In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Hidden Transcripts, Models of Empire, and the Gospel of Luke As outlined in the previous chapter, this project will make extensive use of various models from sociology, anthropology, and political science. Such models, while always in need of contextual specificity,1 provide an important basis for better understanding the world of an ancient text like the Gospel of Luke, which is far removed in time, space, culture, and worldview from the lives of today’s readers and interpreters. Luke was not written, nor did Jesus and the disciples live, in a religious vacuum separate from the social, political, and cultural structures of their day, and they should not be treated as if they did. While there may be some concern over the possibly anachronistic application of modern models to ancient peoples,2 carefully chosen social-scientific models yield great insight into the biblical text and help modern readers minimize the unconscious imposition of our own cultural norms and values. Thus I will consider in some detail here the work of three social scientists who illuminate issues of power, empire, and resistance in societies similar to and including the Roman Empire. Gerhard Lenski examines the history of social stratification, the problem of “who gets what [resources] and why.”3 Particularly important for the study of biblical texts in general and Luke in particular is Lenski’s extensive two-chapter treatment of agrarian societies, of which the Roman Empire was one.4 John 1. Dennis C. Duling, “Empire: Theories, Methods, Models,” in The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context, ed. John Riches and David C. Sim, JSNTSup 276 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 73. 2. Stephen C. Barton, “Historical Criticism and Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1995), 74–75; Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology, SNTSMS 57 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 12. 3. Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification (1966; repr., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 2–3. 25 H. Kautsky focuses more narrowly on the politics of the imperial ruling strata, the aristocracy that lives off the labor of those of lower status.5 While he does not consider Rome, with its numerous and thriving merchants, to have been a pure aristocratic empire,6 much of his work still enlightens relevant aspects of its imperial politics. Finally, James C. Scott’s discussion of subordinated peoples’ hidden resistance to their situation of domination will be engaged fully, with a special focus on the role played in such resistance by imagery, texts, and festivals of status reversal. I will close the chapter with a survey of the initial efforts of New Testament scholarship to apply Scott’s theory to the Gospels in a systematic manner, as these studies undergird the role of the hidden transcript in the status-reversal passages that are the focus of this project. All of these models will prove invaluable in enhancing our understanding of the Lukan community’s everyday setting, experience of the Roman Empire, and likely range of responses to the Gospel’s status reversals. Gerhard Lenski and Social Stratification Gerhard Lenski’s extensive study Power and Privilege deals first with the causes of social stratification, the nearly universal process by which human societies distribute scarce valuable resources to various groups and members.7 Although we can argue interminably about whether such stratification is good or bad, natural or human-initiated, the reality is that it exists in essentially every human society, and especially in the Roman Empire of Jesus, Luke, and the New Testament. The very word “empire” is based on the Latin verb imperare (to command) and is regularly defined as a hierarchical system of absolute authority and unequal power relations based on military might.8 The Roman Empire was certainly such a political entity, with supreme power ascribed to the emperor and his local representatives. Additionally, it controlled so many territories and their attendant resources that the economic surplus, and the power inequality caused by its unequal distribution,9 were both massive. Lenski provides valuable insight on how this distribution of power, privilege, and wealth was determined in general, and specifically in agrarian societies like the Roman Empire. 4. Ibid., 189–296. 5. John H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 24. 6. Ibid., 33–39. 7. Lenski...

Share