P[ieter]. J. J. van Thiel. "De kerk te Sloten door Jan Abrahamsz. Beerstraaten." Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum 16 (June 1968), pp. 51, 54–55, 56 n. 2, fig. 2, describes the differences between this picture and the version by Jan Beerstraten in Amsterdam, and considers the former so much weaker in quality that it must be by another painter, perhaps a relative (but not a son) who was also a J. or even a Jan Beerstraten, and who was inclined to imitate the better-known artist's signature.
Gary Schwartz. The Dutch World of Painting. Exh. cat., Vancouver Art Gallery. Maarssen, The Netherlands, 1986, p. 61, under no. 25, misreads Thiel [see Ref. 1968], reporting that it "is believed to be a copy by Beerstraten's son".
Christopher Brown in Neil MacLaren. The Dutch School, 1600–1900. [2nd ed.]. London, 1991, vol. 1, p. 14 n. 11, rejects much of Thiel's argument [see Ref. 1968], maintaining that "the discrepancies between the two paintings are not great enough to justify their attribution to two different hands".
Norbert Middelkoop. The Golden Age of Dutch Art: Seventeenth Century Paintings from the Rijksmuseum and Australian Collections. Exh. cat., Art Gallery of Western Australia. [Perth], 1997, p. 68 n. 1, under no. 22, as another version of the Amsterdam picture.
G. van der Most. Jan Abrahamsz, Abraham, Anthonie Beerstraten: kunstschilders uit de zeventiende eeuw. Noorden, 2002, p. 28, as "a slightly different version" of the Amsterdam painting.
Esmée Quodbach. "The Age of Rembrandt: Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 65 (Summer 2007), p. 21.
Walter Liedtke. Dutch Paintings in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, 2007, vol. 1, pp. 20–23, no. 4, colorpl. 4, states that the MMA and Amsterdam paintings could date from the early to mid-1660s, and that they are probably based on a single drawing; suggests that the MMA work was painted after the Amsterdam picture, based on "the more straightforward treatment of the subject" in that canvas.