A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation

History, Methods, and Practical Examples

Roy A. Harrisville

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781666791877
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

This book introduces the reader to the various perspectives involved in the interpretation of the New Testament from the lexicographical to the feminist approach. Each chapter contains examples of the perspective involved--its presuppositions and method, followed by a caveat. This book promises to be a welcome companion and invaluable source for students of New Testament theology.

Part I

Why Exegesis?

Faith and the Historical Event as Witnessed to in Scripture

Faith is referred, thrown back to the tradition of historical event, is continually harking back to it. This tradition has a dual character: It is kerygma, proclamation, but at the same time historical. The one cannot be divorced from the other. From the outset, Christian faith knew no preaching that was detached from history. This is clear, e.g., from the formulae that comprise the oldest recognizable layer of the New Testament witness (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3–5). In this sense, the Gospels and Epistles can be understood as the interpretation of tradition in the shape of formulae. The proclamation of the post-Easter community cannot be separated from the suffering and dying of the earthly Jesus. Event and witness are inseparably intertwined. Thus, we do historical-grammatical work.

Today preaching, instruction, counseling, etc., constitute a new interpretation of the tradition. They are such, whether or not the etiquette of historical understanding is ignored. But if it is ignored, the result could be disaster. On the other hand, when the historical tools are used in disciplined and responsible fashion, freedom for variation can emerge.

Historical-Critical Method and Public Ministry

It is not in our power to deny the application of historical methods to the exegesis of the biblical books. And it is not a sign of special piety or reverence for the Word of God to omit such work. Of course, it is not every man’s affair to proceed in such fashion. A person can read the Bible without it. But whoever carries on an interpretation of Scripture for the sake of public ministry (i.e., ministry in the sense of the Augsburg Confession, CA XIV: “Of ecclesiastical order they teach that no one should publicly teach [publice docere] in the Church or administer the sacraments, unless he be regularly called [recte vocatus]”)1 cannot ignore the historical task.

Historical criticism in our situation and time is the most reliable means we possess of preserving the text of Scripture from arbitrary interpretation and thus of hearing it as it intends to be heard. (e.g., the Jehovah’s witnesses and the anarthrous noun in John 1:1. The anarthrous noun, when followed by the copula, is definite according to Colwell’s rule).2 Luther masterfully underscored the significance of linguistic studies and methodological exegesis. Littera, for him, was and remained the basis. The way to a faithful understanding of a biblical text thus went through its letters—through the historical, not beyond it. “As dear as the Gospel is to us all, it is so hard for us to come to terms with the languages. God has not allowed His Scriptures to be written in two languages for nothing—the Old Testament in the Hebrew, the New Testament in the Greek. . . . For us this means that we will not hang onto the Gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is kept.”3

Brief Remarks on Exegesis and the Understanding of Faith

If, to borrow an old phrase of Wilhem Dilthey, Scripture consists of “life expressions in fixed, literary form,” and if the Bible is people, then listening to these people is of the essence.4 This is precisely the historical-critical task: to listen and to ask the questions “what does it say?” and “what does it mean?” Again, if the texts of Scripture transcend mere human expression and in their further proclamation are the living voice of the Gospel, the Word of God, then listening is of the essence.

Now, the distance of years over which dialogue between author and interpreter occurs places the interpreter at a disadvantage. But it is precisely for the sake of telescoping that distance that exegesis is done. The tools are not to be acquired and used for their own sake, as though the determination of the meaning of a word within the history of its usage constituted exegesis. Nor are they to be spurned by the “practical” man as belonging exclusively to the specialist. They are the proper aids to dialogue, requiring to be used to the limit by those who cannot be content with gleaning broken bits of their biblical companions’ conversation, but whose calling requires that they hear as much as it is humanly possible to hear.5

On the other hand, since that living voice required the response of the total person—mind, heart, and will, the whole self—then they must also, in true Christian faith, give themselves to the text; it requires his/her own surrender to achieve its intention. Once it was asserted that a proper reading consisted in furnishing program notes to the biblical writer’s performance. Now it is a truism that apart from presuppositions that prejudice conversation with their text, the reader, preacher, or teacher may legitimately bring all of oneself to its reading. Love of persons requires not merely a beholding but a self-revealing as well, whatever the risks. Thus, Luther knew how to emphasize the significance of an “experiential understanding.” Two days before his death he wrote: “Virgilium in Buccolicis et Georgicis nemo potest intelligere, nisi fuierit quinque annis Pastor aut Agricola. Ciceronem in Epitolis (sic praecipio) nisi 20 annis sit versatus (employed) in republica aliqua insigni (with something notable). Scripturas sacras sciat se nemo gustasse saitis, nisi centum (!) annis cum Prophetis Ecclesias gubernarit. Wir sind Bettler. Hoc est verus.”6 In a masterful way Luther speaks here of his feeling of inadequacy over against the depths of Scripture. But the same Luther underscored just as masterfully the significance of linguistic studies and methodological exegesis. Littera is and remains the basis. The way to a religious understanding of a biblical text goes through its letters, not beyond them, for this is the way of the Gospel writers themselves. Otherwise, one’s own ideas and experience are made the norm of understanding.

The Point of Learning the Exegetical Steps7

Faith is referred to the tradition of the historical event and is continually referred to it. For this reason, the New Testament takes over, without modification, the Jewish concepts of tradition (i.e., paradosis and its verbal relatives (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 7:10)). This tradition bears a peculiarly dual character: It is kerygmatic but it is at the same time historical tradition. The historical and the kerygmatic components of the tradition cannot be divorced from one another. From the outset, the Christian faith knows no preaching detached from history. The test of exegesis is thus to assess whether the sermon spoken to this concrete situation did justice to the task, missed it, abbreviated it, or weakened it.

The Constant

W...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Why Exegesis?
• Part II: A Brief Review of the History of New Testament Interpretation
• Part III: Deciding the Condition of the Text (“Lower Criticism”)
• Part IV: Source Analysis
• Part V: Form Critical Analysis
• Part VI: Redaction Analysis
• Part VII: Lexicography
• Part VIII: Sociological Criticism
• Part IX: Rhetorical Criticism
• Part X: Structural Analysis
• Part XI: Post-Structuralism Analysis
• Part XII: Reader Response Criticism
• Part XIII: Feminist Analysis
• Summary
• Glossary
• Bibliography