Wednesday, May 22, 2013

On Eisegesis and Exegesis


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.



[1] See Friedrich D. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977); Heidegger, Being and Time; Gadamer, Truth and Method; Rudolf Bultmann, Existence and Faith (Waukegan: Fontana Press, 1964).
[2] Kaiser and Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 279.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Toward a Theology of Eisegesis

In 1981 Walter Kaiser's book, Toward an Exegetical Theology, came out. It was a welcome book. It cost $9.95 back then.

Before proceeding, I must put forth a warning. What I am about to say/write may send the hunters of hermeneutical heretics out there to the grocery story – to buy leftovers – to buy the really rotten leftover tomatoes and eggs. And those would only be the mild, wanna-be, effeminate heretic hunters. The really professionals – those heretic hunters who reload their own ammo will be headed for the wood pile. They'll be gathering wood and bringing cans of lighter fluid and matches. And since I am not really that fond of rotten tomatoes and eggs, and even less of the kind of heat the real hunters are intent on producing, I beg for understanding. And just to be certain, I've changed our address, phone number, email address, and grown a beard.

Kaiser wrote his book to fill a gap – "a gap that has existed between the study of the Biblical text (most frequently in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and the actual delivery of messages to God's people." He was right. And his book went a long way to fill that gap.

I bring to our attention another gap – a gap equal in importance to the hermeneutical world of Biblical interpretation as Kaiser's work. This is a gap that has existed between the knowledge of the interpreter's tacit set of biased core assumptions and the study of the Biblical texts. As you can see, this gap is prior to Kaiser's. It is the gap of appropriate attention to eisegesis (reading into a text based on prior presuppositions). Wait! Before you light the match! I am calling for a new book – perhaps with the title, Toward a Theology of Eisegesis. The point would not be to incinerate. The point would not be to argue for eisegesis as a valid hermeneutical methodology. The point would be to bring eisegesis in from the proverbial hermeneutic woodshed and set it down at the discussion table. The point would be to recognize the universal presence of bias in all interpretation and to therefore present sound (biblical) principles of eisegesis. It seems that for too long we have given the academic nod to the presence of interpretive bias (everyone acknowledges it exists) but then we have simply proceeded to extol on the rules of exegesis as though our acknowledgement and such rules would be sufficient to overwhelm the bulk of bias.

So, look for the book. It may take a decade to find a publisher. The price? If you're caught buying the book, it'll likely cost you your life.


Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Big Story Replacement – No Small Thing


A comprehensive, diachronic metanarrative is not replaced by a single, synchronic episode. A single episode does not (cannot) replace a metanarrative; metanarratives (that is, a string of episodes) replace metanarratives. Metanarratives are too ingrained, too powerful, too embedded, and too bulky to be replaced by a single event. In order to get at true meaning, any lived-in rival metanarrative (that is, rival to God's true metanarrative) must be replaced or temporarily ignored. A rival metanarrative will not be replaced by a single episode; it can, however, be replaced by a competing, comprehensive, deemed-greater string of stories. Since this is true (or, if this is true – for those less convinced) the implications are huge.