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.