No human being does unbiased
interpretation of anything. As per Schleiermacher, Heidegger, Gadamer, and
Bultmann – preunderstanding, prejudice, and presuppositions cannot be eliminated.[1] All human
interpretation and interaction with reality is eisegetical before it is
exegetical. All information runs through the grid of one’s metanarrative, which
acts as the ultimate translator of reality. The entire discussion concerning
the power of metanarrative as well as a preliminary look at the problem of
meaning validate not only the existence but also the significance and influence
of eisegesis. Relegating this aspect of interpretation to the hermeneutical
woodshed or giving it the silent treatment ignores a substantial player in the
interpretation endeavor. Mind you, I'm not falling in step
with the postmodern hermeneutical development that puts eisegesis ahead of
exegesis in importance. Concerning such development, Silva writes
One
can hardly overemphasize the radical character of these developments. To a
practitioner of the historical method it is simply shocking to hear that
eisegesis may be a permissible – let alone preferable! – way to approach the
text. For nineteen centuries the study of the Bible had been moving away from
just such an approach (especially in the form of allegorical interpretation),
so that with the maturing of the historical method a great victory for
responsible exegesis had been won. But now we are told that historical
interpretation is passé…the search for a meaning other than that intended by
the original author does seem, at first blush, to be giving up centuries of
hermeneutical progress.[2]
Agreed
– eisegesis is not the way to
interpret any literature. It is not the new panacea. But it
does exist – and it exists powerfully and tacitly. No one denies the fact that
interpreters practice eisegesis. However, one will search long and hard to find
a set of eisegetical rules of interpretation in the hermeneutic textbooks.
Eisegesis endures and since it holds a significant place in all interpretation,
it must be adequately acknowledged, understood and addressed. Eisegesis is not
the goal; exegesis is. But eisegesis is a notable part of the process. An
interactive relationship exists between exegesis and eisegesis – one in
which accurate exegesis of reality is undeniably dependent upon acknowledged
eisegesis and acknowledged eisegesis is similarly dependent on accurate
exegesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment