All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396.

Scripture quotations from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible are copyright 1946,1952, © 1971,1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission.

Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission to reprint material from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, third edition, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker and based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, © 1957,1979,2000 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Excerpts from Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, edited by Kurt Aland, are reproduced in this text by permission of the German Bible Society. English text (Revised Standard Version, 2nd Edition) © 1971 Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Greek text © 1964 and 1983 German Bible Society, Stuttgart.

The page reproduced from the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition © 1898 and 1998 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Maudine, Mark, Cherith, Craig, and Brian who taught me that exegesis is not an end in itself but must always be applied

We have been studying cheerfully and seriously As far as I was concerned it could have continued in that way, and I had already resigned myself to having my grave here by the Rhine!... And now the end has come. So listen to my piece of advice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis! Keep to the Word, to the scripture that has been given to us.

(On the event of his formal farewell to his students in Bonn, just prior to his expulsion from Germany in 1935. Quoted in Eber-hard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.)

Preface to the First Edition Preface to the Second Edition Analytical Table of Contents Introduction

viii

xiii

xvii

xxi

112

133

155

181

187

Today's New International Version, 2002 The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. United Bible Societies, 1993

(welcome the publisher’s invitation to offer this third edition of New Testament Exegesis, which is appearing in conjunction with the third edition of Douglas Stuart's Old Testament Exegesis (see Preface to First Edition). The major "revisions" to this edition are bibliographical— an enormous amount of new literature and Internet resources have appeared in the last ten years. At the same time, the basic UBS/Nes-tle-Aland Greek text has appeared in a new revision (UBS⁴ and NA²⁷respectively), as has a newly, considerably revised edition by Frederick W. Danker of the basic Greek lexicon—known by all as "Bauer" but now to be known as BDAG. This means that Sections II.2 ("Establishing the Text") and II.4 ("The Analysis of Words") have been rather thoroughly revised to reflect these new editions, facsimiles of which have also been included.

Books of the kind edited by I. H. Marshall (see Preface to First Edition) and Black and Dockery (Preface to Second Edition), which offer helpful essays on all kinds of matters related to interpreting the New Testament, continue to be forthcoming. I call attention to these two:

Joel B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995).

Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997).

I have also elaborated or revised the earlier editions at two significant points. First, at Step 8 (and Section II.5 of Chapter II), I have rewritten large portions of the section to include the flourishing of two dimensions of this task: social science criticism (understanding the culture through the eyes of sociological study) and intertextual-ity (listening to the "echoes" of the OT in the NT writers, as well as their direct citations). Second, I have rewritten Step 11 (G) to put more emphasis where it belongs: on the evangelist's own narrative.

Since this book assumes that the biblical books have "authors," and that the view of an author counts for something in the exegetical process, I have added an Appendix to this edition with a brief discussion of this presupposition in light of some postmodern theories of "interpretation" that begin with the reader and tend to negate the concept of "author" altogether.

As always, I am indebted to others for help of various kinds: to Carey Newman, editor at Westminster John Knox Press, who initiated this process and who encouraged me with generous support when the deadline had to be delayed because of surgery; to my former teaching assistant, now assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller Seminary, Rick Beaton, who helped bring me up to speed on computer-aided research (as he did regularly some years ago as my TA!); and to my Regent colleague, Loren Wilkinson, professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, who took the time to read and critique the Appendix.

A former New Testament colleague was once asked by a student how he could learn to do exegesis, intending that his teacher should suggest a book. My colleague answered, "You will just have to take a course." That answer is the tacit admission of what all of us who teach NT know to be true: There simply is no book that serves either as a textbook or a guide for students to learn the exegetical process, from the opening of their Bibles to the writing of the paper. This book hopes to fill that lacuna.

There are, of course, some useful books available for those who do exegesis. The closest to the kind I have tried to write is by Otto Kaiser and Werner G. Kiimmel, Exegetical Method: A Student's Handbook, rev. ed. (Seabury Press, 1981). But these are essays, not student guides. The book is useful to a degree, but as anyone knows who has tried to use it as a text, it is much too general for classroom purposes. A useful handbook by John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay has recently appeared: Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook (John Knox Press,

1982). It covers both OT and NT in the same chapters and approaches the task from the perspective of the various critical procedures.

Two other recent books are especially useful to help the stu-dent/pastor to understand the various concerns and methodologies that go into the exegetical process for the NT: I. Howard Marshall

(ed.), New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 406 pp., and Daniel J. Harrington, Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide (Michael Glazier, 1979), 149 pp. Either of these books would serve as a good companion to the present book, since they elaborate in considerable detail some of the methodological concerns that are treated in a more "how to" fashion here.

My own reasons for writing this book are several. First, in all my own years of training, I was never taught how to do exegesis. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that I never attended seminary. But as an undergraduate Bible major and as a Ph.D. student in NT studies, I was never specifically trained in exegesis. An undergraduate course in hermeneutics was typical of many such courses—a lot of general, and often helpful, information, but not designed to teach the student how to exegete a piece of text in particular. On the other hand, I saw what was passing for exegesis in many seminaries and graduate schools—basically advanced Greek, in which "exegesis" meant to know the meaning of words and determine "what kind of geni-tive"—and instinct told me that, necessary and useful as such work was, it was not exegesis, but only one part of the whole.

So I did what many of my contemporaries had to do, who also were taught "exegesis" as a part of "hermeneutics" or as "advanced Greek"—I learned on my own. Of course I had many teachers: the better commentaries, such as that by Barrett on 1 Corinthians; my colleagues, especially David M. Scholer, now dean of Northern Baptist Seminary, with whom I team-taught the course in Interpreting the New Testament, and to whom I owe so much that has gone into this book. But much I learned simply by sitting with a piece of text and hammering out the questions on my own.

The impetus for writing the book came initially from my colleague Douglas Stuart, whose similar experience with OT exegesis led him to write the prior companion volume to this one (Old Testament Exegesis; Westminster Press, 1980). Soon after Professor Stuart's book appeared, I wistfully voiced the desire to James Heaney of The Westminster Press that I would someday like to write the NT companion volume. Dr. Heaney exercised the proper pressure that finally resulted in "someday" becoming a deadline to be met with a manuscript.

Because this is a companion volume to Professor Stuart's book, I have had his always at my side, and I have purposefully tried to follow his outline as much as possible. Some students, who have already used Old Testament Exegesis with profit, at times will even find some verbatim repetition. I make no apologies for that; at many points the two disciplines intersect, and the two volumes are intended to be companions. But because OT and NT exegesis are in fact different disciplines, there are also some obvious differences in the format of the two books. The most notable differences are these: (a) I have included a second chapter in which several of the details of the outline given in Chapter I are elaborated. This second chapter is intended to teach students how to use certain key tools and how to wrestle with the basic components 0/exegesis. (b) Chapter IV (comparable to Professor Stuart's Chapter III) on aids and resources has been keyed to two bibliographies already extant. It did not seem necessary to duplicate this material when several such adequate helps are already available.

Students will soon learn that not everyone will do—or teach— exegesis in precisely the same way. This book attempts to take that into account. The steps given here are not hard-and-fast rules; they are guidelines. If another ordering of steps suits you better, or is followed by your own teachers, then by all means adapt to suit your own needs. What I have tried to provide is a guide to all the steps necessary to do good exegesis. To that end I trust it will be useful.

As with Old Testament Exegesis, this book assumes that exegesis requires a minimal knowledge of Greek. But it also is written to encourage the use of Greek by those whose knowledge of the language has grown rusty. Those students without knowledge of Greek will be able to use much of the guide, especially Chapter I. But as you will see in Chapter II, many of the crucial things require some working knowledge of the original language. Here we have offered translations of the Greek so that you might benefit as much as possible from this material. In fact, if you take the time to learn well the Greek alphabet, you will be able to use most of the tools discussed in that chapter. It is hoped that this book will encourage you eventually to acquire a knowledge of the language itself.

I would also like to reiterate here the need to have on hand two of the books Professor Stuart mentions in his Introduction:

Frederick W. Danker, Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study; 3d ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970);

Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism; 2d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981).

These books will be excellent supplements to the present one, Danker ^׳s being a more thorough examination of the tools mentioned in Chapters II and IV, and Soulen's being a mine of definitions and explanations for nearly all the exegetical terms and techniques you will ever run across.

Finally, acknowledgment must be made of others besides Professors Scholer and Stuart who have contributed to this book. I am indebted to Professor Robert A. Guelich of Northern Baptist Seminary for some initial encouragement and especially for some helpful insights in using the Greek synopsis; to my colleague Dr. Rod Whitacre for generous interaction on the whole, and especially for material on the section on grammatical analysis; to my former student and sometime colleague Gerry Camery-Hoggatt for helpful suggestions at every stage, and especially for material on the documentation of secondary sources. My other two NT colleagues, Royce G. Gruen-ler and J. Ramsey Michaels, also joined in several hours of vigorous discussion of many parts. Special thanks for the expert typing skills of Holly Greening, Corinne Languedoc, and Anne Swetland.

The warm welcome with which the first edition of this book was received was both gratifying and the certain evidence that such a book was needed. Now—a decade later—a revised edition is called for, not because the basic elements or methods of exegesis have changed, but because much else has happened in ten years. Four matters in particular have called for this new edition.

First, I have spent the past six years teaching exegesis in the context of Regent College (Vancouver, B.C.), where the composition of our student body has forced me to rethink how this material can best be adapted for those who work with the English Bible only. Although many of our students are pursuing career church ministries, the majority are not, and our basic exegesis course is designed to cover both OT and NT, for both M.Div. and Diploma students, the majority of whom do not have Greek. I still require all students to learn the Greek alphabet (as suggested in the Preface to the First Edition), so that they may use the better tools, and I also require them to do assignments that force hands-on use of the various primary sources (in translation) noted in Step 8; but I also have made some adjustments for the sake of non-Greek students, both in the ordering of the steps and in bringing them more quickly to the secondary literature,

especially commentaries. These adjustments are now reflected in this revised edition.

Second, there has been a staggering amount of new secondary literature produced during the past decade. This new edition, therefore, allows me the opportunity to update the resources in Chapter IV. Not only so, but even the items mentioned in the first Preface need to be updated. Thus in addition to the volumes by Marshall and Harrington, the following very important books should be noted (and probably purchased):

David A. Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991).

Hans Conzelmann and Andreas Lindemann, Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of N.T. Exegesis; trans. by S. S. Schatzmann of Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament, 8th Ger. ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988).

The latter book, despite its English subtitle, not only deals with "principles and methods" but also offers major sections on backgrounds, content overviews, and the issues regarding the interpretation of Jesus and early Christianity.

At a much more practical level, and therefore especially for the sake of the English Bible users of this book, useful discussions of many of the matters addressed in the present book can be found in:

F. Furman Kearley, Edward P. Myers, and Timothy D. Hadley (eds.), Biblical Interpretation, Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986).

Third, during the past decade computer-aided research materials have burgeoned. It is hard to know how much of this material properly fits into a "student handbook," but at least some of the more readily available, or otherwise especially useful, items are noted in Chapter IV.

Fourth, when this book first appeared, rhetorical criticism was just beginning to make its presence felt in exegetical materials. Even though the degree to which NT authors make use of these Hellenistic forms has probably been overstated by its practitioners, this area of study opens up new ways of hearing the NT letters and thus potentially offers many helpful insights into their interpretation. Thus, some discussion of rhetorical matters needed to be added (see 1.9.3[E]), as well as some additional bibliography for further study As with the first edition, I am indebted to several people for their help in making this new edition possible. Here I record my thanks especially to my teaching assistant for 1991-92, James M. Leonard, whose help with students went far beyond all normal TA expectations, and who also reread the first edition with an especially critical eye toward its usefulness to students. I am also grateful to Dr. James M. Scott of Trinity Western University, who graciously made available to me his especially thorough, unpublished bibliography on "Lexical Resources for Greek, Latin and Christian Literatures," and who also supplied the necessary bibliography for computer-aided research tools.

9.2 (G). Identify the specific literary form. Step 10 (G). Analyze the pericope in a Gospel synopsis.

18 18 18 18 18 19 19 19

24 24

Analytical Table of Contents Step 11 (G). Analyze the pericope in its narrative context.

B (A). Exegeting the Acts of the Apostles Step 10 (A). Research the historical questions.

B (R). Exegeting the Book of Revelation Step 9 (R). Understand the formal character of the Revelation.

28 29

30 30

35 35

Do a mini-word study for any crucial terms. Investigate important historical-cultural matters. Contextual Questions Epistles (Acts, Revelation)

Biblical-Theological Context Analyze the passage's relation to the rest of Scripture.

Clarify the possible nature and area of application. Identify the audience and categories of application.

he term exegesis is used in this book in a consciously limited sense to refer to the historical investigation into the meaning of the biblical text. The presupposition lying behind this task is that the biblical books had "authors" and "readers," and that the authors intended their readers to understand what they wrote (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 1 John 2:1; see the Appendix). Exegesis therefore answers the question, What did the biblical author mean? It has to do both with what he said (the content itself) and why he said it at any given point (the literary context)—as much as that might be discovered, given our distance in time, language, and culture. Furthermore, exegesis is primarily concerned with intentionality: What did the author intend his original readers to understand?

Historically, the broader term for the science of interpretation, which included exegesis, was hermeneutics. But since hermeneutics has come to focus more on meaning as an existential reality, that is, what these ancient sacred texts mean for us at a later point in history, I have chosen to limit any use of the term to this more restricted sense of "contemporary meaning" or "application."

This book is primarily concerned with the exegetical process itself. Thus the immediate aim of the biblical student is to understand the biblical text. Exegesis, however, should not be an end in itself. Exegetical essays put forward as "sermons" are usually as dry as dust, informative, perhaps, but seldom prophetic or inspirational. Therefore, the ultimate aim of the biblical student is to apply one's exegetical understanding of the text to the contemporary church and world. Hence this guide also includes some suggestions for moving "from text to sermon."

The process of doing exegesis and of writing an exegesis paper is determined in part by the reason(s) one comes to a particular text. Basically, there are three such reasons:

2. an attempt to resolve the difficulties in a well-known crux, or problem passage (1 Cor. 7:14; 15:29; etc.);

3. preparation for next Sunday's sermon or lesson or for other related pastoral concerns.

Professors and writers of commentaries usually approach the text for the first reason. In the classroom, students are also involved in this process and frequently write their exegesis papers "in the course of things." It is hoped that more and more pastors will also learn to work exegetically through whole books, not only for immediate teaching or preaching purposes but also for creating a deep reservoir of biblical material in order to inform their entire ministry.

Many student exegesis papers are also written for the second reason. It is hoped that what is learned in trying to resolve "problem passages" will carry over to reason 3 (preaching or pastoral concerns), the most common—and urgent—reason ministers approach the biblical text. Because of this, an entire chapter is devoted to learning how to exegete in "short form," for sermon preparation. But one cannot learn to do "short form" well who has not first learned well the whole process.

The guidelines in Chapter I are written from the perspective of reason 2 (dealing with problem passages). Also included (in Step 1) are additional helps for those whose approach is reason 1 (working through an entire book).

The first thing one must note of any biblical text is elementary, but it is also the crucial matter, for it determines much of the rest. What kind of literature are you exegeting? The NT is composed basically of four types (genres):

1. The Epistles, for the most part, are comprised of paragraphs of argument or exhortation. Here the exegete must learn, above all else, to trace the flow of the writer's argument in order to understand any single sentence or paragraph.

2. The Gospels are comprised of pericopes, individual units of narrative or teaching, which are of different kinds, with different formal characteristics, and which have been set in their present contexts by the evangelists.

3. Acts is basically a series of connected shorter narratives that form one entire narrative interspersed with speeches.

4. The book of Revelation is basically a series of carefully constructed visions, woven together to form a complete apocalyptic narrative.

Although they have many things in common, each of these genres also has its own peculiar exegetical problems and "rules." Therefore, in Chapter I the guide is divided into four parts: (A) some initial steps common to all the genres, (B) some special steps peculiar to each of the genres, (C) some further steps common to all, and (D) some con-eluding remarks about application.

It is assumed that the guide is not necessarily to be read through in a sitting but that it will be used in conjunction with the actual work of exegesis. Therefore, if you are exegeting a passage from the Epis-ties, you should follow the first eight steps common to all (1.1-8), then follow the three steps peculiar to the Epistles in part B (1.9 [E] to 11 [E]), then skip to part C for Steps 12-15 (1.12-15). Do the same for a paper on the Gospels, Acts, or Revelation. It should be noted that at Step 15, "Write the paper," guidelines again differ for a passage from the Epistles or the Gospels. Because Chapter I does not "read right through" for any of the genres, the student will probably find it useful to refer regularly to the schematic diagram found at the beginning of that chapter.

Remember as you use this guide that all the steps do not apply equally to all NT passages. For example, some passages will have no textual problems at all, while for others the resolution of the textual question will be a major consideration in understanding. For still other texts, the crucial matter will be contextual or lexical or an insight from the historical or social-cultural context. There is no way to know in advance what questions a particular passage will raise. What you

need to do is to go through all the steps; but as you become familiar with a passage, it will tend to become clear to you how to assign the relative weight of each step and its subpoints.

A final word to those who use only the English Bible. First, you need to take heart that you can learn to do exegesis as well as anyone else. Knowing Greek gives one obvious advantages in several matters of detail. But the person without Greek who is willing to do a bit of extra work can enter into the full joys of this discipline. You must take seriously the need to learn the Greek alphabet; that will give you direct access to most of the better tools, especially when it comes to the study of words.

Second, the English Bible portion of Step 3 is the absolutely essential matter. Elere you will learn not only how to become thoroughly acquainted with your passage but also how to discover what needs to be investigated. This is your entry point into the content questions. The point of this exercise is not to make choices between the various translations as to which one you prefer! Rather, it is to lead you to the secondary sources where these matters are discussed. But the goal is to learn the method well enough so that even here you can learn to have confidence in making up your own mind.

Third, you will help yourself immensely if you read widely in the secondary literature for each step listed in Chapter IV. Items that are especially helpful for beginning students in these various disciplines are carefully marked.

In time, you may find it possible to learn the Greek language itself, at least at a very basic level. If you do, you will find to your delight that it is not nearly as difficult as you have imagined or as some have suggested.

Guide for Full Exegesis

he key to good exegesis is the ability to ask the right questions of the text in order to get at the author's intended meaning. Good exegetical questions fall into two basic categories: questions of content (what is said) and of context (why it is said).

The contextual questions are of two kinds: historical and literary. Historical context has to do both with the general historical-sociological-cultural setting of a document (e.g., the city of Corinth, its geography, people, religions, social environment, economy) and with the specific occasion of the document (i.e., why it was written). Literary context has to do with why a given thing was said at a given point in the argument or narrative.

The questions of content are basically of four kinds: textual criticism (the determination of the actual wording of the author), lexical data (the meaning of words), grammatical data (the relationship of words to one another), and historical-cultural background (the relationship of words and ideas to the background and culture of the author and his readers).

Good exegesis, therefore, is the happy combination—or careful integration—of all these data into a readable presentation. The aim of

Step 1:

Survey the historical context in general.

Step 2:

Confirm the limits of the passage.

Step 3:

Become thoroughly acquainted

with your paragraph/peri-cope.

Step 4:

Analyze sentence structures and syntactical relationships. (See II.l)

Step 5:

Establish the text.

(See II.2)

Step 6:

Analyze the grammar.

(See II.l and 3)

Step 7:

Analyze significant words. (See II.4)

Step 8:

Research the historical-cultural background.

(See II.5)

EPISTLES Step 9 (E):

Determine the formal character of the epistle.

Step 10 (E):

Examine the historical context in particular.

Step 11 (E):

Determine the literary context.

GOSPELS Step 9 (G):

Determine the formal character of the pericope or saying.

Step 10 (G):

Analyze the pericope in a Gospel synopsis.

(See II.6)

Step 11 (G):

Analyze the pericope in its narrative context.

ACTS

Step 10 (A):

Research the historical questions.

Step 11 (A):

Determine the literary context.

THE REVELATION

Step 9 (R):

Understand the formal character of the Revelation.

Step 10 (R):

Determine the historical context.

Step 11 (R):

Determine the literary context.

Step 12:

Consider the broader biblical and theological contexts.

Step 13:

Consult secondary literature.

Step 14 (optional):

Provide a finished translation.

Step 15:

Write the paper.

such a presentation is not originality or uniqueness but as close an approximation of the author's original intention as careful investigation can bring us. The schematic on the preceding pages gives you an overview of the process. The rest of the chapter leads you through each of the steps.

Note well: As you go through the steps in this chapter, you need to be continually aware of the companion bibliography in Chapter IV. In some cases you will need to read widely in order to understand the distinctive features or nature of that step.

A. Initial Steps for All Genres

At the very beginning of the exegetical process, after you have determined the literary genre in which the text exists (see the Introduction), you need to have a provisional idea of what is going on, both in the whole document in general and in your own paragraph (or pericope) in particular. To do this well, several initial steps are necessary.

Before the investigation of any sentence, paragraph, or other subsection of a document, one always needs to have a good sense about the entire document. Who is the author? Who are the recipients? What is the relationship between them? Where do the recipients live? What are their present circumstances? What historical situation occasioned this writing? What is the author's purpose? What is the overall theme or concern? Does the argument or narrative have an easily discerned outline?

It is to your great advantage, if time permits, to do this work for yourself; in a book study course this will be done in the process of the course. But for the exegesis of a "problem passage," you will often want to get right at the passage. Therefore, it is important to consult a content-oriented survey and a critical introduction (see Chapter IV.l).

Note: If you are approaching the text for reason 1, that is, methodically working your way through a book (see Introduction), there is no substitute for doing this work for yourself. In this case you should do the following:

There is no substitute for this step. You never start exegeting a book at chapter 1, verse 1. The first step always is to read the entire document through. You need a provisional sense of the whole before analyzing any of its parts, and you gain such a sense by reading it through. [Note: One can read a letter the size of Philippians aloud (a good exercise, by the way) in about thirteen minutes, so one ought to read shorter documents through several times in successive days before starting on an exegesis project.]

After the first reading, go back through it a second time in skim fashion and make notes of the following (with references):

1.1.1. Discover everything you can about the recipients. Are they Jews or Gentiles? or a combination? What relation do they have with the author? Are there any hints of their socioeconomic situation?

1.1.2. Discover everything you can about the purpose. Does the author explicitly say anything about it? What is implied?

1.1.3. Note special emphases or concerns that emerge. What words or ideas are frequently repeated? What unusual vocabulary recurs? What, if anything, might these tell you about the occasion or purpose?

1.1.4. Work out an annotated outline of the whole book (to be revised on further study).

After you feel somewhat at home with the document as a whole, then proceed to the next steps.

Now go to the sources mentioned in Chapter IV and see whether you missed some insights. If there are significant differences between your observations and those in your NT survey or introduction, go back over the biblical document with the book in hand to see what the reasons are for the differences.

Determine whether the passage you have chosen for exegesis is a genuine, self-contained unit. Even if you are exegeting only a single

sentence, that sentence must be placed in its own paragraph or peri-cope. To do this, check the paragraphing of the two primary critical editions of the Greek text (NA²⁷ and UBS⁴; you will notice that they sometimes differ) against two or more modern translations (e.g., NRSV and TNIV). Where any of these differ, you must tentatively decide for yourself what the basic unit is. The final decision on this matter will become a part of the whole exegetical process.

Note well: For Steps 3 through 7, some differences in method exist for those who use Greek and those who do not. The special instructions for those who use English Bible only are found in brackets following the steps for those with Greek.

For those who use Greek: It would be to your great advantage also to read through the instructions for those who must work through the same procedures in the English Bible. If you are aiming toward or are already involved in professional ministry, you may find these materials helpful in teaching others in the church how to do the basic steps in the exegetical process.

For those who use English: Before skipping down to your part of the various steps, you should read through the part for Greek exegesis. This will give you an idea both of what must be done for those who know the original language and of what kinds of methodological differences exist for you. Note well: (1) Even though you may never learn Greek, it will be to your great advantage to learn the Greek alphabet; by so doing, you will be able to consult and use most of the better tools; (2) even if you cannot enter fully into matters that have strictly to do with the Greek language, it is to your great advantage to read as widely as possible from the bibliography in Chapter IV, so that you may at least understand the kinds of matters that are being discussed in the commentaries as you read them.

The first essential matter is to become thoroughly acquainted with your paragraph. Nothing will better help you do this than to read

through your paragraph in Greek and make a provisional translation. For rapid reading of the Greek, learn to use either Kubo or Zerwick-Grosvenor (see IV.3). Read the Greek text through several times, until you are sufficiently familiar with the content of the passage to be able to translate it without the lexical-grammatical aid. Then write out your translation, using your aid if you need to. Remember, this is not a finished translation. The purpose of this step is primarily to familiarize yourself with the content of your paragraph.

As you write out your translation, make a separate list of textual, grammatical, and lexical items that will need special study. For example, are there textual variations that make a difference in how one understands the text? Note especially any and all variations in the apparatus of UBS⁴, since these were selected on the basis of their significance for translation. Which matters of grammar surfaced as you tried to translate? Which were noted in your translational aid (Zerwick-Grosvenor)? Are there theologically loaded words? Are some words used repeatedly in this passage? Are there words in the passage that do not occur frequently in this author's writings?

Note: As a final step to your exegesis (Step 14), before the actual writing of the paper, you may be required to come back to this step and offer a finished translation, reflecting the conclusions of your exegesis. Even if you are not so required, it is good practice to learn to do this.

Note well: The next step (3.3) is the substitute step (for 3.1 and 3.2) for those without Greek; but those who use Greek may find it a helpful exercise as well, so don't skip over it too quickly.

The best way for you to become acquainted with the paragraph and to discover what in the paragraph needs special study is to read the paragraph through in at least seven translations. As with the person using Greek, the aim of this exercise is to help you become thoroughly familiar with the paragraph while discovering those places where further work will be needed in terms of Steps 5 through 7. To do this well, you will need to do the following:

3.3.1. Secure at least seven different translations (preferably the KJV, NASB, NRSV, TNIV, GNB, REB, NJB (or NAB) [although any number of other modern translations will serve as well in place of the final three; see the bibliography in IV.3 for these choices]). You may wish to photocopy the appropriate paragraph from each of the translations, so that you can freely mark them up if you choose to do so.

3.3.2. Mark well the differences between/among your translations. You may do this either with colored markers on your photocopies or, preferably, by making a list of the differences and supporting translations at every point.

3.3.3. Determine which of these differences is exegetically significant. That is, determine which differences are merely synonyms or matters of taste and which make a genuine difference in meaning. This is your way of getting at Step 3.2 above, "Make a provisional list of exegetical difficulties." The point is that whenever translations have truly significant differences between/among them, this is a sure indication that some exegetical difficulty lies behind the differences. This step will become easier with much practice. But you should be prepared to include items such as the difference between "minister" and "servant" in a passage like 1 Tim. 4:6, since "minister" in English probably presupposes much more about Timothy's "office" than the actual data of the text allow.

3.3.4. Try to determine whether the differences are matters of textual criticism (Step 5), grammar (Step 6), or lexicography (Step 7). This will also come easier with practice. [You should note that most of the marginal notes in your translations (except for the NASB) reflect matters of textual criticism.]

It is crucial very early on in the exegesis of your passage that you also have a good sense of the flow of the argument (or narrative) and that you recognize the basic structures and syntax of each sentence.

To do this well, there is no substitute for writing out the passage in its entirety in a structured form. There are three advantages to such a structural display of the passage. First, it forces you to make tentative grammatical decisions, especially about syntactical relationships. Second, it enables you to visualize the structure of the passage and to recognize patterns (e.g., resumptions, contrasts, parallels, chiasm). Third, it provides a tentative outline of the argument.

The best way to write out the text is in the form of a sentence flow, with marginal annotations tracing the flow of the argument. Although such work is a highly individual matter, the suggestions given in Chapter II can serve as useful guidelines.

[For English Bible readers: You should read carefully through the material in Chapter II. 1. If you have difficulty with some of the gram-matical/syntactical concepts, read carefully the pages in Nunn, noted in IV.4. As you can see from the illustrations in II.1, this exercise can be performed in English as well as in Greek.]

At times the grammar of a given sentence is so complex that it is useful to diagram its constituent parts. Many will prefer to diagram all the sentences of the passage rather than to learn a new system, such as writing out a sentence flow. The advantage of the diagram is that it forces one to identify grammatically every word in the passage. The disadvantage is that one diagrams only one sentence at a time and thereby may fail to visualize the whole passage or to recognize various structural patterns in the argument.

a. You should now have a good idea about both the content and the larger context of the paragraph.

b. You should have isolated some of the problem areas that need closer examination.

You are now ready for a closer analysis of the passage (refer back to the provisional list in 3.2). The next four steps isolate the basic content questions that need resolution. Each of these steps is elaborated in detail in Chapter II. If you have already learned the procedures outlined in that chapter, then you simply need to work them out for the purposes of your paper. If not, then you will need to take the time to learn each of these procedures and see how they apply to your passage. Once the basic procedures are learned well, then Chapter II can serve as a handy reference guide or checklist.

[For English Bible readers: With Steps 5-7 (but not Step 8) you now come to materials where you will need to consult outside help almost from the beginning. To make your secondary sources as useful as possible, however, you should do the following:

[a. Read as carefully as possible the materials in Chapter II and as widely as possible the suggested overview readings in Chapter IV. Your concern here is for understanding, that is, what scholarship itself is about in the three areas of textual criticism, grammar, and lexicography. You will be most limited in doing your own work at Steps 5 and 6 (text and grammar), but the limitation should only be one of not knowing the Greek language. You can come to understand the nature of textual and grammatical decisions as well as those who know the language if you read carefully from the suggested readings. Your concern here is to be able to enter into full understanding of the reasons given for choices in your commentaries or other secondary sources that discuss the exegetical questions in your passage.

[b. For the actual resolution of these matters, you will need to look at several commentaries or other secondary sources (see the bibliography in IV.13). Here you need to read widely enough to get a good sense of the options and the differences among scholars. You will quickly discover that some matters are more difficult to resolve than others. In the final analysis, you must weigh the arguments of others, pro and con, and then try to come to some resolution for yourself on the basis of their arguments. This is why you need first to follow the suggestion in (a) above, so as to become knowledgeable of the discipline and the issues being discussed.]

The first concern of the interpreter of any ancient text is the textual one. What words did the author use, and in what order? The science that seeks to recover the original form of hand-produced documents is called textual criticism, which has become a very technical and complex field of study. With a small amount of concerted effort, however, student exegetes can learn enough so as (1) to feel at home with textual discussions (e.g., in articles and commentaries) and (2) to feel somewhat comfortable in making their own textual decisions.

To do your own textual criticism, you will need to become familiar with the apparatuses (textual information in the footnotes) of both the NA²⁷ and UBS⁴. A full explanation of the use of these apparatuses and a discussion of the criteria for making textual choices are given in II.2.

What is emphasized in Chapter II needs to be noted here: Not all textual decisions have exegetical significance. But you need to become familiar enough with the discipline so that you can both discriminate what has significance from what does not and evaluate the textual decisions of others for yourself. In the exegesis paper itself, only those textual decisions need be discussed that actually affect the meaning of the passage.

For your own purposes, you should decide the grammar for everything in your passage. But again, in your paper discuss only those items where exegetical decision is important or makes a difference in the meaning of a passage. Are any grammatical points in doubt? Could any sentences, clauses, or phrases be read differently if the grammar were construed differently? Are there genuine ambiguities that make a definite interpretation of some part of the passage impossible? If so, what at least are the possible options? Is the grammar anomalous (not what would be expected) at any point? If so, can you offer any explanation for the anomaly?

Be careful here. Do not let your paper become a collection of miniword studies. Discuss the meaning of any word in accordance with

the guidelines in Chapter II. In your paper, discuss words on the basis of two criteria: (1) Explain what is not obvious. (2) Concentrate on key words and wordings.

Involved in this step are a variety of concerns that include (1) the meaning of persons, places, events, and so forth mentioned in the passage; (2) the cultural-social milieu of the author and his readers; (3) the customs and practices of the author or speaker and his readers or listeners; (4) the thought world of the author and his readers; and (5) the frequent intertextuality (echoes of language and context of the OT) found in the NT writers.

The matter of intertextual echoes is especially crucial for understanding the Revelation, but it applies equally to the rest of the NT writers. These writers, including Luke (who was probably a Gentile), lived and breathed the language and ideas of the Old Testament, for the most part in its Greek expression, the Septuagint. Besides the specific help you can get from the books noted in Chapters II and IV, you need to learn to use the NA²⁷ and pay close attention to the references in the margins.

In your paper, as before, you need to decide which of these matters need to be elaborated, on the basis of (1) what is not obvious to your readers and (2) what makes a genuine difference in the meaning of the passage.

B. Special Considerations for Different Genres

At this point you are ready to wrestle with the questions of historical context (in particular) and literary context. However, the procedure here for exegeting the various genres differs considerably. The next steps, therefore, are discussed according to genre. At Step 12 all the genres return to the same track. It may be helpful at this point to refer frequently to the schematic diagram at the beginning of this chapter.

Although all the NT documents from Romans to Jude (twenty-one in all) are epistles, they have some considerable differences in character. Some are totally ad hoc, very specifically occasioned (e.g., Philemon, 1 Corinthians, Jude, Galatians), while others appear more like tracts at large. It is important at this point to be sensitive to the degree that some are more like real "letters" and some more public and therefore real "epistles." This will especially affect your thinking at Step 10, having to do with the historical context in particular.

It is also important to be aware of the various epistolary aspects of the ancient letter and to determine to which part of the letter your passage belongs. For example, is it a part of the thanksgiving or prayer? Is it part of the formal greeting? Is it part of the body proper? If it belongs to the more formal parts of the letter, how much has the form itself determined the content? Be sure to consult the bibliography in Chapter IV if you are not well acquainted with ancient literary practices, including such a common matter as letter writing.

To lesser or greater degrees, the writers of the epistles used the various rhetorical forms of the Greco-Roman world. In the case of Paul in particular, one must be aware of these rhetorical devices and ask oneself about both their nature and their significance. Thus one needs to be aware of changes of mood or of forms of argumentation. Does your paragraph exhibit a sudden outburst of unanswered questions? Does it display a sudden change in the form of argumentation? Is it primarily indicative, imperative, or interrogative? Does the author seem to be engaging in "straight talk"? or perhaps irony? or hyperbole? Are there any of the elements of diatribe? Do any of the parts, or the whole itself, exhibit chiasm? Is your paragraph part of the argument, or is it appeal or perhaps application? For these matters, one must do some reading in the items listed in Chapter IV.

In some cases, the entire letter may follow the patterns of classical rhetorical argumentation. Again, for these matters you need to consult the bibliography in Chapter IV. Read widely enough to become acquainted with both the art and the forms of ancient rhetoric. Then think through for yourself how much the form impacts on the actual meaning of the text.

Since the Epistles are all occasional documents (i.e., they were occasioned by some special circumstance, either from the reader's side or from the author's), it is important to try to reconstruct the nature of the situation to which your major subsection of the letter is a response. To do this well, you should attempt the following:

Read the subsection through several times. As you read, pay close attention to the details of the text. As best you can, try to imagine what it would have been like to be sitting in an early Christian community hearing the letter read for the first time.

Make a list of everything that tells you something about the recipients and their situation. What is said explicitly? What is implied? Are they involved in behavior that needs correcting? Is the problem one of theological misunderstanding? or lack of understanding? Are they in need of comfort? exhortation? correction? If a specific problem is involved, has it come from outside the believing community or risen from within? Is there any hint as to how the author has learned of the situation?

Make another list of key words and repeated phrases that indicate the subject matter of the section. What words appear most often in the whole section? Check your concordance to see if there is an unusual incidence of them here. Does the author's vocabulary itself suggest anything about the nature of the problem?

these data into a coherent expression of the problem or situation of the readers.

This step will usually be an important consideration in your final presentation of the exegesis. Be sure to come back to it after you have worked your way through Step 11, because your analysis of the answer should adequately correspond to your analysis of the historical situation.

To do this, one must learn to THINK paragraphs. Even though your exegesis paper is keying in on only one of the paragraphs or subparagraphs in a larger section, you should try to trace the argument of the whole section, paragraph by paragraph.

For your specific text, you have now come to the absolutely essential exegetical question: What is the point of this paragraph or exhortation? What is the point of this sentence? On the basis of what the author has said up to here, why does he now say this? This is why it is so important to trace the argument carefully right up to the point of your sentence or paragraph (although a full detailing of the whole argument does not need to be included in the paper itself). For exegesis, it is not enough to work out all the details in Steps 5-8. One must also be able to offer a cogent explanation as to how all this fits into the author's ongoing argument.

In a compact way, write out the logic and content of your paragraph. In your own words, describe (briefly) what the author has said and how his argument develops.

The concern here is with what is being said. Who is now being addressed? What issue is now being spoken to? What is the absolutely central concern? Does your description include everything in the paragraph? Have you given proper weight to each item?

In another sentence or two, explain how this content contributes to the argument. The concern here is with the purpose or intent of the paragraph in the author's argument or flow of thought. Why do you think it is said right at this point? What is the relationship of this paragraph to what has just been said? How does it prepare for what is to come?

One cannot overemphasize the need for you to discipline yourself to do this exercise. No matter how well you do the details in the previous steps, you will never do good exegesis until you do this step well. The fault of most commentaries lies right here. They frequently handle the content questions well but all too often fail to help the reader understand the point of the biblical author's words in a given context.

Before going on to Step 12 (p. 31), be sure to go back and think your way through Steps 10 and 11 together. Is your understanding of the answer an adequate response to the historical situation as you have described it? Does it now need some revision? Could you now make a convincing case for your exegesis as an adequate understanding of the situation to which the author is writing and his response to it? The excellence of your exegesis stands or falls here.

Before going through the contextual questions for exegeting the Gospels, it is necessary to make some preliminary notes about the nature of this genre, which in turn requires the articulation of some prior working hypotheses about the materials in the Gospels and the interrelationships among the Gospels.

The Epistles have basically a one-dimensional historical and literary context. That is, the author is presenting his own argument (or exhortation)—even when he draws on traditional material—that speaks directly to the situation of the recipients. Thus:

The Gospel writers, by way of contrast, have a two- or three-dimensional historical context, which in turn affects their literary context. That is, they are handing on, now in the permanent form of writing, the sayings of and narratives about Jesus (level 1) that are available to them as they have been preserved in the church's tradition (level 2) [for example, compare 1 Cor. 11:23: "I received from the Lord what I

also handed on to you" (written in 54 c.E.) with Luke 22:17-20 (written ca. 75 C.E.?)]. The Gospel writer's own contribution (level 3) is that of selectivity, adaptation, and arrangement (although such activity was already at work in the period of oral transmission). Thus:

Thus it is Jesus with whom Theophilus is being brought face to face, but Jesus mediated through the memory of the early church and through Luke.

The exegetical process is further complicated (or perhaps aided) by the fact that there are four Gospels, the first three of which, at least, have some kind of literary interrelationship.

These two factors, that the Gospels are two- or three-dimensional and that there are four of them, require some prior working hypotheses about the Gospel materials and the Gospels themselves. The following hypotheses are the convictions of the author on which the various steps of exegesis will be predicated. It should be noted that they are the shared convictions of the vast majority of NT scholars. It should also be noted that it is not possible not to have working hypotheses on these matters—even if one has never articulated them. If you differ with these hypotheses, you will have to articulate your own and adapt the steps accordingly.

1. It is reasonable to assume that during the period of oral transmission the individual units of material (pericopes), composed of narratives and sayings, were transmitted largely independently of one another. Similarly, one may assume that many sayings were preserved as teaching per se and thus were frequently transmitted without their original historical context (cf. Paul's use of the sayings material in 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14). Thus it is a reasonable working hypothesis that the present arrangement of the pericopes is in large measure the work of the evangelists themselves. This seems to be confirmed, to use but one example, by the fact that the sayings collected by Matthew in Matt. 10:5Al2, as instructions for the ministers of the kingdom, are found in Luke in considerably different settings, in the following sequence: Luke 9:2-5; 10:3; 12:11-12; 6:40; 12:2-9; 12:51-53; 14:25-27; 17:33; 10:16.

2. Although no one of the Gospels was written to be read alongside the others (with the possible exception of John, according to Clement of Alexandria's view), it is almost certain that the Synoptic Gospels at least were not written independently of one another. Although three or four solutions to the Synoptic problem currently vie for acceptance, the view of the majority of scholars, and the one assumed in this book, is (a) that Mark was written first, (b) that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark in writing their own Gospels, and (c) that Matthew and Luke also had access to large quantities of other traditional materials, some of which they had in common (known as Q but probably not a single, unified source).

3. The evangelists themselves selected, adapted, and arranged the materials not simply to record or preserve the life and teachings of Jesus but also to present Jesus to their readers with their own distinctive concerns and from their distinctive points of view.

Given the nature of the Gospels and these three working hypotheses, it is further assumed that the task of exegesis is primarily to understand a passage in its present context in a given Gospel. But this has two aspects. First, the evangelist is recording the life and teaching of Jesus; thus part of the task is to try to see what the evangelist understood to have been said or to have happened. But second, since he selected/adapted/arranged in this way, you also want to try to see its meaning in the present context of the Gospel. Thus, the primary task of exegesis is not to reconstruct a Life of Jesus but to interpret a passage within its present literary context in a given Gospel, while also taking into consideration what one knows from other passages about the "life of Jesus."

The alternative to this view of the task is to concentrate on a peri-cope or saying per se in an attempt to understand what it meant in the original setting of Jesus. As you will see by what follows, this is an important part of the exegetical task, but it is only a halfway house if one does not move back to the Gospels themselves, since this is the only certain context one has.

With these preliminary matters in view, we may now proceed to the actual steps in the exegetical process.

For this section especially, you will need to consult the bibliography in Chapter IV. The outline assumes a certain amount of knowledge of these matters.

Is your pericope or sentence a narrative or a saying? Or is it a combination of the two—a pronouncement story? Each of these types functions in a different way.

9.2.1. If your pericope is a narrative, is it a miracle story? Does it have all the formal characteristics of such stories? Is it a story about Jesus? Or about John the Baptist? About such a narrative you might ask, why was it preserved in the tradition? What important thing about Jesus does it tell you by the fact of its preservation? More important, how does the narrative now function in the evangelist's narrative? to reinforce a teaching? as one in a series that illustrate some aspect of Jesus' mission or message?

9.2.2. If your passage is a saying, what kind of saying is it? Is it a parable? a similitude? an apocalyptic saying? a wisdom saying? a prophetic utterance? a piece of legal material? Does it have poetic elements? chiasm? Does it employ overstatement? irony? metaphor?

paradox? How much does the analysis of form help you identify the original audience? How much does it play a part in understanding? For example, a proverb with metaphors such as Matt. 24:28 ("Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather," NRSV) is not intended to be allegorized. The whole proverb has a single point, and the metaphor of carcass and vultures is trying to point to a reality about the consummation of the kingdom. The exegetical question is, What is it saying about the consummation? suddenness? inevitability? visibility?

Because each of the Gospel writers selected, adapted, and arranged the traditional material available to him, it is sometimes helpful for the exegesis of any one of the Gospels to see the per-icope in your Gospel as it is related to the other Gospels. To do this, one must learn to use a Gospel synopsis, as outlined in II.6. The primary purpose of this step is to help you get at the various contextual questions: the historical context of the evangelist and his readers, the historical context of Jesus, the literary/narrative context of the Gospel.

This analysis consists of three questions. [Note: "Triple tradition" means the pericope is found in Mark-Matthew-Luke; "double tradition" means Matthew-Luke; "single tradition" means it is found in only one of the Gospels—Matthew or Luke.]

This question has simply to do with the fact that the pericope is found in your Gospel. Is it also found in one or more of the others? Is its inclusion related to the known special interests of the evangelist?

The question here has to do with isolating the author's adaptation of the pericope to his Gospel from the traditional material he had available to him. Here in particular, as with 10.3 (G), you need to con-suit Chapter II (II.6.3 and 6.6). These two steps are important because they frequently serve to put you in touch with the prism through which the evangelist is viewing Jesus and his teaching.

Has your author added or omitted anything? What verbal changes has he made? Are they merely stylistic? Are they more substantive? Do the changes reveal the author's interests? his unique emphases? Does the adaptation of your pericope align with a series of such changes, either in the larger context of your pericope or in the whole Gospel? If so, do these give you any hints about his and/or his readers' historical situation? That is, do they show patterns that might reflect the evangelist's special interests in writing the story of Jesus?

The question here has to do with its present literary context. Here, as with 10.2 (G), you need to consult Chapter II.

The question of arrangement is: Why is the saying (pericope) included here? Is it in the same context in the other Gospel(s)? If different, is it in a similar or different kind of context (i.e., eschatological, teaching on discipleship, etc.)? Does the present context, in comparison with the other(s), tell you something about the Gospel writer's special interests?

One must be careful here. It is altogether possible that an evangelist included a pericope at a given point simply because it was already in that context in the tradition itself (see, e.g., how much of Mark the other evangelists did not rearrange), and therefore he may "mean" nothing by its present arrangement. But even so, each evangelist has written a complete narrative, and one may assume that everything has its role in the narrative that he is offering his readers.

In this regard, one needs to exercise proper caution about Mark and John. That is, they too may have followed sequences already available in their sources and therefore may not always have special meaning to their arrangement. Since the vast majority of materials (mostly sayings) in the double tradition are not in sequence, however, one may assume the same thing regularly also to be true of Mark and John (i.e., that the sequencing is their own). And again, in the end what counts most for exegesis is the author's present narrative and how the pericope fits into that.

After you have carefully worked through the details of your peri-cope in the synopsis and have thus thought through the possible significance it has for the evangelist and his readers, you may wish to ask the further question about Jesus' own historical context. This is especially true with regard to the sayings (teaching) of Jesus, since so many of them were transmitted in the oral tradition apart from their original historical context and have been given their present literary context by the evangelists. It is therefore of some exegetical importance to analyze the sayings as to their possible life setting in the ministry of Jesus.

This analysis can best be done in terms of audience. Given the nature of the content of the saying, was it most likely spoken originally to the disciples? to the crowds? to the Pharisees? Is the saying best understood in the context of conflict? of discipleship?

Many times it will not be possible to determine this, and one must simply accept the present context of the Gospels. But in cases, for example, where Matthew or Luke have inserted something into the Markan framework, or where Matthew and Luke have identical materials in two different settings, one may frequently isolate the material and, on the basis of content, offer a very plausible original life setting for the saying. But note carefully:

a. This is the most speculative part of the exegetical task, so learn to err on the side of caution.

b. To recover the meaning in the life setting of Jesus is not the primary aim of exegesis. Rather, it is to determine the meaning of the text in its present literary context. Thinking through this step is only to help you think about how the material has been used in the transmission of the material in the early church.

This is the ultimate goal of the exegesis of your pericope. When all the previous steps have been carefully worked through, the single most important thing for exegesis is to grapple with how the pericope fits the immediate narrative purposes of the evangelist. In the end, biblical exegesis has to do not with exegeting the historical Jesus, as it were, but with the historical Jesus as he is now mediated through the witness of the evangelists themselves. It is the biblical book that one exegetes, not the reconstructed story that lies behind the book.

To do this well, you will be helped by some reading in narratology from the list in Chapter IV. A good example of how narrative analysis works out in practice may be found in the commentary on Luke by Joel B. Green (NICNT), who also has some guidelines for this exercise in his introduction (pp. 11-20).

Exegesis of the Acts can be difficult for both students and pastors because of the two basic kinds of concerns one brings to the book: historical (What actually was happening in the life of the early church?) and theological/hermeneutical (What did all of this mean, and what does it mean for us today?). Good exegesis must be a combination of the historical and theological, without being predetermined by the hermeneutical question.

It is especially crucial in exegeting Acts to go back to Step 1 and have a good grasp of Luke's purpose. Such a careful review is a must before proceeding further and will correspond somewhat to Steps 9 (E) and 9 (G). The next two steps then cover the historical and theological concerns just noted.

In reality, this step is very similar to Step 11.1 (E) for the Epistles. The concern here is with what is being said and therefore includes some of the content questions from Steps 5-8. Thus, in a concise manner, you should try to write out what precisely Luke has told us in a given narrative. Who are the main characters in the narrative? What are they now doing? Are there any persons, places, or other names or ideas that you should look up in your Bible dictionary?

Now we come to the crucial matter for the exegesis of Acts. What is the point of this narrative or speech? How is it related to what has just been narrated? How does it function in Luke's total narrative, which includes both his Gospel and Acts? Why has he included it here (the question of selectivity)? Are there any peculiarities in the narrative or speech, in comparison with others in Acts, that may give clues to Luke's special interests here?

Before moving on to Steps 12-15, one should note two cautions in exegeting Acts:

1. The speeches, by and large, may be exegeted very much like the Epistles. In their present form, however, they reflect Lukan style and vocabulary (much like Luke's rewriting of Mark). Therefore, in the style of Hellenistic historians, following Thucydides, Luke reports essentially what was said at a given point, but he is responsible for the speech in its present form. Here especially, then, the contextual question—Why is a speech included here?—is a very important one.

2. One must be extremely cautious of overexegeting Acts either by making too much of silence (how Luke did not say something) or by assuming that absolute precision was being sought after. It is the nature of Hellenistic historians to paint vivid pictures of real events and not necessarily to offer the dry chronicle of a police report. This is history that is also story.

The Revelation has all too often been a closed book, partly because of the inherent difficulties with the apocalyptic mold in which it is cast and partly because so much speculative application has been made by people who do not understand apocalyptic. At the same time, it is especially important to understand the historical context and the theological concerns that drive the book from beginning to end. On both matters, there is no better book than:

Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Because of our general lack of acquaintance with the literary form of the Revelation, you would do well to consult two or three good commentaries as you do your own work. You should perhaps have all three of the following:

David E. Aune, Revelation, WBC 52, 3 vols. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997-98).

Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999).

Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998).

It is also of extreme importance to pay close attention to Step 8 when exegeting the Revelation, since even though John rarely actually cites the OT, there is hardly a sentence that does not have very clear echoes of OT passages. At this point it is crucial that you use the NA²⁷ Greek text and look up the passages that are listed in the margins. This will not only open up a whole world of exegetical possibilities for you, but it will also help you see how thoroughly "biblical" John is in his thinking and language. You will have no better guide in these matters than Beale's commentary.

Before exegeting any single vision (or letter) in the Revelation, you need a good understanding of the formal literary character of the book, which is a unique, finely blended combination of three distinct literary types. On this matter, read:

J. R. Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), pp. 21-27.

Since the apocalyptic images are often the most difficult items for exegesis, proper guidelines and cautions need to be added here.

Here you will do well to consult Aune or Beale. Is this image related to the OT? Is it used elsewhere in apocalyptic? ancient mythology? contemporary culture? Is the image a standard image of apocalyptic, or is it a "fluid" image (like the lion-lamb in Revelation 5 or the two women in Revelation 12 and 17)?

Is the present use by John identical with or different from its source? Has it been "broken" and thus transformed into a new image? Are there any internal clues as to John's intent in the use of the image? Does John himself interpret the image? If so, hold this firmly as a

starting point for understanding others. Does the image refer to something general, or is it intended to refer to some specific thing or event?

You must be extremely careful to see the visions as "whole cloth" and not allegorically to press all the details. In this matter the visions are like the parables. The whole vision is trying to say something; the details are either (a) for dramatic effect (Rev. 6:12-14) or (b) to add to the picture of the whole so that readers will not mistake the points of reference (Rev. 9:7-11). Thus the details of the sun turning black as sackcloth and the stars falling like late figs in 6:12-14 probably do not "mean" anything, since these are an echo of Isa. 34:4. Along with other parts of the vision, all of which are adapted from several OT passages, they simply make the whole vision of the earthquake more impressive. In Rev. 9:7-11, however, the locusts with crowns of gold, human faces, and women's long hair help fill out the picture in such a way that the original readers could hardly have mistaken what was in view—the barbarian hordes at the outer edges of the Roman Empire, whom Rome greatly feared (even though the vision as a whole is adapted from Joel 1 and 2).

It is especially important that one recognize also the epistolary and prophetic elements in the Revelation. Thus, as you approach any single vision (or letter), you must always be aware of the two foci—the persecution of the church and the judgment of God against the persecutors. The letters and the visions depicting the church's suffering belong to the history of the author and his readers. The visions of God's coming wrath are, in typically prophetic fashion, to be held in tension between history and eschatology (temporal judgment against the backdrop of eschatological judgment).

On the question of the historical situation and the purpose of the book, you should read Beale, pp. 28-33.

To determine the literary context of any vision, you must first work out for yourself an adequate frame of reference for the whole. The

Revelation for the most part is easily outlined in its major sections (chaps. 1-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-18, 19-22). One of the major exegetical questions has to do with how these sections are related to each other so as to form the whole. On this matter, read Beale, pp. 108-70, and Mounce, pp. 45-49.

After that, the question of the literary context of any letter or vision, or part thereof, is precisely as it is with the Epistles (Step 11 [E]).

BDAG	Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., ed.
	E W. Danker, 2000
GNB	Good News Bible, 1976
JAF	Joseph A. Fitzmyer, An Introductory Bibliography for the Study of Scripture; Subsidia Biblica, 3. Rome: Bib-
	lical Institute Press, 1981
KJV	King James Version
MS (MSS)	Manuscript(s)
NA²⁷	Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.
	Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993
NASB	New American Standard Bible, revised edition, 1995
NIV	New International Version, 1984
NJB	The New Jerusalem Bible, 1987
NRSV	New Revised Standard Version, 1989
NT	New Testament
OT	Old Testament
REB	The Revised English Bible, 1989
RSV	Revised Standard Version, 1973
SNTSMS	Society for New Testament Studies Monograph
	Series (Cambridge University Press)

A. Initial Steps for All Genres	8
Step 1. Survey the historical context in general. 1.1. Read the entire document through	8
in English in one sitting. 1.2. Check your observations against	9
the secondary literature.	9
Step 2. Confirm the limits of the passage. Step 3. Become thoroughly acquainted with your	9
paragraph/pericope.	10
3.1. Make a provisional translation. 3.2. Make a provisional list	10
of exegetical difficulties. 3.3. Read the paragraph through	11
in several translations. Step 4. Analyze sentence structures and	11
syntactical relationships.	12

sources and read widely.
13.1.	Investigate what others have said
	about the passage.
13.2.	Compare and adjust.
13.3.	Apply your discoveries throughout
	your paper.
13.4.	Know when to quote.
13.5.	Know the uses of annotation.
Step 14. Provide	a finished translation.

B. Moving from Exegesis to Sermon		151
7.	Spend time in reflection on the text and in prayer.	151
8.	Begin with a sense of purpose.	152
8.1.	Main Points	152
8.2.	Purpose	152
8.3.	Response	152
9.	Decide on the introduction and conclusion.	153
10.	Construct an outline.	153
11.	Construct the sermon.	154

Step 1.	Historical Context in General	158
Step 2.	Limits of the Passage	158
Step 3.	Paragraph Overview/Provisional
	Translation	158
Step 4.	Sentence Flow or Diagram	159
Step 5.	Textual Criticism	160
Step 6.	Grammar	161
Step 7.	Lexical Aids	162
Step 8.	Historical-Cultural Background	164
Step 9 (E).	Epistolary Forms	165
9.1.	About Ancient Letters	165
9.2.	Rhetorical Analysis	166
Step 10 (E).	Historical Context in Particular	167
Step 11 (E).	Literary Context	167
Step 9 (G).	Gospel Forms	167
Step 10 (G).	Pericope Analysis	169
Step 11 (G).	The Narrative Context	169
Step 10 (A).	Historical Questions	169
Step 11 (A).	Literary Context	170
Step 9 (R)	Apocalyptic Form	170
Step 12.	Biblical Theology	170
Step 13.	Secondary Literature	172
13.1.	Bibliographic Aids	172
13.2.	Periodicals	173

13.3. Commentaries	173
Step 14. Translation	177
Step 15. Application	178
Appendix: The Task of Theological Exegesis and
Reader-Response Criticism	181
Index of Authors	187
Index of Scripture Passages	193

New

Testament

Guide for Full Exegesis

Writing an Exegesis Paper A Schematic

A. Initial Steps for All Genres

B. Special Considerations for Different Genres