Models and Methods in Social-Scientific Interpretation

A Response To Philip Esler

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11635299
AutoresDavid G Horrell (0000-0001-9962-6262, Department of Theology, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH, autor de correspondencia)
Año2000
Volumen22
Número78
Páginas83-105
Fecha de publicación2000-10-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal for the Study of the New Testament (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0142-064X • E-ISSN: 1745-5294
EditorialSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0142064x0002207805
OpenAlexW2136307872
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas33

Philip Esler's lengthy review of The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspon dence focused on theoretical and methodological issues which are important to the debate about how a social-scientific approach to the New Testament should be developed and practised. This essay responds to Esler's arguments, particularly those concerning the use of models. First, drawing on the work of various social scientists, especially anthropologists, it is argued that a model-based approach is open to serious criticisms. The problems with such an approach are illustrated from Esler's most recent book. Secondly, the weaknesses in Berger and Luckmann's theory of 'the social construction of reality' are further demonstrated. These weak nesses indicate that their important insights need to be woven into the framework of a more critical social theory. Thirdly, and most briefly, the significance of the major argument of The Social Ethos is defended

Argument (complex analysis · Ethos · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Society, and Development