Skip to content

Course 4 · Lesson 4.3

Strengths and limits of the historical method

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 4 outline

Module 1: How the Canon Formed

  1. What a canon is, and what canonical means
  2. The Old Testament canon: Law, Prophets and Writings
  3. The New Testament canon: from gospels and letters to a list
  4. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons compared

Module 2: The Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint

  1. The Hebrew Bible and the work of the Masoretes
  2. Origin and character of the Septuagint
  3. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the state of the Old Testament text
  4. How New Testament writers quote the Old Testament

Module 3: Transmission of the New Testament Text

  1. Copying by hand: papyri, codices and scribes
  2. Manuscript traditions: Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine texts
  3. Kinds of variants and how they arise
  4. The principles of textual criticism
  5. Reading a critical apparatus and a translation footnote

Module 4: Reading Responsibly: Exegesis and Method

  1. Exegesis and eisegesis with worked examples
  2. Source, form and redaction criticism: what each asks
  3. Strengths and limits of the historical method
  4. Literary and canonical reading

Module 5: Meaning Beyond the Surface: Typology, Allegory and Genre

  1. Typology in the New Testament and the fathers
  2. Allegory and its critics: Alexandria and Antioch
  3. Reading by genre: narrative, law, poetry, prophecy, gospel and letter
  4. Setting, authorship and audience as questions to ask of any passage

Module 6: Christian Approaches to Interpretation

  1. The fourfold sense of Scripture in the medieval church
  2. Reformation principles: Scripture, clarity and the grammatical and historical sense
  3. Orthodox and Catholic approaches: Scripture within Tradition
  4. Historical scholarship and theological interpretation in conversation

Module 7: Writing an Exegesis

  1. Choosing a passage and framing a question
  2. Observation and context: what the text says and where it stands
  3. Using commentaries and reference works without being led by them
  4. Writing up, checking conclusions and revising

All courses

Program / Course 4: Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics / Lesson 4.3

What you will learn

  • Describe the aims and tools of historical study of the Bible.
  • Name the main strengths of the method and give an example of each.
  • Name the main limits and the criticisms made by Christian and secular scholars.
  • Explain how the method relates to faith commitments without assuming that the two must conflict.

The big idea

The historical method studies the Bible as a collection of ancient texts written by real people in particular times and places. Its tools include languages, archaeology, comparison with other ancient writings and the weighing of evidence. Its strengths are real: it guards against anachronism and brings new evidence to light. Its limits are real too. Its conclusions rest on inference and are often debated, and by itself it cannot say whether a text is true in the sense that faith asks. Many Christians use it alongside other ways of reading.

Key terms

Historical-critical method
The family of methods that study biblical texts in their historical setting, including textual, source, form and redaction criticism. Critical here means careful judgment, not hostility.
Anachronism
Placing something in the wrong time, such as reading modern ideas into an ancient text.
Methodological naturalism
The practice of explaining historical events only by natural causes in scholarly work, without ruling on whether anything more exists.
Analogy (in historical method)
The principle that the past is judged by what we know of the present. It is one of the principles of historical reasoning discussed by Ernst Troeltsch.
Criteria of authenticity
Tests used by historians to judge whether a saying or event of Jesus is likely historical, such as multiple attestation and embarrassment.
Pre-critical interpretation
Reading of the Bible before the rise of the modern historical method, in the patristic, medieval and Reformation periods.
Faith seeking understanding
A phrase associated with Anselm, describing theology as the work of a believer who wishes to understand what he believes.

Background

The historical method took shape in the age of the Enlightenment, when scholars began to apply to the Bible the same questions they asked of other ancient texts. Who wrote this, when and why? What did the words mean then? How reliable are the sources? These questions are not hostile in themselves. Early Christian writers also asked about authorship and sources, as Luke does in his preface. What was new was the systematic application of the questions and a growing readiness to set aside the church’s traditional answers.

Over time, historical study produced an enormous body of knowledge. We now know much more about the languages of the Bible, the culture of the ancient Near East and the world of Greek and Roman antiquity. At the same time, the method became linked in many minds with skepticism. Some scholars used it to challenge traditional views of authorship and of the events described. Others, including many believers, used it to deepen their understanding.

The honest question is not whether to use history, since the Bible is full of history, but how far history can take us and what it must leave to other kinds of reading.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Count the strengths

The method gives at least four gifts. First, it protects the reader from anachronism. Knowing what a denarius was, what a Pharisee was, or what a scroll was makes the text clearer. Second, it supplies evidence. Archaeology, inscriptions, and comparison with texts from Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece illuminate the text. Third, it trains disciplined attention to the words, the grammar and the structure. Fourth, it offers a shared ground where believers and non-believers can talk, since its evidence and arguments are open to all.

A simple example is the Gospel of John’s mention of the pool of Bethesda with five porches (John 5:2). Skeptics once doubted that such a place existed. Later excavations in Jerusalem uncovered a pool with colonnades, and the account is now read in light of the find. Not every archaeological story is so clear, but this kind of contribution is typical of the method at its best.

Step 2: Count the limits

The first limit is that the conclusions are inferences. Dating a book, finding a source or identifying a form involves reasoning from partial evidence, and it is common for scholars to reach different conclusions from the same data. The second is that the method works with a limited range of explanations. Historians generally explain events by natural causes, and this is a practical rule. When the subject is a miracle, the method can examine what the sources say, but it cannot by itself say whether God acted.

A third limit is that the method alone does not answer the questions of faith. It can say what a text meant to its first readers, but it does not say whether the message is true or what a person should do. A fourth is a danger of fragmentation: a scholar who pulls a text into sources and layers can lose sight of the text as it stands, which is the form in which the church has read it. The final limit is that scholars themselves bring assumptions. The claim of perfect neutrality cannot be sustained.

Step 3: Listen to the critics

Critics come from several directions. Some conservative Christians worry that the method is built on the assumption that the supernatural is excluded. They argue that if the Bible’s claims about God’s action are true, a method that rules them out cannot reach the whole truth. Others, including scholars in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, warn that treating the Bible as only a collection of ancient documents misses what the church has always held, that it is Scripture, read in the community of faith.

Critics from the other side say that believers can use the method only up to the point where it threatens their convictions. They argue that the method should be applied without exceptions. Some Christian scholars reply that a believer can use the method honestly and still hold that the story it studies is more than the method can measure. The debate is not new, and a fair student will read each side.

Step 4: Hold the method in its place

A useful picture is that the historical method answers some questions very well and others not at all. It can tell you about the world of Paul’s letters. It cannot tell you whether to trust Paul’s gospel. For that, other kinds of reading are needed: literary, canonical and theological. The later lessons of this course take them up. In your own work, use history for what history does, state its results with the confidence they deserve, and avoid treating it as the only way to read.

  1. What question am I asking, and can a historical method answer it?
  2. What evidence supports this historical claim, and how strong is it?
  3. Is this a conclusion from evidence or an assumption brought to the evidence?
  4. Would a believer and a nonbeliever both be able to examine the evidence?
  5. What does this method leave unsaid about the passage?
  6. Where do other ways of reading help?

Examples

Bethesda

An archaeological find in Jerusalem matched the description of a pool with porches in John 5:2. The find does not prove the miracle, but it shows that the Gospel’s setting was real. It is a modest example of the method supporting the credibility of a text in a detail.

Dating a letter

A scholar argues from style and setting that a letter was written in the first century by a follower of Paul and not by Paul himself. Another argues from the same evidence that Paul wrote it. Both rely on the same method and reach different results. The example shows that the method provides arguments and not automatic answers.

The resurrection

Historians can study the sources for the resurrection of Jesus, ask when they were written and compare them. They differ widely in their conclusions. N. T. Wright, in the book listed for this course, argues for the historical case, while others dispute it. The case shows where history can speak and where it meets questions beyond it.

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church encourages the use of historical study, holding that God spoke through human authors in their own time. At the same time it teaches that the Bible must be read in the unity of the whole Scripture, within the living tradition of the church. Pope Benedict XVI, among others, wrote that history and faith should work together.

Orthodox

Orthodox theologians often accept the findings of historical study that help to read the text but are cautious about methods that separate the text from the church. They emphasize that the Bible is the book of the church and is understood in worship and with the fathers.

Evangelical Protestant

Many evangelical scholars use grammatical and historical study as the basis of interpretation and defend the reliability of the texts. They reject conclusions that rule out miracles from the start, and they differ among themselves about authorship and dating in some books.

Liberal and mainline Protestant

Many scholars in these traditions embrace the full use of historical criticism, seeing it as a gift that frees interpretation from outdated assumptions. They also differ widely about how historical results bear on faith and preaching.

Secular scholars

Secular historians apply the method as they would to any ancient text. Some find the Bible a rich source and some find it unreliable in places, and they emphasize that conclusions must rest on evidence open to everyone.

Why it matters

Almost every modern commentary, study Bible and university course on the Bible uses historical methods. If you understand what they do well and where they stop, you can use their results without being awed or alarmed. You can also see why some of the disagreements about the Bible are about method as much as about evidence.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The historical method disproves the Bible.

Correction: The method examines texts and evidence. Its results have sometimes confirmed and sometimes challenged traditional views. It cannot by itself decide questions of faith.

Misunderstanding: Believers cannot use the historical method honestly.

Correction: Many believers have used it with honesty and skill. They hold that its results should be weighed on the evidence, while keeping the faith they bring.

Misunderstanding: Historical study is neutral and free of assumptions.

Correction: Every scholar has assumptions. Good practice is to state them and to test results against evidence open to others.

Misunderstanding: Before modern times no one asked historical questions of the Bible.

Correction: Early writers such as Origen, Jerome and Augustine discussed authorship, sources and the meaning of words. The modern method systematized these questions.

Knowledge check

Name two strengths of the historical method with an example.

It protects from anachronism, as when knowledge of first century customs clarifies a passage. It supplies evidence, as when excavation of a pool in Jerusalem matched the description of Bethesda in John 5. It also trains attention to detail and offers shared ground for discussion.

Name two limits of the historical method.

Its conclusions rest on inference and are often debated. It generally works with natural explanations and cannot by itself decide whether God acted. It does not answer questions of truth for faith, and it can fragment a text. Any two are correct.

What is a conservative Christian criticism of the method?

Some argue that the method assumes the supernatural is excluded and so cannot reach the whole truth if God truly acted in history. Others reply that a believer can use the method for what it does while holding that the story is more than the method can measure.

Why might Catholic and Orthodox writers emphasize reading within the church?

They hold that the Bible is the book of the church, written and handed on in the community of faith. A method that treats it only as a set of ancient documents would miss how it has been received and understood in worship and tradition.

Think it through

  1. What is the difference between a historical question and a question of faith, and where do they meet?
  2. How would you explain to a friend why a believer might welcome archaeological and historical study?
  3. What is the danger of treating one method as the only road to truth?
  4. Which of the limits named in this lesson do you find most serious, and why?

Independent assignment

Strengths and limits in one passage

Choose a passage with historical content, such as John 5:1-9 or Acts 18:1-17. In your notebook, list what historical study could tell you about the setting (places, customs, dates) and what it could not tell you about the meaning and truth of the passage. Write 300 to 450 words, with at least two strengths and two limits illustrated from your passage. Keep your work in your notebook.

Further study