Social-scientific criticism is not an entirely separate discipline from historical context analysis, but it often overlaps (Blomberg 2010: 85). This discipline is interested in ancient social and cultural systems implicit in the writings of the NT (Elliott 1993: 8). Social science, developed as an interdisciplinary operation of NT exegesis, uses the
perspectives, theories, models and research of the social sciences (Elliott 2011: ad loc.). Historical context analysis focuses on the history behind the text, whereas social science focuses on the history at the same time as the text (Hayes & Holliday 2007: 67). Whereas historical context analysis is concerned with diachronic aspects of the text, social science deals primarily with synchronic (with time) aspects of the text (Hayes & Holliday 2007: 67). These include implicit cultural values, social relationships, religious and political systems or patterns of behaviour in biblical times that can help clarify the text (Blomberg 2010: 67). Social science goes beyond the question as to what did the text mean then and there? to the question as to how and why the text might have impacted its author and recipients in light of their social, economic, political and cultural surroundings (Elliott 1982: 7-8). Like historical criticism, social-scientific criticism attempts to better understand the context in which the NT was written, to observe how the world would be understood in its original setting (Morrison s.a.: ad loc.). This discipline emphasizes the community aspect of the ancient world. Its most prominent advocates, who disagree considerably with one another on core results, include scholars such as Gerd Theissen, E.A. Judge, Howard Clark Kee, Richard Horsley, Wayne Meeks and Bruce Malina (Cranford s.a.: ad loc.). Historical critics referred to this as the Sitze im Leben, but there was a need for a more refined analysis and articulation; hence, scholars increasingly used it to apply to biblical texts, especially since 1970 (Elliott 2011: ad loc.). Scholars who apply social science to biblical texts presuppose that all knowledge is socially conditioned and transferred to a specific community (Morrison s.a.: ad loc; Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 419). This accentuates the historical particularity of the biblical content by describing its wider original setting in detail (Morrison s.a.: ad loc.), and approaches the interaction between the biblical writings and the contexts in which they originated from a social angle (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 419). As users of the social-scientific method, we would insist that biblical interpretation must involve the clarification of both the social location of the interpreters themselves and that of the texts and authors under examination (Elliott 2011: ad loc.).
Comparatively, hardly any work has been done on the book of Acts as far as social- scientific interpretation is concerned (Barton 1998a: 460). The primary reason for this could be that issues of historicity and theology were the interpreters’ main concerns. Some authors also suggested that the material in Acts is not susceptible to social- scientific scrutiny (Brett 1991: 16-17). Some authors such as, among others, Scroggs (1975: 1-23) even suggest that Acts is not useful for historical and sociological investigation. Not ignoring justified warnings of caution, the consensus is that Acts not only could, but also should be subjected to social-scientific investigation like any other NT book (Barton 1998a: 465). The social-scientific interpretation of Acts is important theologically, because it helps supplement the picture of the impact and expansion of the earliest Christian communities that came into being by virtue of the apostles’ testimony. The social-scientific interpretation can play a potentially important role in guiding us to obtain knowledge of how the early church functioned and came to be what she was in the first century (Blomberg 2010: 91-92).
As far as Acts 17:16-34 is concerned, there are all kinds of realities in the narrative world of the text, namely the altar to the unknown god, the Epicurian and Stoic philosophers, the Athenians’ view of offering to idols and images, their view of cosmology and cosmogony as well as the Stoic understanding of providence and future judgement. The latter can serve as a prime example in this study in Chapter 7. When Paul mentions the coming judgement in verse 31, it is likely that, although he is referring to the Christian idea of future judgement, he also appeals to a Stoic Poseidonian idea of judgement that would draw the attention of his Stoic listeners. This means that Paul was aware of the formative social powers that influenced the minds of his hearers. All these elements have social dimensions and it is likely that history and literary criticism will not suffice to draw satisfactory conclusions (Barton 1998a: 465). The social-scientific method is preferred.
It would also be helpful to make use of the sociology of knowledge, especially Berger and Luckmann’s notion of symbolic universes,24
as a way of making sociological sense of the process of what Luke, by virtue of Paul, is trying to accomplish with the Areopagus speech. This will be significant, especially in the second part of this study, in an attempt to understand how the message of Luke should be conveyed to a contemporary audience.
Although the majority of the proponents of social science consider their method to be closely related to the historical-critical paradigm, there is no indication of methodological homogeneity within the social-scientific framework (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 436). This is obvious in the different approaches that developed within the social-scientific paradigm. I shall briefly mention the four most prominent examples25.
First, there is a methodological reflection on the epistemology of “ethnographic anthropologists” (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 436). The proponents of this model use and test interpretive models in NT studies. This is a socio-cognitive theoretical discussion of whether a model is an appropriate vehicle for interpretation and explanation. It also poses questions concerning the theory of knowledge such as, for instance: What is the nature of knowledge? What are the limits of knowledge? It also considers the sources, criteria and possibilities of knowledge (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 437). Users of this approach believe that anthropologists have always attempted to engage in close participant observation of cultures in order to generate principles that might have wide applications. In addition, if one examines ethnography, one discovers the closest combination of first-hand observation and discussion of the
24
I shall discuss Berger & Luckmann’s (1967) notion of symbolic universes in more detail later.
25 For a more exhaustive and complete study of all the various approaches that developed since 1970,
theoretical dimensions of what has been learned (Esler 2005: 58). It distinguishes information and accounts provided by indigenous informants according to their frameworks of experience, knowledge and rationalisations from the analytical perspective and categories of the modern investigator (Elliott 2011: ad loc.). “This distinction enables the exegete to remain conscious of the gaps separating the modern scholar from the world and literary productions of the ancient cultures under examination” (Elliott 2011: ad loc.).
The second approach draws attention to the social dynamics of the ancient Mediterranean. It expresses both the model-based method as well as the actual depiction of Mediterranean culture (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 437). According to Elliott (1991: xix), a social-scientific method applied to biblical texts aims to determine the “meaning-in-context” of the text as well as its social-rhetorical strategy. In this instance, it examines the social location of the interpreters themselves and that of the texts and the authors (Elliott 2011: ad loc.). According to the social-historical perspective, texts are units of meaningful discourse in oral or written form (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 438). The text is thus viewed as “a vehicle of communication whose genre, structure, content, themes, message and aim are shaped by the cultural and social forces of the social system and the specific historical setting in which it is produced and to which it constitutes a specific response” (Elliott 1991: xxii).
The third approach entails the work of Vernon Robbins who called it “Socio- rhetorical criticism”.26 This was a combination of literary theory and social-scientific criticism and meant a major new direction in biblical studies (Elliott 2011: ad loc.; Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 439). This branch of social science is especially aware of the fact that all kinds of texts were mere surrogates for oral speech. This applies to many of the biblical texts themselves, as they are considered to be various kinds of discourses, homilies, and rhetorical speeches. The authors could not be present to deliver the texts themselves; instead, they sent a surrogate to deliver and enact the texts (Witherington 2009: 2-3). These texts were believed to have power and an effect on people if they were properly communicated and pronounced. That was the reason why there were not only schools of rhetoric throughout the Mediterranean crescent, but rhetoric was also part of primary, secondary and tertiary basic education. In other words, rhetoric is essential not only to illuminate Paul and a few other authors in the NT, but also to analyse all NT writings (Witherington 2009: 5). Consequently, in theological exegetical studies, the focus would be on the biblical writings themselves, their reference to specific sets of values, modes of social interaction or their social situations and strategies to serve as effective means of social communication and interaction (Elliott 2011: ad loc.). Since the text is the central object of the first part of
26 See Robbins (1996). For another prominent scholar who uses socio-rhetorical criticism, see
this study, a sociological approach will primarily be used for the study of Acts 17:16- 34.
“Ideological criticism” is the fourth approach of the social-scientific method. This concerns the work of feminists and liberation theologians who use and merge Marxist and critical social theories (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 439). Critical exegesis can be added to this, from the angle of a “hermeneutics of suspicion”. The latter focuses on the social conditions (social factors that influence an individual or a group) of the people in the text and of those who read and are subject to the text. It refers to experiences and perceptions that form the framework of people’s rationality and view of reality (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 440). Examples include factors such as gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, class, status, roles, vocation, nationality, social groups, political and religious affiliations, language and culture. Examples include the exilic/diaspora hermeneutics and post-colonial hermeneutics or gender hermeneutics (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 440).
Social-scientific criticism, as a deep and rich field of scholarship, abounds in differences and debates. There are still many fields to be explored and new ways to be investigated. One important question that is frequently asked in this ongoing debate is whether social-scientific criticism would be guilty of the epistemological fallacy of positivism (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 441). By this I mean that the use of models for analysing biblical data is none other than predetermined prescription (positivistic). However, Elliott (1993: 48) describes social-scientific criticism as an abductive epistemological approach and not as an “inductive positivistic” approach. “By applying social-scientific criticism in an ‘abductive’ epistemological way, analysis and explanation of biblical data would remain open to the possibility that the exegete’s presumed theory and perspective could be falsified and therefore adjusted (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 442). An example of a person who works abductively is Charles Sanders, whose non-positivistic approach has become widely known in epistemological studies. Finally, context has many advantages, some of which are the awareness of ethnocentrism, differences in cosmology, ideology, and mythology. This is crucial at a time when there has not always been sensitivity towards the historical distance between the first century and modern times (Van Aarde & Joubert 2009: 443).
In concluding this section, I shall apply these social-scientific principles to Acts 17:16-34, in three ways. First, I shall investigate the world of the author behind the text of Acts. Although very little is known about the character and person of Luke himself, there is a great deal to learn about the world in which he lived. Certain parts of the text can be examined and the sociological setting that caused Luke to utter them as well as the setting in which they would have been experienced by the first readers can be investigated. Secondly, I shall examine the world within the text, that is the narrated world of the characters, intentions and events. One example is Luke’s mention of the Epicurian and the Stoic philosophers. I shall investigate why that
would be important to Luke, considering his purpose and the philosophical- sociological context of the Athenians. What difference would it have made if Luke had not mentioned them and would it have made any difference in the effectiveness of Pauls’ speech if he omitted the Stoic ideas? Other examples are Luke’s rhetorical style, and the knowledge of what the Athenians believed concerning the gods. Thirdly, I shall scrutinise the world of the reader. I shall integrate all these principles in the process of studying the text verse by verse.