SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO BIBLE

Introduction

Israel in the period 1250-1050 BC was an egalitarian society throwing off the
oppressive rule of Canaanite city states, particularly according to Norman Gottwald’s
‘The Tribes of Yahweh’ There is a strong case for regarding Israel in this period as an
egalitarian and free society. Benjamin Gottwald and Frank Crüsemann have argued
that ancient Israel’s opposition to monarchy was partly due to the fact that in the pre-
monarchic period, political power in Israel was spread among the people through their
membership in groups with equal political status. Benjamin Crüsemann and Gottwald
argue that pre-monarchic Israel was in fact a segmentary society, rather than a
monarchy, with centralised power held by one chief over the rest of his people. This is
an extension of their view of African culture, where authority is distributed across
groups rather than centralised.

The aim of this article is to show that pre-monorchic Israel was not segmentary
society rather, association of smalls chiefdoms and the monarchy was the eventual
dominance of one of the chiefs over the rest.

Discussions from the Essays of African Political System

Sigrist's study of the concept of segmentary civilizations is cited by Crusemann as

support for his notion that opposition to monarchy in Israel stemmed from the
imposition of a foreign power structure on a fundamentally egalitarian culture. Wilson
and Gottwald did not appear to use Sigrist. In her attempt to represent pre-monarchic
Israel as a segmentary society, Schafer-Lichtenberger depends heavily, and somewhat
naively, on Sigrist.

According to Sigrist, Durkheim coined the phrase "segmentary society" in his book
"De la division du travail social" (1873). Durkheim distinguished between centrally
organised civilizations and those that were not when researching how work was
distributed in various groups. The latter was composed of several autonomous and
politically equal groups that were not distinguished by distinct jobs or specialisations
but were yet incorporated into a single community. He referred to such civilizations as
segmentary, meaning that they were made up of several autonomous tribes or
segments.

African political systems were more concerned with the allocation of power than with
the division of labour. Sigrist argued that segmentary societies could not be as easily
classified as previously assumed. According to Sigrist, ‘the more we study about
segmentary civilizations, the more we discover that it is the exception rather than the
rule of for clans and lineages to have an exactly equal status. Sigrist contends that
Evans-Pritchard and Fortes’ definition of a segmentary society is an
oversimplification of what it means to live in a non-egalitarian society. He contends
that such a society must have politically equal units with identical internal hierarchies,
but with varying levels of status and function.

I- Many Differences in the Segmentary Society

Segmentary societies are political entities of small segmentary societies. They come
in various sizes - the smallest have 35,000 members, while the largest have 800,000.
The segments (unilineal descent groupings) are the smallest political entities within a
segmentary society. In big segmentary societies, the minimal political unit is
frequently defined by territorial proximity. Many unilinear descent groups are
exogamous; however, Nuer unilinear, endogamous people are more common. Some
segmentary civilizations feature age-set systems that span descent groups, whereas
others do not. There are significant disparities in the procedures through which sectors
are integrated to produce the society as a whole. The Nyabingi have a priestly caste
with a monopoly on religious power, and the Tiv have no priests, and ‘elders’ fulfil
ritual functions. The Konkomba political units are based on territorial possessions,
while the Nuer are united by a common adversary.

A number of African societies share characteristics which make it reasonable to group

them under the heading of segmentary societies. Whether these characteristics entitle
us to include pre-monarchic Israel under the definition is another matter. Sigrist
makes out a satisfactory case for retaining the term segmentary society. Given these
distinctions, it is reasonable to wonder if the term "segmentary society" serves any
useful purpose at all. Sigrist quotes Tribes Without Rulers as noting that "segmentary
2
lineage systems (are) a somewhat arbitrarily defined category." Sigrist also debunks
M.G. Smith’s claim that distinguishing between centralised and decentralised
societies is a mistake.

Parallels Between Segmentary Society and Pre-monacrchic Israel

There are numerous parallels between segmentary societies and pre-monarchic Israel
in the Bible and the early history of modern-day society, as well as between ancient
Israelite society and that of its forebears, the Abrahamic Israelites.

1. Amphictyonies are cultic communities that are confederations. Territorially

close units can work together, especially against mutual foes. Leaders emerge
in times of war, but their impact is fleeting. Amphitryonies are similar to Israel
as depicted in the book of Judges.
2. Joab avenged his brother Asahel's death by killing Abner at the gate of
Hebron, where councils were convened. The book of Ruth depicts Boaz
convening a council of ten men to hear the subject of Elimelech's inheritance.
3. pollution of the land via bloodshed The concept that unauthorised bloodshed
pollutes the soil is abundantly documented in the Old Testament.
4. In segmented cultures, leaders may seek power by recruiting followers of low
or no rank. In this way, they bypass the familial networks that ordinarily
govern political ties. The leader can wield power through a group that is
completely devoted to him. Unjustified bloodshed pollutes the earth as shown
in the Bible.
5. Leaders in fragmented cultures may seek power by enlisting followers of low
or no rank. They avoid the familial networks that normally govern political
ties. The leader can wield influence through a wholly loyal group. As the
Bible shows, unjustified bloodshed pollutes the earth.

Early Israel was a segmentary society, and its genealogies can be viewed through the
lens of unilineal descent groupings, as in the case of Adam and Ishmael. Gottwald
argues that ancient Israel was an egalitarian society in contrast to the Canaanite city-
states of Noth's amphictyony theory, which argued for centralized political and
judicial authority in Israel during Judges. He applies the model of segmentary
3
societies where such centralized power is absent to a pre-monarchic Israel. Benjamin
Crusemann argues that Israelt’s opposition to the monarchy was partly due to the
imposition of an alien power structure on a system defined by equality consciousness
(Gleichheitsbewusstsein. SchaferLichtenberger provides the most comprehensive
comparison to date between segmentary cultures and pre-monarchic Israel.

Evaluation of the Parallelism

I now turn to examine if the authors who concluded from such comparisons that
premonarchic Israel was a segmentary society committed the mistake of employing a
fallacious syllogism with an undistributed middle term. Is it true that the qualities of
segmentary societies supposed to be replicated in pre-monarchic Israel are unique to
segmentary societies and found nowhere else, implying that pre-monarchic Israel
constituted a segmentary society? The answer must be negative. The presence of
unilineal descent groups in a society that exhibits fission and segmentation does not
imply that the society is segmentary. Kimbu political organisation is halfway between
segmentary societies and so-called segmentary states, according to Shorter. Power
was developed by recruiting from individuals without rank, as demonstrated by the
nineteenth-century chieftain Nyung ya-wame. These communities had some
similarities to pre-monarchic Israel.

Argument Against segmentary Society

It is important to take an alternative logical path and call attention to fundamental

qualities of segmentary societies that, if absent in pre-monarchic Israel, lead to the
conclusion that Israel was not a segmentary society prior to the monarchy.

1. Lack of Primogeninture or ultimo-geniture: In segmentary cultures, there is

no primogertiture or ultimo-geniture. When the head of a home dies, the eldest
son assumes the responsibility as well as the obligation to treat his brothers
equally. Equal treatment of all brothers is not just well-observed but essential
for preserving the distinguishing traits of a segmentary society.
2. Lack ot Parental authority and legal Power within small groups: In Kiga
society, a father can threaten his children with ‘psychological’ sanctions such

4
 as a death-bed curse, but no physical force is permitted. A Tallensi father’s
authority is limited to granting his children permission to marry. It is
especially vulnerable among the Amba, where a father only advises his elder
sons in times of strife.

Homicide inside a group is considered fratricide by the Luiya and must be ritually
avenged. The murder of a wife by her husband is viewed as a self-inflicted injury by
the Tallensi. A segment only imposes legal sanctions on segments that are genetically
remote or unrelated to it. Do these traits match what we discover in the OT?

Definitely not. In patriarchal narratives, primogeniture is mentioned.

Because of his mother's position, Isaac, not Ishmael, inherits from Abraham. Jacob
purchases Esau's birthright. Deuteronomy 21.15 prohibits a man from arranging for
his successor to be the son of a beloved woman rather than the son of a disliked wife,
if the latter son is the first-born. Exodus 21.12-14 defines homicide as a capital
offence, not fratricide or tragedy, and shows a father's control over his progeny. In
Judges 19-21, all the tribes join forces to punish the sinful city of Gibeah, not only
distant and unrelated 'tribes'.

Benjamin Crüsemann's account of pre-monarchic Israel raises questions about the

social conditions that led to the introduction of the monarchy, and how they were so
profoundly altered by the end of the Jewish people's segmentary division into two
distinct tribes. Israel could have been a confederation of chiefdoms, the genealogy of
whose royal families can be traced in the Bible. A social system in which chiefs
exercised political power alongside elders was more adapted to the hilly and forested
terrain in which the Israelites lived than Africa's segmentary societies. The chiefs
were able to form alliances with one another as well as fight one another. David had
established pacts with the rulers of Moab and Ammon before becoming king, and was
probably linked by marriage to the Ammonite royal dynasty.

Concussion

This article tries to warn against an overly hasty and shallow comparison of pre-
monarchic Israel with segmentary lineage civilizations. Although parallels can be
discovered between parts of segmentary societies and Old Testament passages, those
aspects must be related to their overall structure and function. If this is done, the
5
analogy with the Old Testament is scarcely convincing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rogerson, J. W. “Was Early Israel a Segmentary Society?.”  Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament, 11.36 (1986): 17–26.

6
Introduction

According to John H. Elliot, the SCC of the Bible is “that piece of the exegetical
endeavour which explores the social and cultural components of the text and of its
contextual setting through the use of the text and of the perspectives, theories, models,
and research of the social sciences.” This definition is valid in that social science and
history are interwoven. Any social science may be utilised (Sociology, Economics,
Anthropology, Political Science, Psychology etc.) Social Scientific Criticism
presuppositions pertain to three aspects of the interpretive enterprise: 1) interpreter, 3)
the object of interpretation, 3) the method of interpretation. Sociology deals with
empirical, observable and not speculative; it is analytical and not evaluative; it is
descriptive and not interpretive.

The First Wave of the Social Scientific Studies

The sociological study of ancient Israel in the period of beginning from 1880-1960 is
known as the ‘First Wave.’ The leading scholars are: W. R. Smith, L. Wallis and the
Chicago School, J. Pedersen, R. de Vaux and A. Causse.

R. Smith: R. Smith (1846-1894) with his pioneer, work considered to be the ‘founder
of social anthropology.’ His work in which he compared ancient Israel with Bedouin
Arabs, is the first anthropological study of biblical Israel. Although many of his
conclusions have been contested and dismissed, his basic assumption that early Israel
was a nomadic society was accepted.

L. Wallis: One of the prominent American representatives of Chicago school in the

‘first wave,’ social studies is Wallis, who published his essay in 1970 “Sociological
Significance of the Bibl.” He suggested that the people’s cultural development was
the direct result of cultural and class struggle, caused by conflict between urban and
rural societies, beginning with Canaanite urban culture V/s Israel village culture, then
struggle for supremacy between local and regional village establishment and the
growing urban elite of the monarchic period. This conflict model helped the works of
George E. Mendenhall, Norman K. Gottwald and Frank S. Frick.

Pedersen and R. de Vaux: Pedersen, applied to Israel the folk-soul and group
consciousness approach of V. P. Gronbech. He failed ot integrate the two approaches
and lacked social-scientific tools. R. de Vaux, in his, Ancient Israel: Life and
Institutions (1958-60), also lacked a sustained socio-historical perspective and
evidences. While we can know from Vaux, Israel’s social institutions of family, clan,
and tribe, however, he neglected large tracts of social reality, economics and
important aspect of politics.

A. Causse: His thesis was that Israel began as an ethnic pastoral nomadic community.
Gradually losing its organic solidarity as it settled down and diversified economically.
This change was principally due to pressure and attraction of Canaanite civilization.
Like Wallis, his proposal also was not favourably received by the neo-orthodox and
biblical theological movements of the day. They either ignored it or refuted on the
theological ground.

The ‘first wave’ of social scientific research somewhat failed because the scholars did
not develop viable social scientific agenda for biblical scholarship or did give
sufficient attention to social-scientific method and theory. Secondly, the
contemporary atmosphere, of European biblical scholarship, neo orthoxy, and biblical
theology movement was not conducive for the social scientific research.

Recent Developments

Since 1970s the emphasis of social scientific critics has been on the application of a
variety of sociological and anthropological methods. The description of social models
allows researchers to identify both common and apparently unique cultural elements
and behaviours.

Structural-Functionalist Methods

The prominent scholar of this trend is E. Durkheim. It aims to consider every facet of
the society’s culture because everything is interconnected. Each cultural aspect
contributes to the progress and stability of society as a whole, working toward
equilibrium through consensus formation. During internal strife, the forces advocating
for change would either be absorbed into an accepted and identifiable social
framework or denounced and proscribed as a threat to society. This does not allow
sufficient freedom to deal with culture with a long history and multiple social
changes.

2
Conflict Theory

K. Marx and M. Weber: This theory examines the forces within a society which
promote conflicts between the classes and structures of a society. The ideological
differences work at ways to control means of power and production. So, it is
necessary to first identify the competing groups withing the society.

Cultural Materialistic theories

This theory strives to study the modes of subsistence of a society and the technologies
they develop for better exploitation of the resources of the area of their habitation.
The main features of the theory are as follows:

a) The Modes of Subsistence of a Culture: How a few farmers live just without
their crops; in case of low rainfall or flood they rear flocks or engage in
cottage industries. The pastoralists practice farming as well as the care of fruit
trees.
b) The organizational aspects of subsistence strategies: It emphasises, on the
economy, based on resources, labour and leadership, in which society shifts
from classless, egalitarian society to rigidly stratified societies dominated by
those who control the modes of production.

There is no single science model as the most useful for the reconstruction of the
ancient World. Most scholars choose to take a more eclectic approach, applying a
variety of social theories to what is revealed by the ancient textual material and the
exposed archaeological data.

Since the first wave failed to stimulate the wider program of social inquiry in biblical
scholarship, there is now, a more general awareness of the application of methods and
theories from the social science in the study of ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible.

The Second Wave of Social Scientific Studies

The second wave of social scientific studies of ancient Israel began around 1960.
Gottwald says, “it seems to me that the ‘seas change’ in social-world studies over the
last two decades has been the wide acceptance of social- scientific resources in
biblical studies.”
3
Modern Interpretation

G. E. Mendenhall: “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine” (1962). He challenged

Martin Noth’s amphictyony tribal league and the assumption that Israel was an ethnic
group separate from the Canaanites, having originated as pastoral nomadic tribes. He
proposed a fresh way of understanding the conquest and the premonarchical period
(1250-1000), with his theory of an early Israelite peasant revolt against dominant
Canaanite urban culture

Gottwald: Gottwald took Mendenhall’s model a step further and proposed his theory
in “Tribes of Yahweh,” in which he proposed that Israel was the indigenous Canaanite
community that revolted against the city-state oppressors and created its own socio-
political system and religion. The dislike by the lower classes in Canaanite society
lead them for a revolt, withdrawing form cities and ‘retribalizing’ in a village setting
and eventually, re-emerging as a rival political entity. For his methodological
framework he has been finluenced by Emile Durkeim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx.
Yahwistic religion plays a role of legitimator as well as facilitator of egalitarian
movement.

G. A. Herion: G. A. Herion criticises Gottwald’s work on the following points: 1)

models are hypothetical entities, not real descriptions; 2) they are not to be used to
analyse existing data, not to serve as substitutions in the absence of the data; 3) they
do not conclude a study or provide definitive answers.

Though Gottwald’s work is criticised by many, his careful description of the social
facets of ancient Israel from its tribal structure pattern to its modes of subsistence
management have guided many scholars over last three decades.

Methods for Political Economy

M. L. Chaney and R. A. Simkins: M. L. Chaney and R. A. Simkins deal with

political economy of ancient Israel. Political economics analyses economic behaviour
in the context of social life. Chaney reads Isa 5 in the context of the rapidly changing
political economics of its 7th century political setting. Simkins’ study is different from
Chaney. His focus is not on the exegesis of a particular text but on an analysis of
4
ancient Isarealite society. His thesis is that of ‘the institution of patronage.’

Investigation of Social institutions

The other major interest area in social scientific criticism is the investigation of the
social institutions in ancient Israel.

Kinship: Kinship is the relationship between members of the same family. It includes
space and social network, cultural construct of family, patronage and friendship, and
marriage etc. Marring withing the blood relations was a practice of the ancient
Semitics (Gen 20:12) Abraham marries his half-sister, Sarai.

Gender, Honour and Shame: S. A. Brayford in, “To shame or not to same:
Sexuality in the Mediterranean Diaspora,” highlights the issue of gender. Story of
Dinah’s rape is close to Mediterranean model of honour and shame. She concludes
that the honour and shame code, correctly understood, offers fruitful interpretive
options for several Pentateuchal narrative that concern female sexuality.

Prophetic Figures: A final major area of study of Israelite social institutions has been
in prophetic figures and prophetic activities. Some of the leading scholars are – R. R.
Wilson, Carroll, D. L. Petersen, B. Lang etc. M. Weber, R. Wilson describe prophet
as ‘intermediary figure’ and discuss the social forces that require the intermediations.
The establishment of prophets upon the cultic community and monarchy was to
support and recognition, like Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah, whose support was drawn from
the marginalized class of society.

Conclusion

There are both merits and demerits of social scientifical method.

1) the use of social scientific theories represent imposition on the biblical text. 2)

Benefits: 1) It has influenced the study of the origins of ancient Israel (Gottwald). 2)
The studies on the political economy of ancient Israel by M. L. Chaney and R. L.
Simkins have shown the fruition of the sociological method. 3) Research on social
institutions of ancient Israel by S. A. Brayford show that the social-critical studies are
innovative. 4) The work of R. R. Wilson and Hanson proves that the prophetic an
5
apocalyptic literature have sociological roots.

6
7