A social science reading of the biblical narrative is an exploration into the world that produced the text. With an emphasis on establishing both the “plain meaning” of the text and how it would have been “heard” by the ancient audience, social science methods delve into the human character of the storytelling process. These methods represent a multidisciplinary approach, taking advantage of the theoretical models created over the last century by psychology, sociology, geography, and anthropology. In employing these models, its primary aim is to explore the social dimensions that are evident in the biblical narrative. This method also can be used to recreate ancient social situations through the analysis of sociolinguistic, rhetorical, economic, political, and social forces. In the process, it takes into account and interprets human reactions to particular social and environmental conditions, as well as physical and psychological stresses.

Because social scientific criticism is not based on a single approach or methodology, its eclectic analysis of biblical materials is often criticized for being too speculative or too jargon laden for others to appreciate. To be sure, to apply social science models effectively, it is necessary to step out of the familiar paths of biblical interpretation, to embrace the writings of sociologists and anthropologists, and to engage in the dual form of interpretation known as “ethnoarchaeology,” which combines an examination of material culture with textual references. Thus, for instance, when the topic under consideration is the social transition from village-tribal culture to centralized government and a bureaucratic state, disparate sets of data must be examined and a variety of models employed.

Over the past fifty years, social science models have ranged from a functionalist approach (which examines the various parts of a cultural system and how they interact to maintain a society) to conflict models (which examine how friction between worldviews and ideologies based on cultural self-interest transforms social structure and promotes change). Those who espouse the cultural-materialist approach place an emphasis on economic and technological factors as the catalyst for social change, whereas others point to the forces that lead to the rise of particular political institutions (e.g., chiefdoms and monarchies) as part of a larger set of factors, including environmental and resource management, kinship structures, religious hierarchies, and regional politics.