Longenecker on NT exegesis

It has become all too common in theological circles today to hear assertions as to what God must have done or what must have been the case during the apostolic period of the Church—and to find that such assertions are based principally upon deductions from a given system of theology or supported by contemporary analogy alone. The temptation is always with us to mistake hypothesis for evidence, and to judge our theological and historical formulations by their coherence and widespread acceptance rather than first of all by their correspondence to historical and exegetical data. History is replete with examples of this sorry condition and its sorry results, and hindsight permits us to recognize it in the past for what it was: a perversion of truth. But we are “sons of our fathers,” composed of the same stuff and subject to the same pressures and temptations. And nowhere do we need to guard against our own inclinations and various pressures more carefully than in our understanding of the New Testament writers’ use of the Old Testament. Neither piety nor speculation—both of which are excellent in their own ways when properly controlled—can here substitute for careful historical and exegetical investigation. Nor can traditional views of either the right or the left be allowed to stand unscrutinized in light of recent discoveries.

The Jewish roots of Christianity make it a priori likely that the exegetical procedures of the New Testament would resemble to some extent those of then contemporary Judaism. This has long been established with regard to the hermeneutics of Paul and the Talmud, and it is becoming increasingly evident with respect to the Qumran texts as well. In view of these materials and the light they throw on early Christian presuppositions and practices, we must abandon the mistaken idea that the New Testament writers’ treatment of the Old Testament was either (1) an essentially mechanical process, whereby explicit “proof-texts” and exact “fulfillments” were brought together, or (2) an illegitimate twisting and distortion of the ancient text. It is true, of course, that literal fulfillment of a direct sort occurs as one factor in the New Testament. The Christian claim to continuity with the prophets could hardly have been supported were there no such cases. And it is also true that the exegesis of the early Christians often appears forced and artificial, particularly when judged by modem criteria But neither approach does justice to the essential nature of New Testament hermeneutics, for both ignore the basic patterns of thought and common exegetical methods employed in the Jewish milieu in which the Christian faith came to birth.

There is little indication in the New Testament that the authors themselves were conscious of varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation. At least they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historico-grammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation, allegorical treatment, and interpretation based on a “corporate solidarity” understanding of people and events in redemptive history. All of these are employed in their writings in something of a blended and interwoven fashion, even though there are certain discernible patterns and individual emphases in their usage. What the New Testament writers are conscious of, however, is interpreting the Old Testament (1) from a Christocentric perspective, (2) in conformity with a Christian tradition, and (3) along Christological lines. And in their exegesis there is the interplay of Jewish presuppositions and practices, on the one hand, with Christian commitments and perspectives on the other, which joined to produce a distinctive interpretation of the Old Testament.

Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period 205-6