What do you think?
Rate this book
Church History: An Introduction to Research Methods and Resources
In their acclaimed, much-used Church History, James Bradley and Richard Muller lay out guidelines, methods, and basic reference tools for research and writing in the fields of church history and historical theology. Over the years, this book has helped countless students define their topics, locate relevant source materials, and write quality papers. This revised, expanded, and updated second edition includes discussion of Internet-based research, digitized texts, and the electronic forms of research tools. The greatly enlarged bibliography of study aids now includes many significant new resources that have become available since the first edition's publication in 1995. Accessible and clear, this introduction will continue to benefit both students and experienced scholars in the field.
315 pages, Paperback
First published July 31, 1995
29 people are currently reading
130 people want to read
About the author
Richard A. Muller
47 books154 followersRichard A. Muller is professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a past winner of the MacArthur Fellowship. His popular science book Physics for Future Presidents and academic textbook Physics and Technology for Future Presidents are based on his renowned course for non-science students. He lives in Berkeley, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 19, 2015
James Bradley, a professor of church history, and Richard Muller, a professor of historical theology, present an introduction to doing church history at the doctoral level. They begin with two chapters on more theoretical matters. The rest of the book is taken up with more practical matters pertaining specifically to collecting sources, exploring archives and electronic databases, and writing a dissertation, as well as a chapter on preparing courses. It ends with an extensive bibliography and appendices on computer applications and microform. The bibliography really needs updating. However, the chapters on the discipline of history and of the history of Christianity are interesting and insightful, and the chapters on writing the dissertation are generally quite helpful. The rest of this review provides a summary of some key points and lines of thought in the first two chapters.
The guiding question throughout is, ‘can a Christian produce reasonably objective studies of the history of the church and its teachings?’ (xi). Bradley and Muller (B&M) assume the possibility, indeed, ‘the duty of the Christian historian to develop a stance of methodologically controlled objectivity’ (xi). They aim to draw the attention of both the beginning student and the established scholar to new sources and techniques in historical studies.
In chapter 1, B&M introduce church history and its related disciplines. They emphasize the importance of uniting institutional and social history of the church with the history of doctrine and ideas. They argue that a bifurcation into church history and the history of theology is inadequate, since it forces materials into an artificial topical grid. Many of the documents used in church history are shared by historical theology. The difference lies in the historian’s approach to them and the kinds of information it takes.
B&M survey the history of critical church historiography since the Enlightenment, which provided two alterations of perspective: a scientific concern for the analysis of original documents and the freedom to interpret sources while avoiding predetermined or predictable goals. At the same time, Enlightenment thinkers were overly enthusiastic, showing contempt for the past or viewing history in terms of progress toward the Enlightenment goal. The Romantic movement took a deeper appreciation for the past understood on its own terms and greater recognition of the way the environment shapes individuals. In the nineteenth century, there was an increasing centrality of the possibility of detachment and the discovery of actual truth, a tendency which B&M criticize as being excessively confident. On the early twentieth century, B&M write, ‘American church historians ceased to talk about providence or general laws that could be deduced from data. There was still, however, great confidence in history as a science and the ability of the historian to get the facts straight’ (22).
In addition to a church historian’s views on providence, meaning in history, or confessional loyalty, another factor that shapes the outcome of research is the ‘specific method of construing the materials of history’ (26). B&M outline four basic patterns in the presentation of the history of doctrine.
First, the general/particular pattern begins with a ‘general’ historical survey of authors, ideas, and forces in order to identify historical types of theology, and continues with the presentation of a ‘special history of doctrine.’ Although it neatly and systematically lines out ideas, this model tends to locate meaning within a theological system contemporary with that historian, and asks questions that were not asked by past authors.
Second, the special or diachronic model stems from the general/special pattern. This model discusses individual doctrines in detail. The problem with this approach is that it imposes a modern systematic grid on its subject matter by abstracting doctrines from their context.
Third, B&M call the great thinker model the most problematic. The first problem is that meaning is located in individuals, rather than in materials and ideas used by the individuals. A second problem is that it tends to lose track of the interrelationships of ideas and neglects ‘lesser’ thinkers. B&M do point to one advantage, namely, that it is useful as a way to understand how ideas cohere in one person’s thought, provided that interrelationships of thinkers and ideas are not ignored.
The model that B&M advocate as the best model is the integral, synchronic, or organic model, which examines the development of central ideas, enabling broader dialogue with other theological topics and other issues, as well as between the subdisciplines. This provides a firmer basis for answering more systematic questions. B&M argue that ‘[t]he location of meaning lies in the interaction of ideas, in a particular period as understood by particular individuals, but always as contributory to the larger development’ (32).
In chapter 2, B&M discuss the question of the meaning of ‘history.’ They begin with the problem of the past, specifically, the subjectivity of present interpretation of the past. The nature of historical evidence is also a problem, since all we have are traces of ‘what happened.’ Historians deal with human remnants and artefacts, and many of these are ‘brute facts’ or simple data, but most of this form of evidence is a product of the mind. Traces of history (as opposed to events) are neither concrete nor complete. Generally we preserve only what we believe is important.
B&M caution that, while a ‘healthy skepticism’ about the data is important, it should be balanced by confidence about what can be discovered. They claim, ‘This absence of neutrality and direction in human events, and the masses of evidence that do remain can be examined and, often, clearly understood from the perspective of the present’ (38).
Historical research assumes the value and significance of sources and ‘historical study consists in the examination and evaluation of sources’ (39). B&M emphasize the use of primary sources and warn against the use of secondary sources for filling in gaps in information not available in primary sources. The historian is also responsible for ‘the critical examination of evidences for the sake of identifying forgery and imposture’ (46).
B&M turn to the problem of objectivity. Work in women’s studies and ethnic studies have demonstrated the significant influence of a person’s socio-political setting and personal history on the contents and methods of her scholarship. This has raised the question of the possibility of total objectivity or impartiality. Against the subjectivity and relativism of some early twentieth-century historians and modern hermeneuticians, B&M admit that while the significance of materials does change over time, the meaning of a document in its original setting remains constant. Moreover, the coupling of objectivity cultivated by methodology, on the one hand, and awareness of one’s own subjectivity, on the other hand, can highlight the ways in which ‘ideas of the past have been woven into the fabric of our present’ (49). This means that ‘[t]he goal ... is to pursue balance and objectivity without abdicating one’s personality or losing entirely one’s sense of involvement in and with the events of history’ (49).
The type of task the historian undertakes may influence the historian’s success in attaining objectivity. In simple description, substantial objectivity is possible. Explanation makes objectivity more difficult insofar as it seeks causes or motivations of behaviour. Still more difficult in attaining objectivity is the question of significance, the larger historical meaning--for example, deciding between whether economic elements were more significant than ideological or religious elements.
The question of meaning in history raises the question of what difference it makes to write from a Christian or a non-Christian perspective. As Pannenberg writes, ‘Church history faces ... the question of the relevance of the religious concern to the understanding of history because it deals with the history of a religion the essence of which is belief in a God who acts in history’ (Pannenberg in 53). B&M argue that Christian faith is not some undesirable handicap and indeed that a Christian historian’s faith needs not yield work that differs substantially from the work of a non-Christian historian.
***[Criticism or me being obtuse: This section on ‘Meaning in History’ (53-55) is strange to me. On the one hand, B&M want to insist that method, empathy, and point of view will not have a substantial impact on a Christian scholar’s work, and furthermore warn against locating divine providence in history. At the same time, there is a somewhat incongruous paragraph that seems to suggest that Christian historians should not embrace meanings provided by non-Christian historians: ‘Can Christians deal with their own history in such a way as to discern accurately and responsibly its meaning, even when that meaning does not oblige their preconceptions? ... The answer ... must certainly be ‘no,’ if providential or supernatural causes are assigned to events that will never, by their very nature, submit themselves to the methods of the historian’ (54). I can’t make heads or tails of these sentences. It seems to be suggesting that Christian historians cannot accept historical ‘meaning’ if it does not support their theological preconceptions. However, it seems to me that any uniquely Christian meaning of history will already take for granted supernatural causes, precisely because of their theological preconceptions. If B&M mean to suggest, contrary to the whole tone of these two chapters, that supernatural causes *are* possible in historical research, then they have not provided any account of what these might be. If they deny supernatural causes in historical research, then it would have been helpful to show an example of a non-Christian *historical* meaning that would be inconsistent with a Christian meaning that brackets the question of providence. If anyone knows what B&M are getting at--I know I must be missing something--feel free to clarify for me.]***
Some students are overly willing to find providential elements in history and they tend to deal insufficiently with the relation of history as a discipline to theology. B&M discuss the original understanding and historical understanding of documents and ideas. ‘On the one hand, accurate reconstruction entails the establishment of a legitimate vantage point for the analysis of an idea or document’ (58). ‘On the other hand, present-day use of the materials of the past also requires a clear sense of the difference and distinction between the setting of the document and the contemporary setting, as well as a knowledge of the historical path that connects the document with the present and that, in addition to enabling it to speak with a continued relevance to our situation, accounts for the differences between the perspective of the document and our present-day perspective’ (58).
It is not the case that history ‘teaches lessons’ about the good and the bad. Rather, the importance of history ‘lies ... in the realm of the identification and definition of issues and of the cultivation of objectivity in judgment. The assignment of value ... to the ideas and events of the past is not, per se, a historical task’ (60). B&M conclude that ‘[t]he importance of objectively recounted history lies ... both in the task itself and in the use of its result. From the task itself ... the mind of the investigator is trained in an approach to materials that yields balance and solidity of judgment as well as clearer self-understanding. From the result of objective historical investigation comes an indispensable tool for the exercise of critical judgment and for the formulation of ideas in the present. Theological and religious understanding have profited immensely from the revolution in historical thinking that took place during the eighteenth century. Training in theology, especially at the advanced level of a graduate program, whatever the field or subdiscipline, gains its substance and its perspective from history’ (62).
The guiding question throughout is, ‘can a Christian produce reasonably objective studies of the history of the church and its teachings?’ (xi). Bradley and Muller (B&M) assume the possibility, indeed, ‘the duty of the Christian historian to develop a stance of methodologically controlled objectivity’ (xi). They aim to draw the attention of both the beginning student and the established scholar to new sources and techniques in historical studies.
In chapter 1, B&M introduce church history and its related disciplines. They emphasize the importance of uniting institutional and social history of the church with the history of doctrine and ideas. They argue that a bifurcation into church history and the history of theology is inadequate, since it forces materials into an artificial topical grid. Many of the documents used in church history are shared by historical theology. The difference lies in the historian’s approach to them and the kinds of information it takes.
B&M survey the history of critical church historiography since the Enlightenment, which provided two alterations of perspective: a scientific concern for the analysis of original documents and the freedom to interpret sources while avoiding predetermined or predictable goals. At the same time, Enlightenment thinkers were overly enthusiastic, showing contempt for the past or viewing history in terms of progress toward the Enlightenment goal. The Romantic movement took a deeper appreciation for the past understood on its own terms and greater recognition of the way the environment shapes individuals. In the nineteenth century, there was an increasing centrality of the possibility of detachment and the discovery of actual truth, a tendency which B&M criticize as being excessively confident. On the early twentieth century, B&M write, ‘American church historians ceased to talk about providence or general laws that could be deduced from data. There was still, however, great confidence in history as a science and the ability of the historian to get the facts straight’ (22).
In addition to a church historian’s views on providence, meaning in history, or confessional loyalty, another factor that shapes the outcome of research is the ‘specific method of construing the materials of history’ (26). B&M outline four basic patterns in the presentation of the history of doctrine.
First, the general/particular pattern begins with a ‘general’ historical survey of authors, ideas, and forces in order to identify historical types of theology, and continues with the presentation of a ‘special history of doctrine.’ Although it neatly and systematically lines out ideas, this model tends to locate meaning within a theological system contemporary with that historian, and asks questions that were not asked by past authors.
Second, the special or diachronic model stems from the general/special pattern. This model discusses individual doctrines in detail. The problem with this approach is that it imposes a modern systematic grid on its subject matter by abstracting doctrines from their context.
Third, B&M call the great thinker model the most problematic. The first problem is that meaning is located in individuals, rather than in materials and ideas used by the individuals. A second problem is that it tends to lose track of the interrelationships of ideas and neglects ‘lesser’ thinkers. B&M do point to one advantage, namely, that it is useful as a way to understand how ideas cohere in one person’s thought, provided that interrelationships of thinkers and ideas are not ignored.
The model that B&M advocate as the best model is the integral, synchronic, or organic model, which examines the development of central ideas, enabling broader dialogue with other theological topics and other issues, as well as between the subdisciplines. This provides a firmer basis for answering more systematic questions. B&M argue that ‘[t]he location of meaning lies in the interaction of ideas, in a particular period as understood by particular individuals, but always as contributory to the larger development’ (32).
In chapter 2, B&M discuss the question of the meaning of ‘history.’ They begin with the problem of the past, specifically, the subjectivity of present interpretation of the past. The nature of historical evidence is also a problem, since all we have are traces of ‘what happened.’ Historians deal with human remnants and artefacts, and many of these are ‘brute facts’ or simple data, but most of this form of evidence is a product of the mind. Traces of history (as opposed to events) are neither concrete nor complete. Generally we preserve only what we believe is important.
B&M caution that, while a ‘healthy skepticism’ about the data is important, it should be balanced by confidence about what can be discovered. They claim, ‘This absence of neutrality and direction in human events, and the masses of evidence that do remain can be examined and, often, clearly understood from the perspective of the present’ (38).
Historical research assumes the value and significance of sources and ‘historical study consists in the examination and evaluation of sources’ (39). B&M emphasize the use of primary sources and warn against the use of secondary sources for filling in gaps in information not available in primary sources. The historian is also responsible for ‘the critical examination of evidences for the sake of identifying forgery and imposture’ (46).
B&M turn to the problem of objectivity. Work in women’s studies and ethnic studies have demonstrated the significant influence of a person’s socio-political setting and personal history on the contents and methods of her scholarship. This has raised the question of the possibility of total objectivity or impartiality. Against the subjectivity and relativism of some early twentieth-century historians and modern hermeneuticians, B&M admit that while the significance of materials does change over time, the meaning of a document in its original setting remains constant. Moreover, the coupling of objectivity cultivated by methodology, on the one hand, and awareness of one’s own subjectivity, on the other hand, can highlight the ways in which ‘ideas of the past have been woven into the fabric of our present’ (49). This means that ‘[t]he goal ... is to pursue balance and objectivity without abdicating one’s personality or losing entirely one’s sense of involvement in and with the events of history’ (49).
The type of task the historian undertakes may influence the historian’s success in attaining objectivity. In simple description, substantial objectivity is possible. Explanation makes objectivity more difficult insofar as it seeks causes or motivations of behaviour. Still more difficult in attaining objectivity is the question of significance, the larger historical meaning--for example, deciding between whether economic elements were more significant than ideological or religious elements.
The question of meaning in history raises the question of what difference it makes to write from a Christian or a non-Christian perspective. As Pannenberg writes, ‘Church history faces ... the question of the relevance of the religious concern to the understanding of history because it deals with the history of a religion the essence of which is belief in a God who acts in history’ (Pannenberg in 53). B&M argue that Christian faith is not some undesirable handicap and indeed that a Christian historian’s faith needs not yield work that differs substantially from the work of a non-Christian historian.
***[Criticism or me being obtuse: This section on ‘Meaning in History’ (53-55) is strange to me. On the one hand, B&M want to insist that method, empathy, and point of view will not have a substantial impact on a Christian scholar’s work, and furthermore warn against locating divine providence in history. At the same time, there is a somewhat incongruous paragraph that seems to suggest that Christian historians should not embrace meanings provided by non-Christian historians: ‘Can Christians deal with their own history in such a way as to discern accurately and responsibly its meaning, even when that meaning does not oblige their preconceptions? ... The answer ... must certainly be ‘no,’ if providential or supernatural causes are assigned to events that will never, by their very nature, submit themselves to the methods of the historian’ (54). I can’t make heads or tails of these sentences. It seems to be suggesting that Christian historians cannot accept historical ‘meaning’ if it does not support their theological preconceptions. However, it seems to me that any uniquely Christian meaning of history will already take for granted supernatural causes, precisely because of their theological preconceptions. If B&M mean to suggest, contrary to the whole tone of these two chapters, that supernatural causes *are* possible in historical research, then they have not provided any account of what these might be. If they deny supernatural causes in historical research, then it would have been helpful to show an example of a non-Christian *historical* meaning that would be inconsistent with a Christian meaning that brackets the question of providence. If anyone knows what B&M are getting at--I know I must be missing something--feel free to clarify for me.]***
Some students are overly willing to find providential elements in history and they tend to deal insufficiently with the relation of history as a discipline to theology. B&M discuss the original understanding and historical understanding of documents and ideas. ‘On the one hand, accurate reconstruction entails the establishment of a legitimate vantage point for the analysis of an idea or document’ (58). ‘On the other hand, present-day use of the materials of the past also requires a clear sense of the difference and distinction between the setting of the document and the contemporary setting, as well as a knowledge of the historical path that connects the document with the present and that, in addition to enabling it to speak with a continued relevance to our situation, accounts for the differences between the perspective of the document and our present-day perspective’ (58).
It is not the case that history ‘teaches lessons’ about the good and the bad. Rather, the importance of history ‘lies ... in the realm of the identification and definition of issues and of the cultivation of objectivity in judgment. The assignment of value ... to the ideas and events of the past is not, per se, a historical task’ (60). B&M conclude that ‘[t]he importance of objectively recounted history lies ... both in the task itself and in the use of its result. From the task itself ... the mind of the investigator is trained in an approach to materials that yields balance and solidity of judgment as well as clearer self-understanding. From the result of objective historical investigation comes an indispensable tool for the exercise of critical judgment and for the formulation of ideas in the present. Theological and religious understanding have profited immensely from the revolution in historical thinking that took place during the eighteenth century. Training in theology, especially at the advanced level of a graduate program, whatever the field or subdiscipline, gains its substance and its perspective from history’ (62).
September 18, 2025
As daunting it may seem to read a book on research methods, this is well worth the time and money. The bibliographical information is sufficient enough to own the book; Bradley and Muller provide countless of invaluable resources for the burgeoning scholar.
The most interesting reading is found in the earliest chapters wherein the philosophical underpinnings of historical methodology are elucidated. Bradley and Muller are particularly helpful for their contention of an eclectic method that utilizes as many avenues of research available to one’s project, such as economic approaches, intellectual history, and even feminist approaches that emphasize the role of women that may have been overlooked in past historical surveys. Another very important emphasis from Bradley and Muller is the precise location of meaning in history, namely historical documents, relics, or artifacts. In the historical enterprise, the locus of all analysis and evaluation is to center upon the written records of the past; all other aspects of the project, such as persons and events, are intrinsically more speculative in nature.
Beyond the opening chapters, the book becomes immensely practical and concrete. Bradley and Muller go on to outline and describe major research resources, how to best do research, how to begin, persevere, and end one’s writing project (mostly centered on the dissertation), and how to even begin to outline lectures and how to get one’s dissertation published as a monograph. As one can expect, these chapters do not make for the most exciting reading, but there is plenty of very helpful information contained in them, so one should not overlook them and should definitely consult them as a resource when more immediately needed.
There are very little drawbacks to this work other than the level of technicality intrinsic to the subject matter. The book is definitely geared more towards historical theology, but there is still much that is relevant to systematic theology too. There are some emphases that seem to be a little more subjective than not (e.g., the contention for specific forms of note-taking, the functional conflation of a bibliography and works cited page, etc).
The most significant critique, however, is that this volume is already dated by the advent of AI and its bearings upon information systems and how research can and ought to be done with or without it. A new edition that seriously interacts with AI and its ability to impact the practice of research in positive and negative ways is absolutely essential.
The most interesting reading is found in the earliest chapters wherein the philosophical underpinnings of historical methodology are elucidated. Bradley and Muller are particularly helpful for their contention of an eclectic method that utilizes as many avenues of research available to one’s project, such as economic approaches, intellectual history, and even feminist approaches that emphasize the role of women that may have been overlooked in past historical surveys. Another very important emphasis from Bradley and Muller is the precise location of meaning in history, namely historical documents, relics, or artifacts. In the historical enterprise, the locus of all analysis and evaluation is to center upon the written records of the past; all other aspects of the project, such as persons and events, are intrinsically more speculative in nature.
Beyond the opening chapters, the book becomes immensely practical and concrete. Bradley and Muller go on to outline and describe major research resources, how to best do research, how to begin, persevere, and end one’s writing project (mostly centered on the dissertation), and how to even begin to outline lectures and how to get one’s dissertation published as a monograph. As one can expect, these chapters do not make for the most exciting reading, but there is plenty of very helpful information contained in them, so one should not overlook them and should definitely consult them as a resource when more immediately needed.
There are very little drawbacks to this work other than the level of technicality intrinsic to the subject matter. The book is definitely geared more towards historical theology, but there is still much that is relevant to systematic theology too. There are some emphases that seem to be a little more subjective than not (e.g., the contention for specific forms of note-taking, the functional conflation of a bibliography and works cited page, etc).
The most significant critique, however, is that this volume is already dated by the advent of AI and its bearings upon information systems and how research can and ought to be done with or without it. A new edition that seriously interacts with AI and its ability to impact the practice of research in positive and negative ways is absolutely essential.
February 6, 2019
Terrifying. A very good book that tackles how history should be done with the goal of objectivity, without giving way to the hopelessness of skepticism by paying attention to the motivations and intentions of the historical characters. It also includes an outdated but profitable section on how to do PhD research in church history, becoming familiar with sources, and so forth. It has some amazing warnings about humility with regard to the significance of one's own research. You need to be an expert in your field and even then, you are only a pebble on the seashore. Like I said, terrifying.
December 23, 2017
As one conducting research in the area of historical theology, this book has provided me with tools and categories to do so properly and effectively! I appreciate the clarity and simplicity of the book!
August 27, 2025
Some chapters of this book were really helpful and some chapters are just unnecessary for most undergraduate and graduate students in the United States. Even though the second edition was published in 2016, they still included a section on choosing a computer which is a little bizarre.
October 13, 2017
"The fact that much energy that is devoted to an advanced degree is properly focused upon developing the skills of research is in itself a salutary motive for the endeavor.”
January 23, 2013
Very useful and written by someone who is eminently qualified to speak on the subject. Muller begins the first part introducing the historical student to different tools for historical research. One can tell the book was written in the mid 1990s: he even suggests that computer will one day aid in research! Later in the book in a chapter on preparing lectures, he suggests that a new program called "Power Point" will one day be used!
Some of his material is simply dated. For example, Migne's *Patrologia Latina" and "Patrologia Graeca" are available online for free.
The second half of the book is where the money is. He teaches the student how to take proper notes, file the notes, and eventually eye them for completing a chapter or historical article. The pages themselves are probably worth re-reading a dozen times so that one can memorize them. Away with new-fangled technology and back to old-school methods. Well, he doesn't say that but it is probably a good idea.
Some of his material is simply dated. For example, Migne's *Patrologia Latina" and "Patrologia Graeca" are available online for free.
The second half of the book is where the money is. He teaches the student how to take proper notes, file the notes, and eventually eye them for completing a chapter or historical article. The pages themselves are probably worth re-reading a dozen times so that one can memorize them. Away with new-fangled technology and back to old-school methods. Well, he doesn't say that but it is probably a good idea.
March 26, 2014
This book examines many trends in historical research. However, being published in 1995, it is very outdated. My professor (the author) is working on an updated edition due out in the next year or two. I have seen some of the revisions and they are much more helpful. However, even the 1995 edition has helpful chapters (mostly 1-2 and 6) for researchers.
July 3, 2012
This is an extremely helpful resource for anyone who wants to study church history. It's an over view of theory and resources. Of course the authors are my doctoral mentors -- what else can I say?
February 10, 2012
This is a good practical guide to historiography and research/writing in church history. Not exactly riveting reading, though.
September 25, 2014
I only give this three stars because it is so dated. An updated version would get much higher!
February 26, 2015
Helpful for thinking through topics, research, development, etc. Outdated when it comes to the "new technology" of computers and word processors.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews