Intergalactic Summit

On Exegesis and Eisegesis.

I recently told someone that eisegesis isn't a valid way of interpreting Scripture. The reaction then was, that all interpretation of Scripture is by necessity eisegetic, "on the grounds that even when the interpretation one adopts aligns with that of some noted exegetical tradition or scholar, that is because you personally have concluded that you find their interpretation agreeable, or at the very least are deluding yourself into thinking that you have."

When I replied that the person in question misunderstood what exegesis and eisegesis is I got the reply: "Exegesis, as I understand it, is the study and interpretation of a text, especially a religious one. Eisegesis, again as I understand it, is the study and interpretation of religious text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas and/or biases. "

This is incomplete understanding of what exegesis and eisegesis is and as we know, smattering is the most dangerous kind of knowledge. Instead of repeating myself in a thread that has been derailed enough already I thought it'd be more astute to respond to that degree of stubbornness by opening a thread in itself that explains the differences between exegesis and eisegesis, why the latter should be avoided and the former chosen if one really wants to understand what place the Scripture has in Amarrian religion and culture and how it is to be understood as a spiritual message.

The first thing to understand is that both exegesis and eisegesis are forms of interpretation. Interpretation is here to be understood as the act of giving sense to something – in the case of exegesis and eisegesis a text or more specifically a body of texts, the Scriptures.

Now the argument is that eisegesis is perfectly okay as it is a way of interpreting Scripture and we can't help it. Because we are ultimately, subjective and biased beings we will always introduce our own presuppositions, agendas and/or biases. (Interestingly this was coming from someone claiming to know exactly how science works and who claims to know that there is, de facto, no God – not that this is merely his subjective and biased interpretation of the facts available to him.)

Well, it is true that there is a problem with giving a bias-free interpretation of a text. Luckily for the exegete, that isn't – contrary to our adversaries misconceptions – what the exegete has to achieve for a valid exegesis. Rather than believing that he can achieve the unachievable, the exegete is happy to acknoweldge his limitations, but – nonetheless - strives to give the Scriptural text as much space of it's own as he possibly can. He will also point out his preconceptions as far as he can and engage in self-reflection to this end. Exegesis is thus a highly stimulating intellectual endavour that requires dicipline.

The eisegete typically isn't as dedicated to the subject at hand. The argument that eisegesis is inadvertible and therefore perfectly okay is a typical symptom of the eisegete. A symptom that shows that there is little interest in the text at question to begin with, nor in putting work into uncovering what it might have meant, but more so in making a point – albeit his own point, not the one of the text.

There is therefore in exegesis and eisegesis a difference in intention, with the exegete intending to lay bare and 'lead out' the meaning of the text as much as he is able to as a flawed being and the exegete not caring for the meaning that the text itself conveys anyway.

Still, that doesn't explain how it is possible to come to an interpretation that actually achieves more than a mere eisegesis. Well, the answer is in employing the appropriate methodology. Just as any science has a methodology to it that allows e.g. for as objective as possible interpretation of datapoints in a measurement, exegesis depends on proper method.

The methodology employed here is the method of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics requires the interpreter to study the text in question carefully, preferrably in it's original language: It's grammar and syntactical features, the type of literature it is, the histrory of the text from it's first versions to later redactions – especially it's 'Sitz im Leben' and the context of the text in form of the other scriptural texts – as well as it's 'prehistory', the exegetical tradition in which it was written.

Few outsiders see, for example, that the Scriptures are oftentimes – especially in the case of the popularized snippets, for we have a vast body of texts to consider if we talk about the Scriptures – is meant to speak to us on a spiritual level, talking through metaphor and analogy. Even many students of theology point out at some point – if they are rebellious enough – that the Scripture apparently contradicts itself. One popular example is the story of Dano Gheinok himself:

"Curiously, the Scriptures seem to relate this story twice. The second telling is almost certainly a relation of the flight of the proto-Amarr from the continent of Assimia to Amarr Island. It includes specific details, such as landmarks, which have been positively identified. The earlier story is less explicit and does not feature place names or descriptions of locations, instead speaking more in metaphor and allegory. Additionally, the earlier story is told as if Gheinok was relatively young, while the second portrays him as an elder prophet, struggling with his own failing health as well as the rigors of travel."

Thank you for taking the time to explain that. A lot of Amarrians and non Amarrians alike could benefit from it if only they take the time to read it objectively.

I am convinced now that the Amarr overwhelmed the Matari with paragraphs, not weapons or faith, in their initial contact.

A skill that by percentage of souls inside your borders is probably the lowest percentage out of any of the big four. How many words does one need to be able to read to harvest grain anyways?

Piggy-backing off Baracca's point, it is very hard to learn scripture without being able to read.

Quick, let me make a snark remark about Nation that is little but false chastisement...

-Eran

The topic reminded me of a parable, which I thought you might enjoy. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to the discussion, but I think it might at least be illustrative.

Thanks for all honestly made replies here, even the more arcane ones.
I expected more debate, but apparently I made the matter at hand quite clear.

Cpt. Confliktus,

as you might have missed I spent quite some time in my opening post discussing how exegesis is peossible, that is interpretation that gives room to the meaning of the text, rather than to the significance we place onto it. One can argue easily, I think, that reading a text to discern it's meaning would be an "objective read".

I tried furthermore to explicate the means and methodology by which the theologians of the Theology Council approach scriptural text and do exegesis to minimize the impact of their own preconceptions as well as confirmation bias.

I furthermore argued that it's not only of importance that you use the right methodology, for to put this methodology at work effectively you need to know the context of the text - else you can't put the text into context, which is part of the methodology - and thus you need to know a fair bit of the Scripture, which translates to reading it a lot. Just as if you'd study a text of the Adakul you'd not be able to put it into right perspektive without having studied the other texts of it, or if you study the text of a writer but disregard his autobiography and the corpus of his work.

Of course - as I pointed out - good hermeneutic practice is hard to achieve and needs self-discipline and hard study, but it is possible to do it and to minimize the influence of ones own preconceptions. I'd even wager that an individual that put even a little effort into learning the methodology could quickly improve the value of his interpretations, even though he'd need a lot of training to be really considered 'good' at hermeneutics.

Regards,
N. Mithra