Journal: Trinity Journal
Volume: TRINJ 17:1 (Spring 1996)
Article: Can We Reproduce The Exegesis Of The New Testament? Why Are We Still Asking?
Author: Scott A. Swanson

TrinJ 17:1 (Spring 1996) p. 67

Can We Reproduce The Exegesis Of The New Testament?
Why Are We Still Asking?

Scott A. Swanson *

Can we reproduce the exegesis of the NT? Richard Longenecker posed and answered this question in his 1969 Tyndale House lecture. His answer was that the NT writers’ exegesis of OT passages largely follows contemporary Jewish methods. Since these methods go beyond strictly grammatical-historical exegesis, while we believe their interpretations to be revelation, we cannot ourselves reproduce their exegesis in other texts of the OT.1 In spite of considerable discussion and debate since then, evangelicals have not achieved consensus on the issue. We are still asking the question. I would argue, however, that a certain convergence of perspective has occurred, which should be seen as encouraging a more positive answer than Longenecker was able to provide.

Most evangelical discussion of the NT interpretation of the OT has focused on the issue of its legitimacy and compatibility with inerrancy. This has been in large part due to the challenge presented by Longenecker and others in situating the NT in the context of first-century scriptural interpretation.2 The conclusion reached by

* Scott A. Swanson is a Ph.D. candidate in the area of History of Biblical Interpretation, specializing in the Greco-Roman period, at Hebrew Union College.

TrinJ 17:1 (Spring 1996) p. 68

virtually all conservative evangelicals is that, however much the NT may be seen to participate in the interpretive methodologies of first-century Judaism,3 the NT interpretations do not contradict the originally intended meaning of the human (OT) author.4 That is, they may “go beyond” that original sense in some way, or they may give a kind of “application” of it, but they do not contradict it. (This is not so remarkable among those already committed to inerrancy, but the point of agreement needs to be emphasized.)

The disagreement is between those who insist that the NT correctly grasps the human authorial intention strictly according to grammatical-historical exegesis,5 and those who see the NT as

TrinJ 17:1 (Spring 1996) p. 69

correctly identifying the divine author’s intention, in the light of further revelation (thus, the “fuller sense” or “canonical interpretation”).6 My point is that the latter group—those who believe that the meaning that the NT fin...