Introduction to biblical analysis using the historical-critical method

It should be noted from the outset that the historical-critical or historical criticism method of analyzing the biblical text is one approach among many. It has its strengths and limitations. In this presentation, I intend to focus on those elements of this method that ultimately enable me to answer the question: what did the final redactor want to say to the Christian community (or communities) he was first addressing? For me, this step is fundamental before moving on to the next one, where we ask ourselves: how can this word shed light on current problems and questions (for this step, see my proposal on how to actualize the Gospels). For if, for example, we want to actualize a gospel story while neglecting the initial stage where we seek to understand what the final writer wanted to say, we run the risk of simply retelling our own universe, without entering into the direction proposed by the evangelist.

Let's define a method as a normative scheme of operations that can be reproduced. In the historical-critical method, there are distinct operations that seek to answer distinct questions, but are at the same time at the service of the same task, and are therefore linked to form a pattern, i.e. one that can be repeated indefinitely each time a new text is tackled. We speak of a normative pattern, because there is a correct way of doing things, and this is how one exegete can reproach another for having done his work badly, as happens in the scientific world.

In the expression "historical-critical", there are two words: history and criticism. Let's start with the word "history". The exegete's work is first and foremost that of a historian, since the text before him is two thousand years old and he is seeking to understand its meaning. Thus, the biblical scholar tries to find the original text (textual criticism), identify the various elements that make up the text, their form, their source, their dependence on the Old Testament, the linguistic traits of the final redactor, how it differs from other texts of the period, the link between the themes proposed or the questions asked with what we know of the society of the time (on this subject, see the page on hermeneutics in R.E. Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, which I have summarized on this site). The biblical scholar also uses the expression "criticism", because in this work he applies the resources of reason to the study of texts, just as the archaeologist does in his excavations or the scientist in his laboratory. Theoretically, the exegete does not need to be a believer: he or she can detail the history of a text and clarify the final author's assertion, without adhering to it; for example, he or she may conclude that Luke 5's account of the miraculous catch of fish comes from the same tradition as John 21's miraculous catch of fish, and that John offers a more plausible context by placing it after Jesus' resurrection, even if he does not believe in this resurrection.

In what follows, I intend simply to present the most important elements of the historical-critical method, which I use in all my analyses, are in my opinion the most useful, are also taught in theological faculties and form part of the evaluation criteria in the work of students of biblical studies. I will also offer some practical analysis techniques and links to tools that I find very useful.

In my analysis of the Gospels, I proceed in six stages.

-André Gilbert, April 2025