This thesis attempts to analyse the manner in which various unexamined presumptions have influenced the historical study of Protestant Christianity in Korea. The main argument is that the perspectives and methods utilised by the Korean Protestant historians in their study of Protestant Christian history in Korea simply serve to replicate these presumptions. Despite the purported application of different perspective in their historical study of Protestant Christianity in Korea the actual written histories of the Korean Protestant historians remain identical in nearly all aspects. The first three chapters provide the theoretical basis for a critical and comparative analysis of the five Korean Protestant historians. It will be demonstrated that Korean Protestant historians systematically fail to obtain a coherent understanding of the very context in which their historical studies are undertaken. This failure leads the historians to uncritically appropriate various historical presumptions regarding Protestant Christianity into their histories. This further leads to the actual written histories adopting identical forms and contents. Three examples of how the uncritical appropriation of presumptions distorts the reality of the historical experience show that the failure by the historians to question such presumptions results in distorted narratives and mistaken interpretations of historical experiences. Furthermore, these presumptions function as a master narrative that undermines the appropriate application of the purported historiographical perspectives of the Korean Protestant historians. The final part of the thesis seeks to identify theoretical and methodological alternatives that can inform the historical study of Protestant Christianity in Korea. Developments in methodology and perspective with regard to the historical study of Christianity as a world religion can provide useful insights into how Korean Protestant historical studies can move beyond its present state of entrapment.