The Socio-Scientific method

The social-scientific method came to the fore in the 1970s. It developed as a result of a growing awareness of how the dominant historical-critical method leaves gaps within its findings. The historical-critical method tends to be “incommensurate with the intention of the texts” (Herzog 1992:760–766). This means it draws on the ideology of objectivism, it limits the kind of questions that could be asked of the text (since the method creates boundaries to those questions), and it diminishes interaction with the community for which those texts were intended. Lastly, it is often unable to adapt to historical changes, and therefore always prone to anachronism. A singular application of the historical-critical method creates a deficiency in examining how the text interacted with its socio-cultural context. In contrast to the historical- critical method, the socio-scientific critical method can be defined as follows:

Social-scientific criticism of the Bible is that phase of the exegetical task which analyzes the cultural and social dimensions of the text and of its environmental context through the utilization of the perspectives, theory, models and research of the social sciences.

(Elliott 1993:7)

Here a definition of ideology by van Staden is of value: an ideology is “a system of belief and values that is used consciously or subconsciously to maintain or further the interest of a specific group” (van Staden 1991:72; Malina 1986:178). The importance, therefore, of an ideology for a social group is how it maintains and propagates various beliefs and values of that specific group. Ideology offers important insight into the origin, aims and direction of a social group as a social entity.

Both historical criticism and social-scientific criticism is a form of exegetical study. But historical criticism focuses on the “historical, literary and ideational issues” observed within the text (Van Aarde 2002:421). Historical criticism focuses on the progression of events within a historical timeframe. It examines the interaction between history and the applicable religious texts. It is focused on historical worlds and the social description of those worlds. It tends to explore what happened “when” and “where”. It excels at describing “individual actors, extraordinary actions, distinctive properties, personal relationship and on the diachronic change of these aspects in the texts” (van Eck 2001:595). It goes to reason that in the exploring of the unfolding of the historical in a linear fashion, historical criticism tends to be less focused on the cross-sectional nature of the social context of that particular historical world.

Social-scientific criticism on the other hand has more of a phenomenological approach: it tends to study and describe what happens again and again. It takes a cross-sectional view at the social context of a historical world. Social-scientific criticism utilises the social sciences in its exegetical task. Social sciences are that division of modern science that focuses on the study of human societies, social systems and their component parts, social behaviour, and social processes. It includes disciplines such as social anthropology, ethnology, history, economics, politics and archaeology. Therefore, its methods and models lay a good foundation for the aims of the socio-scientific method (Elliott 1993:17–19). The socio-scientific method examines text in the light of its social context. It describes how the text interacts with its social context. Elliott (1993:13) defines the scope of social-scientific criticism as:

…the interrelation of texts and social contexts, ideas and communal behaviour, social realities and their religious symbolization, belief systems and cultural systems and ideologies as a whole, and the relation of such cultural systems to the natural and social environment, economic organization, social structures and political power.

By posing the data and research questions in new ways to enhance the exegesis of the text, the socio-scientific method provides a framework with the use of social

models. Where historical criticism predominantly follows the line of historical development, and how historical concerns interact with the text, socio-scientific criticism takes a cross-sectional view within a certain historical period and studies the interaction and connection between a society and its historical context — how the society is responding at a given time to the historical challenges of its day. As van Eck (2009: 315) describes it:

Social-scientific criticism approaches texts from the premise that the historical contexts of texts have further social dimensions than only “that what was going on when and where”. From a social-scientific point of view, the contexts of texts also refer to social behaviour involving two or more persons, social groups, social institutions, social systems and patterns and codes of sociality.

The socio-scientific method provides two foci, namely the use of social sciences to construct models and theories by which to analyse the text, and to clarify and explore the rhetorical effect of the text within its social environment (van Eck 2001:595–596).

3.1.1 SOCIAL MODELS AND THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC APPROACH

A researcher consciously or subconsciously holds a wide collection of values and presuppositions shaped by his or her own cultural and ideological environment. This opens the research to the twin dangers of anachronism and ethnocentrism: if the institutional and cultural norms of the researcher are different from those of the society studied, the researcher may misinterpret the available data. The researcher may read aspects of his or her own cultural and institutional milieu into the data. Even with the use of social models, a researcher runs the risk of working in an anachronistic way — since the models are shaped by researchers in the here and now. This links with the bigger issue of presuppositions that drive the research. The researcher operates within a framework of certain assumptions by which he or she approaches the research question. This framework is provided by the shared meaning of the social system which the researcher finds himself or herself in (Malina 1996:236). The presuppositions of the researcher create a perspective or view on

the available data. The ideal is absolute objectivity, but this is not possible, or even reasonable in research. It is important that the researcher evaluate and stipulate his or her presuppositions when approaching the textual data.25

Hence the need arises to formulate accurately the emic and etic perspectives of the data studied. Emic data refers to the first-hand experience of the indigenous themselves. Data consists of the “what” and the “how” of their experiences. In the case of Biblical exegesis, the emic perspective is contained in the Biblical text. The etic perspective of the data is the perspective of the observer or researcher of the emic data (the “why” of the experiences of the society studied). The data that the emic perspective provides, may require the use of models to aid a more objective interpretation (the etic perspective) of the data (Elliott 1993:38). Models aid this goal by providing a framework that is distilled from social phenomena. It provides a guide that helps keeping the emic data in its social context. In the words of Malina (2001:18): “Models are abstract, simplified representations of more complex, real- world objects and interactions. Like abstract thought, the purpose of models is to enable and facilitate understanding”. This means that models are not social reality itself, but a conceptual framework that depicts social reality. Models achieve this by distilling the important concepts that underpins social reality. In the process models become simplified representations of social realities. As Freyne (1995:24) describes it: “models can never encapsulate the whole of life in all its complexity, but rather select and highlight certain key aspects, which after careful reflection are deemed to be crucial in understanding the whole”.

The use of models is important. It prevents the researcher from drowning in a myriad of details that the data may present, as well as the myriad of possibilities that the etic perspective of the data may present. Social models provide selectivity in choosing the appropriate data. This selectivity is important, because the amount data available to the researcher may obscure what is important for the research. A social model aids the researcher to select what is the most important and applicable data to the

25 _{The basic presuppositions in this dissertation will be stipulated both concerning the} research methodology (§ 3.3), as well as presuppositions derived from the literature review (§ 2.3).

chosen research question. The use of models furthermore reduces the subjective reading of data in an inductive study.26 Since appropriate models guide the interpretation of the data, the significance of the data is given its due place within the framework of the model. Although the model does not lessen the importance of the correct interpretation by the researcher, it does decrease the onus on the researcher to give meaning to a wide array of data without the aid of a guiding framework. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the use of particular social models reflects the presuppositions and philosophical foundation of the researcher. It aids in providing a transparent insight into the approach of the researcher. It allows critical evaluation of the framework used to interpret the data, and hence gives a platform for greater accuracy when interpreting data.

Although models provide insight into the presuppositions of the researcher, care should still be taken in the use of models — exactly because a measure of personal judgment is involved with the development (and application) thereof. Above all, the fit of the model should be considered in relation to the research question. The fit of a model is determined by how applicable the model is to the particular textual data. Care should be taken not to merely superimpose a model on textual data in a predetermined fashion. According to Craffert (2001:21–42), the following weaknesses of models should also be taken into account when doing research: the use of models may produce a narrow set of boundaries that predetermine the outcome of the interpretation of the data. Once the model is in use it holds the data in an “iron law of perspective” of what falls within its domain and what should be excluded. Important data may be excluded because the model dismisses it. The many presuppositions that drive the field of sociology may also produce many

26 _{With inductive theory testing, all data are collected before a theory is formulated.} Conversely, with deductive theory testing, a theory is formulated, and then tested with data. Mostly in research, both the deductive and inductive theory testing is used: collected data tests and refines an existing theory (Bell 2009:32). This dissertation follows an inductive study more closely. Data is examined (Lukan prophetic discourse) to formulate a theory on the interaction between Lukan discourse and social conflict in early Roman Palestine. However, in an inductive study, data is still not examined in an ideological vacuum. The reading of data is subjective because of the existing presuppositions of the researcher. Hence models are important in reading the data. Models moderate the subjective views of the researcher, and offers insight into the presuppositions of the researcher concerning the conclusions that he or she make.

models that can be applicable to a research question. Where the researcher faces a vast array of data without the aid of models, now a researcher faces a vast array of models that creates confusion when it comes to interpretation. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that system theories and models are weak in determining causation, but that they assist in clarifying interrelationships between social phenomena. This is because the method used with social models is cross-sectional, whereas the historical critical method is linear. With cross-sectional (sociological) studies the connection and relationship between phenomena and events is studied, but with linear (historical) studies the unfolding of one event upon another is studied. These include chronology as well as causative relations. So, when using social models, interrelation rather than causation, should be pursued.

Herzog (1992:760–766) describes two further dangers with the use of social models in exegesis. How can data prudently be extracted from texts by socio-scientific means if it was not written with the goal of delivering social data? Would textual data actually give meaningful results when viewed through the lens of social models? Lastly, an allegation that can be levelled at the socio-scientific method is that it tends to be reductionist: the method may be applied in such a way that all of theology is explained away by sociologic and anthropological causes. In the process theology becomes a product of social forces. Herzog (1992:760–766), like Malina, counters these dangers by lauding the self-awareness these models provide. It is inevitable that an interpreter brings some contemporary model of sorts (whether social or from another discipline) into the work of interpretation. But being self-aware of the chosen model, and how it fits with the research question, provides a control of sorts that keeps the researcher from extravagant claims. In terms of the danger that the social sciences cause a reductionist approach to the text, Herzog counters that ideas do not develop in vacuums. The social sciences provide perspectives on social context of the Biblical authors and people. And Biblical texts are written in a social context.

Malina (2001:18) recognises that models cannot ultimately be proven right or wrong since they are hypothetical. Rather, inaccuracy and superficiality has to be avoided in the representation of reality by the model. This implies a critical and self-critical use of models. The critical use of models examines the formation of the model. If the model does not reflect the data accurately the interpretive results of the research will

be misguided as well. The self-critical use of models is to adjust and improve the model as it is applied to the data (Craffert 2001:23). Both the opportunities and dangers require serious thought from the prospective researcher. In an attempt to draw on the positives of the socio-scientific method, and avoid dangers posed, this dissertation will employ the socio-scientific method by means of the socio-scientific model of the influence of Roman imperialism on social conflict in early Roman Palestine (Jacobs 2013) in a heuristic way.27 The model will assist in asking new questions of the text concerning social conflict, identifying ideologies and parties to this conflict in the text, and categorising areas of conflict in various social domains. However, once the applicable pericopes have been identified and categorised, the task of further exegesis will rely on the socio-rhetorical method.