What is Exegesis? A Belated Response
A couple of weeks ago I was engaged in a dialogue at Jonathan Prejean's blog. That dialogue has since been closed, but during the latter stages of it, I wrote a response to Tim Enloe on the discipline of exegesis that I opted not to post at that time, since it appeared the dialogue was going nowhere. In the interest of answering what I think are the foundational disagreements between our approach to the Scriptures and "Reformed Catholicism"'s approach, I thought I would go ahead and post my response here:
Tim wrote:
“Eric, I do not believe the Church started in the 13th century and that an education in Medieval history is the master key to unlocking the Scriptures. Please stop saying this, because it isn't true.”
That was hyperbole. Perhaps I should have said that your behavior and emphasis suggests you believe the church started in the 13th century.
Tim wrote:
“Furthermore, I agree that the term "grammatical-historical method" is a good thing, and you certainly correctly state its aim (to get at the original author's mind). Where I think you go wrong is in apparently thinking that the author's mind is fully expressed in the bare Greek words of the biblical text under examination.”
Nor do I, Tim; and it is a misrepresentation of the historical-grammatical method to suggest otherwise, especially since “the bare greek words” covers only the “grammatical” part of “historical-grammatical.”
Tim wrote:
“On the contrary, nobody's worldview is reducible to single texts, or even a handful of texts. You can't necessarily understand what Galatians means just by exegeting the actual text of Galatians. Language isn't mathematics.”
Tim, I just don’t know where you get the idea that what you just described is exegesis. Exegesis involves much more than the bare analysis of words. It involves context, train of thought, historical considerations, situational considerations, cultural considerations, etc. The anaysis of words is merely the starting point.
Tim wrote:
“You can prooftext Paul all day long about the lack of value of "worldly" things, but that is exactly the point I am making against you.”
This, again, is simply a wrong reading of my view. Go back and read what I said. I did not say that Paul spoke of the lack of value of “worldly things.” I said he spoke of the lack of value of “worldy wisdom” and “worldy knowledge”--those things that are used to undermine or replace the wisdom of God in Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“You cite Paul from Corinthians apparently running down worldly wisdom. Well, nice. Paul was himself in several of his epistles, including the Corinthian ones, making use of classical rhetorical techniques to fight the Sophists of the Second Sophistic Movement, who had infiltrated the Corinthian Church and attempted to conflate Christian categories of discipleship with Sophistic categories of masters / followers. Paul had quite the "worldly" education, and he put it into the service of the Gospel instead of dichotomizing it from the Gospel.”
While I disagree with your analysis of what Paul is doing here (although he certainly does do something like this in Acts 17 and elsewhere), this explanation is much closer to engaging in the type of exegesis that I would like to have seen from you in the earlier stages of this discussion. Why have you shied away from this sort of thing up to this point?
Tim wrote:
“Your remarks about the supposed worthlessness of "worldly" things are also exactly my point against you. You have the typical Fundamentalist-Evangelical Pietist dichotomy between "worldly / spiritual", which while it superficially matches biblical language falls very far short of actual reality in God's world. Not everybody is called to be an exegete,”
Since I didn’t suggest otherwise, I’m tempted to forego this point. I’ve already explained that I did not say anything about pursuing “worldly things.” In fact, O specifically said it was “fine” if someone wanted to do it. My concern was expressly directed to situations in which the wisdom accrued is upheld as a replacement for Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“and as you indicate from the example of the 14 year old boy in your class, it is entirely possible to have a great deal of biblical knowledge without gaining a mastery of Greek exegesis. This seems to cut directly against your point against me re: your mastery of exegesis supposedly making you a holder of superior biblical knowledge.”
My scenario assumes one is immersed in Scripture and has gained that biblical knowledge through that immersion. It does not apply to those who don’t fit those criteria.
Tim wrote:
“In many cases, I think it's evident that what you think of as "superior" biblical knowledge on your part are merely begged questions about what is "clearly" said in the Scriptures. E.g., you state that I don't know the Bible very well, but only books ABOUT the Bible merely because I don't agree with your ramped-up "RCs-as-Judaizers" reading of Galatians.”
Not at all. Neither does Paul Owen agree with my view of the Galatian error, but I don’t conclude that he is lacking in biblical knowledge because of that. I just think he is in error. Indeed, the very reason I was able to dialogue with him on this point was because we shared the common assumption that each point should be argued and examined using exegetical specifics. There is no guarantee that one view is going to come out the clear winner in such a dialogue—indeed, that scenario is the exception rather than the rule. But one view usually emerges as the stronger view; and in this case I think my view proved to be the stronger view exegetically.
Tim wrote:
“At any rate, the Reformation doctrine of vocation has it that all of life, every single area, and any legitimate activity under the sun, may be used to serve and glorify God. This is why when a humble shoemaker, confused by the Medieval dichotomy between "worldly" and "spiritual" once approached Luther and asked him what he should do now that he had become a Christian, Luther said "Make a good shoe, and sell it a fair price."
Tim, I have owned a business for over fifteen years. I think I understand this concept fairly well by now. You have misunderstood my reference to “worldly things” as a reference to earthly living. Those two things are not the same.
Tim wrote:
“I appreciate your clarifications to Elliot (Cog) about how you view Scripture. Ironically, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.”
I’m glad to hear that.
Tim wrote:
“I just don't think you have mastered the discipline the way you think you have mastered it.”
And you conclude that merely on the basis that you disagree with my conclusions. And since you disagree with my exegetical conclusions, I wouldn’t expect you to think otherwise. However, your questioning of my mastery of the discipline is without foundation, since I do have a doctorate in it—no one is awarded a doctorate in any discipline without first having mastered it.
Tim wrote:
“And I think that because contra your slurs of me, I actually have read some things about first century Judaism and the various sects of the day, and the philosophical and cultural milieus, and so on. No doubt I've not read as much on those subjects as you, I have read some. In fact, it's what I have read about first century Judaism that gives me a strong impression that your "Judaizer" reading of Galatians is wrong.”
Would that reading happen to be from primary sources, or from N.T. Wright?
Tim wrote:
“If you're so big on first century context, why don't you talk about the table fellowship / Gentile inclusion in the covenant context that is right there on the pages of Galatians itself? I see lots of big talk about a "Gospel" that is about "not adding one tiny work to faith", but I don't see anything from you about the issues that jump right off the pages of Galatians,”
While, again, I appreciate the fact that you are at least finally getting into the actual text of Scripture, you say this as though this observation would somehow overturn my thesis. Can you tell me how you think the table fellowship issue in Galatians contradicts my understanding of the issue of the gospel?
Tim wrote:
“I don't read everything you write, so it is entirely possible I've missed you discussing such issues as I mentioned. Can you point me to where you have? Thanks.”
My masters thesis was on table fellowship in the NT, and that passage was key.
Tim wrote:
“Eric, I do not believe the Church started in the 13th century and that an education in Medieval history is the master key to unlocking the Scriptures. Please stop saying this, because it isn't true.”
That was hyperbole. Perhaps I should have said that your behavior and emphasis suggests you believe the church started in the 13th century.
Tim wrote:
“Furthermore, I agree that the term "grammatical-historical method" is a good thing, and you certainly correctly state its aim (to get at the original author's mind). Where I think you go wrong is in apparently thinking that the author's mind is fully expressed in the bare Greek words of the biblical text under examination.”
Nor do I, Tim; and it is a misrepresentation of the historical-grammatical method to suggest otherwise, especially since “the bare greek words” covers only the “grammatical” part of “historical-grammatical.”
Tim wrote:
“On the contrary, nobody's worldview is reducible to single texts, or even a handful of texts. You can't necessarily understand what Galatians means just by exegeting the actual text of Galatians. Language isn't mathematics.”
Tim, I just don’t know where you get the idea that what you just described is exegesis. Exegesis involves much more than the bare analysis of words. It involves context, train of thought, historical considerations, situational considerations, cultural considerations, etc. The anaysis of words is merely the starting point.
Tim wrote:
“You can prooftext Paul all day long about the lack of value of "worldly" things, but that is exactly the point I am making against you.”
This, again, is simply a wrong reading of my view. Go back and read what I said. I did not say that Paul spoke of the lack of value of “worldly things.” I said he spoke of the lack of value of “worldy wisdom” and “worldy knowledge”--those things that are used to undermine or replace the wisdom of God in Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“You cite Paul from Corinthians apparently running down worldly wisdom. Well, nice. Paul was himself in several of his epistles, including the Corinthian ones, making use of classical rhetorical techniques to fight the Sophists of the Second Sophistic Movement, who had infiltrated the Corinthian Church and attempted to conflate Christian categories of discipleship with Sophistic categories of masters / followers. Paul had quite the "worldly" education, and he put it into the service of the Gospel instead of dichotomizing it from the Gospel.”
While I disagree with your analysis of what Paul is doing here (although he certainly does do something like this in Acts 17 and elsewhere), this explanation is much closer to engaging in the type of exegesis that I would like to have seen from you in the earlier stages of this discussion. Why have you shied away from this sort of thing up to this point?
Tim wrote:
“Your remarks about the supposed worthlessness of "worldly" things are also exactly my point against you. You have the typical Fundamentalist-Evangelical Pietist dichotomy between "worldly / spiritual", which while it superficially matches biblical language falls very far short of actual reality in God's world. Not everybody is called to be an exegete,”
Since I didn’t suggest otherwise, I’m tempted to forego this point. I’ve already explained that I did not say anything about pursuing “worldly things.” In fact, O specifically said it was “fine” if someone wanted to do it. My concern was expressly directed to situations in which the wisdom accrued is upheld as a replacement for Scripture.
Tim wrote:
“and as you indicate from the example of the 14 year old boy in your class, it is entirely possible to have a great deal of biblical knowledge without gaining a mastery of Greek exegesis. This seems to cut directly against your point against me re: your mastery of exegesis supposedly making you a holder of superior biblical knowledge.”
My scenario assumes one is immersed in Scripture and has gained that biblical knowledge through that immersion. It does not apply to those who don’t fit those criteria.
Tim wrote:
“In many cases, I think it's evident that what you think of as "superior" biblical knowledge on your part are merely begged questions about what is "clearly" said in the Scriptures. E.g., you state that I don't know the Bible very well, but only books ABOUT the Bible merely because I don't agree with your ramped-up "RCs-as-Judaizers" reading of Galatians.”
Not at all. Neither does Paul Owen agree with my view of the Galatian error, but I don’t conclude that he is lacking in biblical knowledge because of that. I just think he is in error. Indeed, the very reason I was able to dialogue with him on this point was because we shared the common assumption that each point should be argued and examined using exegetical specifics. There is no guarantee that one view is going to come out the clear winner in such a dialogue—indeed, that scenario is the exception rather than the rule. But one view usually emerges as the stronger view; and in this case I think my view proved to be the stronger view exegetically.
Tim wrote:
“At any rate, the Reformation doctrine of vocation has it that all of life, every single area, and any legitimate activity under the sun, may be used to serve and glorify God. This is why when a humble shoemaker, confused by the Medieval dichotomy between "worldly" and "spiritual" once approached Luther and asked him what he should do now that he had become a Christian, Luther said "Make a good shoe, and sell it a fair price."
Tim, I have owned a business for over fifteen years. I think I understand this concept fairly well by now. You have misunderstood my reference to “worldly things” as a reference to earthly living. Those two things are not the same.
Tim wrote:
“I appreciate your clarifications to Elliot (Cog) about how you view Scripture. Ironically, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.”
I’m glad to hear that.
Tim wrote:
“I just don't think you have mastered the discipline the way you think you have mastered it.”
And you conclude that merely on the basis that you disagree with my conclusions. And since you disagree with my exegetical conclusions, I wouldn’t expect you to think otherwise. However, your questioning of my mastery of the discipline is without foundation, since I do have a doctorate in it—no one is awarded a doctorate in any discipline without first having mastered it.
Tim wrote:
“And I think that because contra your slurs of me, I actually have read some things about first century Judaism and the various sects of the day, and the philosophical and cultural milieus, and so on. No doubt I've not read as much on those subjects as you, I have read some. In fact, it's what I have read about first century Judaism that gives me a strong impression that your "Judaizer" reading of Galatians is wrong.”
Would that reading happen to be from primary sources, or from N.T. Wright?
Tim wrote:
“If you're so big on first century context, why don't you talk about the table fellowship / Gentile inclusion in the covenant context that is right there on the pages of Galatians itself? I see lots of big talk about a "Gospel" that is about "not adding one tiny work to faith", but I don't see anything from you about the issues that jump right off the pages of Galatians,”
While, again, I appreciate the fact that you are at least finally getting into the actual text of Scripture, you say this as though this observation would somehow overturn my thesis. Can you tell me how you think the table fellowship issue in Galatians contradicts my understanding of the issue of the gospel?
Tim wrote:
“I don't read everything you write, so it is entirely possible I've missed you discussing such issues as I mentioned. Can you point me to where you have? Thanks.”
My masters thesis was on table fellowship in the NT, and that passage was key.
posted by NA at 8:21 AM
<< Home