I was digging around for full bibliographic information and found what I needed in a footnote on this page, an article by Scott Swanson asking why evangelicals are still asking if they should reproduce the exegesis of the NT. This has been an important question for Chris Seitz, and I'm somewhat familiar with the issues because of the Scripture and Theology seminar he facilitates here at St Andrews.

Swanson has read fairly widely on the question (hence I found the bib. data I needed). I'm not surprised to find R B Hays' Echos of Scripture coming into the discussion, especially given Swanson's conclusion. I must say I'm disappointed that Childs has not been considered, however. I'll try to explain why he should have been.

Swanson's view comes through clearly towards the end of the essay.

Many who would admit that we can reproduce the NT writers' exegesis of the OT, nevertheless hesitate to recommend that we do so, fearing past abuses. But why must we fear that this is warrant to find anything anywhere in Scripture? What it is warrant to do is to find Christ in the OT exactly as the NT does (emphasis added). We have clear guidelines and safeguards …

Insofar as my own PhD research is aimed at a positive reappraisal of typological exegesis, this line of argument catches my attention. If I'm honest, I might have tried to argue something similar about a year ago. My view after spending time with Childs, however, is that figural reading today cannot mean simply repristinating the NT's exegetical method.

For one thing, what of the inner hermeneutic of the OT? Michael Fishbane's important Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (OUP, 1985) comes to mind. If the assumption is that if the Bible exegetes a certain way, we can too, why should we only tune in to the way the NT exegetes scripture? This is either a form of Marcionism, or an over-simple view of the complexity of the OT material. Inner-biblical exegesis is a highly complex phenomenon. Adopting it again today would require something a good deal more complex than what Swanson suggests. He concludes:

Why then do evangelicals continue to produce so many excellent textbooks and studies on hermeneutics, with yet hardly a word on how students should learn biblical interpretation from the practice of the apostles? Why do we still often speak of the NT "use" of the OT? Those NT writers do not see themselves as only "using" or "applying" or "appropriating" the separate meaning of the OT for their new circumstances. They proclaimed what it meant (emphasis added). That meaning was what the Lord himself had explained to them (Luke 24:27) and opened their minds to understand (v. 45) concerning himself. It was the meaning which was in all the Scriptures (v. 27), and which must find its fulfillment in him (v. 44). Dare we say that we have not been foolish and slow of heart to believe it?

The Emmaus Road text is certainly relevant and important, but it seems to me that the view that scripture has just one meaning, and that it's meaning is plain, fails to do justice to what Luke 24 suggests about the relationship of OT and NT scripture for Christians today. (Is the tone of these concluding paragraphs, after so many careful footnotes, what makes the position rhetorically evangelical in the end??)

I guess I have two points. One, as I've tried to state, if you want inner-biblical exegesis, it's more complex to get up and running than this. Two, and this is what I've learned from Childs, and also Seitz, if inner-biblical exegesis is to be somehow normative or binding on us, how is extracting it from NT or OT or both different from creating a new canon within the canon? This time it's not God's saving acts in history, but God's hermeneutics in history. The remarkable thing here is that more people than Swanson move in this direction. Cf. the more prominent NT scholars Francis Watson and Richard Hays.

And with that contentious suggestion, I'll stop my oversized response to Swanson. It's ten years late, I know, but the issue remains quite current.

Tags: Canon, Figura