In the preface to the second edition of The Epistle to the Romans, Karl Barth addresses his critics who accuse him of being an opponent of historical criticism. Barth affirms his appreciation for historical criticism, yet argues that historical criticism has limitations. For Barth, historical criticism is only the first step of engaging a text; a good commentary will be characterized by a creative energy like that found in the works of Luther and Calvin. He ultimately criticizes traditional historical-critical commentaries for not having much to say beyond the contents of the text. I doubt he would say that things are much different nearly 100 years later, although he’d probably give a nod to some of the recent attempts to better integrate theology and biblical studies. Here’s a portion of what Barth says on the matter:
I have nothing whatever to say against historical criticism. I recognize it, and once more state quite definitely that it is both necessary and justified. My complaint is that recent commentators confine themselves to an interpretation of the text which seems to me to be no commentary at all, but merely the first step towards a commentary. Recent commentaries contain no more than a reconstruction of the text, a rendering of the Greek words and phrases by their precise equivalents, a number of additional notes in which archaeological and philological material is gathered together, and a more or less plausible arrangement of the subject matter in such a manner that it may be made historically and psychologically intelligible from the standpoint of pure pragmaticism. Jülicher and Lietzmann know far better than I do how insecure all this historical reconstruction is, and upon what doubtful assumptions it often rests. Even such an elementary attempt at interpretation is not an exact science. Exact scientific knowledge, so far as the Epistle to the Romans is concerned, is limited to the deciphering of the manuscripts and the making of a concordance. Historians do not wish, and rightly do not wish, to be confined within such narrow limits. Jülicher and Lietzmann, not to mention conservative scholars, intend quite clearly to press beyond this preliminary work to an understanding of Paul. Now, this involves more than a mere repetition in Greek or in German of what Paul says: it involves the reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed. It is at this point that the difference between us appears. There is no difference of opinion with regard to the need of applying historical criticism as a prolegomenon to the understanding of the Epistle. (6-7)
I think Barth had a point. I also think he showed a good deal of foresight. The last few decades have seen so many methods come and go, but historical criticism does seem still to be rather popular – albeit, historical criticism combined with something else, which is what Barth is pointing to, I think. In Barth’s case, theology seems to be an answer, but it is interesting to see how folks in the field have used HC in tandem with other methods: narrative, rhetoric, social-scientific/socio-historical (itself a kind of HC), and even cultural approaches (postcolonialism, feminist scholarship, etc). Barth’s reflection yields a very good statement: “…it involves the reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed.” It does, however, need further reflection as to HOW we can reconsider ‘what is set out in the Epistle’, but maybe his point is that theological interpretation is the tool which gets us there. Although, that tool could also very well be one or a number of methods now available in the field. I wonder what Barth would have to say about our current state of methodological hybridity? Would a ‘theological’ approach still be a/the primary way of going about things?