It goes without saying that the texts we are reading were not generated in the cultural world that we inhabit (whether that world is in Beijing, Auckland or Mikai). Historical criticism attempts to find the world the text is set in and the world the text was written in. Historical criticism wants to know where the text is coming from.
The first task is to depict the cultural and historical points of reference for the text; if people, places and times are mentioned, what do we know about them? This is a great chance to hit your encyclopaedia and Bible dictionary. Reading a general history of the Ancient Near East (for Old Testament) and the Roman Empire (for New Testament) can bring awesome insight to devotional and study-focused Bible reading.
Next, you might want to consider other similar literature. This could be from within the Bible or from other sources around the same time. Noticing similarities and differences can tell us useful things about how biblical writers were agreeing with and standing apart from their peers.
It’s probably useful at this time to notice the intertextuality of the Bible. By this, I mean that the people writing were aware of everything that was written beforehand. This is especially noticeable when New Testament authors quote Old Testament sources. When we come across this in our reading we should take note of how the author echoes his source and how he re-interprets it.
Historical criticism is also aware of the history of the text: how the story started, was passed down, and was ‘trapped’ by the final editor. However, we’ll leave these ideas to discussion of tradition criticism. When we have made a guess as to when the text was finally written we can spend some time thinking about the cultural milieu of that period and how that was likely to effect the publisher.
What is historical?
We should recognize that “historical” is often used in counterintuitive ways. N. T. Wright has identified possible meanings for “history” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, pp. 12-13). Many of use use “historical” to mean something that actually happened—the opposite of “mythical” or “fictive.” However, many critical scholars use “historical” to refer to events that a historian, using recognized methods, can establish as probable or demonstrate to be true.
One member of the Jesus seminar, for example, explained how an event in the synoptic gospel may have been given a gray rating (it is possible that Jesus did it but the claim is unreliable) not because the scholars did not think Jesus did it, but because they felt there was insufficient “historical” evidence to support that he said it (Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and its Critics, p. 56).
It is common for scholars to oppose “the historical Jesus” and “the Jesus of faith.” A Christian scholar could believe, for example, that Jesus “really” rose from the dead (literally, bodily, etc.) but that such an action is impervious to the tools of historiography and so must be deemed “unhistorical,” the truth of the resurrection being a “religious truth” accepted on the basis of faith rather than on the basis of historical probability. A secular scholar could believe that neither Jesus nor anyone else has nor will ever rise from the dead—so the resurrection cannot be historical—but that the resurrection could be a “religious truth” meaning that the resurrection story conveys something that is somehow “true”.
For many, “critical scholarship” means scholarship done from a naturalist or scientistic philosophical basis. For these, “historical criticism” is a tool for explaining the origins of Christianity in naturalist terms. For others (such as N. T. Wright), “historical criticism” must not priviledge either theistic or naturalist philosophies; by keeping an open mind as to the nature of ultimate reality, it is possible for N. T. Wright to critically argue for a literal bodily resurrection as the best explanation for Christianity.
On the Wright approach
Some of you might be interested in this, rather than me repeat my points about Wright. I just took a randomly chosen piece by him and was unimpressed.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
Reading Wright right.
hi Pluralist. having not read any Wright myself yet, i was wondering if you have read any of his books, or just this random chosen piece.
adios, mutant.
Random
Random pieces
http://www.pluralist.co.uk
suspenders...
i want to suspend judgement until i’ve read a book of his - short articles can be very misleading. apparently he’s written a number of weighty works.
Suspending
A good idea. My judgment is on his appearances and articles, and should be therefore limited. However, these are revealing. You get a good flavour of an author by seeing how they write something quickly. You get a good idea of Don Cupitt in a Guardian article or Lloyd Geering in a pamphlet this way, for example, and I have read much of them. It is important always to see the wood and not the trees. Nevertheless, the holding back is a good recommendation.
http://www.pluralist.co.uk