To provide a definition of “revelation” D.A. Hagner affirmingly quotes C.F.H. Henry writing this:
Revelation cannot…be equated simply with the Hebrew-Christian Scriptures; the Bible is a special segment within a larger divine activity of revelation…Special revelation involves unique historical events of divine deliverance climaxed by the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ [1]
So Scripture provides divine revelation, but it is not the climax of divine revelation. That belongs to the work of God through Jesus Christ in the incarnation which led to his death and resurrection. Thoughts?
_________________________________
[1] C.F.H. Henry in Inspiration and Interpretation, ed. J. Walvoord (1957), 254f. cited in G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (1974), n. 47, 21. (Donald Hagner contributed to the revised edition)
the archives near Emmaus 
What it seems like Hagner is saying is that the biblical literature is only a specialized picture of divine revelation and that the revelation itself is much bigger than the pages of the Bible: that is, divine revelation is also historical and cannot be captured completely in just a few accounts. Does my understanding seem to be right?
That seems to me to be what he is saying. The Scripture “contains” divine revelation and the Scripture directs us toward divine revelation, but it cannot encompass divine revelation. God’s saving acts in history are the full definition of divine revelation with the work of Christ being the climax.
I think this position as we’re understanding Hagner could lead to some degree of inclusivism. I could go with softer inclusivist position, so long as Christ is the center and means of salvation.