Psychological biblical criticism [1] is a re-emerging field within biblical criticism that seeks to examine the psychological dimensions of scripture through the use of the behavioral sciences. The title itself involves a discussion about "the intersections of three fields: psychology, the Bible, and the tradition of rigorous, critical reading of the biblical text." (Kille, 2001). Known figures within biblical scholarship advocating this interdisciplinary field in the United States include Rev. D. Andrew Kille (2001; 2004), J. Harold Ellens (2004), Wayne G. Rollins (1983; 1999; 2004), and, in Europe, Eugen Drewermann (Beier, 2004), Gerd Theissen (1983, 1987, 2007).
Rollins was the first to define psychological biblical criticism as having the hermeneutical intent of examining
"... texts, their origination, authorship, modes of expression, their construction, transmission, translation, reading, interpretation, their transposition into kindred and alien forms, and the history of their personal and cultural effect, as expressions of the structure, processes, and habits of the human psyche, both in individual and collective manifestations, past and present." (1999:77–78)
Unlike many other forms of biblical criticism, psychological biblical criticism is not a particular method for interpretation, but is rather a perspective (Kille, 2001). This approach to the biblical text seeks to complement studies on the cultural, sociological, and anthropological influences on scripture, by discussing the psychological dimensions of: the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader. As a result, the material under study involves three dimensions of text (Rollins, 1983; Kille, 2001; 2004).
What was the author of the text thinking? What was their background, why were they writing? What situations drove them to put pen to paper and produce this work? What is the cultural, historical, and social context of the text? Although traditional uses of psychological theory in the study of ancient texts have sought to generate a complete psychoanalysis of scriptural writers, there has always been the hindrance of temporal and cultural distance between the analyst and analysand. Psychological biblical criticism best serves not as a reductionistic tool, but as another heuristic for use alongside traditional methods of historical and cultural criticism, illuminating aspects of purpose and meaning in the language and cognition of texts (Kille, 2001: 22–23; 2004: 23–25). In essence, a study of the world behind the text involves such questions as "... what makes them write the way they do and what realities, truths, and insights they want to share with us." (Rollins, 1983: 99).