In the course of situating early modern English historical writing within the study of the History of the Book, D. R. Woolf reaches the following conclusion concerning the Book of Martyrs: “Few works were as lavish as the 1570 and 1583 editions of Foxe's Acts and Monuments, a work the author of which had himself ruthlessly pillaged the medieval chronicles for tales of martyrdom and persecution.” As beguiling as this colorful view may seem, it reflects widespread misunderstandings concerning the construction of this monumental book. In the face of compelling evidence that Foxe functioned in the manner of an auctor or compilator, who accumulated an extraordinary aggregation of disparate documents that he set forth in annals fashion, Woolf subscribes to the stubborn misconception that he was the magisterial author of this massive history. In reinscribing an older outlook that privileges the centrality of the author in the construction of books, Woolf overlooks the contribution made by collaborators, correspondents, reporters, and transcribers of eye-witness reports in the Book of Martyrs. He disregards evidence that Foxe assembled material from manuscripts and printed books written by many different individuals. In charging that Foxe engaged in unscrupulous borrowing from older sources, Woolf applies an anachronistic standard of plagiarism to the early modern era. In actual fact, Foxe cites authorities in glosses that function as precursors to modern footnotes.

Foxe's handling of his sources has received more attention than other aspects in the study of the Book of Martyrs.