In the preceding sections an attempt has been made at presenting a brief survey of the status quaestionis in research on Luke-Acts in general and on John the Baptist in particular in the period from the 1950's to the present. We have raised and looked at the question whether it is just to fetter the vast scope of Lucan writings to one too finely defined methodological strait-jacket. Indeed, we have noted in the preceding pages some rather strong views of scholars (e.g. Dupont, Gasque) who maintain that, given the rich diversity of Luke's writings, it would not do to place them under restrictive categories that may not do sufficient justice to the purpose and intention of the author in relation to his audience.
As was noted earlier, one of the greatest areas of conflict in Lucan research is seen in the attempt to answer the question: What was the purpose of Luke-Acts? And how was that purpose mediated and transmitted, and to whom? These and similar elements have constituted the most divisive areas in Lucan research, and scholarly consensus on these aspects has at times gone from the remote to the impossible.
1 J. Thomas, Le Mouvement Baptiste, 263.
3 E. Lupieri has, in fact, not only not left the door to this possibility open. He states it as a matter of fact.
However, our brief survey of some of the literature and scholarly perspectives since the 1950's has shown that there may yet be light at the end of the tunnel. Many are the scholars disaffected with the failure of the traditional critical methods at reaching some consensus on at least the key points of Luke-Acts, therefore the clamour for a methodological shift has been loud and clear, especially in the last two decades. It is also true that some scholars (e.g. Conzelmann) perhaps unintentionally precipitated a crisis in Lucan studies that galvanized scholars into a critical review of their respective methodologies and perspectives. In this way, new life was injected into Lucan research as scholars responded to Conzelmann.
However, response to Conzelmann was not enough. Scholars asked: Surely there must be much more to Lucan research that goes beyond Conzelmann? And surely Lucan research is not merely a question of proving geographic provenance or historical reliability, or even theological Tendenzl
5.2 The Quest for Consensus
Firstly, it is necessary to acknowledge the obvious. It is to the abiding credit of Lucan scholarship that Luke and Acts have been recognized and accepted as the product of one author. This has been, at least, one area of almost unanimous scholarly consensus
"If."!
in a field in which unanimity is hard to come by.
Secondly, scholarship has not been paralyzed by the difficulties posed by the various critical approaches to Luke-Acts, but has risen to the challenge to seek not only a consensus but a combination of critical tools so that Luke-Acts could be better appreciated. There has been a continuous and determined evaluation and re-thinking of methodologies and approaches which has led to shifts in points of emphasis and a lively if at times polemical debate on the various aspects of Luke's writings.
In the preceding sections we have attempted to trace the trajectories followed by Lucan research in the last few decades, as well as to follow as attentively as possible the shifts in methodological emphasis. In addition, we attempted to associate the
See, however, M.C. Parsons and R. Pervo's Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts.
names of some of the most prominent Lucan scholars with some of the most influential shifts in perspective over the last decades.
Our attempt to follow the 'shifting sands5 of Lucan studies has basically led us to four distinctive phases in Lucan studies. There was, to begin with, the period when the historical value of Luke-Acts was in the ascendance (Bruce, Marshall). This was followed by a shift precipitated by Conzelmann's extreme scepticism regarding the historical value of Luke-Acts that led to an emphasis on the theological value of Luke's writings, a position that, on the balance of evidence, commanded greater scholarly support.
In the characteristic dissatisfaction with the methods used in Lucan studies, even this last approach was still considered not enough and too polemical, involving as it did two positions that were not always inclusive or tolerant of the other's point of view.
An attempt was thus made by scholars from both camps (Fitzmyer, Ludemann, Hemer, Hengel) to appreciate the opposing view and, if possible, arrive at some common ground. This was achieved, to a certain extent. Some scholars abandoned their previously dogmatic stance and began to view Luke-Acts as a historical theology or a theology of history.
But still some scholars were not quite at ease with what some others considered an unsatisfactory combination of history, theology, and literary theory. Another effort was seen to be in order. It was this fresh quest that led to the adoption of the social scientific approach to Lucan studies (Neyrey, Malina, Gager, Cassidy, Esler, and Moxnes among others). Because of its openness to the principles of literary theory, media, and social description, the new research on Luke-Acts looks set to ride the tide of post-modernism. While the literary approach has broadened the Lucan writings from the purely historical or theological sphere to the much wider context of secular literature and media, the social-scientific approach helps in putting the reader in touch with the social and everyday milieux of the ancient Mediterranean peoples to whom and for whom the New Testament texts were originally written. It may well be that in this post-modern age, when theology in general and the Bible in particular are becoming somewhat irrelevant an approach that is multi-disciplinary (theology, history, literature and the social sciences) may provide the hermeneutical tools
necessary for a credible access to the New Testament in general, and to Luke-Acts' John the Baptist in particular.
The close affinity between history and social sciences has long been acknowledged, even though some scholars have experienced working with the two disciplines as a
"dialogue of the deaf'.364 John Elliott describes social-scientific criticism as a sub- discipline of historical criticism or an expansion, and perhaps even a completion of historical criticism.365
Esler maintains that his interest in using the social-sciences methodology lies in a basic historical question, namely what the texts meant for their original audiences.
For him, in dealing with the past the social-sciences must of necessity collaborate with history since
given its emphasis on the novel, the unique and the particular, history (at least to the extent it does not employ social-scientific perspectives) cannot hope to supply all the questions which must be put to the New Testament if we are to penetrate the ordinary and everyday - but nevertheless fundamentally important - interrelationships, values and symbols which characterised the early Christian communities and which are reflected in the twenty-seven canonical texts which were written for them and to them.366
Michael Lafargue argues that theology cannot be separated from the social sciences because theology is a part of culture and, as an aspect of culture,
the meaning of theological ideas is determined contextually. Theological ideas get their meaning from the relation in which they stand to other elements of the cultural milieu of which they are a part.367
364 See, for example, R. Rohrbaugh's perception that "Though the two disciplines [history and the social sciences] are obviously complementary, dialogue between them has often been what Burke calls a "dialogue of the deaf" {The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 8).
365 See the explanation of his methodology in J. Elliott, What is Social-Scientific Criticism?
366 P.F. Esler, The First Christians in Their Social Worlds, 2. In the ongoing debate regarding the interaction between critical biblical studies that make use of history, theology, the literary sciences, and the social-sciences, Vernon Robbins has outlined a useful way forward for a continued fruitful co- operation of these methodologies in biblical interpretation. See his "Social-Scientific Criticism and Literary Studies: Prospects for a cooperation in biblical interpretation" in P.F. Esler (ed.), Modelling Early Christianity, 274-289.
367 M. Lafargue, "Sociohistorical Research and the Contextualization of Biblical Theology", in J.
Neusner et al. (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1988,5.
Esler summarizes the issues involved in the interaction between history, theology, and the social-scientific approach by noting that
the New Testament writings manifest a complex interpenetration of society and Gospel, of context and kerygma ('the proclamation of faith'), and that we cannot hope to understand either without an appropriate methodology for dealing with the social side. The disciplines I have in mind for this task are the social sciences.
Sociology is perhaps the most useful, but anthropology and social psychology also have contributions to make. I am not suggesting that these disciplines should replace the literary and historical techniques which have long been employed by New Testament critics. The social sciences are best seen as a necessary adjunct to established forms of criticism.368
Further on he notes:
If we are to interpret the documents written in this situation, where society was fused with Gospel, and context with kerygma, the social sciences offer us resources which cannot wisely be ignored. The question is not 'Do we need the social sciences?' but rather 'How can we get along without them?'369
Esler further points out that explorations into sectarianism (as a social phenomenon, and as outlined by Bryan Wilson370) and the formation of new religious movements formed the basis of his work on Luke-Acts.
We have already noted H.C. Waetjen's conviction that there has to be an intrinsic connection between sociology, cultural anthropology and literary criticism if
"misconstruction and misinterpretation" are to be avoided.
Our overall analysis and appraisal of the the foregoing literary survey of the status quaestionis in Lucan studies indicates that a reading of Luke-Acts that combines social description and narrative-theological analysis in order to understand the role of key protagonists in Luke-Acts in general, or of John the Baptist in particular has never yet been attempted, hence the importance and relevance of still another study. Clearly the traditional approaches to Luke-Acts have not succeeded in extricating John the Baptist from the Jesus-of-Nazareth web. If the rehabilitation of John the Baptist is to succeed, the challenge is on scholarship to be methodologically as diverse and as
P.F. Esler, The First Christians in Their Social Worlds, 2.
P.F. Esler, The First Christians in Their Social Worlds, 18.
See B. Wilson's Religious Sects.
H.C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power, x-xi.
creative as possible as some of the answers to today's critical questions might come from the least expected directions.
John the Baptist is portrayed in Luke-Acts in ways that presuppose a specific though multi-dimensional context into which John is inculturated. And so it is that in the next section, enriched by the fruits of past scholarship and guided by our own combination of social description and narrative-theological analysis, we turn to the world that shaped and formed the John the Baptist that the author of Luke-Acts wanted his readers to encounter and to relate to.
103
PART TWO
THE WORLD OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
6. THEBACKGROUND OF JOHN THE BAPTIST