Reception History, Theological Interpretation, and the Future of New Testament Studies

Abstract

In this article the author seeks to fulfil two aims: (1) to outline briefly the problems facing the discipline of New Testament studies (broadly construed), and (2) to compare and contrast the manner in which reception history and theological interpretation of Scripture might be seen to overcome these problems. The author concludes by arguing that, while reception history serves to entrench the problems facing the discipline, theological interpretation may serve as the key for a more secure future for New Testament studies.

In Defence of ‘Theological’ Readings of the New Testament

“…Writing in a more extreme register, John Poirier describes TIS, in no uncertain terms, as ‘one of the most unfortunate terms to arrive on the scene [of biblical scholarship] in some time’ (Poirier 2010: 118). A broadly negative sentiment toward TIS remains despite attempts to demonstrate the ways in which ‘mainstream’ scholarship might benefit from engaging with the theological implications arising from study of the New Testament (Rowlands 2019; Rowe 2022 2 ), as well as the editors of the present journal encouraging submissions engaging with ‘the theological dimension of scriptural scholarship’ (Heath and Strawbridge 2022: 335). 3 There remains a reluctance to engage ‘theological’ readings of the New Testament among ‘mainstream’ scholarship, ranging from mild scepticism to outright distrust and complete rejection of them.…”