1

Not-yet-existent: like when an exegesis of Genesis uses a passage in Ephesians (which I'm fine with)

Invented: like when an exegesis of Genesis uses a passage that isn't in Ephesians at all (it might not be malicious, perhaps they remember it wrong)

But I'd be grateful for two rules to be kept in mind, which I've been given by others:-

  1. The merits of both types of exegesis mustn't be in terms of intent or motive or purpose, only their end-products

  2. If Exegesis relying on a non-existent text is inherently flawed (which I assume it is), the way it's evaluated mustn't exclude the exegesis from being improved through appropriate study and dialogue.

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    Are you thinking of a particular text that you're having problems with? Your question feels rather arbitrary to me. I'm having trouble imagining real life cases.
    – Peter Kirkpatrick
    Commented Aug 12 at 1:06

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

Blanket statements are great for keeping warm at night, but one has to be careful when they get too large because there will always be great holes near the edges.

Exegesis involves supporting any assertions with specific scriptures, context, linguistic analysis, cultural context, historical manuscripts or references, archaeological findings, opinions of experts, and logic to build a case. In many situations, one is dealing with likelihoods. So, when reading letters in the New Testament, one often needs to extrapolate the other, unrecorded half of the written conversation to help with the interpretation.

For example, Didache, The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations, was likely first written near the end of the first century, likely after the New Testament books were available. Nevertheless, even though it’s not considered inspired scripture, exegetical support can be derived from this later text regarding many types of support listed above in exegesis—if for nothing else, as a snapshot in time for how early Christians interpreted the New Testament.

In any case, one has to be very careful in applying extra-biblical information, understanding its limitations. This also applies to hostile testimonies recorded around that time.

For example, the famous Alexamenos graffito depicting the crucified Christ with a donkey's head is dated to between the late first and mid-third centuries CE according to the Biblical Archaeology Society. This image captures quite a bit of information about early Christian beliefs from a hostile witness and it is considered the earliest depiction of the crucifixion of Christ.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
6
  • So was it Christianity that invented an all uppercase Greek alphabet? I see some lowercase letters in there which is dated at least a century before the Codex(s) ?
    – ReturnOfRoamer
    Commented Aug 11 at 16:12
  • I see a lowercase Lambda and Sigma. The Codexes Vaticanus and Sinsiticus only use uppercase Λ and C from what I’ve noticed
    – ReturnOfRoamer
    Commented Aug 11 at 16:14
  • 1
    @ReturnOfRoamer The dating is uncertain. It is probably closer to 200 AD. The Greek is ΑΛΕ ΞΑΜΕΝΟϹ ϹΕΒΕΤΕ ΘΕΟΝ. Here is a link to the actual image. There are no lower case letters. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito#/media/…
    – Revelation Lad
    Commented Aug 11 at 19:37
  • @Revelation Lad, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable scholarly source of information. According to the Biblical Archaeology Society, the Alexamenos graffito is dated to between the late first and mid-third centuries CE. I've updated my answer to this date range. The point is that this is a snapshot in time of what's considered the earliest depiction of Christ by a hostile witness and that we can extract some important information from it.
    – Dieter
    Commented Aug 11 at 20:06
  • 2
    The link I posted was a photo of the actual carving. It shows the second letter is Λ, not λ as shown in the drawing in your answer. This was in response to the claim the graffiti could not be early because the writing contained lower case letters. The photo shows the entire inscription was written crudely but correctly and is period correct.
    – Revelation Lad
    Commented Aug 11 at 20:30
2

There is a crucial distinction you’ve made between texts that are not-yet-existent and those that are invented.

For not-yet-existent texts

Let's assume a statement: Later texts reveal further understanding or clarification of earlier ones. What are the assumptions? This method assumes a sort of continuity and unity within the scriptural canon, where later writings are capable of illuminating earlier ones. The merit here lies in the coherence and the ability to provide a deeper, or more complete, understanding of the narrative.

Questions we should ask:

  1. Contextual elaboration: Do they provide context and elaboration on topics that were previously introduced, allowing for a fuller picture to emerge?
  2. Historical development: Do they reflect the historical development of thought?
  3. Theological maturation: Have the later authors had more time to reflect on and understand the implications of earlier writings?
  4. Theology from new circumstances: Do they respond to new circumstances or questions that arise after the earlier texts were written, providing guidance that is relevant to those new situations?
  5. Intertextual dialogue: Do they engage in an intertextual dialogue with earlier texts, that offers a different perspective or new meaning?
  6. Enhanced clarity: Do they offer clarity which can help in understanding complicated or obscure passages from earlier texts?

Exegesis based on invented texts—texts

Texts that are misremembered or fabricated, would be inherently flawed from an academic standpoint. However, even fabrications reveal something. Sure the end product of such an exegesis would be questionable because it’s built on a foundation that lacks authenticity. However, as you’ve pointed out, this doesn’t mean the exegesis is beyond redemption. In fact, the errors can be identified and corrected, potentially leading to a more accurate interpretation. If we know it's false or we have both false and authentic text, we can learn about the biases and personal beliefs that led to the false text.

Questions we should ask:

  1. Reflective of beliefs: Do the invented texts inadvertently reveal the beliefs or understandings of the community or individual from which they originated?
  2. Identifies gaps: Does the exegesis of invented texts reveal gaps or areas of ambiguity that can be compared and replaced with authentic texts?

In both cases, the merits of the exegesis are judged by the end-product.

Here's the key: Does the exegesis provide a plausible, coherent, and authentic interpretation of the text?

Improve this answer
10
  • 3
    @FelixLXX Letting the text speak for itself is a foundational principle. Exegesis, as indicated by its etymology, is the act of critically interpreting a text in an attempt to "draw the meaning out" of the text. However, the aim is to extract the original meaning of the text as intended by the author. This involves analyzing the language, context, and literary forms within the text itself. For the most part, to do exegesis successfully does not preclude this. Typically, a scholar would employ hermeneutics to study the text before expounding on it through exegesis.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 11 at 21:47
  • 1
    @FelixLXX In a sense, hermeneutics sets the stage for exegesis. It’s not that one prejudices the reading of the other; rather, hermeneutics provides the lens through which exegesis is performed. Think of hermeneutics as crafting the tools and exegesis as using those tools to build something. In practice, these two stages can be iterative. As you engage in exegesis, you might refine your hermeneutic principles based on what you learn from the text, and vice versa.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 12 at 16:53
  • 1
    @FelixLXX While exegesis is primarily concerned with drawing out the meaning of the text itself, it doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Understanding the historical context, cultural background, and the linguistic nuances of the time when the text was written is essential before one can accurately interpret the text’s meaning. It’s not a matter of one coming before the other but rather using historical insights and the like to inform a more accurate and nuanced exegesis.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 12 at 16:55
  • 1
    @FelixLXX That's a sensible question. This is where the integrity and methodology of the exegete come into play. Exegetes must strive to be as objective as possible. It’s a delicate balance between respecting the text’s autonomy and recognizing that it doesn’t exist in isolation from its historical and cultural environment. Employing a consistent and transparent methodology (Historical-Critical Method) helps prevent personal biases from influencing the interpretation. Also, having peer review where experts in the field scrutinize the methods and conclusions.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 12 at 18:44
  • 1
    @FelixLXX I do believe motive plays a role. This is a bit philosophical, but typically motive is the ‘why’ behind actions. The reason or incentive. Integrity is the ‘how’ one goes about their actions and decisions. An analogy might be: Motive is like the engine that powers a car forward. Integrity is like the steering system that keeps the car on the right path. Without a motive, an exegete may lack the drive to engage deeply with the text. And without integrity, even the strongest motive might lead one astray from the truth and rigor that scholarly work demands.
    – Jason_
    Commented Aug 12 at 19:28
0

Number 2 has big problems because the original source texts have not survived. What we have is texts that were copied from those source texts, and on and on it goes. The source texts which are the eye witnesses have not survived the wars and Law of Entropy. We have neither the source texts of Old Testament, New Testament, and Quran. All arguments are then unfalsifiable on either argument. It must be argued on good faith that the earliest texts are exact copies of the source texts.

Number one is evidence that a later author used an earlier text to help write the new text. Authorship by inspiration. The authority comes from the older text, so then the newer text must agree with the older text.

Improve this answer
2
  • Thanks for this - the "rules" were given to me before on other questions and in a generous spirit. I didn't mean for them to preclude things like this - but to make more use of what I have so far, I need to understand if/how the merits of passages are measured, more than the difficulties along the way (which may be immense). Before I had about how exegeses are made flawed by missing information - so this now is about exegeses that are made flawed by extra information.
    – FelixLXX
    Commented Aug 11 at 17:51
  • As long as we can all agree that if there is a God, it follows that there must be at least one God, which follows by reasoning that the most likely truth in argument is that there is one God.
    – ReturnOfRoamer
    Commented Aug 11 at 18:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.