http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/01/09/new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis Kingdom People - Living on Earth as Citizens of Heaven Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/01/09/new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis/#comment-1621 joel hunter Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:37:51 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2008/01/09/new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis/#comment-1621 Trevin, I think I would supplement your point here by bringing something else out: both Wright and his critics do exegesis; the question is how thorough, how whole, how tempered is it? Based on my experience, I think it is a reasonable claim to say that Wright has a higher view of Scripture than most of his critics. I say this is a reasonable claim (though no doubt offensive to some) for two reasons. (1) From what I can tell, Wright studiously avoids using one text or small group of texts as an Archimedean point on which the whole of the NT (and OT for that matter) can be "managed" or, as I would tend to describe it, domesticated. (2) Wright takes the notion of the unity very seriously and he demonstrates that seriousness by his insistence in keeping exegesis of a particular passage tempered by the whole of Scripture. For example, he won't rest with an understanding of justification based on three or four "key" Pauline texts without attempting to integrate his understanding with the synoptics and with the Gospel of John. This insistence upon the integratedness of the NT (and the NT with OT) is why I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt over his critics: he seems to be more interested with faithfulness to the entirety of Scripture (i.e., a more authentic implementation of the reformational "Scripture interprets Scripture" hermeneutic principle) than with the interpretation of confessional theological categories and concepts. Trevin, I think I would supplement your point here by bringing something else out: both Wright and his critics do exegesis; the question is how thorough, how whole, how tempered is it? Based on my experience, I think it is a reasonable claim to say that Wright has a higher view of Scripture than most of his critics. I say this is a reasonable claim (though no doubt offensive to some) for two reasons. (1) From what I can tell, Wright studiously avoids using one text or small group of texts as an Archimedean point on which the whole of the NT (and OT for that matter) can be “managed” or, as I would tend to describe it, domesticated. (2) Wright takes the notion of the unity very seriously and he demonstrates that seriousness by his insistence in keeping exegesis of a particular passage tempered by the whole of Scripture. For example, he won’t rest with an understanding of justification based on three or four “key” Pauline texts without attempting to integrate his understanding with the synoptics and with the Gospel of John. This insistence upon the integratedness of the NT (and the NT with OT) is why I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt over his critics: he seems to be more interested with faithfulness to the entirety of Scripture (i.e., a more authentic implementation of the reformational “Scripture interprets Scripture” hermeneutic principle) than with the interpretation of confessional theological categories and concepts.

]]> http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/01/09/new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis/#comment-1622 The Boar’s Head Tavern » Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:55:50 +0000 http://trevinwax.com/2008/01/09/new-perspective-exegesis-and-eisegesis/#comment-1622 [...] Trevin Wax’s next post on the NPP. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 6:55 am | Trackback | Permalink [...] [...] Trevin Wax’s next post on the NPP. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 6:55 am | Trackback | Permalink [...]

]]>