Joel Willitts recently posted a quotation by Johannes Munck about the traditions of NT scholarship and how his perception was that younger scholars were not given much freedom to question those preexisting traditions. In the quote, Munck also mentions the scantiness of elbow-room in New Testament studies compared to other disciplines (e.g., patristics) that lack the number of publications. I fully agree with Munck that we should always welcome new and fresh ideas, but I would like to make a remark about the lack of elbow-room which he mentions.
No one would disagree that the number of scholarly articles, monographs, and commentaries on the New Testament is so exhaustive that it is difficult to survey even the significant contributions on any given pericope or passage. I have often complained about the over-saturation of NT scholarship when trying to research a topic. What contributions am I supposed to ignore? Is there a cut-off date? Obviously these are dynamic factors given the circumstances, but we have long ago passed the point of being able to know all the various views. In some ways the survival-of-the-fittest principle is in play because scholarly assertions that failed to transcend their generation often go unnoticed to later interpreters. But the over-saturation of NT scholarship is not necessarily a negative thing. Interpreters not only have a plethora of contributions to consult on a topic or text, but they can easily find their place in various streams of tradition and appeal to the research of others. By revisiting the same texts we are hopefully making more nuanced interpretations that take into consideration the problems and solutions posed by earlier scholars. Is this the case or is it just a romanticized view of the discipline?
While working on my PhD applications last year I thought about how the over-saturation of the New Testament would affect my own research and ultimately my dissertation topic. I’ve always wanted to focus on the NT, but have seriously considered extracanonical writings for a dissertation topic because of the more spacious elbow-room. However, one of the factors of a dissertation topic is the location where one is doing their graduate work. I applied to various PhD programs, some whose emphasis were in Mediterranean religion, history, or biblical theology—not New Testament specifically. But, given the fact that I ended up in a New Testament program, my thesis will likely deal with the canonical texts primarily—most likely something on Luke-Acts. This doesn’t mean my fascination with the apostolic fathers and NT apocrypha will be stifled, but my primary focus for now will be on the New Testament.
In a way, this sort of gets at part of the generalist-versus-specialist debate that recently has been floating around on the blogosphere [see here]. Rather than trying to be a jack of all trades or the absolute authority on a single topic, is it feasible to be an expert on a few subjects and do them very well? Ideally, I would like to have a decent grasp of the entire field, but primarily publish in only a few areas, one of which would be a subject that is not already saturated with scholarship. Of course, I’m still thinking these through. Does this sound like the ramblings of a naive student, or a useful way to approach scholarship? Either way, I still think that the over-saturation of NT scholarship is both useful and discouraging, depending on the way one views it. It’s useful as long as we continue to take advantage of all the years of previous scholarship, but we should also pursue subject matter that generally doesn’t get as much press.
In OT we have it pretty ‘easy.’ There are certain “giants” of the field that one must talk about, no matter how flawed their methodology or presuppositions (or no matter how much of a supersessionist they are): Gunkel, von Rad, Noth, Eichrodt, Childs. There are other names, but these are a few that come to mind. Aside from that, a usually fair–albeit arbitrary–cutoff date is usually 1950. I don’t know why. Nothing really magical happened then. But you at least then still have some remnants of earlier trends (for instance, those carrying Wellhausen forward), but also some refinement and movement towards more contemporary readings.
I always try to have a methodological ecclecticism when it comes to histories of research. It helps me to carve out my own niche more precisely, and in conversation–and respectful appreciation–of those that have come before.
Put your ideas out there—as Luther said, sin boldly! I did with my God as trickster topic, and now I’ve got an article published on it, several regional and national SBL publications, and a dissertation in the works. Risks.
See my comment on Mike Bird’s blog:
http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/06/facts-and-theories-in-new-testament.html
Hengel said the days are past when you can read all the secondary literature on any NT topic–but you can read all the primary literature; i.e. Jewish, Greek, Roman (maybe we should add Coptic and Syriac) from ca 500 BC to AD 500. He also compared the size of the entire NT (wordcount or pagecount) compared, for example, to the Migne series.
There will always be a need for new research, because new questions and issues arise.
Getting started on my PhD applications this fall I have thought a lot about this topic too. I often think of the words of the writer of Ecclesiastes: there is nothing new under the sun. I recently told a fellow NT student that everything has been done in our field, we just need to find different angles to come at it from. Not sure how great that advice is, but it seems to be working for a lot of other people (i.e. bringing in sociology to NT scholarship, etc).
John. As Rob’s comment also suggests, you HB students do have more elbow-room. Your point about having to interact with the bigwigs is important. In NT, people from the older generation like Weiss, Wrede, Schweitzer, or even scholars before them such as Baur and Strauss should always be on the radar.
Mark. Do you happen to have the bibliographical info on that Hengel quote? I’d be interested in reading it if it was ever published.
Thomas. Exactly, we’re asking the same questions for the most part, but trying to find new solutions. That’s what I find appealing about approaches like socio-rhetorical interpretation (think Robbins, not Witherington) because it appropriates so many new tools to analyze the text.
Brandon,
The quote was from Hengel’s presidential address for the SNTS, I think some time in the 90s. I have the article at my office, but I’m home now and this is summer time. I maybe will be able to look it up Tuesday.
I’m planning to excerpt a few tidbits from it on Theological German when I get around to it.
Mark
Martin Hengel, “Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft,” NTS 40 (1994): 321; published in English as “Tasks of New Testament Scholarship,” BBR 6 (1996): 67.
The source that led me to the article was “Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for “Generalist” Scholars in Biblical Scholarship” by Michael F. Bird with Craig Keener in SBL Forum at http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=820
Mark
Thanks a ton, Mark!