- there are 70 faces to 
Post by alon on Feb 20, 2015 21:49:25 GMT -8
exegesis- (ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs) n, pl -ses (-siːz)
1. explanation or critical analysis and interpretation of a text, esp of the Bible. Compare eisegesis
From the Greek exēgeisthai to interpret, to guide; to lead out; a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally exegesis of the Bible; however, "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity.
Includes a wide range of critical disciplines:
1. textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text
2. may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience
3. classification of the type of literary genres present in the text
4. an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself
The opposite of exegesis (to draw out) is eisegesis (to draw in). The eisegetic commentator "imports", "draws in" or "interjects" his own purely subjective interpretations unsupported by the text itself. Eisegesis is used derogatorily of unethical commentators.
These are two conflicting approaches in biblical hermaneutics. Whereas exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on careful, objective analysis, eisegesis is the opposite approach. Exegesis literally means “to lead out of,” meaning the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. Eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” where the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text. He can make it mean whatever he wants.
Only exegesis can do justice to biblical text. Eisegesis quite frequently and usually intentionally leads to misinterpretation of the message. Exegesis strives for the truth as presented, respecting grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, at the expense of meaning and truth.
Mainstream Christianity, never separated from Catholic paganism and the Greek mythological method of hermeneutics, practices eisegistic interpretation of scripture almost exclusively. Their doctrines are based on taking scripture out of its context even in their own Bible interpretations. Words are interpreted differently (i.e. congregation and church) depending on what they want it to say. Absolutely no thought is given to history, custom or culture when interpreting scripture; all of which are important to context. And the intended audience is ignored as they arrogantly assume everything was written to them. Not necessarily for them, mind you- things like those pesky laws and the curses, those were for them unlucky Jews. I suppose we only needed to know about those so we could feel sorry for, and maybe superior to Jews. Poor beggars, they even have big noses ... . But the Bible is now in the hands of the Greeks, the Jews having lost favor with God. Guess this part is myth:
Romans 3:1-4 (ESV) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”
"Entrusted with the oracles of God." Sounds to me like the Jews, not the Greeks (Gentiles) are the guardians of scripture; and Hebrew, not Greek hermeneutics is the proper exegetical method. Sounds too like God is still faithful and true, despite the unbelief of some Jews.
Dan C
Reference:
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3385/greek-hermaneutics
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3386/hebrew-hermaneutics
1. explanation or critical analysis and interpretation of a text, esp of the Bible. Compare eisegesis
From the Greek exēgeisthai to interpret, to guide; to lead out; a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally exegesis of the Bible; however, "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity.
Includes a wide range of critical disciplines:
1. textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text
2. may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience
3. classification of the type of literary genres present in the text
4. an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself
The opposite of exegesis (to draw out) is eisegesis (to draw in). The eisegetic commentator "imports", "draws in" or "interjects" his own purely subjective interpretations unsupported by the text itself. Eisegesis is used derogatorily of unethical commentators.
These are two conflicting approaches in biblical hermaneutics. Whereas exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on careful, objective analysis, eisegesis is the opposite approach. Exegesis literally means “to lead out of,” meaning the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. Eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” where the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text. He can make it mean whatever he wants.
Only exegesis can do justice to biblical text. Eisegesis quite frequently and usually intentionally leads to misinterpretation of the message. Exegesis strives for the truth as presented, respecting grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, at the expense of meaning and truth.
Mainstream Christianity, never separated from Catholic paganism and the Greek mythological method of hermeneutics, practices eisegistic interpretation of scripture almost exclusively. Their doctrines are based on taking scripture out of its context even in their own Bible interpretations. Words are interpreted differently (i.e. congregation and church) depending on what they want it to say. Absolutely no thought is given to history, custom or culture when interpreting scripture; all of which are important to context. And the intended audience is ignored as they arrogantly assume everything was written to them. Not necessarily for them, mind you- things like those pesky laws and the curses, those were for them unlucky Jews. I suppose we only needed to know about those so we could feel sorry for, and maybe superior to Jews. Poor beggars, they even have big noses ... . But the Bible is now in the hands of the Greeks, the Jews having lost favor with God. Guess this part is myth:
Romans 3:1-4 (ESV) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”
"Entrusted with the oracles of God." Sounds to me like the Jews, not the Greeks (Gentiles) are the guardians of scripture; and Hebrew, not Greek hermeneutics is the proper exegetical method. Sounds too like God is still faithful and true, despite the unbelief of some Jews.
Dan C
Reference:
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3385/greek-hermaneutics
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3386/hebrew-hermaneutics
