“focusing on historical-critical work, and nothing else”

What does this look like? Is it even possible? I’m inclined to think that the “and nothing else” qualification is simply impossible.

Thanks for the push, Chris. First, I did mean “focus.” Perhaps there are issues of interpretation in the periphery, but they are not the focus. Second, I do believe there are those who are interested in the historical-critical method who are not very interested in issues of present-day (or even the history of) interpretation outside those interpretations by other historical-critical scholars. I have met several.

I’m simply saying that folks who don’t think much about various interpretative methods probably should.

Did you want to clarify your question further?

No, I think the original question is clear enough. But, it does help for you to call attention to your use of “focus.” And, I think you are right to notice there are those who have little interest in issues of present-day interpretation. For job purposes you are also right to challenge folks to think about various interpretive methods. I would, however, apart from padding one’s vita, want to challenge those whose focus is on historical-critical work to think about the context of their focus and the reasons for their focus. At some level, I’m willing to bet, the decision to focus on historical-critical matters stems from some unspoken present-day interpretive stance. Does anyone focus on historical-critical methods for the sake of historical-critical methods? Maybe. But to my mind, that seems very uninteresting. Surely historical critics believe their work has some significance outside the enclave of “other historical-critical scholars.” Maybe I’m too idealistic. Your initial statements just made me wonder how and for what reason a community with only a focus on historical-critical methods exists. In asking the questions, I’m not fishing for a “Yeah, you’re right, historical criticism has no reason to exist.” Rather, I’m hoping for a well-reasoned argument for its existence—one that situates it and argues for its significance for the present day.

Thanks for filling that out a bit more. I have gained a much different perspective on this from living within a history department at a major research university than what I learned within a seminary environment (no disrespect intended towards seminaries!). I know folks who really are simply interested in Christianity and its texts as a historical concern–just as there are those interested in, say, the writings of Tacitus and their place in Roman historiography.

But given the enormous cultural import of biblical texts, historically and in the present, there are larger implications than one finds studying Tacitus. Yes, we study the Bible like one should study any other ancient document, but the texts of the Bible are also like no other ancient document given their role in the history of civilization. Knowing that, any scholar of biblical texts should ultimately consider issues of interpretation as you say. I don’t think all historical critics are fully cognizant of the need for interpretative investigation.

I always appreciate your comments, Chris!

Hi Pat,

Nice post. I didn’t know SBL has job postings like that… this is neat. Hopefully I will be in a position to apply for a job at that level sometime in the distant future!

Don’t allow the plurality of approaches on some of these posts intimidate you. I taught at the college and university level for ten years and attended many job interviews at SBL (often referred to as “the meat market”), be confident in your approach and academic education, but be open and willing regarding the use of these other approaches– for the classroom. See for example, Robert Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today (Wadsworth, 2005). He was schooled in historical criticism at Union Sem under Lou Martyn, but has done a marvelous job of exploring the NT text with these other approaches (narrative, social-scientific, feminist, cross-cultural or post-colonial) He learned them in his college teaching prep work. See also Marla Selvidge, The NT (Prentice-Hall, 1999) another master of ideological criticisms, although she was also schooled in historical criticism and learned these other methods “on her own” (I went to grad school with her, so I know this). Be prepared for the interviews, but also be confident with your C.V. (assuming you’re studying at a fully accredited grad school like UCLA, etc.)

Thanks for the word of wisdom (and book recommendations), Charles.

Your examples highlight what it seems Dale Martin’s observation was with Pedagogy of the Bible. Biblical studies programs in the United States are focused almost wholly on historical-critical studies. It seems to me that most graduate students in New Testament studies will be grounded (at least to some extent) in historical-critical work.

I’m not sure that’s all bad, but it would be good if we could mix it up a bit more. Alas, jobs are getting to be even tougher and tougher competition in the field and it appears that starting on more diverse methods earlier will help give the upcoming applicant a bit of an edge over the next historical critic.

But, I take your point. It’s not a good idea to try to pretend to be something that your not, but rather be confident in your education.