In this essay it is argued that the relationships between critical approaches in Second Testament studies are determined by prior theoretical and philosophical considerations that cause differences within approaches to precede those between approaches. Therefore, in the actual world of Second Testament critical practices, some social-scientific and literary approaches are indeed complementary and can easily be merged into an integrated approach, while other social-scientific interpretations are incompatible with literary and rhetorical interpretations and cannot be considered complementary. In the course of this argument some of the definitions of each approach currently employed in Second Testament studies are critically evaluated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton, J.1987 "Reading the Bible as Literature: Two Questions for Biblical Critics." Journal of Literature and Theology1/2: 135-53.
2.
Bernstein, R.J.1991The New Constellation: The Ethical-political Horizons of Modernty/postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Botha, J.1994Subject to Whose Autharity? Multiple Readings of Romans 13. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press .
4.
Botha, P.J.J.1994a "Rethinking Progress in New Testament Scholarship ," Neotestamentica28/3: 93-120.
5.
1994b Review of J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Neotestanientica28/1: 251-55.
6.
Comaroff, J.L.1982 "Dialectical Systems, History and Anthropology: Units of Study and Questions of Theory. Journal of Southern African Studies8:143-72.
7.
Craffert, P.F.1995a "The Anthropological Turn in New Testament Interpretation: Dialogue as Negotiation and Cultural Critique." Neotestamentica29/2: 167-82.
8.
1995 b "On New Testament Interpretation and Ethnocentrism," in The New Testament and Ethnicity, edited by M. C. Brett.Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Forthcoming.
9.
1995 c "Reading and Divine Sanction: The Ethics of Interpreting the New Testament in the New South Africa," in Religion and Rhetoric: Second International Conference on Religion and Rhetoric, edited by T. Olbricht & S. Porter.Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Forthcoming.
10.
1994 "Through the Eyes of a Historian: Willem Vorster on Historical Interpretation." Neotestamentica28/3: 51-76.
11.
Crossan, J.D.1994 "Responses and Reflections." Pp. 142-64 in Jesus and Faith: A Conversation on the Work of John Dominic Crossan, edited by J. Carlson & R. A. Ludwig.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
12.
Derrida, J.1992 " 'This Strange Institution Called Literature': An Interview with Jacques Derrida." Pp. 33-75 in Jacques Derrida: Acts of Literature , edited by D. Attridge.New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
Du Plessis, I.J.1995 "Integrating Historical and Literary Study: Luke as Case Study" Paper read at 1995 SNTS meeting .
14.
Elliott, J.H.1993What Is Social-scientific Criticism?Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
15.
Esler, P.F.1994The First Christians in Their Social Worlds: Social-scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London, UK: Routledge.
16.
Fish, S.1990 "Rhetoric." Pp. 203-22 in Critical Terms for Literary Study, edited by F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Gowler, D.B.1994a "The Development of Socio-rhetorical Criticism ." Pp.1-36 in New boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark , edited by D. B. Gowler.New York, NY: Peter Lang.
18.
1994 b "Shall We Marry Our Enemies? (II): The Rocky Courtship of Literary and Social-scientific Criticisms in New Testament Studies." Paper read at 1994 SBL Meeting. Pp. 1-9.
19.
1993 "Hospitality and Characterization in Luke 11:37-54: A Socio-narratological Approach." Semeia64: 213-51.
20.
1991Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend: Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
21.
Graff, G.1990 "Determinacy/indeterminacy." Pp. 163-76 in Critical Terms for Literary Study, edited by F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Green, J.B.1992 "The Social Status of Mary in Luke 1, 5 - 2, 52: A Plea for Methodological Integration." Biblica73: 457-72.
23.
Greenblatt, S.1990 "Culture." Pp. 225-32 in Critical Terms for Literary Study , edited by F. Lentricchia & T McLaughlin.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Herzog, W.R.1983 "Interpretation as Discovery and Creation: Sociological Dimensions of Biblical Hermeneutics." American Baptist Quarterly2: 105-18.
25.
Hobbs, T.R.1990 "Crossing Cultural Bridges: The Biblical World." McMaster Journal of Theology1: 1-21.
26.
Ledbetter, M.1993 "Telling the Other Story: A Literary Response to Socio-rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament." Semeia64: 289-301.
27.
Levich, M.1985 "Interpretation in History: Or, What Historians Do and Philosophers Say." History and Theory24: 44-64.
28.
MacIntyre, A.1971The Idea of a Social Science." Pp 211-29 in Against the Self-Images of the Age: Essays on Ideology and Philosophy. London, UK: Duckworth.
29.
Mack, B.L.1990Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
30.
Malina, B.J.1996 "Rhetorical Criticism and Social Scientific Criticism: Why Won't Romanticism Leave Us Alone?" in Religion and Rhetoric: Second International Conference on Religion and Rhetoric, edited by T. Olbricht & S. Porter.Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. Forthcoming.
31.
1991 "Reading Theory Perspectives: Reading Luke-Acts." Pp. 3-23 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, edited by J. H. Neyrey.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
32.
Martin, D.B.1993 "Social-scientific Criticism." Pp. 103-19 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application , edited by S. R. Haynes & S. L. McKenzie.Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press .
33.
Morgan, R., and J. Barton1988Biblical Interpretation. Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
Oakman, D.E.1993 "Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers' Dens: Pronouncement Stories within Social-systemic Perspective. Mark 11:12-25 and Parallels." Semeia64:253-72.
35.
Perkins, P.1989 "Crisis in Jerusalem? Narrative Criticism in New Testament Studies." Theological Studies50: 296-313.
36.
Petersen, N.R.1978Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.
37.
Petrey, S.1985 "Speech Acts in Society: Fish, Feldman, Austin and God ." Pp 43-61 in L'hermeneutique Texte, Lecture, Réception. Texte: Revue de critique et du Théorie litteraire, n. 3. Toronto, ON: Texte Trinity College.
38.
Powell, M.A.1990What Is Narrative Criticism?Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
39.
Robbins, V.K.1995 "The Present and Future of Rhetorical Analysis." Paper read in August at the London Conference on the Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture.
40.
1994 "Interpreting the Gospel of Mark as a Jewish Document in a Greco-Roman World." Pp. 219-42 in New Boundaries in Old Territory: Form and Social Rhetoric in Mark 9, edited by D. B. Gowler.New York, NY: Peter Lang.
41.
1992 a "Introduction to the Paperback Edition." Pp. xix-xliv in Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-rhetorical Interpretation of Mark, edited by V K. Robbins.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
42.
1992 b "A Socio-rhetorical Look at the Work of John Knox on Luke-Acts ." Pp. 91-105 in Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions to the Study of Acts, edited by M. C. Parsons & J. B. Tyson.Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
43.
1992 c "Using a Socio-rhetorical Poetics to Develop a Unified Method: The Women Who Anointed Jesus as a Test Case." Pp. 302-19 in SBL 1992 Seminar Papers, edited by E. H. Lovering.Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press .
44.
1991 "Text and Context in Recent Studies of the Gospel of Mark ." Religious Studies Review17/1: 16-23.
45.
Rohrbaugh, R.L.1993 "Social Science and Literary Criticism; What Is at Stake? " Hervormde Teologiese Studies49/1-2: 221-33.
46.
Scott, B.B.1993 "The Chinese Box: Method within Method." Semeia64: 275-81.
47.
Skinner, Q.1975 "Hermeneutics and the Role of History." New Literary History7: 209-32.
48.
Stamps, D.L.1992 "Rhetorical Criticism and the Rhetoric of New Testament Criticism." Journal of Literature and Theology6/3: 268-79.
49.
Taylor, C.1985 "Understanding and Ethnocentricity." Pp. 116-33 in Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2, edited by C. Taylor.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Thompson, M.P.1993 "Reception Theory and the Interpretation of Historical Meaning." History and Theory32: 248-72.
51.
Van Eck, E.1993Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark's Story of Jesus: A Narratological and Social Scientific Interpretation. DD thesis, University of Pretoria.
52.
Vorster, J.N.1994 "The Epistemic Status of Rhetoric." Neotestamentica28/2: 469-93.
53.
Wax, R., & M. Wax1962 "The Magical World View." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion1: 179-88.
54.
Wuellner, W.1989 "Hermeneutics and Rhetoric: From 'Truth and Method' to 'Truth and Power.' " Scriptura S3: 1-54.
