To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application

by Stephen R. Haynes, Steven L. McKenzie (Editor)

This single volume introduces the reader to the most important methods of biblical criticism by giving equal time to historical and literary approaches. Each chapter addresses five sets of (1) definition of the method, important terms and concepts, the history of its development, assumptions made about the relationship of text and history, and prospects for the future; (2) the method in relation to others discussed in this book; (3) the method in action, with reference to a particular text in either Genesis or Luke-Acts; (4) the drawbacks of the method; and (5) suggested reading for those who wish to study further.
Chapter topics include reading the Bible historically, by J. Maxwell Miller; source criticism, by Pauline Viviano; tradition-historical criticism, by Robert A. Di Vito; form criticism, by Martin J. Buss; redaction criticism, by Gail Paterson Corrington; social-scientific criticism, by Dale B. Martin; canonical criticism, by Mary C. Callaway; rhetorical criticism, by Yehoshua Gitay; structural criticism, by Daniel Patte; narrative criticism, by David M. Gunn; reader-response criticism, by Edgar V. McKnight; the poststructuralist approach, by William A. Beardslee; and feminist criticism, by Danna Nolan Fewell.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Reference, Religion, Theology

251 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1993

About the author

Stephen R. Haynes is Professor of Religious Studies, Albert Bruce Curry Professor of Religious Studies at Rhodes College. Dr. Haynes holds a Ph.D. in Religion and Literature from Emory University, the M. Div. from Columbia Theological Seminary, an M. A. from Florida State University, and a B. A. from Vanderbilt University. Professor Haynes has been at Rhodes since 1989 and offers courses on the Holocaust, the Bible and its reception, religion and reconciliation, and religion and addiction. In addition to these subjects, he has research interests in Jewish-Christian relations, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the biblical justifications for slavery and segregation. Dr. Haynes was ODK Untenured Teacher of the Year at Rhodes in 1993 and SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in 1995. In 1997 he received the Clarence Day Award for Outstanding Research and in 2001 was awarded the Clarence Day Award for Outstanding Teaching. He is also a graduate of Leadership Memphis. Since 2016 he has directed the Rhodes Liberal Arts in Prison Program at West Tennessee State Penitentiary.

Reviews

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, this resource provided an insider’s perspective on a broad swath of critical methods and their use in biblical study. The book is unique in terms of its breadth in terms of critical approaches represented. One of the work’s greatest challenges is evident in its virtual exclusion of voices representative of the majority of the Bible’s interpreters—the growing global church full of historic Christians who are interpreting the Bible in line with a long history of interpreters as a text under which they submit their theologizing and practice. Instead, To Each Its Own Meaning is a work devoted to the practices and perspectives that not only differ from the majority of Bible readers in geography (exclusively US-based writers in contrast to a global church that exists largely in the southern and eastern hemispheres) and in methodology (superiority over the text versus submissive to it), but are polemically confrontational in their interaction with interpreters within historical, orthodox, and catholic stream of the Christian church. While exercising collegial intramural debate with other critical methods of their fellow writers, “conservative Christian traditions” are labeled as naïve and “precritical” (11, 52–3) whose efforts at biblical interpretation will ultimately end up with “disastrous ethical consequences” (196). Those who seek to resolve conflicts in the text or view historical details in the text as accurate are caricatured as holding to views such as a 6,000-year-old earth (an incredibly rare position even within young earth creationists) or “fundamentalists” (21) who merely place the locus of the Bible’s authority in an individual ancient author rather than in the canonical text. In the view of the writers, simply counting the noses of their peers who share their worldview and accept their conclusions allows them to not take critics seriously (42). Instead, the character and morality of God of the Scriptures should fall under the moral critique of the reader (225), and all such readings should be given a pass—save any readings by Jewish or Christian readers who might claim the invalidity of such a use of their holy book (228). The eventual result of these kinds of readings is exemplified in the chapter on feminist criticism, where God is painted as the villain of the Fall, implying that the true hero of the story is none other than the Serpent himself (277).
So, before turning to the various critical methods themselves, the reader must take into account the assumption that become explicit in the majority of the chapters: that interpretations of the Bible that stand firmly within the faith traditions within which it was written and transmitted and interpreted are unwelcome and uncritical readers of their own text. For those readers within that catholic faith tradition, several observations are noteworthy in regard to the approach exemplified by McKenzie and Haynes. First, many of these slights and jabs must be graciously absorbed in order to draw out the greatest value from To Each Its Own Meaning. By this any reviewer should be willing to underscore the many contributions of this work. The frustration of the polemical tone must still be addressed. Christian readers can engage with hostile arguments like these from the posture exemplified in 1 Peter 4:8, recognizing that love can cover those jabs that exclusively target our deeply held beliefs. Second, we can recognize that in a book like this, we look on as outsiders to the writers, but perhaps far closer to them than they may realize in our willingness to take up the text and to engage in critical study from our own worldview and belief. We should not allow the feeling of outsiders drive us away from critical study of the Scripture but rather toward it. Finally, while we read a book like this as outsiders, we would do well to heed the words of Tertullian. In “Prescription against Heretics,” Tertullian argued that the Christian is never an outsider when approaching the Scriptures. As those who stand in the heritage of the apostolic rule of faith (c. 19) that echoes down the corridors of the catholic church to the present day (c. 32), we stand on confident ground to disallow countervailing appeals to Christian Scripture (c. 37).

Section 1
This section introduces the book and covers five of the traditional methods of biblical criticism: historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, tradition-historical criticism, and redaction criticism. Some of the most helpful insights from these chapters were the descriptions and implementations of these methods as done by their practitioners. In many ways (partly because of the way they are used in scholarly literature), it can be hard to remember the differentiations between these methods. So in that way, the careful parsing and definitions of terms (see, for example, 23, 35–7) related to these approaches helped me develop nuanced distinctions that are inherent in the methods. Another helpful portion of this section was the chapter on form criticism. The author’s use of the prophetic word formula, salvation oracle, and other elements in the text to draw parallels to other similar forms in Scripture was genuinely valuable. My only critique was that the conclusion the author drew from all these elements was largely evident from a simple surface reading of the text. Several things were difficult for me in reading these chapters. The main difficulty I encountered was the logical tension between these writers’ awareness of the former naivete of proponents of their own positions and their own present surety regarding an array of assumptions about the text, such as sloppy editing of the creation account (47) and Davidic apologists constructing an Abraham to support their dynasty (80–1). In the end, my reading of the Scriptures is more confident and improved by wrestling with the authors’ logical tensions and by examining some of the insights from the chapter on form criticism.

Section 2
This section covered four largely helpful critical methods (social-scientific, canonical, rhetorical, narrative) and four largely unhelpful critical methods (structural, reader-response, poststructuralist, and feminist). In the social-scientific section, I found the author’s engagement with Luke-Acts useful. Working from a construct of the community, the author posits the community’s posture toward the Roman empire (135). The chapter further notes the need to turn more toward anthropologists and ethnologists than to sociologists—a welcome shift from this reader’s perspective (138). Canonical criticism, with its emphasis on the final form of the text and its willingness to investigate the logic of its structure for the faith community is a refreshing and welcome alternative to many of the other views. Significant in this paradigm is the idea that the “hermeneutics by which the scriptures can be appropriated need not (indeed, should not) be imported from philosophical or theological systems, but are to be found within the scriptures themselves” (147). In this way, the canonical approach places itself much closer to the implied reader and the implied readings of the text. The most frustrating read in this section was the chapter on feminist criticism. The logical discontinuity of these two foundational claims seems nearly impossible to reconcile in my mind:

1. “texts of all kinds . . . are gendered” (269).
2. “Gender is . . . a social construction . . . . gender identity is socially defined” (273).

How can I operate on the premise that texts are definitely gendered by the assumed gender of their authors and at the same time work under the assumption that gender is a fluid social construct that might function in different times in different ways in different people? This is the awkward conundrum of the social progressive that tries to hold feminist absolutes in the one hand and transgender relativism in the other hand. They cannot be accommodated. Either the absolute power dynamic of the feminist through which the struggle for rights and voice unique to their sex will prevail or the relativizing worldview of the transgender community that sees gender as interchangeable as clothes in a wardrobe or as malleable as putty. Seeing these contrasts absolutized and rolled into the practice of biblical criticism was helpful from a cultural and apologetic standpoint.

Section 3
The final section included only the chapter on socioeconomic criticism. I have to admit that my preconceptions of this kind of criticism were largely negative, but my final evaluation of it ended up far more positive than when I started reading. Segovia’s handling of this method is insightful even for those who would disagree by providing methods of incarnating our interpretation of the word, integrating theology and praxis. As Segovia states that “the call for a socioeconomic approach to the scriptures, despite its daring dependence on neo-Marxist criticism, ultimately presupposed a very traditional view of the authority of the scripture, of the theological dimensions of interpretation, and of the ecclesiastical character of criticism” (303). For those reasons, I see elements of validity in this approach, even while dismissing some of the implications that place the readers and their contexts above the text itself (285). In our theological interpretation of Scripture within the faith community, there is much to be gained by opening our eyes to injustices and oppression around us and recognizing the groups most distinctly impacted by those evils. In that sense, we should be reading the text with spiritual eyes as well as physical eyes so that we might see the situation of our neighbor with the clarity of a Samaritan rather than that of a priest. This ties into the articulation of the life of a theologian as it connects to the society and the church. Theologizing and interpreting the Scriptures is no disconnected task from one’s life among the poor and hurting nor is it a call to live in isolation. Rather, we must live and share our gospel among the “least of these” and call our communities into faithful action within our spheres of influence.

[Wan Ling]

rec: cindy

[Matthew Crowe · Rating 3 out of 5]

To Each Its Own Meaning is a collection of essays that introduces the most important methods of biblical criticism. McKenzie and Haynes are both professors at Rhodes College, the former specializing in Hebrew Bible and the latter being a professor of religious studies. Their own contrasting professional experience reflects the major shift in biblical criticism in the past fifty years: McKenzie is trained in the traditional historical-critical method while Haynes has a nontraditional skill set in literary criticism. This contrast is seen in the structure of the book itself. The first part (“Traditional Methods of Biblical Criticism”) opens with a chapter dealing with history and Scripture in general, followed by essays on Source Criticism, Form Criticism, Tradition-Historical Criticism, and Redaction Criticism. The second part (“Expanding the Tradition”) treats disciplines that began in the twentieth-century such as Social-Scientific Criticism, Canonical Criticism, and Rhetorical Criticism. The final part of the book deals with the most recent disciplines at the time of the book’s publication: Structural Criticism, Narrative Criticism, Reader-Response Criticism, Poststructuralist Criticism, Feminist Criticism, and Socioeconomic Criticism.
Originally published in 1993, this book was revised in 1999 to include two treatments of critical methods that were not as popular six years earlier (Feminist Criticism and Socioeconomic Criticism). Two of the essays (form criticism and rhetorical criticism) in the second edition were written by different authors because the first essays were not wide enough in scope to connect with the target audience. Each of the other contributors had the opportunity to update their essays with relevant information. Revision and expansion notwithstanding, this twenty-seven year old book is somewhat dated now that Feminist Criticism and Socioeconomic Criticism are much more common. Nevertheless, the information presented here still represents the main branches of the discipline. In fact, recent developments in methodology such as reception history may indicate that not much has changed in the past two decades.
This volume stands out because it not only explains the most important critical methods but it demonstrates the methods in each chapter with a test case, an example of each research method in action. Each chapter follows the same pattern of providing an explanation of the field of criticism under consideration, an overview of its development, and an illustration of how it works. The authors developed this format from years of teaching introductory classes and struggling to use biblical criticism to bring “the Bible to life for undergraduates” (6). Some essays in this book are easier to read than others but if the sections that illustrate these biblical criticisms in action were removed, this book would be as a dry read. Seeing how a redaction critic reads Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth, for example, is a highly effective method for seeing the strengths and weaknesses of this approach (which are discussed below).
Another benefit of this book is its demonstration of diversity within each discipline of biblical criticism. The individual authors help readers to see that each field of criticism is nuanced and resists hard and fast categorization. Most of the authors reveal not only how distinct each discipline is but also how diverse the thought is within each discipline. For example, Edgar V. McKnight’s chapter on Reader-Response Criticism opened my eyes to the methodological nuances within this field of research. Not each reader-response critic searches for meaning within the response of the reader but some take mediating positions between reader-response and the more general “literary” criticism, such as Wolfgang Iser who takes the position “that meaning is purely and simply a content of texts” while at the same time affirming that “meaning is essentially a product of the reader” (232). It is enlightening to see scholars within the different brances of biblical studies working to nuance their field of research.
McKenzie and Haynes’s target audience is “the student, educated members of the clergy, and the nonspecialist who teaches the Bible” (5). Although “the nonspecialist who teaches the Bible”, depending on his training, may have trouble reading and understanding some jargon at times, the contributing authors meet the goal set by the editors. They have balanced the book on one end with specialist authors who bring their expertise to the student and on the other end with the fascinating demonstrations of how their field of research approaches the Scriptures, which keeps the interest of the student.
The weaknesses of this book are the same kind of weaknesses any edited volume may have with an inconsistency in style from chapter to chapter. For the most part, the goals set forth by the editors create a consistent framework for each contributor yet the individual style of the authors can be considered both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because diversity in a treatment of different critical methods provides greater depth of knowledge and expertise. This is also a weakness, however, because the writing style gives the reader a feeling like riding in a car on the interstate with a driver who is feathering the gas pedal. One author is concise and smooth while the next is verbose and cumbersome.
The opening chapter, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach” by J. Maxwell Miller of Emory University, sets the pace for the first part of the book on traditional historical-critical methods of research. This essay teases out the tension between the Bible being written as history as well as theology, a tension critical scholars have seen as mixing together oil and water. Miller is correct when he says that “the biblical writers were more akin to contemporary theologians than to historians. Nevertheless, the theological messages that the biblical writers sought to convey are so thoroughly intermeshed with their perceptions of history that it is difficult to separate one from the other” (21). However, Miller surely has his own theological convictions that influence his perception of history. Miller demonstrates for readers, perhaps unknowingly, the presupposition that historical inquiry can be completely objective. For example, he speaks of “apparent contradictions” in the Bible (21) and the “often legendary context” from which the historian “must separate the authentic historical memory” (22). Miller concedes that the weak epigraphical evidence in ancient Palestine and the political insignificance of ancient Israel helps explain why there is so little evidence to corroborate the biblical text. Miller’s own presuppositions notwithstanding, this first essay is a fine example of the purpose and assumptions of the historical-critical method.
The second essay, “Source Criticism,” is written by Pauline A. Viviano of Loyola University of Chicago. The editors are to be commended for using qualified female scholars as representatives of the different research methods (Viviano is one of the five female contributors). She defines source criticism simply as “the determination of written sources” (35–36), noting that oral sources are the focus of form criticism. The criteria source critics use to find the written sources behind the text are “variations in style, vocabulary, and perspective; contradictions and inconsistencies in a passage or between passages; abrupt interruptions that break the continuity of a passage; and various kinds of duplications or repetitions” (37). These criteria, however, are subjective and not guaranteed to provide concrete answers. For example, in her treatment of Gen 1–11 she argues that the change in perspective in Gen 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–4:26 means that scholars “are forced to conclude that there are two very different images of God in Genesis 1–11” (46). Viviano overlooks her own assumption that God’s personality is static and can be so easily categorized as either “majestic and transcendent” or “down-to-earth, humanlike” (46). Neverthless, her essay is helpful in tracing the historical development of source criticism and she even concedes that the “criteria source critics use are inadqueate for identifying sources” (52). In the end, this is a fair treatment of source criticism.
The third essay, “Form Criticism,” is by Marvin A. Sweeney of Claremont Graduate University. He defines form criticism by distinguishing the concept of form from genre. “Form refers to the unique formulation of an individual text...whereas genre refers to the typical conventions of expression” (59). Form criticism, then, is the search for the formulation of a text. The most valuable part of Sweeney’s essay is his tracing of form criticism’s history which reveals the presuppositions of the first form critics by placing them in their own historical context. For example, Hermann Gunkel operates on “the prevailling view that primitive peoples were relatively simple minded and incapable of memorizing lengthy texts” (61), which may say more about Gunkel than the “primitive peoples.” Also Gerhard Von Rad and Martin Noth, both Germans, were highly influenced by the situation in Germany in World War II, questioning “the preoccupation with tracing the historical development of ideal centralized leadership” (65). As a whole, Sweeney’s chapter is full of fascinating details about the history of form criticism and the execution of form criticis in Gen 15. However, Sweeney is verbose and the reader could get lost in the details, especially considering that this is an introduction to form criticism.
The essay on “Tradition-Historical Criticism,” by Robert A. Di Vito of Loyola University of Chicago, details how this research method depends on form criticism and source criticism to “reconstruct the history of the transmission of the various individual traditions and tradition complexes that are to be found in the Old Testament” (91). Herein is the weakness of tradition-historical criticism: it stands or falls on the back of source and form criticism. He addresses other problems, such as disagreement among tradition-historical critics regarding their methodology and goals, not least the lofty goal of recovering “the entire prewriten phase of” Scripture (97) when all we have is the written documents. Di Vito’s concise treatment of this research method is concise and honest, demonstrating its goals and weaknesses.
Gail. P. C. Streete of Rhodes College calls redaction criticism “arguably the most significant advance in Gospel scholarship in this century” because it allows scholars “to take seriously the differences between the gospels, to explain the differences without explaining them away” (105). She explains that this discipline was an effect of the hypothesis of Mark’s priority and was spearheaded in North America by Norman Perrin. Redaction criticism is certainly fascinating in its results but it seems like patchwork in that it uses a little form criticism, a little tradition-history, and a little source criticism, all at the preference of the scholar. Streete herself lists the weaknesses of this method, one of which is the “intentional fallacy” (116) that assumes a definite author with a singular and demonstrable personality was behind each of the Synoptics. She also considers it a weakness that redaction criticism has only been applied to the Synoptics, although some scholars are examining Pauline texts with this methodology. One could add another weakness in mirror-reading, where scholars see details behind the authors situation and intention behind every nook and cranny in the text. In small doses, mirror-reading in the Gospels may not be that bad. However, it can jade the interpreter if done in excess.
Dale B. Martin of Duke University treats “Social-Scientific Criticism” and is one of the more engaging authors in this book. He provides a concise account of the history of social-science criticism and its nuanced branches of inquiry. His illustration of Luke-Acts and social-scientific criticism is concise and diverse by showing different strata of approaches within this discipline. Martin also shows current trends in this field (for the time in which he wrote this) yet he does not discuss possible limitations. His essay is informative and insightful, particularly when he concludes that “new directions in scholarship will emerge more from new questions and perspectives on the part of scholars than from new ‘raw’ data” (137).
Mary C. Callaway of Fordham University defines canonical criticism as an analysis of “the text as it was received in its final form” (143). This discipline arose from dissatisfaction with the search for the Bible’s overarching theology and the dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method’s inability to help the church. Callaway gives an insightful history of how this method developed, explains it as primarily a theological discipline (147), and, thus, lists one of its weaknesses as its problem relating to the historical-critical method. Further, and perhaps more fundamental to the Scriptures, canonical criticism has “the tendency to read texts as a unity” (153) which may gloss over the inherent tension between texts. This essay is a fair and honest treatment of canonical criticism that is concise, informative, and treats its weaknesses.
Patricia K. Tull of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary provides a great historical overview of rhetorical criticism, seeing that it, like canonical criticism, was a response to dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method and was ironically encouraged by famed form critic James Muilenburg. Her overview is more detailed than most of the historical treatments but the diversity within this field requires it. She sees rhetorical criticism as “a much-needed reality check” for interpreters (177). The one weakness of this chapter is that it does not address the limitations of this research method. One valid weakness I would add is the inability to have certainty about the audience’s situation. This directly affects rhetorical criticism which looks for how the author is seeking to persuade the audience. Overall, however, Tull’s chapter is informative and helpful.
Daniel Patte of Vanderbilt University introduces “Structural Criticism” to the reader who is, unfortunately, going to be challenged in completing this chapter. Patte’s two opening paragraphs were convoluted. After reading them three times, I still was not certain what this discipline is. This chapter is laden with jargon and needlessly abstract. A particularly tortuous sentence is on page 184: “One way to adjudicate such cases is to elucidate the dimension that expresses the basic characteristics of the ‘religion.’” If there is ever a third edition of this book, this chapter will hopefully be rewritten (especially considering that footnote 8 says, “The method I will present here is greatly simplified.” One can hardly imagine what this essay would be like if it were complicated). Nevertheless, structural criticism is presented as a kind of abstract narrative criticism. Its weakness can be that it is too specific in its search for meaning yet its strength may be in its orderly approach to the narrative.
David M. Gunn of Texan Christian University compensates for the previous essay’s deficiencies by writing a readable, informative essay on narrative criticism that provides a detailed overview of this research method, repeatedly citing Robert Alter as a seminal writer in this field. He lists the weaknesses of narrative criticism as its inability to play well with historical-critical methods because it assumes that whatever occurred prior to the final form of the text is irrelevant in determining meaning. He sees this, however, as also a strength because it frees the reader to listen to what the author says instead of wondering about what he did not say. Gunn shows vast knowledge of the trends within his field and writes a fascinating, albeit subjective, treatment of Gen 19. Gunn is correct to say that “narrative criticism of the Bible would do well to cultivate a healthy suspicion of systematics” (226) but he should have added that this should not require a suspicion of the obtainability of meaning. Gunn’s method shows fascinating results but is, sadly, postmodern to the core by never being able to say yes or no on what the meaning is.
Edgar V. McKnight of Furman University writes that reader-response criticism sees the reader as playing “a role in the ‘production’ or ‘creation’ of meaning and significance” (230). He adds that reader-response criticism is a “spectrum of positions” (230), which is not terribly surprising given its highly subjective nature. Like the majority of critical methods in this book, reader-response criticism is a reaction to the scientific quest for truth in the historical-critical method. McKnight raises a red flag when he says that “the Bible as literature is to be distinguished from the role of the Bible as historical ‘source’” (238). While these are two aspects of Scripture, they are hardly that easy to separate. The author clarifies himself in his conclusion by saying that reader-response criticism is not meant to be a substitute for other methods of historical inquiry. I was most skeptical about this essay but after reading it I saw that McKnight was fair and honest with his handling of his research method’s strengths and weaknesses.
The final three chapters are “Poststructuralist Criticism” by William A. Beardslee of Claremont Graduate University, “Feminist Criticism” by Danna Nolan Fewell of Southern Methodist University, and “Socioeconomic Criticism” by Fernando F. Segovia of Vanderbilt University Divinity School. These can be loosely examined together because of their ideological foundation. Poststructural criticism in this treatment is, more specifically, “deconstrontive criticism” (230), a negative way of finding the inconsistencies in the text and formulating conclusions based on the so-called lack of a determinative meaning. He lists John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk as prime examples of deconstructive criticism but, regrettably, does not provide a substantial illustration of this method in action. While deconstructive criticism tears down the assumed power structures, feminist criticism and socioeconomic criticism build up the marginal that are often overlooked by those in power, particularly women and the poor. Fewell, regrettably as well, does not provide a substantial illustration of feminist criticism in action, yet she mentions one of the weaknesses of this method is that it is not always taken seriously. Socioeconomic criticism also does not have a substantial illustration of its method apart from an abstract treatment of the historical Jesus.
To Each Its Own Meaning is an informative book that illustrates each of the major fields of biblical criticism. With few exceptions, it accomplishes its goal well. I recommend it for graduate students and any other interested reader.

[cindy]

rec: The Hebrew Bible: A Contemporary Introduction to the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh

[Hany Abdelmalek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Neat volume on biblical criticism. Each contributor applies the critical method that he explains on a specific biblical text. This helps the reader to comprehend the hermeneutics of each method. Moreover, some contributors fairly discuss shortcomings.

[Martijn Vsho · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its a good book that introduces readers to biblical criticism. I found the examples very helpful because they allowed me to see how the theories played out in practice. However, the book is still very dense and contains a lot of jargon that can make it difficult for students new to the field of biblical criticism.

[Guillaume Bourin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collective volume is a good introduction to Old Testament criticism, and it offers to the reader a comprehensive history of the development of the various schools in the field. As usual with this kind of book, some essays are more valuable than others. It deserves a 3,5 stars in my opinion ;)

[Zachariah Kenney · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent introduction to the various "critical methods" used by scholars.
I discuss it more on my blog:
https://seminary2016.wordpress.com/20...