Exegesis

Valmont

I'd like to make a thread about this subject as it's central to the debate about the veracity of the bible. I hadn't actually heard about exegesis until I read the Breda O'Brien thread and Hurin (can't get the fada sorry!) made some interesting points, as did some of the atheistically minded posters. Does anyone have any specific examples of this form of interpretation and how it is biased from the outset as Wicknight suggested?

Wicknight wrote:

But Bible exegesis is invariably done using the context that the authors were being inspired by God. Which makes the whole process ridiculous.

And conversely, any examples where bible exegesis was conducted without this bias?

Hurin wrote:

Exegesis is concerned with finding out what the authors are really trying to say. I don't see how it is relevant whether the authors are correct or in error in their beliefs - exegetes are trying to find what their beliefs were. That said, most experts in Biblical exegesis do not view the Bible as inerrant. Indeed, some non-Christians do it too.

Iwasfrozen

Christians believe that the Bible was divenly inspired, hence it has faults but these can be changed.

JimiTime

Valmont wrote: »

I'd like to make a thread about this subject as it's central to the debate about the veracity of the bible. I hadn't actually heard about exegesis until I read the Breda O'Brien thread and Hurin (can't get the fada sorry!) made some interesting points, as did some of the atheistically minded posters. Does anyone have any specific examples of this form of interpretation and how it is biased from the outset as Wicknight suggested?

And conversely, any examples where bible exegesis was conducted without this bias?

Thinking its God or an apostle or the devil or mick jagger who done the writing matters not to exegesis IIRC. Exegesis is merely concerned with working out what the writer is trying to say. Eisegesis is starting with a conclusion of what you believe the author was saying, and reading it into the text. Maybe thats what Wicknight is mixing it up with?

pH

Valmont wrote: »

I'd like to make a thread about this subject as it's central to the debate about the veracity of the bible. I hadn't actually heard about exegesis until I read the Breda O'Brien thread and Hurin (can't get the fada sorry!) made some interesting points, as did some of the atheistically minded posters. Does anyone have any specific examples of this form of interpretation and how it is biased from the outset as Wicknight suggested?

Well you really need to head to the Christianity forum to see 'exegesis' in all its wonderful banality. Take a really clear bit of teaching from the NT

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
1 Timothy 2:11

Then head to this thread to see exegesis in all its glory, consisting mainly of saying that either women at the time were really quite thick, and they're so much cleverer now so there's no way it still applies, or like all things in the bible find another passage that sort of contradicts it, then given two opposing statements pick the one you like and declare that *that* one is what God really means.

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone have any specific examples of this form of interpretation and how it is biased from the outset as Wicknight suggested?

As others have pointed out, exegesis is the practice of attempting to put oneself into the shoes of a text's author and trying to figure out what he thought he was trying to say within the confines of the language and culture which the author was writing for, or was familiar with.

This is a fraught process for most of the texts within the bible, since, by and large, nobody knows with any great degree of certainty who the authors were, nor what their personalities were, nor when or where exactly the texts were written, nor for whom, nor under what conditions, nor what edits (if any) were made before the texts became the versions which we know today.

So, while the idea of exegesis is a worthy ideal, in practice, it's close to impossible to achieve for most religions, and especially christianity.

FWIW, the French organist, theologian and doer-of-good-deeds, Albert Schweizer, wrote The Quest for the Historical Jesus in the early part of the 20th century, and he made the worthwhile point that previous centuries' interpretations of Jesus had been heavily influenced by the personality of the interpreter, and the times he lived in. Other than the creation of a word to describe the ideal, I don't really see much evidence that this has changed, at least amongst the religious interpreters and commentators who have a political stake in the outcome of their work.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

This is a fraught process for most of the texts within the bible, since, by and large, nobody knows with any great degree of certainty who the authors were, nor what their personalities were, nor when or where exactly the texts were written, nor for whom, nor under what conditions, nor what edits (if any) were made before the texts became the versions which we know today.

So, while the idea of exegesis is a worthy ideal, in practice, it's close to impossible to achieve for most religions, and especially christianity.

This is only really a problem in the oldest books of the Bible. For the books of the prophets, and the new testament, quite a lot is known about the circumstances in which the authors lived.

FWIW, the French organist, theologian and doer-of-good-deeds, Albert Schweitzer, wrote The Quest for the Historical Jesus in the early part of the 20th century, and he made the worthwhile point that previous centuries' interpretations of Jesus had been heavily influenced by the personality of the interpreter, and the times he lived in.

Thumbs up for referencing Schweitzer!
I think that all interpretations of all texts will be influenced by the personality of the interpreter, and the times he lived in. There is no perfect interpreter and there never will be. Fortunately, we now know more about nature and other cultures, but contemporary interpreters will of course still be influenced by their epoch.

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

Does anyone have any specific examples of this form of interpretation and how it is biased from the outset as Wicknight suggested?

Here's a good one from the largest creationist service provider in the USA, in which the owner says that his institution's interpretation of the bible is incapable of being wrong. The quote is taken from their eye-wateringly pompous Statement of Faith:

AIG wrote:

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

The central point here being that (diploma-mill doctor) Ham implicitly denies that the process of reading and understanding a text which is replete with metaphors involves the kind of "interpretation" that he feels is so frightfully unreliable.

I can't quite see how one could have much confidence in the interpretation of a man who starts off by assuming that he's perfect.

BTW, it's ironic to note that "AIG" is the name of another massively bankrupt organization, save that Ham's bankruptcy is ethical rather than financial.