Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period

by Richard N. Longenecker

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi texts, and new Targums has left biblical scholars increasingly interested in the relationship between the New Testament and first-century Judaism. This critically acclaimed study by Richard Longenecker sheds fresh light on this relationship by exploring the methods the earliest Christians used to interpret the Old Testament. By comparing the first Christian writings with Jewish documents from the same period, Longenecker helps to discern some of the key differences between Christianity and Judaism. This second edition of Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period brings Longenecker's valued work up to date with current research in this important field of study.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Theology, New Testament, History, Biblical

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Richard N. Longenecker is Ramsey Armitage Professor of New Testament, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. He receivec the B.A. and M.A. degrees from Wheaton College and Wheaton Graduate School of Theology, respectively, and the Ph.D. from New College, University of Edinburgh. His principal publications include Paul, Apostle of Liberty (1964), The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970), The Ministry and Message of Paul (1971), Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (1975), “The Acts of the Apostles” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (1981), and The New Testament Social Ethics for Today (1984).

Reviews

[Justin Wilkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Longenecker very honestly approaches the evidence for the way that pre-Christian Jewish communities, Jesus, and the apostles all used the Old Testament, concluding with what that means for our interpretation of the New Testament. I appreciated the approach in which he leaned into tracking similarities and differences between each group that he analyzed. The only snag that I caught with this work was the insistence that many of the NT quotations are septuagintal in nature. Though he never forthrightly asserts that the NT writers expressly used the Septuagint as their common Old Testament, the flavor seems to be there, but that is almost inevitable in modern scholarship. He does credit the Masoretic Text where there are no overlaps with the Septuagint, which lends him much integrity in comparison to much of modern scholarship in my book. Certainly worth the read if we want to understand our Bible the way that Jesus and the Apostles did!

[Elli Miller]

Good reminder of a lot of things we talked about in my Senior theology class. I wish he could have spent a little more time on his conclusion at the end—that we ought not use many of the exegetical practices the apostles did.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very technical but intereſtiŋ analyſis of how ðe early church, but ſpecially ðe apoſtles & evangeliſts, dealt wiþ ðeir Scripture, namely ðe Hebrew Bible (ðe Proteſtand Old Teſtament), but alſo apocryphan & pagan texts; &, at ðe very end, how is ðat relevant to ðe modern church. From an Evangelical, text-critical (¡but not high-critical!) perſpective.

[Emma Whear]

Why can these books not be written in normal English?
High academic tone. Lots of Greek/Hebrew.

Some fun stuff, but Logenecker is hesitant to make any bold assertions.

Especially enjoyed the Hebrews chapter.

[Shane Williamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

2022 reads: 05

Rating: 4 stars

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Доста техническо,но добро и полезно изследване на начина, по който новозаветните автори тълкуват СЗ и на егзегетичните процедури, които те използват. Като цяло Лонгенекер показва завидна ерудиция по отношение на източниците - освен НЗ и евресйките тълкувания, свитъците от Мъртво море и апокрифата.
Една от основните забележки е, че книгата е до известна степен остаряла като библиография (макар че не съм сигурен, че новите изследвания биха променили много неща от анализа и изводите на автора).
Един от най-интересните моменти в книгата е задочната дискусия на Лонгенекер с Р. Хейс за това доколко древната егзегетика трябва да бъде задължителна за нас. За разлика от Хейс неговият извод е предпазливо "Не" или поне не във всяко отношение. Тук неговото разграничение на егзегетиката като съдържаща "описателен" и "предписателен" елемент е много интересно. Не по-малко полезно е разграничението между незадължителността на някои елементи от егзегетическите методи на евангелистите и задължителността на изводите дои които достигат като богословски твърдения.
Като цяло хубава, балансирана и умно написана книга, макар че със сигурност не е четиво за всеки.

[Johnny Sprinkle · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a bad book but, man, it is not for me.

[Ben K · Rating 4 out of 5]

An essential introduction to the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. A challenging read, but I gained a better understanding of the various hermeneutical methods employed by the Biblical authors. I found the treatment of Pesher interpretation particularly helpful in shaping my understanding of OT prophecy and fulfillment. This book is also a gem for its concise listings of every direct Old Testament quotation, along with the introductory formulas used.

[William G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important book for sure, a central book in the discussion from way back. Lots of very good analysis and listing of quotes, various methods of using the OT, etc. I read it for it's modern implications, and that's where I felt Longenecker really dropped the ball. What I heard was (1) The NT writers did what they did with the OT (from the Christological point of view, and in four basic ways, and etc. but als0) under the influence of the Holy Spirit. (This last important point he mentiones repeatedly but never defends, not does he summarize from somewhere else where another makes the case, or name a book or article, or give a footnote to defend this idea.) (2) Those of us today who interpret the Bible don't have this same kind of enabling or guidance (also not defended or explicated), and therefore (3) We today can't do what they then did. (To this I would say that, one, that he could have just asserted this in a short article without all the documentation in the book, and two, that it strikes me as another method not mentioned in the book, the "When you wish upon a star . . . " method. In this case that would mean that since we very sincerely wish and hope that the NT writers had a unique gift/stance/enabling from the H.S.(that in fact our whole system may depend upon it) that indeed then, well . . . , they did.) I'm not saying they did or didn't, but that the author certainly didn't demonstrate that they did, or that it's different for us (maybe that would have required an entirely different book), so his conclusion, which kept including the word "necessarily" to me seemed lame and disappointing. ("We can't 'necessarily' say . . . .) I'm still glad I read the book, but I'm going to read plenty more on this topic to continue to try to think through the IMPLICATIONS (for revelation, inspiration, canonicity, authority, and yes, and even "innerancy") - implications which were not spelled out or addressed in the book for the most part. It's really with this intersection, between the apostle's use and these theological concepts that the rubber hits the road.

[Jacob Hudgins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really helpful study of typical Jewish interpretive techniques and their use by NT authors in interpreting Jewish Scripture. Longenecker surveys the entire New Testament and comments on how each author uses Scripture. The book is dense but not too long.

I found it helpful in understanding the thought process that undergirds really strange uses (Eph 4:8, Rom 10:5-10) by some general rules of interpretation. Previously I would have confused midrash and pesher, but this helped. He concludes the book by asking whether we should attempt to recreate the exegetical methods of the early church, concluding (with little argument) that we should stick with the historical-critical approach.

Pet peeve: explaining what Greek, Hebrew, and Latin phrases mean, then including entire sentences in German without translation. The book is written in English! How hard is this?

[John Rimmer · Rating 3 out of 5]

L.A.M.P., the literalist, allegorical, midrashic, and pesher interpretive methods used by the biblical world and culture of the first century. A helpful glimpse into what is going on in every New Testament letter to varying degrees and emphases, particularly based on who the author is. Longenecker emphasizes that it was the Christological emphasis of all the Old Testament, demonstrated first in the teaching of Jesus, that came first in the Christian hermeneutic, generating the greatest distinction and innovation from the various Jewish hermeneutics of the day (Pharisaic, Qumran, Sadduceean, etc.).

[Christopher Chandler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the approach of Longenecker and his conclusion that we ought not use many of the exegetical practices the apostles did.

He concludes by stating that the Jewish roots of Christianity make it likely that the exegesis would resemble that of Judaism of the time. But he suggested that we not try to attempt to reproduce the writers’ midrashic handing of the text...

[Noah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty smoothly written for this type of work,
and helpful in presenting the different ways in which
the apostles interpreted the Old Testament.

[Winnie Thornton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid on the hermeneutics, but if Longenecker could write as engagingly as he analyzes, this book would be half as long and twice as interesting. He lacks clarity and grace.

[Matt Quintana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Richard Longenecker's "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period" has long been lauded as a standard within the field of the NT's use of the OT. In my opinion, it is rather unfortunate that this is the case. It is no exaggeration to say that I found myself at odds with the author on nearly every single page, both disputing smaller points as well as fundamentally objecting to his primary arguments.

Most of the author's work builds off of a series of presuppositions that are, in my opinion, totally ungrounded. For instance, he assumes that since Christianity was birthed from Judaism and shares the same Scriptures, the NT authors must a priori employ the same exegetical methods. Longenecker restricts the sensus literalis to only what he can reconstruct by the "literal-historical-grammatical" method; anything beyond that must be midrash or pesher or even allegory. Additionally, he presumes that a messianic / eschatological meaning to the OT is a Christian invention and thus any christological readings must necessarily be retrospective. He thus allows no room for a complex and multifaceted prospective meaning to the HB and disregards compositional and canonical strategies inherent in the OT itself which validates the readings of Christ and the apostles. Overall, Longenecker pays very little attention to the OT text and is ignorant to inner-biblical exegesis/allusion in the OT. Moreover, he also works with some very basic and un-nuanced, and at times inaccurate, assumptions about textual criticism in the HB.

The work is a bit dated (published in 1975, minor revisions + new preface in 1999), but the trajectories Longenecker established have continued to influence the field. This book is a "must-read" in the sense that anyone involved in the topic of the OT in the NT must be aware of its arguments and subsequent influence. However, I am grateful for the abundance of scholarship that has occurred within the nearly 50 years since the book's initial publication, much of which has sought to move in another direction.

[Lu Tsun · Rating 3 out of 5]

The goal of Longenecker’s Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period is to give a systematic account of the earliest Christians exegetical treatments of the Old Testament, with the new lights from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi texts, the new Targums, and other data from the first-century Judaism.

Longenecker proposes that “Jewish exegesis of the first century can generally be classified under four headings: literalist, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical”—a basic structure of classification for analyzing the exegetical procedures of both pre-Christian Jewish and Christian exegeses.

Longenecker observes that the key differences between Christianity and Judaism in their use of the OT are rooted in the uniquely Christian idea of christocentric fulfillment through the apostolic preaching, however they also share the same pattern of adapting, reinterpreting, extending, and so reapplying Scripture to the present circumstances of God’s people.

The early Christian exegeses understand "fulfillment" in broader terms—rather than simply linguistic or conceptual reenactment of an ancient prophecy, but from an extra-biblical stance of the fresh knowledge of Jesus the resurrected Messiah to apply their own christocentric circumstances with spiritual quality.

Critiques:

Longenecker's classification of Jewish exegeses is very informative, but he himself admits that he cannot conduct the comprehensive examination of the sources, therefore we cannot take his classification as absolute.

Longencker's observation of the christocentric nature of NT exegeses is essentially correct, from the Reformed perspective, however he seems to be overstating the case by suggesting the NT exegesis as altogether new and creative.

The early Christians' commitment to their christocentric circumstances does not therefore grant them the freedom to adapt the OT which both Jesus and the apostles holds highly as Scripture. The Jewish practice of constantly reinterpreting the Scriptures according to the new circumstances is also not necessarily the norm for the Christian practice of exegesis.

The early Christians understands their christocentric reading of the OT as the true and sincere meaning long embedded in the OT itself, not a new creative invention, however it only becomes not obscure in light of Christian faith.

Paul reasoned with the Jews from Scriptures, i.e. the OT, and explained why Jesus was the promised Messiah, not the other way around. It would be risky if we underplay the continuity at the face of discontinuity in the early Christian understanding of the relationship between the OT and the NT.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Longenecker does a thorough job of outlining how each NT writer uses the OT passages based on his understanding of pesher and midrashic exegesis. He is very conservative in terms of Biblical authorship, defending traditional claims through demonstration of study. However, at the points where Richard B. Hays and Longenecker are at variance, I feel that Hays has presented a stronger case, especially in terms of a continued application of Biblical exegesis.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really stretched my understanding of NT exegesis. It's fascinating to see how the OT was interpreted by NT writers. The key chapters for me were 1 (definition of terms), 2 (Jesus' use), and 4 (Paul's use). My big takeaway is the Christological hermeneutic employed (but not always) by the writers to interpret the OT. However, the Pesher hermeneutic is most intriguing to me. Excellent read!

[Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very important work for anyone interested in New Testament exegesis.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough.

[Calm · Rating 5 out of 5]

I suggest taking notes on a separate sheet while reading this so one can quickly reference any of the terms that are easily confused.

[Cimuchowski]

Jon's dad recommended this one too.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great introduction to the perplexities of OT quotations and exegesis in the NT.