JSNT29.3 (2007) 251-275 Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://JSNT.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/0142064X07076306 Structure versus Agency in Studies of the Biblical Social World: Engaging with Louise Lawrence Zeba A. Crook Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Canada zeba_crook@carleton.ca Abstract Taking Louise Lawrence's ethnographic study of the Gospel of Matthew as a starting point, this article questions whether the structure vs. agency debate in social theory can be settled by proclaiming (or presupposing) one over the other. Indeed, sociological theory has been moving towards recognizing that society, and alongside it culture, must include both. This theoretical question matters for our understanding of the New Testament world. Can we, for instance, assume a single ratio of structure to agency for the ancient and the modern worlds? I suggest that other aspects of a culture should be brought to bear on this question, namely collectivism and individualism. Surely, a collectivistic culture (the biblical world) will operate with a different degree of structure than will an individualistic culture (North America and parts of Europe). Key Words Structure, agency, sociology, social-scientific criticism, Gospel of Matthew, honour and shame, individualism, VOM Introduction The use of social science models in biblical studies is neither new nor novel. If longevity can be the test of validity, then modelling in the study of the ancient world is here to stay. Nonetheless (and not unjustifiably), questions persist among critics, who are sympathetic or hostile to the use of models, concerning various aspects of the modelling enterprise. One recent book in particular expresses many long-standing complaints, reflects some long-standing misconceptions of the use of models, and raises other interesting issues. This book is Louise J. Lawrence's An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew: A Critical Assessment of the Use of the Honour Joumalforlhe Said· afrte in Tesunmna