One of the reasons why there is so much confusion about historical-criticism is that historical-criticism can be applied to several different areas of study in biblical studies. The three most common ones are:
(a) the meaning of the received text;
(b) the history of the composition of the text; and
(c) the historical reality behind what’s being depicted in the text.
When most people think about historical-criticism, especially its critics, they’re thinking of (b) and (c). But historical-criticism cannot be limited to these two fields of study – it can also be applied and is applied to studying the meaning of the received or final-form of biblical texts without a real concern for (b) or (c).
So when someone criticizes historical-criticism or the results of historical-criticism it is important to identify which area of study they are referring to: (a), (b), or (c). I have serious problems with the results and methods of historical-criticism as it is usually applied to (b) and (c) but historical-criticism is absolutely essential when it comes to studying (a), the received or final form of the text. Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think historical-criticism is the only way that we should study the received or final form of the text. I also think that theological interpretation is important, though it is a little bit more subjective. But historical-critical study of the text is indispensable and a lot can be missed and/or misunderstood if the text is not read both historically and critically. One quick example is the book of Ruth. Most evangelical sermons that I’ve seen on Ruth jump to a theological interpretation involving Boaz prefiguring Christ. But because they haven’t read the text historically (or critically) they miss the main point – which is God’s providence in the life of Naomi, rescuing Naomi from her predicament in chapter 1 and working out his sovereign plan for her good and for the good of all Israel.
