Comments on: Is Social-Scientific Research of the Bible Useless?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:18:28 +0000

I appreciate that, Richard. But, as with any field of scholarship, one has to separate the most helpful contributions from those that aren’t quite as helpful.

By: Richard Fellows

Richard Fellows — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:30:45 +0000

I don't tend to read many books that take a social scientific approach because one has to wade through a lot of fluff with very little exegetical pay-off. An example of this is the summary of a recent book on the RBL web site here. This long paragraph succeeds in saying absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell. Breath-taking. I read the book in the same series on Timothy and was unimpressed.

By: slaveofone

slaveofone — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:56:15 +0000

This is the way I think about it as someone who has just started looking at the field in terms of the old testament: when one is doing historical work, one is spending a lot of time looking into the past. And sometimes, at the end of the day, one might think they have grasped something of an image of the past, but it has little if no relation to the present. For example, I could spend a great deal of time asking questions like, what did an Israelite prophet look like during the time of the two kingdoms? How would that relate to someone like Elijah or Elisha that we read about in Kings? What did other ancient near eastern “prophets” do or say around that time? What were their prophecies like? How does that parallel or contrast the things Elijah or Elisha are supposed to have said? I may end up with a pretty cool image of some such ancient figure or their literary likeness, but such figures remain ancient, detached, and unfamiliar to my reality. Something like cultural anthropology can then step in and provide a way to make sense of the past in terms of the present. Thomas Overholt can point out amazing similarities and parallels between a character like Elijah or Elisha and modern-day shamans (Cultural Anthropology and the Old Testament). Before, I had an idea of what an ancient Israelite prophet might have looked like in the past. Now I suddenly have an idea of what one might look like in the present. That is one thing social science does. It may seem trivial or peripheral, but it is not. If something from the past can’t be re-interpreted in the context of the present, then it has little more value than mere intellectual curiosity. While many of us reading this blog may have a great deal of mere intellectual curiosity, it is not sufficient. There is a reason why drastically noticeable marks have a habit of appearing over certain words on ancient artifacts like, for instance, the Merneptah stele—because we aren’t content simply to have the intellectual knowledge of a thing. We want to touch the ancient in the present because the present is where we exist. It is the reason we take something written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and turn it into English. Even though English is an anachronism and can’t ever pretend to replace the thing itself, it still enables us to turn the ancient into an image of the present. And that has tremendous value.

By: Erlend

Erlend — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:32:33 +0000

Yes that’s right I did. Good spot. (I guess that is the advantage of having a uncommon Norse first name)

This is quickly moving and exciting field. Over the past 18 months there have been five studies on the issue of Jewish interaction with patronage and benefaction (and the use of socio-scientific models) alone.

Looking forward to your posts.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:16:33 +0000

Thanks, Rob. Good points. That is in part what I'm getting at. Why should we take any offense at social theory if it has some potential? Text criticism clearly pushes our understanding of things further (think of Daniel McClellan's thesis, for instance). But I have found text criticism to be slow and tedious. For me, the benefit is not worth the cost to my own efforts. That said, I still find it very interesting and I'm glad that others have the endurance for it. Others find social theory to be slow and tedious, but I find it exciting. The nature of the beast. I just wish that those who don't have an interest in the "cost" of social theory in their own work, would at least try to appreciate the "benefit" without being so negative about it.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:57:42 +0000

Thanks, Erland. And I believe you have an article published in that vein, yes?

By: Rob Kashow

Rob Kashow — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 06:05:05 +0000

All disciplines have value, even those which are small, new, old, dying, etc. The value of the payoff for me is not very relevant. If scholars chose disciplines based on payoff, where would the insight of, say, text criticism be? If one’s life only contributes to biblical scholarship in one small way, it is significant. For me, if one has a passion for such a discipline, then pursue that discipline. However, it must be kept in mind that all disciplines are indeed survival-of-the-fittest and will die without institutional funding.

By: Erlend

Erlend — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:08:23 +0000

All things in good measure. There are insights from Social-Scientific work certainly. There is a need though, I think, to be a bit more cautious in taking their insights too far and uncritically, but we also need to pay attention to the field and interact with it.

By: Mike K

Mike K — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:59:26 +0000

And it is a good thing all these approaches can be problematized and critiqued, or else there would be no new PhD theses or jobs for us upcoming grad students

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:07:08 +0000

Thanks, Mike! Well said. One could problematize any of these approaches, of course. Weberian ideal types feels particularly ripe for critique. But what approach can’t be critiqued?