Does hermeneutics categorize flaws in exegeses? (with reference to an exegesis of Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19)

Question

I’m given two complementary principles:-

1. Let the text say what it actually says

2. Ignore Cafeteria Theology (where one is free to decide what parts of the Bible to believe and what can be ignored.)

About the second of these, I want to understand if Cafeteria Theology is focused on exegetes who decide to ignore parts of the bible, or if I should also ignore exegetic products that have omitted them, such as by mistake.

The clearest way I can ask this is by setting up a scenario. Its format will be immediately familiar, and tedious, to many - but it has helped me to formulate the question more carefully and without notation or jargon.

Please feel free to skip to the end if you instantly know what I'm asking with a comparison of a Cafeteria Exegete and a Forgetful Exegete.

But by way of converse, and to offer some interest along the way, I reference one good and present two differently-flawed exegeses of Colossians 3:16, in case there is found an essential difference between the two flawed exegetic products.

================================================

SCENARIO

Suppose an imaginary, minimal framework of hermeneutics has decided that two (and only two) verses are relevant to some particular question or other. For this purpose the question doesn’t need to be defined – it's some question that people ask about the bible’s meaning, perhaps on a topic like inspiration. And on this framework it's supposed to be answered with at least these two verses for the exegesis to be sufficient:-

(Colossians 3:16) Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

(Ephesians 5:19) addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,

(So for argument's sake perhaps it's a question to do with whether Hymns are as inspired as Psalms. The question is posed in such a form that those two verses in combination give the best answer.)

And suppose someone puts the question to two exegetes of this framework. But unfortunately one of them is a Cafeteria Exegete. The Cafeteria Exegete always answers the question with reference to the Colossians verse without the Ephesians verse, and he has an abstract motive for this such that he’s deciding not to believe it.

• Questioner: question

• Cafeteria Exegete: (Colossians 3:16)

Illustration 1 [FLAWED] - the apostle Paul exhorts that the teachings of Christ are not only to be internally cherished but also actively shared among believers. Focusing on the role of hymns and songs as a means of instruction, the Psalms serve as a foundation for worship and community life, affirming their divinely-inspired status as sources of wisdom. The singing of shared hymns in the church was instituted not merely for personal contemplation but also as communal touchstones, that unify and instruct the body of Christ. Colossians 3:16 invokes the Psalms as rich, vibrant, and integral to the life of believers. [1 is flawed because I've drafted it to deliberately ignore Eph.5:19]

The questioner leaves with (on this framework) an insufficient answer (the illustration is only an example). But he realizes something’s up and seeks a second opinion, still within the same framework, from another exegete.

• Questioner: question

• Good exegete: (Colossians 3:16) + (Ephesians 5:19)

Illustration 2 - https://cprc.co.uk/articles/specialexegesismcnaugher/ [2 is good on this definition simply by taking account of both verses, but I'll submit it's good in a broader sense, being both in-depth and insightful]

So (on this framework) the questioner can leave with the context the Cafeteria Exegete left off, and the framework is satisfied. And the Good Exegete (who here is being played by a real good exegete) might not have needed to explain about II Tim. 3:16 and I Cor. 2:13 and some others as well - for this imaginary scenario it's sufficient that the response compares those first two.

But what if the questioner had asked a Forgetful Exegete. Again as definition, the Forgetful Exegete knows to always answer the question with reference to the Colossians verse, but they have forgotten the importance of Ephesians to the particular question (or even the whole topic), but unlike the Cafeteria Exegete they don’t have any motive for this.

• Questioner: question

• Forgetful Exegete: (Colossians 3:16)

Illustration 3 [FLAWED] - In examining Colossians 3:16, we find a profound emphasis on the role of Scripture in the life of the Christian community. This verse underscores not only the importance of Scripture but also its divinely-inspired authority, asserting that the word of Christ should permeate believers' lives, shaping their interactions and reinforcing godly instruction through music, highlighting the divine character of Scripture as essential for spiritual growth. [3 is flawed because I've drafted it to leave out Eph.5:19 (but in a softer way than 1)]

========

Concerning 1. and 3., the illustrations of flawed exegeses, I have tried to push them toward the better end of poor theology and not present a reductio-ad-absurdum or a "gotcha". I have also tried in 3. to forget Ephesians rather than ignore it as in 1. but this could only be artificial. I submit that both of these exegeses are flawed but in a way that's capable of being mistaken for sufficient by a layperson, without being dramatically misleading.

I submit, and I beg to have alternative views, that although there was a categorical difference in their intent, it is difficult to find the same categories in the two finished products.

I don't at all advance the argument that very detailed exegesis can be blinding or overwhelming to a questioner. It's only that something important was present in 2. which 1. ignored and 3. forgot. Again, to show I've not constructed this as a staw-man, it might be they missed what Prof. McNaugher says about taking πνευματικός as limiting each of the preceding words.

========

It’s easy to extend this question to an Ignorant Exegete; an Exegete who doesn’t realise they’re from another framework; an Exegete whose pet rat has nibbled his bible; an Exegete living in the years between Paul writing the letters, and so on.

================================================

But my question is just: what’s the difference between the Cafeteria Exegete and the Forgetful Exegete?

Is it the motive? Or are they the same and Cafeteria Theology includes more types of failures ?

And Paul of Tarsus writes one of these letters without reference to the other. But I'm not sure if that conclusively locates the problem with Cafeteria Theology in its exegetes' purposes and intentions and motives.

===========

I do have a follow-up question beginning to form, in case this helps anyone to help me, and because this isn't about setting up a one-two punch.

To me, the second principle looks like the most natural double-negation of the first, something that might go without saying if more people were more logical

Let the text say what it says - - Don't let the text not say what it says

But since reading and saying (being transitive) are purposive ideas, there is also this derivation which must be excluded:-

Let the text say what it says - - Let the reader read what they read

And if a purity of purpose is definitive for the exegete, it might be held to also be for the reader. Which forces the point of a clarification toward the text's saying and the reader's reading. And then it's Magellan sailing to the mountain and the sails are the critics' deckchairs. But that's far off and I'm grateful for anyone's contributions.

Answer 1

The heart of this question is about the difference between an accidentally incomplete exegesis and an intentionally incomplete exegesis of a biblical text.

It may well be that these differences exist, but we would only know that if we could read people's motives accurately. And in any case the actual exegesis may well end up being the same. So I don't think this is a helpful way of approaching the issue. From a pastoral perspective the better approach is to try and improve the exegesis through appropriate study and dialogue.

Secondly, there are many examples of partial (but still helpful) exegesis. Partial here does not mean incomplete. It means focussed. For example, the proposed case in the above question was "Are hymns as inspired as psalms?" And two verses from Colossians and Ephesians were listed. But even if we analysed those texts as fully as we could, we have yet to look at other elements of the question:

• What about the study of the psalms themselves? What do they say? How were they used in Israel's worship?

• What about translation issues? How well do we understand the original languages of the passages we are looking at?

• What about textual issues? Are we reading correctly the text that the original authors wrote?

• What about theological issues? How do we weave the beliefs of Israel in the OT together with the teachings of Jesus and the early church?

Which leads to the third point. Ultimately none of us has the skills to write a complete exegesis. All our thoughts are by definition partial, because we don't know everything about everything. The fullest understanding of a text, and the best exegesis of the text, come from the church together at work. So I never see a partial exegesis as flawed; instead I choose to see it as a contribution to a richer understanding of scripture.