In the academic study of religion, the words “method” and “theory” possess an immutable, authoritative aura and typically function to amplify the legitimacy of any given study. What is more ambiguous, however, is whether those of us engaged in the study of religion actually have a shared understanding of these terms, and whether we are sufficiently attentive to the way in which we use them. Given this ambiguity, and given how pervasive “method” and “theory” are in our field, scholars of religion should be (in the words of J.Z. Smith) “relentlessly self-conscious” and give some consideration to how our discipline has appropriated these terms. Ultimately, I argue that attention to their genealogy can help us better orient ourselves when it comes to deploying “method” and “theory” in our studies.
In “The Difference Between a Genius and an Apostle,” Kierkegaard deploys the figure of Paul as the archetype of an apostle, who “does not develop in such a way as he gradually becomes what he is [according to potentiality].” This claim would seem at odds with much contemporary Pauline scholarship, which understands Paul’s writings as an ad hoc, developing, quasi-guerrilla sort of theology. While this may be the case, Kierkegaard’s essay is nonetheless deserving of attention, for it highlights an issue that arguably remains a tacit foundation of Pauline studies – namely, the identification and resulting allure of Paul as an inherently authoritative figure in early Christianity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.