“How the Original Audience
Received it”:
Investigating the Implications of Using a Historical-Critical Method for the Correct Interpretation of Scripture Today.
D. van Kan Today’s Ecclesia | VOL. 1 | ISSUE 1
Introduction
The study of biblical literature has been a subject of great interest for many respected intellectuals throughout the generations. These scholars have provided valuable insights into the biblical teachings on matters such as faith, suffering, and the afterlife. However, it is important to note that a proper understanding of these teachings requires a knowledge of the culture, philosophy, and tradition in which they were originally conveyed. Without this understanding, our interpretation of the biblical message may become distorted. Thus, in this essay I will consider the values and downfalls of using a historical-critical approach to the reading of biblical literature that will equip us with a theological appropriation of scripture today.
In 1524, Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1534) openly criticised the once widely accepted Dogma of the virgin Mary being the Theotokos (Mother of God) and many other orthodox teachings that were traditionally held by the Catholic and Orthodox Church, and claimed that some of their doctrines were lacking in biblical foundations.1 The Dutch philosopher expressed his concern for the interpretation of scripture given by the early Church fathers, questioning their authenticity, as they acclaimed that their revelations were given to them by God through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Erasmus encouraged for a study of Christian doctrine through the comparison of scripture and rational thinking.2 However, it was not until the Jewish rationalist scholar Baruch Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) expressed his perception of scripture as a byproduct of humanity’s ever-involving history; and that the historical-critical readers of the Bible must read biblical texts in concordance of its possible historical setting in aim of understanding its true theological meaning.3
These radical concepts, besides shaking the academic sphere of theological hermeneutics in the 18th century, presented a new method of Biblical interpretation that illuminated the importance of an appropriate reading of the Bible in light of its historical context. This approach went on to be regarded as one of the most used method for assessing biblical literature during
1Roy A. Harrisville, The Bible in Modern Culture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002), p. 30
2 Gordon Rupp, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978), p.
40
3 Mark S. Gignilliat, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012)
the 18th and 19th century and was used extensively by theological scholars to find a contextual meaning to Biblical literature through the assessment of the historical setting in which the source is originally portrayed from.4 Therefore, the aim of this essay will be an attempt to assess whether this once highly regarded approach to the interpretation of scripture still holds its theological place within the process of the practical contextualisation of scripture that is applicable to a contemporary setting. This will be done through the evaluation of the purpose of the approach, the issue it presents to finding theological appropriation, and how it may be beneficial.
The Historical context of the Bible
In its most basic terms, the aim of the historical-critical approach is to equip the contemporary reader of scripture with a clearer and more appropriate view of the messages conveyed within biblical passages in light of its historical setting. According to the historical critic, the pursuit of comprehending the cultural, social and theological setting of the historical source in question is imperative to gaining a true sense of its theological implications. This is done through the surveying of ancient records, and comparing whether the historical information which is being provided by scripture can be confirmed by external sources. It then secondly criticises the true authorship of the source and investigates its historical authenticity. By applying the knowledge of the ancient social and cultural setting that surrounds the source in question, the interpreter is enlightened with a far more superior insight into the theological meaning lying on the surface of a biblical text.5
In relation to the New Testament, V. George Shillington develops on this concept and implied that scripture is full of different stages of contextual meaning; and in order to gain an authentic interpretation of a biblical text, the critic must consider its historical, social, cultural and theological settings in order to fully grasp what the message of the text is truly portraying.6
Through the process of critically investigating the historical context of a passage and identifying whether is a genuine historical account, the historical-critic would argue that the reader is
4 David R. Law, The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (United Kingdom: A&C Black, 2012), p. 63
5 I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1997.
6 V. George Shillington, The New Testament in Context: A Literary and Theological Textbook (London: T&T Clark, 2008), pp. 7–8.
given access to the true spiritual significance of what the Bible is trying to convey. By finding the genuine theological meaning behind the text, it prepares the way for the contemporary reader to apply a contextualised biblical insight to a modern worldview that leads to a clearer understanding of what God’s word is trying to convey to its original audience and allows for a practically applicable interpretation for a modern context.
Let us take for example the book of John At first glance, without proper understanding of the historical social setting in which this text was composed; these compilations of historical events present the audience with an image of the author, John, as a figure who holds a negative and sceptical perspective on those that are described as Ἰουδαίων (Ioudaiōn), translated as ‘the Jews’ (2:13, 5:1). The author uses this particular phrase 71 times within his biographical account and portrays an extensive image of “the Jew”. On the surface, this could infer that the Jews which are being described are deemed as malevolent, carnally minded and of a worldly mindset. D. Moody Smith commented:
“It is fair to say that in John the Jews stand over against Jesus and his disciples, who are distinguished from them. Yet the Evangelist obviously knows that Jesus is a Jew (4:9) from Nazareth, the son of Joseph (1:45). His disciples, some of whom were followers of John the Baptist (1:35), were Jews as well (cf. 18:15). Despite his knowledge of the historical facts, John insists on characterizing the Jews as somehow dearly different and distinguishable from the band of Jesus and his disciples. By and large, "the Jews" in John are the opponents of Jesus.”7
The author of John’ gospel, in comparison to all other biographical accounts concerning the life of Jesus Christ, such as the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke (noting that each source has their own theological and historical presentations of “the Jews”) presents to the lay interpreter a historical account which depicts a more broader and ambiguous insight into the significant difference between those that we ascribed to the Jewish faith in comparison to those who “believe” (1:12, 3:16, 5:24) in Jesus Christ. Tom Thatcher comments that
7 Tom Thatcher, John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context, ed. by R. Alan Culpepper and Paul N. Anderson (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), pp. 6–7.
“John…gives the strongest sense that Jews and Christians are different, indicating in various ways that he and the members of his churches are not Jews, or at least are no longer Jews.8 By separating Jew from Gentile, John creates a distinguishable divide between the two people groups.
Without a correct application of historical knowledge, the reader of John’s Gospel account is left with an inconclusive and distorted understanding of the source in question. The reader can only know the true intended theological significance of a source through attaining a more extensive understanding of the surrounding cultural environment of the passage in question.
9 Otherwise, it will end up with wrongful biblical interpretation which will be in a manner that is incomplete of the true scope of its true theological substance.
John’s account, a text that conveys a message of hope, yet a large volume of negative connotations concerning “the Jews” through the distinctive use of linguistic terminology, presents the notion of a upcoming divide between those who were seen as ‘the Jews’, and those who were ‘followers of Christ’. Without any understanding of its historical context, the contemporary reader could therefore easily infer that the Christian believer is being provided with a theological testament that affirms a Christian’s superior moral standard above that of the Jew. Which is, of course, not the theological message which is being conveyed by the author of the gospel of John.
Nonetheless, when the book of John is surveyed in light of its historical context, most scholars currently uphold the notion that the biographical account of events found within the book of John are not intended to serve as an affirmation of Judaic moral inferiority, but rather point to an obvious point of theological emphasis.10 Through the effective analysis of the historical setting of the source, we get to understand that the purpose of author’s extensive usage of the term Ἰουδαίων is not for the condemnation of the Jewish race, but as a microcosmic representation of all that oppose the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.11 To the
8 Ibid, p.6.
9 William R. Farmer, Anti-Judaism and the Gospels, ed. by William R. Farmer (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), p. 122.
10William Henry Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895)
11 R. Bieringer, Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 63–64
Evangelist John, his description of the Jews are a generalised representation used to characterise to those who have rejected the message by God through Jesus, and therefore belong to the world. For this reason, the strategically placed usage of the term “Jew” cannot be ascertained to anti-Semitic tendencies, but more correctly as a reference to a “division of men who are in dualistic opposition to Jesus and refuse to come to him as the light.12
Rudolf Bultmann comments that the term ‘the Jews’ is not targeting those in direct association of Jewish descent; but rather as a forum used by the author to connote a generalised directive towards those who are in opposition to Jesus. Bultmann argues that the Gospel according to John presents the Christian as those who have accepted the true Gospel message of Jesus Christ, yet the author implies that the Jews have rejected this promised Messiah (1:11-13) In light of the revelation of Jesus Christ that is presented by the author within the Gospel of John, it is perceivable that he bestows to us this particular imagery of opposition between Jew and gentile as a linguistic platform to create a point of reference for a generalised term of all who are not baptised and in opposition of the Gospel message.13
From a patristic perspective, Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom offer two different interpretations of the theological role that the portrayal of Jews in John's account plays. In his work ‘On the Gospel of John’ Augustine of Hippo interprets the Jews as a symbol of the human soul's resistance to accepting the truth of Jesus as the Messiah. He argues that the Jews, who were asking for signs, were a representative of the condition of the human heart and its reluctance to open itself to the grace of God.14 He suggested that the human heart is similar to the Jews in the flesh in terms of resistance to faith and grace.
On the other hand, Saint John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Gospel of John, interpreted the Jews as a “warning to all people” about the dangers of rejecting Jesus and the consequences of hardening one's heart against the truth. He argues that the Jews in the gospel of John represented those who are closed off to the message of salvation and ultimately lead
12 Cf. Ibid.
13 Rudolf Bultmann, Gospel of St. John: A Commentary (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1971) 86-87
14 Augustine of Hippo, Tractates On the Gospel of John, trans. John W. Rettig (New York: Newman Press, 2002), Book 1, Chap.1.
themselves to destruction.15 Chrysostom continued to suggest that the Jews were symbolic examples to us, and that the image depicted of the Jews was to serve as a reminder of the dangers of rejecting Jesus and the importance of keeping an open heart to the message of salvation. It must also be noted that John’s Chrysostom writings concerning the Jews in his Homilies on the gospel of John may seem vaguely antisemitic at a first glance, but is written in context of their spiritual stance against the Christian faith in terms of unbelief, not in reflection against their ethnic origin.
In light of the historical context in which the book of John was authored, we are able to observe two principles. Firstly, that the historicity behind a text delivers a more in-depth perspective of what was occurring during the time of its authorship. Then secondly, it has emphasised the need for implementing a method of interpretation that considers the original audience which is being addressed. It makes us aware that we must not insert our own contemporary worldviews into the translation of a source which was written to an ancient audience This emphasis for a historical criticism then consequentially provides a necessary foundation for a more elucidated understanding of the overarching theological message, which is being taught throughout the gospel account, which will inevitably direct today’s biblical reader to a more theological and practical appropriation of scripture that is sympathetic of its contextual meaning.
The validity of scriptural historicity
To gain a greater comprehension of the historical value of the source in question, the interpreter must also criticise whether the article in question is either a factual account of historic events, or an imaginative representation of past occurrences through allegory or poetry. According to the historical-critic, external sources which are unaffiliated to biblical literature must also be presented in order to offer a comparison to other ancient documents that have correspondingly given an account of presumed historical claims that present within the Bible. According to the historian, these ancient historical records and writings must be
15 John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, trans. Robert C. Hill (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1999), Homily 3.
included to investigate whether the text in question is providing a genuine account of past historical events or has been misjudged as historical evidence through incorrect interpretation.
For this reason, it must be distinguished that, despite the historical-critical approach having a significant level of hermeneutical value for the appropriation of theological interpretation; this approach towards biblical criticism must be disjointed from the notion that its primary aim is theological inquiry and interpretation. To some historical critics, the authenticity of a source in relation to its true historicity is of its utmost importance. E. Linnemann expresses her concerns and states that whilst the historical-critical approach proves beneficial for the clarification of a source’s original theological perspective, its primary concern is to provide a rational and systematic structure that is based ‘on scientific fact’. This unfortunately dwindels the search of theological truth within a biblical text and replaces biblical criticism with the investigation of historical narratives which are coherent with identical historical records that originate within a similar timeframe of when a biblical text was written.
I. H. Marshall comments on the issue of pertaining the historical-critical approach to the study of Biblical literature and argues that the critical method is more concentrated on substantiating historiographical truth rather than the development of theological understanding. He elucidate on this point and argues that the predicament presented through the application of a historical method to the interpretation of Biblical literature is that the texts which are being scrutinised are primarily intended for theological purposes and are often not designed with a focus of providing records of precise historical accuracy. 16 By implementing a scientific method of interpretation to find meaning behind an ancient text that is intended as spiritual wisdom provided by God, the original message intended by its authors is not only neglected, but also rejected for the sake of substantiating historical accuracy. On the other hand, Marshall emphasized the importance of understanding the theological message within biblical texts with respect to its original audience. Marshall argued that historical criticism should be used in conjunction with other methods of interpretation, such as literary and theological analysis. This approach allows for a more holistic
16 See, I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), pp. 127–28.
understanding of the Bible, which considers both the importance of historical and contextual investigation.
In contemplation of John Barton's view, as expressed in his book The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, his primary emphasis is placed on the historical context of the word of God. Barton argues that understanding the historical context in which the Bible was written in is vital for the correct interpretation of scripture analysis. However, Barton believed that historical criticism provides valuable insight into the social, cultural, and political background of scripture, which aids us to gain elucidation behind the meaning of certain biblical texts. This approach permits for a deeper understanding of the Bible and its true message, which is advantageous for both the scholar and new theolgian. Yet, a flaw of Barton's view is that it can be overly dependent on historical criticism Barton towards the prioritisation of biblical historical context over the theological message of God’s word. This methodology of thinking leads to an overly narrow interpretation of scripture, which is inconsiderate of the broader theological and spiritual significance of Biblical passages.
Karl Barth, in his influential work Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, asserts that theology should be the primary lens through which the Bible is interpreted. He argues that historical criticism should serve a secondary role in the interpretation of the Bible, and that the primary goal of theology is to proclaim the message of salvation in the Bible in all its power. According to Barth, historical criticism can be a advantageous tool in comprehending the theological context in which the Bible was written, but it should not be used to the exclusion of understanding the deeper message of the Bible.17 He challenges that the main task of theology is to interpret the Bible in such a way that the message of salvation is proclaimed in all its power, and that historical criticism must therefore be in the service of theology, not the other way around.
In addition to this, Paul Tillich, in his influential work Dynamics of Faith emphasized the importance of theology in interpreting the Bible. He argues that the Bible should not be treated as an historical document to be explained, but rather as a theological document to be
17Cf. Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, translated by G. W. Bromiley, (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1963).
understood.18 According to Tillich, the Bible should be read and interpreted through the lens of Christian faith and theology, rather than through historical criticism. He argued that historical criticism is beneficial in understanding the original context in which the Bible was written but should not be solely used to the exclusion of understanding the theological meaning. He asserts that historical criticism can be of great use for the search of theological meaning within scripture. However, it shouldn’t be the only way we approach the Bible in terms of gaining a clear understanding from it.
In conclusion, both Karl Barth and Paul Tillich place a high importance on theological enquiry over historical criticism in Biblical interpretation. They both argued that historical criticism should not be used to the omission of understanding the theological message of the Bible, and that theology should be the primary lens through which God’s word is interpreted. They both defended the idea that the main goal of theology is to proclaim the message of salvation in the Bible in all its power, and historical criticism should be used to help achieve this goal, but not to the point of disregarding the theological meaning and context of the text. They both emphasized that understanding the historical context and authorship of biblical texts is important, but it should not be the primary focus of interpretation and should be used to serve the purpose of understanding the theological message of the Bible.
The historical value of a source is vital to determine whether the source is truly what it states to be, or what it has been presumed to be by its audience 19 Nevertheless, some conservatives would argue that the Holy scripture is undeniably the inerrant word of God given to humankind through the authors of each source. They would infer that the Bible does not merely contain accurate teachings on faith and morale, but that it does indeed contain factual and historical information. This provides some conservative thinkers with a biased perspective to their Biblical method of interpretation that intends to both hold the integrity of its dogmatic significance, and also its stance as genuine historical evidence.20 Yet the historical critic claims
18 Cf. Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, (New York, Harper & Row, 1957)
19 ‘Historical Criticism’, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Oct. 1917), pp. 368–371, 368–69 <10.2307/25011528>.
20 Christopher M. Hays, Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism (Baker Academic, 2013) Ch 1.
that scripture is not to be regarded as a sole divine revelation of God’s word, and that scripture presents some incomplete presentation of genuine articles of historical events.
The person who would then observe biblical teaching from a historical perspective would then propose that each source must concur with other external sources apart from it which can confirm its historical authenticity. Linnemann noted that the historical-critical would, in this case, claim that “statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events, and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with established assumptions and theories.”21 These assumptions not only lead the readers to have a perspective which neglects the spiritual value of scripture, but also ignores the theological implications which are presented within the source which is under scrutiny.
Through the lens of the historian, the Bible is perceived not as divine literature through which God speaks; but a compilation of books that have been written by human authors who present contrasting differences on their perspectives on God, due to each of the historiographical connotations each writer implements within their texts. The critic aims to deal with the historical context that is provided by scripture and is not concerned with its theological emphasis.22 By diverting the fundamental attention of extracting its original theological message intended by its writer, the intention of discovering a greater insight into its theological interpretation becomes evidently against its original intention. Joel B. Green comments that “the problematic nature of “history” for theological interpretation is the inevitable consequence of the segregation of “theology” and “history” in biblical studies in the modern era.”23 Consequently, Biblical historical criticism provides the contextual meaning of the Bible without theological emphasis in order for the reader to gain a perspective into the reality of the source and cross-examines the document in question.24 By disconnecting the essential aim of theological enquiry from the aim of biblical interpretation; the value of a
21 Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1990), pp. 83–84.
22 ‘THE HIGHER CRITICISM. AN INAUGURAL’, The Monist, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 215–252 (1904), 224–31 < DOI: 10.2307/27899467>
23 Green, Joel B., ‘Rethinking “History” for Theological Interpretation’, Journal of Theological Interpretation, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 159–173 (2011) <DOI: 10.2307/26421422>
24 John Joseph Collins, The Bible after Babel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), p. 27.
historical-critical method dwindles into the mere sceptical expression of presupposed inferences attributed into the Bible.
The critical interpreter, due to their intensive application of scrutiny and textual analysis, tends to lose the essential value of biblical criticism, which is to discover the contextual meaning of Biblical texts. Hendrikus Boers comments that the historical-critic must judge the contribution of their evidential findings and assess if the values presented by their historical findings contribute to the development of their belief or will be a catalyst for the dissolution of their faith.25 Therefore, in order for the application of the historical-critical approach to be beneficial for contemporary theological understanding, it must aim to expand on both its historical background and also keep in mind to discover its intended theological meaning for its original audience in which we can learn from in order to apply it to our own lives today.
Conclusion
Throughout this analytical assessment for the value of applying a historical-critical method towards biblical interpretation for a practical appropriation in a contemporary setting; we have covered multiple points of interest that have clarified both the benefits and shortcomings of this approach. The value of using a historical-critical approach to find the correct theological interpretation of scripture is both beneficial yet problematic, as it can either serve faithfully to the true contextual meaning of a text, or present conundrums that diminish the true theological significance of the Bible.
Our investigative exploration on the origins of the historical-critical approach, through the likes of Desiderius Erasmus and Benedict Baruch Spinoza, has provided us with an understanding that the foundation of the historical-critical approach is based on the necessity to expound on the deeper theological message of a biblical text by making us aware of the historical context that surrounds the passage in question in relation to its religious, political and theological environment.
25 Hendrikus Boers, ‘Historical Criticism versus Prophetic Proclamation’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul. 1972), pp. 393–414, 393 <DOI: 10.2307/1509178>.
In the same manner literary criticism of the Bible instigates the contemporary scholar to be urged to find a justification for their interpretation of the original theological significance of a text; a historical-critical approach to scripture should provide the contemporary scholar with a clear portrayal of what was occurring during the event a book was authored. This includes how it affected the theological message embedded within it and how then the message which it originally meant to convey can be applied for a modern context to strengthen Christian living in our current setting. However, our investigation also led to the supposition that, despite the need for an understanding of the historicity of a text, the historical approach is not a solely hermeneutical method that could adequately present us with the true theological insight of what a text could be implying, as the primary point of this critical method is unapologetically scientific in approach. The issue that is presented with the application of a scientific method for the extraction of theological insight within a biblical text therefore lies within the thought that theological insight cannot be extracted through a partial investigation of its historiographical background. It must involve the primary aim of biblical literature, which is to provide spiritual answers to its audience and to enlighten humankind on the characteristics of God. By implementing a historically context exposition of scriptural meaning, the historicist loses the integral significance of biblical texts
Through the affirmation of the importance of both the theological and historical value of scripture, we are capable of comprehending a full scope of the messages which are being conveyed in biblical literature. By implementing an approach that does not contend for either its historical validity yet highlights the need for a pursuit to understanding its theological significance, the reader is presented with a theological model that approaches the Bible from both historical and theological perspectives.
Bibliography:
‘Historical Criticism’, The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Oct. 1917)
‘THE HIGHER CRITICISM. ANINAUGURAL’, The Monist, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 215–252 (1904), 224–31
Andrews, Edward D., BIBLICAL CRITICISM (Cambridge, Ohio: Christian Publishing House, 2017)
Barton, John, The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1998)
Bieringer, R., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001)
Boers, Hendrikus, ‘Historical Criticism versus Prophetic Proclamation’, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul. 1972)
Briggs, Richard S., Reading the Bible Wisely (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011)
Charlesworth, James H., Jews and Christians: Exploring the Past, Present, and Future (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1959)
Collins, John Joseph, The Bible after Babel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005)
Davies, Alan T., Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979)
Farmer, William R., ed., Anti-Judaism and the Gospels (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999)
Farnell, F. David, ‘The Flaws Of The Historical-Critical Method Of Biblical Interpretation’, Christian Publishing House Blog <https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2017/01/16/the-flawsof-the-historical-critical-mehod-of-biblical-interpretation/> [accessed 18 Jan 2023]
Furnish, Victor Paul, ‘The Historical Criticism of the New Testament: A Survey of Origins’, 56.2 (1974)
Gignilliat, Mark S., A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012) <https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/A_Brief_History_of_Old_Testament_Critici/WrJln5 IwiZ8C?hl=en&gbpv=1>
Green, Joel B., ‘Rethinking “History” for Theological Interpretation’, Journal of Theological Interpretation, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2011)
Green, William Henry, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895)
Harrisville, Roy A., The Bible in Modern Culture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2002)
Hays, Christopher M., Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism (Baker Academic, 2013) <https://ereader.perlego.com/1/book/1469973/9> [accessed 28 April 2021]
Law, David R., The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (United Kingdom: A&C Black, 2012)
Linnemann, Eta, Historical Criticism of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1990)
Marshall, I. Howard, New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997)
O. Bender, Richard, ‘Historical Criticism and the Bible’, 17,.1 (1965), 25–27 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000706036&site=e host-live> [accessed 12 Jan 2023]
Rupp, Gordon, Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1978)
Sanday, William, Essays on Biblical Criticism and Exegesis (Journal for the Study of the New Testament) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)
Shillington, V. George, The New Testament in Context: A Literary and Theological Textbook (London: T&T Clark, 2008)
Stuermann, Walter E., ‘Benedict Spinoza: A Pioneer in Biblical Criticism’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 29 (1960-1961)
Thatcher, Tom, John and Judaism: A Contested Relationship in Context, ed. by R. Alan Culpepper and Paul N. Anderson (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017)