the economic realities experienced by Pauline Christians,
we can better recognize the distinctive, indeed unique, strategy they
developed to deal with the economic and social hardships they all
shared. They practiced, Meggitt claims, 'mutualism as a survival strat-
egy' (p. 163). Meggitt borrows the concept and terminology of 'mutu-
alism' from studies of nineteenth-century social movements (see p. 157
nn. 16 and 17) but argues that they are applicable to ancient groups as
well. 'Mutualism' is defined simply as 'the implicit or explicit belief
that individual and collective well-being is attainable above all by
mutual interdependence' (p. 158, his emphasis). Meggitt claims that
'mutualism' is not the same as 'reciprocity', since reciprocity may not
be 'equitable', as seen for example in patron-client relations, which
2. Peter Garnsey and Greg Woolf, 'Patronage of the Rural Poor in the Roman
World', in Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London:
Routledge, 1990), p. 153.
insisted that there was no 'middle class' in the ancient world and that
all such talk should be avoided when speaking of the social location of
early Christians. Meggitt, therefore, is certainly right to criticize such
language when it is applied to ancient Christians.
Unfortunately, Meggitt's book is so marred by flawsbasic methodo-
logical problems along with misleading rhetoricthat in the end it is
unconvincing in its main theses. As a corrective to some exaggerations
of a popular consensus it may be welcome, but as a challenge to the
consensus itself and as an alternative proposal, it fails.
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the method of
Meggitt and those he criticizes is his insistence that the ancient socio-
economic world can, indeed should, be divided up into only two
groups: the wealthy or lite (the categories are coterminous for Meg-
gitt), which comprised 1 per cent of the population or less, and the
poor, destitute, indigent, non-lite, or those who lived 'at or near sub-
sistence level' (again coterminous categories), who made up 99 per
cent or more of the population (see pp. 13, 99). In contrast to recent
treatments of ancient society that have urged notions of 'relative depri-
vation' or 'status inconsistency',3 Meggitt states that for the ancient
world 'poverty is best understood as an absolute rather than relative
phenomenon' (p. 5). Thus, 'plebeians', the 'military' and 'merchant
classes' are all grouped together with the destitute, and 'the aristoc-
racy' alone occupies the other side of the dichotomy (p. 115). People
who live right at 'subsistence level' are lumped with all those below or
just above subsistence level (pp. 66-67, 131), indeed with everyone in
the empire not a member of the highest 1 per cent. One may question,
though, whether such simplification constitutes a step backward rather
than forward. Most scholars have argued that more (not less) nuanced
analysis of ancient class and status is necessary if we are to make sense
of the variety of data related to social conflict reflected in the sources.
Meggitt's position that such nuance makes no difference or is mis-
leading and that we must work with only two, and rather simplistic,
categories hardly seems to represent a historiographical advance.
Meggitt foresees that this aspect of his method may be controversial:
am aware that much of my subsequent analysis appears at times
somewhat undifferentiated...' (p. 5). He admits that 'there were sig-
3. For example, see John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social
World of Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975), pp. 27-
28; Meeks, The First Urban Christians, p. 55, and compare p. 215 n. 20.
4. See also p. 50 n. 45, where Meggitt admits that one can differentiate levels
among the non-lite, but such differences are not 'of any importance' (p. 49) for his
own purposes.
6. Especially Meeks, First Urban Christians, p. 73, but see also pp. 52-53, 57-
59.
7. Social Setting, . 135.
sionary is not a sure sign of affluence' (p. 177). Of course not, but
might it not be taken as one possible sign among others? Meggitt
insists that the practice of hospitality or benefaction cannot be taken to
indicate 'a comfortable surplus on the part of the giver' (p. 132). But
how much is 'comfortable'? May not benefaction be taken to indicate
some surplus? And is that not relevant? Elsewhere: '[T]ravel per se
cannot be regarded as a class indicator' (p. 134). But may it be included
along with other indicators to give us some relevant information about
economic ability?11 The designation of Erastus as oikonomos of the
city, writes Meggitt, 'does not necessarily' indicate that he was a 'pow-
erful civic functionary' (p. 139). Granted (and who wouldn't grant it?).
But may it be taken as some kind of evidence? Phoebe's depiction as
prostatis (Rom. 16.1) does not 'unequivocally' indicate that she was
wealthy (p. 147). But does that merit entirely throwing out the term as
social evidence? The examples could be multiplied many times over;
they pervade Meggitt's arguments throughout the book. And they
render his statements unassailable. How could anyone demonstrate that
evidence taken by almost all of us to be partial, suggestive and circum-
stantial necessarily constitute proofs! Meggitt's rhetoric raises the bar
for historical evidence to heights impossible for normal historiography.
But normal historiography need not demonstrate what must be the case.
It need only show what probably is the casewhich is always accom-
plished by cumulative and complicated evidence. Meggitt's language
misleads by surreptitiously raising the bar of proof for his opponents.
Finally, some critical evaluation should be offered for Meggitt's own
constructive account of the economy of Pauline Christianity: his notion
of 'mutualism'. The proposal would have been much strengthened had
Meggitt been able to offer ancient examples of this 'economic strategy'
other than his own interpretation of early Christian groups. When other
scholars present Christian groups as functioning along the lines we
would expect from patron-client structures or the patriarchal house-
hold, they can point to other ancient groups that functioned in the same
ways. When I proposed that the 'strong' at Corinth expected their inter-
actions with fellow Christians to fit the ideology of 'benevolent patriar-
chalism', I supported my suggestion by reference to the function of
11. Note that the people Meggitt criticizes often explicitly agree with himif,
that is, the extreme nature of his statements is taken seriously. Malherbe admitted
many years ago that travel in itself is not necessarily an indicator of high status:
Social Aspects, p. 75.
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.