Writing Papers for REL 2240: Approaching the New Testament as a Scholar

The Aim of New Testament Scholarship

The New Testament is one of the most influential collections of writing in the history of humanity. It is hard for anyone in our culture to approach these writings without preconceptions: if you are a Christian, then you will probably read them as divinely inspired. If you are not a Christian, then you might read them with great suspicion – perhaps, for example, you are a feminist, concerned that the New Testament has been used to pass on patriarchal values. It is also possible that in taking this course, you are reading the New Testament for the first time, and in some ways, it is an advantage to be able to approach this material with an open mind. The aim of this course is to enable you to read the New Testament as a scholar, but what does this mean?

The aim of a scholarly approach is to reach an understanding of the New Testament that is based on an objective study of the historical evidence. Historical evidence means ancient writings and archaeological evidence. Historical evidence must be available for everyone to study – so, if I have a dream about Jesus, or a vision of the Angel Gabriel, that does not count as historical evidence. After all, not everyone else can share my dream or my vision. In the same way, I may have a deep faith that Jesus is my personal savior, a faith that shapes the way I live. But other people cannot share my faith, so it is not historical evidence.

The Importance of Methodology

Of course, two people can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions. This is where the question of ‘objective study’ comes in. Of course, objectivity is not easy to achieve, but it should not be dismissed as completely unachievable. Of course, we are all human beings and we all have tendencies to be biased in a certain direction. However, because we are diverse, we do not all share the same tendencies, and this means that we can correct each other when we encounter signs of bias. One aim of this course is to enable you to take the first few steps towards membership of the international community of New Testament scholars. I do not mean that there is one official organization that all New Testament scholars belong to, but that New Testament scholars around the world form a large, informal network. It is important to notice that sometimes the vast majority of New Testament scholars reach the same conclusion about a particular topic. For example, I know of no New Testament scholar who would deny that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans: there is a complete consensus on this issue. I do not say that this complete consensus is absolutely infallible, but it provides the strongest possible indication that the belief that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans is based on an objective study of the evidence.

Of course, it is not sufficient that you report the conclusions of other scholars. You are trying to learn how to become a scholar yourself. Once you know how to recognize what counts as evidence, the next step is to understand that objective study requires that you choose and follow a trustworthy methodology. A methodology is a set of criteria that you can apply to different sources or different theories that tells you what to accept and what to reject. Methodologies are important because they enable you to avoid one of the most obvious signs of bias, the application of double standards.

Suppose that someone says that Jesus was clearly the Son of God because his mother was a virgin. Then someone points out that, according to Hindu sources, Krishna was also born of a virgin. The Christian then replies that the Hindu sources are obviously just legends, because the stories about Krishna are too stupid to be believed. This is a double-standard: the Christian is saying, “If I read a story about a miracle in the Gospels, I accept it. If I read about a miracle in the documents of another religion, I reject it.” The bias is obvious, and scholars will simply not take such work seriously.

Of course, that does not mean that you must either reject the stories about Krishna’s birth and Jesus’s birth or accept them both, but as a scholar, if you accept one and reject another, you would have to point to some significant difference between the two, and explain why you had found a good criterion for accepting one and rejecting the other. You would then have to show that you apply this criterion consistently.

Here are a couple of examples of applying a methodology.

Theissen and Merz, in their book The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide pp.3291-301 discuss the different types of miracles that Jesus is said to have performed: exorcisms, healings and nature miracles (e.g. walking on water). They argue that there are sayings of Jesus that presuppose that he was a healer and exorcist, that in the passages that summarize the miracles that Jesus typically performed mention is made only of healings and exorcisms. So they conclude:

      The right to judge the other miracles – walking on water, the transfiguration, multiplication of the loaves and miraculous fishing trip – differently arises out of the sources. At a very early stage they were not included among the ‘typical’ miracles of Jesus. (p.301)

For another example of following a methodology consistently see my article on The Da Vinci Code (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~bmurphy/Page9.html). There I argue that the story found in Luke’s Gospel that Jesus healed the ear of the high-priest’s servant and the story found in the Gospel of Phillip that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene are both fictitious. It is the same reasoning, in each case, that leads me to reject the story. I adopted this tactic for the following reason. Like most Christians, I find it hard to accept that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. When I reject this story, I can be accused of showing a bias. However, I wanted to show that my rejection of this story was the result of my following a carefully considered method for accepting and rejecting stories, a method that I consider reliable and objective. However, this same method also means that I have to reject a story that I would like to believe is true, the story about Jesus healing the ear of the high-priest’s servant. By accepting this unwelcome result, I demonstrate because I value truth, even if the truth is not always what I would like it to be. I do not adopt the method just because it enables me to reject a story that I do not like.

As individuals, we are all subjective. We have our inherent biases. This is no bad thing: we are human beings, not computers, and our emotional attachments make us what we are. However, by co-operating with other people who have very different emotional loyalties we can formulate and apply methods that lead to reliable results.
 
Learning From Other Scholars

In this course, you are taking your first steps in the exciting world of New Testament scholarship. You should begin by learning your way around. As a beginner, you will often be in the position of having to rely on established results of scholarship.

For example, the New Testament was written in Greek, but we are studying it in English, which means relying on a translator. There are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek, often with variant readings. The translator of the New Testament will probably have used a critical edition of the Greek text that lists important variations in the manuscripts, this critical edition being prepared by a team of textual critics. (Being a textual critic is a great job, because you get to travel to libraries all over the world so as to read these ancient manuscripts). The textual critic needs to have some idea about the age of the manuscripts, relying on the work of orthography (the study of handwriting) and carbon dating. So, New Testament scholarship involves team-work: even the best New Testament scholars, who devote their life to the subject, have to rely on investigations carried out by other scholars who specialize in a particular area. This is possible because, very often, the experts in a particular field agree about certain results (in which case we have a consensus). If they do not agree, it is possible to learn about the reason for that disagreement, and to make an informed version about which side you agree with.

Books that are written at an introductory level should help you in this process. Books such as the text books for the course (Harris: The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction) and The New Oxford Annotated Bible (‘Annotated’ means that it contains extensive notes for students), not to mention the book I quoted by Theissen and Merz (The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide), and The Oxford One Volume Bible Commentary (edited by Barton and Muddiman) all contain information about what results have been established by scholars, what areas are disputed, what methodologies are considered appropriate and, in many cases, suggestions by the author about what conclusion they favor. It is acceptable, in this course, for you to say “This is the academic consensus, and I am not going to challenge it”, but only if you are sure that there really is a consensus: if you take sides on a disputed question, you should be able to offer some defense of your position.

Of course, not all books are written for beginners, and not all scholarship establishes a consensus. Scholars establish their reputation not by simply agreeing with everyone else, but by asking new questions, putting forward new theories and even, on occasion, by overturning the established consensus. For example, Gerd Theissen’s  work on The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity showed how sociological techniques could cast new light on Paul’s theology. Elizabeth Schlusser Fiorenza’s book, In Memory of Her examined the New Testament from a feminist perspective, arguing that androcentric scholarship had obscured the important role played by women in the early Church: she, and later feminist scholars, incorporated some of Theissen’s ideas, but were also critical of his approach.  E.P. Sanders, in Paul and Palestinian Judaism and Jesus and Judaism overturned the view most scholars had of Judaism in the time of Jesus. Then there are writings that, while they do not attempt to challenge the whole academic consensus, do attempt to change the way that we think about a particular book, or perhaps even a particular passage.

For example, it has often been said that John’s Gospel must have been written after 85-90, because it contains a reference to Christians being expelled from Jewish synagogues, and that was something that only happened after the fall of the second temple. (Harris states this as an accepted conclusion on p. 212 of the 4th edition of his book). However, in an article in the Journal of Theological Studies, April 2003, David Instone-Brewer argues that the expulsion of Christians from synagogues may have taken place before the fall of the Second Temple in the year 70. (This is based on his study of a neglected manuscript that, he claims, was misunderstood based on the publication of an inaccurate transcription in 1898. Instone-Brewer’s work is based on an analysis of the original document which was left gathering dust in the library of an obscure university in a place called Cambridge). If Instone-Brewer’s thesis is accepted, then we can no longer be quite so certain that John’s Gospel must be dated after 85, and Harris might have to re-write that section for a new edition. That is if scholars accept Instone-Brewer’s work.

Of course, when scholars write for other scholars their work is different from when they write to introduce students to the subject. They will presuppose a knowledge of certain technical vocabulary and understanding of certain methodologies. They will take great care to quote all the evidence that favors their case, but might not be so careful to examine the evidence that counts against them, particularly if it is well-known. Sometimes, they will even try to suggest that they are overturning a consensus even though the question is disputed, because that makes their work seem more exciting. If you are knew to the discipline, it is easy to be persuaded by such work: of course, something written for a professional audience is going to seem impressive. You should be careful about jumping to conclusions however, particularly if you do not have the chance to read both sides of the argument. There are ways to incorporate such ideas into your work without simply accepting everything you read – notice that in the previous paragraph, I discussed what would be the implications if Instone-Brewer’s work was accepted. I did not say whether or not I think it should be accepted (I need more time to make up my mind).

I am not saying that you should not read articles and books that were written for a scholarly audience. It is only by reading such works that you will get an idea of how good scholarship proceeds. However, you cannot cite every idea you read as though it were an established fact – you must learn to distinguish between the consensus of scholars, that you can usually rely upon from the kind of thesis that divides scholars. Then you want to learn to formulate and defend such theses yourself.

Writing New Testament Papers

I remember a lecture given by Ed Franklin (one of the contributors to the Oxford One Volume Bible Commentary) in which he encouraged us not to rely on everything that he said. “For goodness sake” he said, “don’t take something to be true just because I say it. You might be the next Ed Sanders, who will teach us that everything we think about the subject is wrong.” This is good advice, but you won’t become the next E. P. Sanders over night. Right now, you are learning the basics of New Testament study. So here are some tips about how to proceed.

You want to aim to do more than repeat opinions that you have read: you should take sides on an important debate (What did Paul really mean by justification? Was Paul really a misogynist? What was Luke’s view about the end of the world?) or advance some new thesis, however modest it is. So remember the essentials – you must take an objective approach (explain your methodology and apply it consistently) based on historical evidence (make sure you study the primary sources thoroughly: all the fancy techniques and vocabulary you may pick up are no substitute for reading, re-reading and re-re-reading the New Testament itself!) Of course, you cannot read all the available ancient documents overnight, so I suggest that you always clearly distinguish between what is in the foreground and background for any particular paper.

In the foreground are the texts that are your main concern in the paper. You should read these texts with great care, weighing up every detail, and checking in good commentaries for possible interpretations. You will not receive a good mark if you overlook important evidence in these texts.

In the background are theories and ideas that are relevant to your paper, but which you do not have time to study in quite so much detail. Here, you will try to rely on a consensus of scholars, if there is one, or you might choose to make certain assumptions that seem reasonable, even if you are aware that they are not beyond question.

For example, you might decide to do a study of Jesus’ teaching based on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. You would want to compare these two passages closely, making use of that indispensable tool, the Gospels in Parallel (http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/). You would want to read a couple of commentaries on these passages – e.g. the relevant sections of the Oxford One Volume Bible Commentary and, if available, the Anchor Bible Commentaries. You would also want to read what Harris has to say about Matthew and Luke.

One thing you would discover from this is that Matthew’s Gospel is considered to be more Jewish than Luke’s, and you might want to mention how this Jewish influence is reflected in the Sermon on the Mount. E.P. Sanders’ theory was that Judaism at the time was a religion based on covenantal nomism. That is God’s covenant, his agreement with the nation of Israel, means he will protect everyone who demonstrates their membership of a community based upon the law, (the nomos). Sanders argues that all the different forms of Judaism from the time of Jesus were variations on this pattern. Perhaps you are aware of Sanders’ work, and you can see that it is relevant to your paper, but you also know that not all scholars agree with what he says, and you do not have time to study all of the sources that he refers to in detail (to do so would probably be the work of many years). It would be quite reasonable for you to announce that, in your discussion of the Jewish element in the Sermon on the Mount, you are going to assume that Sanders’ theory about covenantal nomism is correct. On that basis, you might find something original to say.

Types of Source

Keep in mind the importance of understanding different types of source.

(1) Primary Sources: the ancient documents themselves. Thorough knowledge of ancient documents is what sets scholars apart from the rest. Reading as many ancient documents as possible, even in translation, and paying attention to every detail, is absolutely essential.

Ancient sources are not always reliable, but so much of the fun is trying to figure out how to use every scrap of knowledge that we have. The fact that somebody expressed an opinion, and how they expressed it, is always a matter of great interest.

(2) Introductory Scholarly Sources: These give you an indication of the range of scholarly opinion, suggestions about how to read the evidence, and advice on where to go for more information. A good introductory source is no substitute for reading primary source material, but it should help you to make more sense of the primary sources.

(3) Advanced Scholarly Sources: These sources might very well advance controversial theories. As you read them, think carefully about whether they make out a compelling case: what is their methodology, and do you agree with it? If so, think how you could apply that methodology to other questions. If not, perhaps you could write an article criticizing what is said.

(4) Non-scholarly Sources: Beware! It is so easy to be led astray by these. I have been trying to explain how to approach the New Testament in a scholarly manner, but this is not the only legitimate way to write about the New Testament. For example, much devotional writing makes great use of the imagination. Personally, I do make use of Ignatian prayer techniques where you imagine yourself participating in a New Testament story – what would it feel like to be in a storm on the Lake of Galilee? What did Jesus look like when he commanded the waves to be still? For myself, I think it is wonderful to use your imagination like this to enter into the New Testament world, but this is not a scholarly approach.

Then there are writings that are neither devotional nor scholarly but just plain bad. There is a lot of rubbish published on the internet by people who are ignorant of history and have no grasp of proper methodology. There is no shortage of good scholarly material available for you to use. As well as the books mentioned above, we have access (via EZ-Proxy) to some excellent journals: e.g. the Journal of Theological Studies, New Testament Studies and the Journal for the Study of the New Testament. I will also put some links on the web-site to good resources and, if you are ever short of reading material, I can lend you books from my personal library, or help you find quality web-sites. Remember, you can order books from Tallahassee by means of ILLIAD, although they take a few days to arrive. Use the bibliographies in books like Harris to locate books that will be helpful for the papers you want to write. There is no need to waste your time reading all the rubbish that is out there. As you advance in scholarship yourself, you will find it easier to recognize what constitutes respectable scholarship, and what does not.

Finally, do not ever forget, for one tiny second, PLAGIARISM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
For more information, see my notes on plagiarism.