EL MATERIALISMO HISTÓRICO EN ARQUEOLOGÍA
II. 2. EL ESTUDIO DE LA MENTALIDAD EN LA
In the twenty-first century the historical-critical tradition continues to exer-cise influence because people continue to be interested in questions about the history recorded in the Bible and the history of its origins. But alongside the historical questions, new kinds of questions have come into prominence, which have ties with the social sciences. We first consider this shift in promi-nence and then consider the social sciences themselves.
A Cultural Change
In 1962 James Barr raised questions about the dominance of a historical approach to the Bible.1 He observed that reflections about “revelation through history” figured prominently in modern theologies. These reflections may have helped theologians apologetically in interacting with the dominance of historical explanation in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century secular culture. But he wondered whether academic environments were undergoing a shift, in which social sciences would play a role.
Historical science is no longer the chief leader and explorer in the mental environment which surrounds us and challenges us, as was the case in the
1 James Barr, “The Interpretation of Scripture. II. Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” Interpretation 17 (1963): 193–205, based on an inaugural address delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1962.
57 The Change from History to Structure
nineteenth century. The modern phenomenon is the rise of sciences like the social sciences, anthropology, economics, linguistics (to mention a group from which at least one or two will increasingly influence biblical studies);
their methods are only in part historical; and they show us that human life (or
“historical existence” as we with our historical bias so often call it), can be and must be studied with trans-historical as well as with historical approaches. We can expect that challenges to Christian faith will arise from this newer world of thought: they will be quite different from those to which we have so far adjusted ourselves. For these challenges our present biblical and theological answers may not be relevant.2
Barr did not predict in detail what the challenges would look like. But he was correct in thinking that linguistics and sociology and anthropology would become influential in biblical studies. The Society of Biblical Literature, a major academic society for biblical studies, now contains in its annual meeting several distinct “Program Units” or sections specifically devoted to linguistic or sociological study. But these disciplines have an influence well beyond the sections specifically devoted to them.
Study of Structure
We can appreciate some of the shift away from the dominance of “history” by considering the distinction between diachronic and synchronic approaches to fields of academic study. The distinction was first introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure as he was on the way to founding the twentieth-century discipline of “structural linguistics.”3 Diachronic study, study through time, focuses on the historical development and changes in languages as the observer travels through time. By contrast, synchronic study focuses on the state of language as a system available to speakers at one point in time. Saussure saw that any particular language at a particular point in time had a distinct structure in the system of sounds used to convey meanings, in the words that it provided for expressing meanings, and in the grammatical structures joining the words into larger constructions like sentences. This distinct structure could become a distinct object of linguistic study, namely synchronic study. The result was structural linguistics. This discipline contrasted with historical linguistics, which had in previous centuries studied changes in language diachronically.
2 Ibid., 203.
3 Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), published posthumously based on lectures from 1906 to 1911. For a brief account of the rise of structural linguistics, see Vern S. Poythress, In the Beginning Was the Word: Language—A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), appendix E. For structuralism, see Poythress, “Structuralism and Biblical Studies,”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 3 (1978): 221–37.
The same distinction between diachronic and synchronic study can be carried through with other social sciences. For example, anthropology stud-ies mankind. This discipline can be divided into historical anthropology and social anthropology. Historical anthropology studies the historical and prehistorical development of human beings and human societies. Social anthropology studies the structure and functioning of a human society that is already constituted. Since information about past societies is limited, the social anthropologist usually studies a particular contemporary society, typi-cally a tribal society outside the sweep of modernity. This study is for the most part synchronic, looking at the functioning of a society at a particular time rather than its development through time. It is structural anthropology, studying the regular functioning of social institutions and relationships.4
The concerns of sociology overlap with those of anthropology. Sociologists can study the changes in a society over time, such as the effects of the Industrial Revolution or the spread of television. But much sociological study focuses on social structure as it now exists. It is synchronic study.
Old and New Challenges
So what change do these disciplines imply for studying the Bible? Old chal-lenges continue. History has not ceased to be a focus of interest for modern students. And miracles recorded in the Bible challenge modern thinking by revealing a God who acts concretely and spectacularly.
For newer disciplines like linguistics, sociology, and anthropology, ques-tions about miracles have lesser importance. Even if unusual events occur, the overall structure of a particular language or a particular culture remains in place. The newer disciplines raise questions in another direction, by making people wonder whether language or society or culture is a kind of prison, an ultimate limit on human vision that we can never escape. The multiplic-ity of languages and cultures raises questions about whether we can know universal truth from within the limitations of the language and culture that we “inhabit.”
We consider these challenges in subsequent chapters.
4 Social anthropology typically studies premodern societies, while sociology studies modern societies, those affected by industrialization, by technology, and more recently by electronic information. Similar principles characterize both disciplines. So in discussing their pertinence to understanding the Bible, I will not strongly distinguish them. The term structural anthropology sometimes designates narrowly the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss and those associated with him. But in a broader sense every kind of social anthropology that analyzes synchronic social structure is “structural.”