that is sometimes problematic (Mack 1996, 247–49; Lightstone 1997). On
one side of the circle is literary evidence with severe limitations, given the
questions we ask of it. On the other side of the circle is the attempt to pro-
vide conceptual and theoretical frameworks that help us frame our ques-
tions, to make sense of the literary evidence and use it to our specific ends
rather than those of its authors. Sometimes we continue to travel around
this loop in an unproductive fashion. Why? Because conceptual and theo-
retical frameworks for inquiry are not created ex nihilo.Rather, they emerge
from some substantial knowledge of the phenomenon that is the subject
of the inquiry. This knowledge, however, is largely derived from our liter-
ary evidence, the use of which depends upon the theoretical and concep-
tual frameworks we adopt. The problem is, then, that if the framework is
so closely derived from the literary evidence it purports to analyze that it
is merely an abstraction of what the texts themselves say, we are engaged
in a tautological exercise with no explanatory force. Explanation, in the
social and human sciences, relies on the capacity to conduct careful, sys-
tematic comparisons (J.Z. Smith 1982a, 19–35). Tautological restatements
provide no basis for explanation. Yet if, on the other hand, our framework
is imported “whole-hog” from an alien socio-historical context, we risk
veiling the variety of the social and cultural formations we are trying to
study, undermining meaningful comparisons in a different but equally
unacceptable way. Scholarly virtue lies somewhere between these extremes.
In setting the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies’ Religious Rivalries
Seminar on its course, Leif E. Vaage (chapter 1) provided a set of framing
questions and concepts for the work to follow. Subsequently, I sometimes
felt perplexed by the evidence that was adduced regarding the general
topic of the seminar, and uncertain about how I would proceed to make
sense of it. By habit, my reaction is to step back and see if I can reframe or
refine some of the conceptual and methodological issues. The purpose
served by this looping back to theoretical and methodological matters, is
not only to gain for myself better purchase on the evidence at hand; there
is an intrinsic value to the exercise itself, as well. After all, the purpose of
seeking to understand particular social formations in the first place is to
learn more about what it is to be human, which is a theoretical and con-
ceptual construct.
Whence my perplexity? Most often it derives from apparent contradic-
tions in the evidence, even evidence from single communities within a rel-
atively circumscribed geographical area and from a limited period of time.
Perhaps differences in attitudes and practices exist at the micro-regional
level, or communities’ norms and perspectives shift significantly within a
nora
(Nora)
#1