How to Write a Research Paper in Historical Theology

The Parts of a Research Paper

A research paper in historical theology has three parts: 

1. The thesis and state of the question, which summarizes and categorizes the secondary sources. 
2. Body, which includes your arguments based on the primary sources. 
3. The conclusion, which situates your findings in the state of the question.

Thesis and State of the Question

Forget a cute literary hook to grab the reader. This is OK for a speech, though. You should catch your reader by showing that you have something to say.

Thesis. The paper should not be “exploring” or “examining” a topic, but rather “demonstrating” or “proving” a thesis. You may not know exactly what the thesis is until you are half-way through taking notes.

State of the Question. Give the state of the question. This is a paradigmatic analysis of what has been done, with notation of the materials which are to be used.

1. Ask, “What are the secondary writers saying about the primary sources?”
2. Discuss the status controversiae. Which of the secondary sources are correct?
3. Say, “I have something to say that others haven’t done.”

Do this in about two or three paragraphs. This gives a “warrant for starting” your essay. It shows that you have something to say, and that you know what has been said. You have to cover the secondary sources, but it can’t overwhelm your essay. It should be about 10% of the essay.

Body

The body of the research paper focuses predominantly on analysis of primary texts. Nevertheless, it can have dialogue with secondary sources. Names of other scholars can be included there in the body text. Sometimes this is helpful to make points over against someone else.

Conclusion

A conclusion must conclude. It should not introduce new evidence. It cannot state more than what you set out at the beginning to prove. It must stay within the boundaries established by the materials you have examined. The conclusion should show that you have advanced the state of the question to a new position.

Conclusions of historical papers are usually generalizations. We then question these generalizations. No generalization ever quite fits, but you need to do it. For example, I wrote on Luther on marriage and sexuality. At the end I generalized to depict Luther (on the basis of my analysis of his writings) as a champion of chastity rather than a liberator in sexual matters.

The conclusion should be short.

The conclusion must not go beyond your primary sources! For example, if you have analyzed five books by Luther, you cannot say that Luther never says X. You can say that Luther does not say X in these five books!

The conclusion must take what you have proved in the body and situate it with reference to the previous state of the question. This could be: (1) Confirming the position of some previous researchers by finding the same thing in hitherto unresearched primary sources. (2) Challenging the position of other previous researchers by a new examination of previously researched primary sources. (3) Challenging the position of other previous researchers by an examination of previously unresearched primary sources.

It should not: (4) Simply confirm the position of some previous researchers on the basis of previously researched primary sources. (5) It should not ever make conclusions on the basis of secondary sources.

Footnotes

Footnotes will be longest and most plentiful in the beginning state-of-the-question section, perhaps up to 2/3 of the page. The body will have consistent footnotes, but usually taking up less than 1/4 of the page, since your analysis will be focused on one document at a time. The conclusion is where you can say what you think. You don’t need any footnotes here.

Do not put excursûs in footnotes.

A research paper that uses the notes-bibliography style actually does not need a bibliography. A thesis with several chapters does.

How to Do the Research

In any given field there are tools. Never assume that you’re the first one to ask a question. Most tools have a text history.

1. Get a quick overview of the topic by using a theological encyclopedia.
2. Read both primary and secondary sources, going back and forth from one to the other.
3. Ask, “What are the secondary sources saying about the primary sources?”
4. Figure out the state of the question. Which of the secondary sources are correct?
5. Figure out what you have to say that that others haven’t said.
6. Start framing the introductory paragraph at the beginning of your research. Ask, “Where am I going with this essay? What is my topic? How does my topic construe? How will I go about it?”

Secondary sources are what scholars are saying about your topic. Primary sources are historical documents closest to what you’re researching. For example, if you are writing an article about Luther, an article in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation is a secondary source; a sermon by Luther is a primary source.

Primary sources have the most proximate relationship to the topic you are studying. These are in three forms:

1. From the era itself, either published or in manuscript. (Example: a 1529 printing of the Small Catechism.)
2. Critical editions. These add biblical allusions and sources. (Example: the Small Catechism in the Weimar edition of Luther's works.)
3. Translations. Be sure to check the reliability of these. Be careful, sometimes they add Scripture references that the original author did not include, and sometimes the editors are not careful to note their additions (e.g., by using square brackets). Also, the footnotes referring to scholastics may not have been read by the original author (Luther). The editorial references may not be helpful. So try also to use the original.

Secondary sources are more distant, and base themselves on an analysis of the primary sources. Secondary sources may never be used to fill up gaps in your knowledge.

Do not cite tertiary sources (i.e., sources that base themselves or summarize secondary sources, like Luther Digest, Lutheran Cyclopedia, or Wikipedia). But you can use the tertiary sources to find the secondary and primary sources. Then disregard whatever you read in the tertiary source.

What is the requisite level of detail for this paper? It depends on the level of detail in the primary and secondary sources. Never thin it out. Either take a bigger or smaller topic. Either pare it down or bulk it up with real material.

How to approach documents from the past? It should usually bother you intellectually. Don’t write about that, but use it. Notice the differences between then and now. What does this tell me about his context? Hold the dissonance in methodological abeyance. How do you use your subjectivity? Let the difference between you and the text drive you to understand why, what is it out there that’s generating this? Don’t get into correctness.

Once you have the topic, you still have to be tentative about its shape. Don’t prejudge the boundaries, shape, and conclusion.

Also, you cannot ignore secondary literature. Questions to ask of the documents: Is it a topic at all? Is it new, or just new to me? You need to know the state of the question, which is the history of scholarship. This shows you what has been said before.

Steal bibliographies from others. They cannot be copyrighted. Ask, “Is there something they have found that I have missed?” But you can’t steal footnotes. You can, however, use their footnotes to find spots in the primary sources and add “cf. Somebody” or “contra Somebody.” The most recent resources should have the best bibliography. Make a hierarchy of sources and ask, “What’s more important?” “By their footnotes ye shall know them.” Look at a good article’s footnotes to see how to do your own.

Keep a good balance between primary and secondary sources. You have to say something new and different based on the old texts. Is there something missing in the secondary sources?

Sometimes you have to write with the risk of ignorance. As your bibliography gets better you know your weaknesses better. To handle ignorance, you should use the standard references (e.g., Quasten for patristics; Althaus and OER for Luther).

Bibliography Software

Software like Zotero (www.zotero.org, free) will save you a lot of time. They do several things to help you:

1. Store the bibliographical data.
2. Format it automatically, for either footnotes or a bibliography.
3. Insert footnotes with a few clicks.
4. Import bibliographical data straight from the internet. For example, you can add books straight from the CTS library website, or from ATLA Religion Index. Why type it out when you don’t have to?

The other way is to have a master bibliography file for each project. Enter the full bibliographical data right after you take your first note.

Computerized Searches

Start with the big databases. There has been a proliferation of digital resources since 2000. Nowadays 16th-century and 17th-century texts from Germany have been scanned and are available for reading, free online, and often for download as PDF. One of the best gateways to this material is http://kvk.bibliothek.kit.edu.

Through http://www.ctsfw.edu/resources/more-library-resources/ CTS students have access to:

• ATLA Religion Database, which indexes journal articles and chapters of multi-author books. (But limited scope. For example, it handles religion, but not historiography.)
• The Chicago Manual of Style (the same as Turabian, but more detailed).
• Oxford Reference. (A source for short articles on many topics, with recent research and bibliographies.)
• Theological Research Exchange Network. (An index of dissertations and theses. Be sure to check the option “exact phrase.”)

“Index Theologicus” from the University of Tübingen is a valuable search engine for historical theology and church history: http://www.ixtheo.de/.

Google Book Search can be a great way to search for discussions on an obscure phrase. Simply place the phrase in quote marks. Another option is to limit the search to a specific time period. https://books.google.com/.

When using search engines, be sure to use “and” and “not,” and, if necessary, the option for an “exact phrase.”

Know the limitations of each database. (1) Scope. (2) Search oddities and user-friendliness. (3) Realize that you have to search on all synonyms.

Encyclopedias

Stay away from general encyclopedias. Specialist ones are OK, if articles are signed and written by a specialist. Never cite a one-volume encyclopedia (like Lutheran Cyclopedia). Yet you may use these to get a quick overview of a topic.

Taking Notes

Leave yourself a paper trail. My main tip is to use a version of the note card method of writing. Here is how I write.

• Your best thoughts will come to you as you read and interact with texts. So you need to capture those thoughts on paper as you are reading.
• For secondary sources, I take quick notes on separate pieces of paper for each book or article that you read. What I do is this: I use half-sheets of paper, 3-hole punched and put into a binder. I write the name of the book or article at the top of the sheet. Then I take notes on the book by basically making an index with page numbers, so that I can easily find a place in the book or article later on. Finally, after reading the book or article, I write a short summary of it in only one or two sentences.
• For primary sources, write out your thoughts, with one thought or one paragraph per sheet of paper. The benefit of having only one thought or paragraph per sheet of paper is that when it comes time to write, you can easily shuffle your notes into any order you like. (If you take all your notes in a word processor document, you can't easily shuffle the notes around.)
• I prefer to use half-sheets of paper, three-hole punched, and put into a statement-size binder. Others prefer to use note cards.
• At the top of the sheet of paper, write the topic. I use all caps.
• At the bottom of the sheet of paper, write a footnote. Don’t do partial footnotes, even if you plan to add it later. You will forget where you got this. Don’t take notes without citing your source. Devise a short title. This might just be a short reference, like: Mayes, How to Write, p. 42. Each paragraph should be footnoted. There should be at least one footnote per paragraph, usually on the last sentence, and after every closed quote. Use a new footnote when the page or paragraph of the source changes.
• After you take your first note from a text, type up the bibliography for that text in your computer. This could be done using bibliography software, or it could just be in a word processor document. Format it for footnotes.
• Are you quoting, paraphrasing, or analyzing? If it’s a quote, use quotation marks and a footnote. If it’s a paraphrase, just foonote it. If it’s your own analysis, use some sort of mark to yourself so that you remember that you wrote that. (I use musical eighth-notes.) When taking notes, should you copy or paraphrase? You should usually paraphrase analytically. A short, ten-page essay needs no large quotations. A thirty-page essay can have a few. You may quote phrases, but most of the words should be yours.
• Early on, think about what the outline for your paper might be. But you don't have to decide this at the beginning. It will become obvious to you as you take notes.
• Eventually, you will have your notes, and you will have an outline. Now put your notes into order, according to your outline. You will find that you can't use some of your notes because they don't contribute anything to the purpose of the paper. That's to be expected.

How to adapt your method to the computer? Always take notes the same way. You have to be able to put all your notes together and see them. Never take notes in more than two ways, e.g., hardcopy and computer. On computer, keep separate files for each source. When you copy a paragraph of notes for use in your paper, then mark in your notes where you used it. Footnote carefully!

What I sometimes do is to use a computer document to hold the quotations I plan to use, footnoted. In the paper notes, I include the beginning and end of the quote, footnoted, plus whatever analysis I have. This way I can tell where the quote belongs in the essay.

How do I go about arguing the case? Establish a narrative shape. (Tell a story.) Ask, “How does this stuff flow? Chronologically? Topically? Subsets of the controversy? Examining commentaries? Don’t follow the outlines of secondary sources.

Typing it Up

• Type up the notes.
• Standardize your formatting. Make a style sheet and use paragraph styles. Always use the same styles.
• You'll have to add some transition sentences. Don’t write unfootnoted transition paragraphs, though. How to do a major transition? Just throw in a subheading.
• Some of your reflections will serve as the "conclusion" section.
• Never use “ibid.” If you move text in a word processor, you’re in trouble.
• Make sure your work is being backed up after every work session. I use Google Drive, and then my computer does weekly backups, and then from time to time I do yet another backup, to an external drive that I keep somewhere else. (I should really keep this offsite.)
• No one writes books; you can only write articles. Put enough articles together, and you have a book. Also, no one, in fact, writes whole papers. We can only write sentences and paragraphs, and then ask, “Where does this fit?” “What is the shape of this essay?”

Done! That's your paper. If I didn't use this process, there would be no way I could write the kinds of articles and books that I have written. The method makes it so much easier, once you implement it. The beauty of it is that you do 90% of the writing while you are engaged with the text, which is when your best thoughts will occur.