Mohr Siebeck, 1999. D. thesis, published that year in Dutch by Kok-Kampen. Chapter 1 lays out the aim and plan of the study. There is much to commend in this work.
Criticisms are also in order.
This characterisation is both unenlightening and prejudicial. A more serious criticism concerns van Spanje's 'hermeneutical techniques'. There are a number of problems here. And even if we allow van Spanje his self-declaring texts, it is difficult to see why anyone should feel bound to his 'rule' that texts must be read as they present themselves. A hermeneutical 'rule' that both enjoins what we can't help doing and proffers as an extra-interpretive control on interpretation that over which interpretation precisely contends is not much of a rule.