Exegetical Rules

In the latest round of our Theopolitan Conversations, Peter Leithart kicked off a discussion of exegesis and exegetical method. I wrote the first response, which was published yesterday.

In the absence of articulated rules and principles, the authority of Scripture can easily become displaced, increasingly being eclipsed by the supposedly illuminated reader who acts as its appointed intermediary, having arrived at their spiritual readings by some mysterious alchemy of mind. Here I want to give a cautious two cheers for grammatical historical exegesis, whose demand for rigorously articulated exegetical principles was designed in part to curb fanciful exegesis which, while affirming the authority of the text, could treat it as if a blank cheque written out to certain imaginative readers (producing or reinforcing unhealthy authority dynamics that the Reformers and their successors often needed to address). The interpretative minimalism of much grammatical historical exegesis is a serious fault, but not an integral one.

Read the whole thing here.

About Alastair Roberts

Alastair Roberts (PhD, Durham University) writes in the areas of biblical theology and ethics, but frequently trespasses beyond these bounds. He participates in the weekly Mere Fidelity podcast, blogs at Alastair’s Adversaria, and tweets at @zugzwanged.
This entry was posted in Bible, Controversies, Guest Post, Hermeneutics, Scripture, Theological, Theopolis. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.