Introduction
It is often heard that
the meaning of the text is determined by its readers. The simple question then needs
to be raised: Is the historical context of the New Testament documents important
to understand their meaning? The New
Testament is literature; and should one need historiography to study the New
Testament rather than literary methods? I would argue that the historical characteristics
of the New Testament and Paul necessitate one to approach Paul and New
Testament literature from the perspective of history. The method of history
that New Testament scholars use in their discipline is known as the
Historical-critical method. Though this method is indebted to secular
historiography, it is different in many respects. I will survey some of the core
aspects of the historical-critical method in the first part of this paper. If
the historical-critical method is important to study Paul and the New Testament
documents, what are the challenges and prospects involved in applying the historical-critical
method to Paul and his literature? Surveying scholarship on Pauline
historiography, I would demonstrate that selecting sources to study Paul is one
of the major challenges involved in applying the historical-critical method to
Paul and the historical-critical method helps to locate Paul in his historical
context instead of reading him anachronistically.
Does One Need Historical Criticism to
Study the New Testament?
The undue emphasis on the role of historical criticism in studying the
New Testament has been challenged recently. It is emphasized that the New
Testament is a literary work, therefore, the methods that focus on the literary
aspects of the text would be more useful than historical criticism.[1] In this view, studying
the New Testament is primarily a literary enterprise. This does not mean that one
can avoid historical criticism because the New Testament has historical
characteristics. The following are some of the historical characteristics of the New Testament that necessitate a
historical investigation of the New Testament documents.
(1) The New Testament is a historical document. It comes from a
historical context that is nearly two millennia distant. (2) Events mentioned in the Gospels and Acts appear
to be organized in chronological sequence. The order of biblical narratives may also have divergence. This raises
questions about the veracity of the chronology of the events mentioned in the
Bible.[2] For example, Mathew places the story of the
stilling of the storm before the teachings of Jesus through parables (Matt.
8:23-27; 13:1-52) but Mark places this story immediately before the parables of
Jesus (Mark 1.1-41). This leads to the question that which account is accurate. (3) Christianity and
Judaism are religions based on real historical events. (4) The Bible itself contains a distinctive understanding
of history. Israel’s history was determined by the covenant that God made with
Israel and their success depended upon their obedience to the covenant.
Apocalyptic books like Daniel and Revelation give a view that history is
progressing towards a climax, culminating in the judgment of the world and
establishing the kingdom of God. (5) The inconsistencies between certain books in the Bible deserve historical
investigation. For example, how does one address the issue of apparent differences
in the chronology of Paul’s missionary journeys in Acts and his own letters? (6)
Discrepancies between the Bible and secular history on the same event invite
historical investigation. (7) Historical investigations are necessary as early
Christian writings were written to specific communities. These documents
reflect the theological perspectives of those communities. (8) Different genres
in the Bible invite historical investigation to understand whether events are
mentioned literally or symbolically.
Does one need historical criticism to study
Paul? Paul was a historical figure. He wrote several letters addressing
different concerns of different early Christian communities. He addressed these
real problems in his communities through his letters. His letters are
historical documents. History by nature is about context. Pauline literature is
a historical artifact that comes from a different cultural, social, and
historical context than our modern world. This makes us approach Paul and his
literature from the perspective of history.
In short, one cannot
ignore the need for historical criticism to study the New Testament because of
its historical characteristics.
Primary Questions, Task, and Nature
of History
History is the account of known events of the human past. It aspires to construct
true stories of the past based on the discovered evidence of the past.[3] Historiography is the study of the written documents
of the past[4] and the writing of
history by describing historical arguments, theories, and interpretations over
time.[5] Historian investigates what happened in the
past by asking questions to the available evidence in order to establish the
facts and chronology of the events.[6] Mark T. Gilderhus in his book History and
Historians: A Historical Introduction mentioned three successive phases of historical
investigations:
Phase 1: What happened?
How did people behave? What did they do?
Phase 2: Why did these
things occur? What motivated the principals to behave the way that they did?
Phase 3: How did things
turn out? For good or ill? What is the lasting significance or influence of the
event or individual?[7]
Further, history also aspires to understand and explain the past by
interpreting the data. The historical documents are raw data that may form the artifacts
upon which histories may be written. They do not include interpretations. It is
possible that scholars who interpret the same data can come to different
conclusions because each scholar may emphasize a certain piece of evidence more
than other parts of the data. Consequently, one may not be able to know what
really happened with absolute certainty, but can develop premises that have no
reasonable doubts.[8]
The Nature of History
If history involves
interpretation, how do we know the truth about the past? One may differentiate
between “truth” and “The Truth.” The first is the “plausible depiction of a
person or event based on synthesizing the data” and the second is the “totality
of all there is to know about the actual event or person.”[9] Thomas Macaulay used an analogy of art and history to explain the
difference between “truth” and “The Truth.” He observed about history that
Perfectly and absolutely true it cannot be; for, to be perfect and
absolutely true, it ought to record all the slightest particulars of the
slightest transactions – all the things done and all the words uttered during
the time of which it treats.[10]
However, it is
impossible to achieve this just as “no picture is exactly like the original.”[11] No history can present the whole truth. This
does not mean that every history is a truth with a small letter t, and should
be accepted at face value. Historians’ task is to give an accurate
interpretation based on the extent of evidence. To the extent the evidence is
sound, history is valid.[12]
Historical-Critical Method
I have so far
discussed the need for a historical investigation of the New Testament, and the
primary task, questions, and nature of historical criticism. Now the question
is how one can approach the New Testament by using methods of history. Historical-Critical
Method is the umbrella phrase
for the historical investigation of the New Testament. However, a student who
takes a course on historiography in the history department may not be familiar
with the phrase because the phrase is deeply embedded in the field of New Testament
studies. It should be noticed that biblical scholars who engage in historical
criticism will not use the same vocabulary, methods, or philosophical
understandings about the past that would characterize the field of history. Of
course, one should notice the overlap between the two fields of study.
Historical-critical
method refers to a family of approaches that are used to investigate the
history of the text and to unearth the historical truth about the events that the
text recounts. It attempts to study the texts “in their historical contexts, in
light of the literary and cultural conventions of their time.”[13] Historical in the Historical-critical method indicates two things:
Firstly, text can be a mirror that reflects the historical and cultural setting
in which the text originated. Secondly, text can be considered as a widow that
provides interpretative textual access to people, places, and events.[14] Adjective historical indicates the historical questions that a text may
raise and employs a cluster of historical tools to address these questions.
Further, the term critical in the Historical-critical method does not
presuppose the application of any secular worldview to the Bible, but it refers
to independent reason and objectivity in investigating the text and
understanding the meaning of the text without any prejudice or regard to what
the consequences of the critical investigation of the text might be.[15] Moreover, the term method in the Historical-critical
method refers to a set of procedures or guidelines, or principles that experts
in the field considered to be adequate for the investigation of texts.[16]
The
historical-critical method focuses on two major areas. Firstly, the social-science-oriented
historical-critical approach seeks to study the first century and its people,
places, and events. Secondly, text-focused historical-critical approaches focus
on how the New Testament documents are formed, written, and transmitted. Source
criticism, redaction criticism, form criticism, and textual criticism come
under this. A useful way of differentiating these approaches is proposed by John
H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay: history in the text versus the history of the
text.[17] History in the text refers to what the text itself narrates about or
relates to history, whether persons, events, social conditions, or even ideas.[18] Text is a window to the historical period. On
the other hand, the history of the text refers to how, why, when, where, and in
what situation a text originated by whom, and for whom it was written and
preserved.[19] It also focuses on textual transmission and variants.
The
historical-critical method is concerned with the ‘meaning’ or ‘sense’ of the
text. Five types of senses could be the goal of this method. (1) Original sense
indicates the meaning of the original text in the original historical setting.
(2) Intentional sense[20] refers to the intended meaning of a text by
its author or later editors. (3)
Historical sense is concerned with the knowledge of the historical and cultural
context of words, phrases, and text for understanding the meaning of the text. (4) Literal sense allow text to speak for
itself by considering its genre without imposing any meaning on it. This
involves semantics at various levels: meaning of words, phrases, sentences,
textual units, and the entire book.[21] (5) Plain sense is the meaning that arises from engaging with the
linguistic and semantic characteristics of the text.[22]
Theoretical Underpinnings
1.
The Role
of Time
Historians’
understanding of time will play a role in history. Time is a multi-faceted
thing. It can be linear, cyclical, and chaotic. The linear concept of time
views time as progressive and cyclical views time as repetitive.
The time gap between
the interpreters and the original author and audience of the text is recognized. The text is investigated in the
historical context of the author and original audience. Instead of reading
modern ideas into the text, the focus is given to understanding the text in its
own geographical locations and time. The historical-critical method is
concerned to avoid the issue of anachronism.
2. Selectivity
Historians make choices
on topic, scope, method, type of history, and sources. All these affect the finished
piece of written history. A good example is Marcion (160 C.E). He argued that
any history that preceded Jesus is irrelevant because God replaced the law with
God’s love. He did not include the Old Testament in his canon. He also
eliminated the infancy narrative because of his gnostic bias against the
material world. He dropped pastoral letters from his cannon because of the
dubious nature of their Pauline authorship. Maricon’s selection of material for
his canon shows his view of the validity of the sources that he wanted to use
to develop his views. Marcion’s act of selecting sources demonstrates his view
of how history should be used and what sources would give the foundation for
his work.
The selection of
sources also depends upon the question posed, the problem identified and the
perspective chosen. The selection of the range of sources will affect the range
of answers that a researcher would develop.
2.1 Selecting a topic
Three aspects of selection
come into play when historians decide on the specific subject matter in the
historical study. Firstly, the historian’s personal interest and curiosity in a
specific area. Secondly, the bias of historians may play a role in selecting an
area of research. Thirdly, researchers may have obligation to choose a subject
matter that may be relevant to present-day situations and concerns or any other
reason.[23]
2.2 Scope
Establishing the scope
of the research is another important part of historical study. The scope can be
limited or extended by several factors. Date and place are not the least among
those factors.[24] The scope also can be decided by choosing to write universal history or
microhistory. Universal history can be focused on an overview or compendium of larger
locations and periods whereas microhistory can be focused on a small place,
single event, or individual. Historians’ decision of scope can fall anywhere on
the continuum of universal history and microhistory but they will carve their
subject matter into manageable portions in different ways.
2.3 Type of history
There are different
types of history: political history, feminist history, social history and so
on. The type of history that one may choose to write may form their
interpretative lens.
2.4 Method
Researchers should
decide on a method or technique that would employ in their studies to gain
knowledge. Generally, historians choose a descriptive approach to the topic,
focusing on what took place, or an explanatory approach, hypothesizing why or
how something occurred.[25] In addition, one may choose a qualitative or quantitative method.
3. Sources
Sources are created by
contemporary or later documents, textual or non-textual remains.[26] These documents are not taken at face value
but they are critically evaluated and interpreted. In order to evaluate sources
critically, Jörg Rüpke suggests asking the following
questions to every source:[27]
(1) Who did produce the source?
Who is the author (partisan, agent, victim, observer)? (2) When and where did
the source develop (contemporary, a diary, a recollection)? (3) What interests
did the author have? (4) What was the motivation behind producing the source (a
bureaucratic process, public communication, secret documentation)? (5) What was
the motivation of the author (to legitimize or accuse, to contradict or
affirm)? (6) Who was the intended audience? (7) What knowledge or interests
were presupposed on their part? (8) How did the message send to the audience? (9)
How was the source used in later times? (10) How was the source preserved?
The use of sources distinguishes
history from the genres of fable and myth. However, the sources should be evaluated
for their credibility and authenticity. Herodotus is often called the father of
modern history because of his use of sources. When he wrote about the causes of
the Greek-Persian Wars, he crafted his account of the events by investigating
eyewitnesses, records of the state, and interviews. Similarly, Luke wrote his
Gospel and Acts based on the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-2). Despite the
uses of sources by ancient historians, it is difficult to ascertain whether
they evaluated the evidence that they used.[28] The process of authenticating sources became an integral part of
historical methodology since the time Lorenzo Valla proved that the document known
as the Donation of Constantine, assumably dated the fourth century, is a
forgery.[29] Further, Leopold Von Ranke provided criteria
to evaluate which sources should be preferred over others.[30] This led researchers to distinguish between primary and secondary
sources. Primary sources are eyewitness
recollections and documents written most contemporary with the events.
Secondary sources are documents created much later than the period of the event
in question. In the New Testament studies, canonical writings are considered as
primary sources, and commentaries are considered as secondary sources. Further,
biblical studies started to employ textual criticism to ascertain corruptions
to manuscripts as a result of time and transmission so that scholars can arrive
at the most “correct” form of the original manuscript.[31] Both source criticism and textual criticism
are part of the philological strand of historical criticism.
Another development
with respect to sources in the New Testament studies is lexicography. Lexicography
is a historical study of the New Testament terms. They can assist scholars to
transfer the most correct meaning from one culture/language to another
culture/language.
Another issue that is worthy
of mentioning with respect to sources in New Testament historiography is the
authenticity and credibility of the eyes witness report in the Gospels and Acts.
In the New Testament studies, it is a daunting task to deal with issues related
with ascertain the value of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. Scholars use
various criteria to ascertain their credibility and authenticity.
Applying the Historical-Critical
Method to Paul: Challenges and Possibilities
Paul was a historical
person. His letters were written to address different issues and concerns of
the different early communities in Christ. The historical character of these
letters and Paul the person necessitates historical investigation. Applying the
historical-critical method to Paul helps one locate Paul in his historical
context. However, there are challenges to studying Paul historically. The
following discussion will show the challenges and possibilities involved in
applying the historical-critical method to Paul.
Sources: Problems of Evidence
Identifying authentic
sources is a challenging task in Pauline historiography. Pauline letters and
Acts of the Apostles are two important New Testament sources to study Paul but
the status and credibility of these sources should be ascertained.
Pauline letters
There are thirteen
letters internally attributed to Paul in the New Testament. However, historical-critical
analysis of modern scholarship considers Paul as the author of seven letters: Romans,
1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. These
seven letters are considered a reliable primary source to study Paul. Ephesians,
Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and pastoral letters are considered disputed
letters because the Pauline authorship of these letters is disputed. Many
scholars perceive that these letters were not written by Paul and they are
pseudonymous.
Historical-critical
analysis finalizes the authorship of a text based on external and internal evidence.[32] External evidence focuses on the history of manuscripts. Several
important manuscripts of Ephesians do not specify “those in Ephesus” as the
recipients. This could indicate that “those in Ephesus” was not part of the
original text but was added later, probably by someone who wanted to connect
this letter to Ephesus.[33] However, Paul’s name consistently appears in
ancient manuscripts as the sender. Pastoral letters are omitted from the oldest
manuscript of Paul’s letters, Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrus II.[34] It means the editor of this collection does
not want to include pastorals or s/he did not know pastorals. Moreover,
internal evidence should be considered. Unlike authentic letters, Ephesians
does not mention any recent events, specific issues of the community, or historical
circumstances in which the letter was written. In contrast, pastoral letters
give particular situations and several specifics. The problem is that these
details do not match with the context of Christian communities in Paul’s time.
For example, pastorals talk about an institutionalized tripartite structure of
church authority, but this was a later development, not something that happened
in Paul’s own time. The rhetorical and stylistic features also bear on the
question of authenticity. For example, Ephesians uses long sentences, but Paul does
not write in this way. The stylistic commonalities are evident in undisputed
letters but disputed letters diverge to a greater or lesser extent from the
typical Pauline style of writing in the authentic letters. These are a few pieces
of evidence against Pauline authorship.
What is the place of
disputed letters in Pauline historiography? Scholars who do not accept Pauline
authorship of these letters use them only for contextual or comparative
purposes. They do not rely on them as an authentic body of evidence. However,
if these letters were written by Paul or someone from Pauline circle, avoiding
them will be a grave problem, especially considering the fact that the
rhetorical style or thought of a person can change over time and modern
scholars have limitations to reconstructing history of Paul. Therefore, disputed
letters can be a source to study Paul in order to illuminate, contrast, and
compare Paul, but one would not equate them with the authenticity and
credibility of authentic letters of Paul.
Acts of the Apostles
The objection is
raised by scholars against using Acts as a source to study Paul on the ground
of theological and historical divergences between the portrait of Paul in Acts
and his own letters (historical Paul). Some of the divergences are: (1) In Galatians
1 and Philippians, Paul is proud of his apostleship but reticent to discuss his
revelatory conversion experience. Acts places a central focus on Paul’s
conversion experience and is reluctant to ascribe the apostolic title to him.
Acts limits apostleship to Jesus’ twelve disciples. (2) Acts focused on life and ministry of Paul
and minimize Paul as a thinker. Paul is an orator, not a writer in Acts. Paul
himself acknowledged that he was not an expert speaker. (3) Acts mention
nothing about Paul’s anti-Law rhetoric. (4) Acts 5:36 speak about certain
Theudus who led a rebellion. Luke assumes that it happened just before some
apostles were thrown into prison. However, this rebellion happened in 44 C.E.
Historians questioned the veracity of it. (5) If Acts 15 and Galatians 2
discuss the same report of a council, why are they so different? On the basis
of these kinds of divergences, scholars are reluctant to use Acts as a source
in Pauline historiography.
Acts is not written by Paul. Therefore, it is natural to prefer Paul’s
own letters as a source to study Paul over Acts. However, how do we know that
Acts cannot have an authentic record or memory of Paul’s thoughts and life? No
one who is aware of ancient historiography would say Luke wrote fiction. The Book
of Acts preserves some genuine historical and reliable core memories.[35] Luke-Acts claims that the author examined historical sources and presented
an accurate and orderly history (Luke 1:1-4). Acts is an edited account of
Paul’s life and speeches. Gospels are edited traditions of the life and work of
Jesus. Most scholars of Jesus research accept that they get authentic data
about Jesus from the gospels. The book of Acts includes an edited tradition of
Paul. Why one should exclude Acts in studying Paul? It is a source. Historians
should not “ignore or categorize it as a legend.”[36] The author of Acts did not write a novel or an
imaginary story but ancient historiography.[37] Keener gives a long list of historical
information that can neatly fit into historical circumstances and historical
documents.[38] It proved that many passages in Acts preserve accurate historical
information. For example, archaeological evidence confirmed that Gallio, whom
Luke mentioned in Acts 18:12-17, was proconsul of Achaia.[39] In addition, Keener gives a long list of correspondence between Paul’s
letters and Acts.[40] The vast number of correspondences (despite divergences) show that Luke
clearly knew Paul and he wrote history, not fiction. Acts can be a relevant
source to study Paul. However, Acts may not be able to equate with what Paul
himself wrote. Acts can be utilized for contextualizing Paul’s life, comparison
and contrast. To study Paul, all ancient sources should be consulted and used judiciously.
They should not be ignored.
Historical Context: Three Major
Tendencies
The historical-cultural
context of the New Testament is a major emphasis of the Historical-critical
method. There are three major tendencies in Pauline historiography with respect
to how Paul should be studied in his historical context.
New Perspective
It is understood
traditionally that Paul was converted to Christianity from Judaism and he
turned against his former life. As a Christian apostle, he repudiated the law
of Moses, and the law was never intended by God as a way to salvation for
Gentiles or Jews.[41] Since Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, they had been rejected by
God as disobedient people.[42] This portrayal of Christianized Paul became a
major factor for Christian anti-Judaism and the theology of
rejection-replacement. The problem with the approach is that it is
anachronistic and it does not place Paul appropriately in the context of first-century
Judaism. This approach read later Christian ideas into Paul heavily. A
significant corrective trend has emerged in the historical study of the letters
of Paul in which scholarly efforts were made to de-Christianize Paul by
re-Judaizing him.[43] This corrective tendency is known as the “New Perspective on Paul.” This
new approach is heavily contextual. Paul must be studied within the context of
his time and place. John Gager, an advocate of this view, points out that this
approach to Paul takes three aspects of the historical context of Paul into
consideration:
(1) Paul's activity within the early Jesus movement,
including his mission to the Gentiles and the persistent opposition to that
mission from within the movement, (2) his standing within the literary and
religious culture of Greco-Roman Judaism; and (3) his use of Greco- Roman
rhetoric in addressing his Gentile communities.[44]
The strength of this
approach is that it locates Paul within the early Jesus movement, first-century
Judaism, the Greco-Roman world of Paul, and Jewish-Greco-Roman literature. This
approach places Paul more accurately into his own religious and literary
cultural context. This prevents anachronism and reading later Christian ideas
to Paul and helps one to locate Paul historically closer to his time and place.
Politicizing Paul
The letters of Paul are
considered religious texts and studied theologically and/or within the history
of religions. The problem with this approach is that it predetermines the idea
that one may find religion in Paul’s letters and it separates religion as a
separate human experience distinct from other socio-political aspects of
culture.[45] Though
historical-critical work discusses the socio-political aspects of Paul as background,
such discussions are often intended to find the religious meaning of the text. The
recent historical interpretation of Paul recognized the socio-political aspects
of Paul’s letters. Paul’s letters contain a significant number of
socio-political terminologies and ideas. These aspects of Paul can be
recognized and understood when Paul is read in the context of first-century
Roman imperial context. For example, a postcolonial reading of 1 Thessalonians
4:13-5:11 recognizes the imperial terminologies that Paul used in this pericope
and understands this passage as an implicit criticism of the Roman empire. Paul
worked in Roman colonies and his communities were located in major urban centers
of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire was integrally connected to the religious
life of the first century through imperial cults and Roman benefaction of local
religious cults. Any compartmentalization of “state” and “religion” in the Roman empire is anachronistic. Therefore,
the strength of this historical approach to Paul is that the Roman empire, a
socio-political structural reality of Paul’s time, is taken seriously which
enables historians to recognize the political texture of Pauline letters.
Marginalized Voices
Another major tendency
in Pauline historiography is to recognize the marginalized voices.
Traditionally, Paul was interpreted from patriarchal-elite perspectives which
ignored the socio-cultural realities of non-elite people mentioned in the
Pauline text. However, corrective measures are taken to read Pauline letters
from the non-elite perspective. For example, the feminist reading of Paul now
helped scholars to recognize the history of women in Pauline communities in
their own social-cultural realities.
Conclusion
The historical nature
of the New Testament and Paul make the historical-critical method unavoidable
in the Pauline studies. The historical-critical method represents a cluster of
approaches to studying the history of the New Testament manuscripts and the history
that the text recounts. This method is concerned with evaluating the sources
for their authenticity and credibility, understanding texts in their wider social,
cultural, religious and political context, constructing the story by arranging
and selecting the evidence, and interpreting the meaning of the text. Applying the
historical-critical method to Paul involves a major challenge in selecting the
sources. One’s decision on selecting sources for Pauline historiography will
determine the outcome of one’s research. It might be prudent to consider
authentic Pauline letters as the primary sources in Pauline historiography; and
the disputed Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles could be considered as sources,
not in equal status with authentic Pauline letters, that can be utilized for contextualizing,
comparing, contrasting, and illuminating Paul. Ignoring disputed letters and
Acts in Pauline historiography could not be a sound approach to selecting one’s
sources because they provide history, not fiction. Further, the
historical-critical method helps one to locate Paul historically in his time
and place. In this process, Paul is studied in the context of first-century Judaism,
the Jesus movement, Graeco-Roman culture, and the Roman Empire. The literature
coming from these contexts is taken into consideration in understanding Paul. The
anachronistic reading of Paul in the history of interpretation created serious
misrepresentations of Paul that included portraying him as the father of Christian
anti-Judaism. The historical-critical method helps one to avoid such anachronistic
reading of Paul. The New Perspective on Paul, Politicizing Paul, and appreciating
marginalized voices in Paul’s letters are three major Pauline historiographical
tendencies in the recent scholarship to correct such anachronistic readings of
Paul.
Bibliography
Aune, David Edward. “Historical Criticism.” Pages
101–15 in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Edited by David
Edward Aune. Blackwell Companions to Religion. Chichester, U.K. ; Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Barton, John. The
Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2007.
Charlesworth, James
H. “Why Should Experts Ignore Acts in Pauline Research?” Pages 151–66 in The
Early Reception of Paul the Second Temple Jew: Text, Narrative and Reception
History. Edited by Isaac W. Oliver, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Joshua Scott.
Library of Second Temple Studies volume 92. London: T&T Clark, 2018.
Collins, John J. The
Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2005.
Eisenbaum, Pamela. Paul
Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle.
Reprint edition. New York: HarperOne, 2010.
Gager, John G. Reinventing
Paul. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Hayes, John H., and
Carl R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook. Rev. ed.
Atlanta: Jon Knox Press, 1987.
Johnson-Debaufre,
Melanie. “Historical Approaches: Which Past? Whose Past?” Studying Pauls
Letters. Edited by Joseph A. Marchal. 1st edition. Minneapolis: FORTRESS
PRESS, 2012.
Keener, Craig S. Acts.
New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press, 2020.
Law, David R. The
Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed. 1st edition. T&T
Clark, 2012.
Rüpke, Jörg.
“History.” Pages 285–309 in The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in
the Study of Religion. Edited by Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler.
London ; New York: Routledge, 2011.
Sheppard, Beth M. The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament. Resources for Biblical
Study number 60. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
Stern, Fritz, and
Thomas Babington Macaulay. “History and Literature.” Pages 71–89 in The
Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present. 2nd ed. London:
Macmillan, 1970.
Williams, Robert C.
The Historian’s Toolbox: A Student’s Guide to the Theory and Craft of
History. 4th edition. New York, NY: Routledge, 2019.
[1] An example of this strand of thought is John Barton. He argues that
the defining nature of studying the Bible is not interest in history but the
focus on semantics and genre, therefore, the literary aspect. John Barton, The
Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2007), 123–24.
[2] David R. Law, The
Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed, 1st edition.
(T&T Clark, 2012), 2.
[3] Robert C. Williams,
The Historian’s Toolbox: A Student’s Guide to the Theory and Craft of
History, 4th edition. (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), 11.
[4] Beth M. Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, Resources for Biblical
Study number 60 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 15.
[5] Williams, The
Historian’s Toolbox, 17.
[6] Williams, The
Historian’s Toolbox, 11.
[7] Mark. T. Gilderhus, History and Historians: A Historical Introduction
(6th ed.; Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice-Hall,
2007), 9-10, quoted in Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 15.
[8] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 17.
[9] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 18.
[10] Fritz Stern and
Thomas Babington Macaulay, “History and Literature,” in The Varieties of
History: From Voltaire to the Present, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1970),
76.
[11] Stern and Macaulay,
“History and Literature,” 76.
[12] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 19.
[13] John J. Collins, The
Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids,
Mich: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2005), 4.
[14] David Edward Aune,
“Historical Criticism,” in The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament,
ed. David Edward Aune, Blackwell Companions to Religion (Chichester, U.K. ;
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 101.
[15] Law, The
Historical-Critical Method, 10.
[16] The term method is not used here in the sense of its use in natural
sciences. For details, Law, The Historical-Critical Method, 10-14.
[17] John H. Hayes and
Carl R. Holladay, Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner’s Handbook, Rev. ed.
(Atlanta: Jon Knox Press, 1987), 45.
[18] Hayes and Holladay,
Biblical Exegesis, 45.
[19] Hayes and Holladay,
Biblical Exegesis, 45.
[20] Though there are
challenges like intentional fallacy against this senses, still intentional
sense should be one of the meanings that should be investigated in a text
understanding process.
[21] Aune, “Historical
Criticism,” 105.
[22] Law, The
Historical-Critical Method, 20.
[23] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 36.
[24] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 38.
[25] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 43.
[26] Jörg Rüpke,
“History,” in The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of
Religion, ed. Michael Stausberg and Steven Engler (London ; New York:
Routledge, 2011), 291.
[27] Rüpke, “History,”
292.
[28] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 45.
[29] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 45.
[30] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 45.
[31] Sheppard, The
Craft of History and the Study of the New Testament, 46.
[32] A lengthy discussion
is not possible here, but I would discuss some of these evidences.
[33] Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul
Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle,
Reprint edition. (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 17.
[34] Eisenbaum, Paul
Was Not a Christian, 17.
[35] James H
Charlesworth, “Why Should Experts Ignore Acts in Pauline Research?,” in The
Early Reception of Paul the Second Temple Jew: Text, Narrative and Reception
History, ed. Isaac W. Oliver, Gabriele Boccaccini, and Joshua Scott,
Library of Second Temple Studies volume 92 (London: T&T Clark, 2018), 154.
[36] Charlesworth, “Why
Should Experts Ignore Acts in Pauline Research?,” 156.
[37] Craig S. Keener, Acts,
New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press, 2020), 16.
[38] Keener, Acts,
20–22.
[39] Charlesworth, “Why
Should Experts Ignore Acts in Pauline Research?,” 159.
[40] Keener, Acts,
25–27.
[41] John G. Gager, Reinventing
Paul (New York Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 5.
[42] Gager, Reinventing
Paul, 5.
[43] Melanie
Johnson-Debaufre, “Historical Approaches: Which Past? Whose Past?,” in Studying
Pauls Letters, ed. Joseph A. Marchal, 1st edition. (Minneapolis: FORTRESS
PRESS, 2012), 20.
[44] Gager, Reinventing
Paul, 16.
[45] Johnson-Debaufre,
“Historical Approaches: Which Past? Whose Past?,” 20.