We continue now, examining and dissecting Mikey's latest pathetic efforts to whitewash his inability to deal with errors in his KJV, as he attempts to invoke specious discriminations between exegesis and eisegesis to try to baffle his readers.
He writes:
“Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation ( you takin' notes here , Phil? ) . Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words ( THAT , might be a "test question," Phil , or would you like me to give you remedial education in note taking also? ) . “
Again, being cheeky Mikey merely exposes his own abject ignorance. It isn't so much "grammar, syntax and setting" that create the problems in exegesis but the actual LANGUAGES! Thus, most of those (presumably like Mikey) who claim they've done exegesis have only done it half-assed, with no exposure to the original languages. This is what engenders their inability to do PROPER TEXTUAL ANALYSIS - e.g. interpreting what the original language meant in terms of its OWN CONTEXT not simply putting it into the new one. THIS is why so many - mainly the most rigid Bible BELIEVERS- foul up.
Consider just the two Latin examples:
1) Dicit hos libri sunt clariores quam illi.
2) Hos libros esse clariores quam illos.
The first (1) represents the original which was copied to the form in (2). The problem is that a simple copyist error changes the translation - and it is the job of the textual analyst to ferret it out.
(1) reads (ungrammatically): He says these books are more famous than those.
(2) reads: These books are more famous than those.
The accurate and conscientious textual analyst will quickly spot the grammatical error which changes the meaning from inspection of (1) which ought to read, in Latin:
Dicit hos libros esse clariores quam illos.
Which is therefore what the copyist version (2) should also read.
The failure of the copyist and resulting textual error makes it appear that the resulting "fame" of some book simply emerges, and no one actually stated it. It's a fait accompli!
In the next copyist change (we won't call it error) a word is deliberately substituted to alter the meaning:
1) Id cum eis fecit. ("He did it with them")
2) Id cum virtute fecit. ("He did it with courage")
In this case, virtute is substituted for eis changing the entire meaning. To track this sort of change, one would need to go back to the original Greek and Aramaic, locate the same passage and ascertain the translation there. If one discerns that (1) is close to the result, then translation (2) with the insertion of 'virtute' is bastardized. Such occurrences permeate the Bible as Bart Ehrman has shown (Misquoting Jesus).
Again, the issue is that unless the original language terms, forms are investigated, the exegete is only doing half his job. This means even if he doesn't know Greek, Latin and Aramaic himself (as I would say Mikey doesn't) he must have a wise teacher prepare scripts with the original translations, say for given passages.
More perturbing, is that the ancient languages were often not exhausted by the ones shown (or that we at Loyola had to compare for specific texts). Thus, it has been pointed out that the phrase "lake of fire" was originally in the Book of Mithras (Ized II of The Zendevesta) which predated Christian works, scriptures by HUNDREDs OF YEARS. It was the abode of "eternal perdition" for all those who refused to "eat of the body of the Son, Mithras". Thus, it was COPIED - to portray an eschatological background for those unbelievers who refused to submit to Christ. (But was never originally used in any of the quadriforms or related literature).
Another critical aspect ignored by superficial exegetical practitioners (I call them wannabes) is an inherent failure to recognize that much of the biographic material (on Yeshua) in the New Testament is merely a reworking of material taken from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. A considerable part of the narrative structure of the Gospel of Matthew (and also of Mark, his source), for instance, can be thought of as a fleshing out and adaptation of a "messianic checklist" such as would have been formed for the nucleus of a messianic biography. Over and over, events and circumstances both trivial and important, are recounted by Matthew with the refrain: 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets'.
The many logia recounted in the Gospels would, if they could convincingly be shown derived from a single personality or source, be strong evidence that a historical Jesus existed. But such is not the case.
Here is where, again, attention to the historicity of the documents is the exegete's most crucial ally. Once more, the person needs to avail him or herself of the historical basis before launching into wholesale interpretation of passages - which is just as bad as not being acquainted with the original languages.
For example, Yale University features a detailed course on the NT Historicity, taught by Prof. Dale B. Martin and entitled: Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, and roughly on a par with my Introduction to the New Testament course taken at Loyola in 1964-65. (The Loyola course was somewhat more difficult).
The compilation of course sessions, all on video, can be accessed via this link:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/class-sessions
And the one I recommend most for those short on time is No.13, dealing with the "Historical Jesus" (link below):
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html
In approaching these sort of issues, like Jesus' historicity, inquiring students and curious others need to ask themselves whether it more serves their interests to follow the rants of numerous evangelical bloggers or follow someone with authority and actual insight, experience. I daresay that anyone who presumes to do exegesis without first being acquainted with the historical background is just a pretender and fooling himself. Is Mikey doing this? Reading his assorted responses, I would certainly say so!
He goes on to say:
"You see , an honest student of the Bible ( which obviously Phil is NOT ) , will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us ! "
Again, this sort of opinion is what one would expect of a neophyte or waif. Someone just getting his tootsies wet in exegesis. In truth, as I showed (previous blog) the text CAN'T "speak for itself" because if there is a divergence of meaning (as I showed with the pair of Latin examples) then only an expertise in the LANGUAGE - in this case Latin, will permit one to sort it out and ascertain what the original writer meant. If a copyist then inserts a word ('virtute') in place of another ('eis') and alters the meaning, it is the job of the exegete to sort it out. He can't do that if he doesn't know a word of Latin...or Aramaic, or Greek! Yet Mikey purports to claim he can, which is bollocks.
The language use and structure (as given in the Latin examples) means that the hermeneutics process UNFOLDS and is NEVER self-evident. Thus:
[text x] -> [1] ->[2] –[3] -> [Text Z]
Whereas if the text could really "speak for itself" one would simply be able to stop at [text x] or maybe step [1], say [text x'], without having to go further. But this is ridiculously oversimplified. It's like saying: "Well, yeah, okay, I know the original manuscripts were in Aramaic but I'm just going to ignore those!"
Well, fine, if you want to be a cartoon exegete and not for real! But don't insist you know anything then!
The saddest, most pathetic display of all is Mikey’s pseudo-argument:
The argument for an errorless ( inerrant ) Bible can be put in this logical form :
God cannot err .
The ( KJV ) Bible is the Word of God .
Therefore , the Bible cannot err .
Which I skewered before, as an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, eg.:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-christian-genuine-phrase-or.html
This fallacy is also a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example:
(1) God cannot err.
(2) The Bible is God’s word.
(3) Hence the Bible is inerrant.
Which exactly mirrors Mikey’s “argument”.
This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise: Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.
It is sadly clear that Mikey knows no more about exegesis (in the true and accurate sense) than he knows Latin.
Maybe he ought to have taken at least one year, like I did.
He writes:
“Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation ( you takin' notes here , Phil? ) . Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words ( THAT , might be a "test question," Phil , or would you like me to give you remedial education in note taking also? ) . “
Again, being cheeky Mikey merely exposes his own abject ignorance. It isn't so much "grammar, syntax and setting" that create the problems in exegesis but the actual LANGUAGES! Thus, most of those (presumably like Mikey) who claim they've done exegesis have only done it half-assed, with no exposure to the original languages. This is what engenders their inability to do PROPER TEXTUAL ANALYSIS - e.g. interpreting what the original language meant in terms of its OWN CONTEXT not simply putting it into the new one. THIS is why so many - mainly the most rigid Bible BELIEVERS- foul up.
Consider just the two Latin examples:
1) Dicit hos libri sunt clariores quam illi.
2) Hos libros esse clariores quam illos.
The first (1) represents the original which was copied to the form in (2). The problem is that a simple copyist error changes the translation - and it is the job of the textual analyst to ferret it out.
(1) reads (ungrammatically): He says these books are more famous than those.
(2) reads: These books are more famous than those.
The accurate and conscientious textual analyst will quickly spot the grammatical error which changes the meaning from inspection of (1) which ought to read, in Latin:
Dicit hos libros esse clariores quam illos.
Which is therefore what the copyist version (2) should also read.
The failure of the copyist and resulting textual error makes it appear that the resulting "fame" of some book simply emerges, and no one actually stated it. It's a fait accompli!
In the next copyist change (we won't call it error) a word is deliberately substituted to alter the meaning:
1) Id cum eis fecit. ("He did it with them")
2) Id cum virtute fecit. ("He did it with courage")
In this case, virtute is substituted for eis changing the entire meaning. To track this sort of change, one would need to go back to the original Greek and Aramaic, locate the same passage and ascertain the translation there. If one discerns that (1) is close to the result, then translation (2) with the insertion of 'virtute' is bastardized. Such occurrences permeate the Bible as Bart Ehrman has shown (Misquoting Jesus).
Again, the issue is that unless the original language terms, forms are investigated, the exegete is only doing half his job. This means even if he doesn't know Greek, Latin and Aramaic himself (as I would say Mikey doesn't) he must have a wise teacher prepare scripts with the original translations, say for given passages.
More perturbing, is that the ancient languages were often not exhausted by the ones shown (or that we at Loyola had to compare for specific texts). Thus, it has been pointed out that the phrase "lake of fire" was originally in the Book of Mithras (Ized II of The Zendevesta) which predated Christian works, scriptures by HUNDREDs OF YEARS. It was the abode of "eternal perdition" for all those who refused to "eat of the body of the Son, Mithras". Thus, it was COPIED - to portray an eschatological background for those unbelievers who refused to submit to Christ. (But was never originally used in any of the quadriforms or related literature).
Another critical aspect ignored by superficial exegetical practitioners (I call them wannabes) is an inherent failure to recognize that much of the biographic material (on Yeshua) in the New Testament is merely a reworking of material taken from the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. A considerable part of the narrative structure of the Gospel of Matthew (and also of Mark, his source), for instance, can be thought of as a fleshing out and adaptation of a "messianic checklist" such as would have been formed for the nucleus of a messianic biography. Over and over, events and circumstances both trivial and important, are recounted by Matthew with the refrain: 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets'.
The many logia recounted in the Gospels would, if they could convincingly be shown derived from a single personality or source, be strong evidence that a historical Jesus existed. But such is not the case.
Here is where, again, attention to the historicity of the documents is the exegete's most crucial ally. Once more, the person needs to avail him or herself of the historical basis before launching into wholesale interpretation of passages - which is just as bad as not being acquainted with the original languages.
For example, Yale University features a detailed course on the NT Historicity, taught by Prof. Dale B. Martin and entitled: Introduction to New Testament History and Literature, and roughly on a par with my Introduction to the New Testament course taken at Loyola in 1964-65. (The Loyola course was somewhat more difficult).
The compilation of course sessions, all on video, can be accessed via this link:
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/class-sessions
And the one I recommend most for those short on time is No.13, dealing with the "Historical Jesus" (link below):
http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament/content/sessions/lecture13.html
In approaching these sort of issues, like Jesus' historicity, inquiring students and curious others need to ask themselves whether it more serves their interests to follow the rants of numerous evangelical bloggers or follow someone with authority and actual insight, experience. I daresay that anyone who presumes to do exegesis without first being acquainted with the historical background is just a pretender and fooling himself. Is Mikey doing this? Reading his assorted responses, I would certainly say so!
He goes on to say:
"You see , an honest student of the Bible ( which obviously Phil is NOT ) , will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us ! "
Again, this sort of opinion is what one would expect of a neophyte or waif. Someone just getting his tootsies wet in exegesis. In truth, as I showed (previous blog) the text CAN'T "speak for itself" because if there is a divergence of meaning (as I showed with the pair of Latin examples) then only an expertise in the LANGUAGE - in this case Latin, will permit one to sort it out and ascertain what the original writer meant. If a copyist then inserts a word ('virtute') in place of another ('eis') and alters the meaning, it is the job of the exegete to sort it out. He can't do that if he doesn't know a word of Latin...or Aramaic, or Greek! Yet Mikey purports to claim he can, which is bollocks.
The language use and structure (as given in the Latin examples) means that the hermeneutics process UNFOLDS and is NEVER self-evident. Thus:
[text x] -> [1] ->[2] –[3] -> [Text Z]
Whereas if the text could really "speak for itself" one would simply be able to stop at [text x] or maybe step [1], say [text x'], without having to go further. But this is ridiculously oversimplified. It's like saying: "Well, yeah, okay, I know the original manuscripts were in Aramaic but I'm just going to ignore those!"
Well, fine, if you want to be a cartoon exegete and not for real! But don't insist you know anything then!
The saddest, most pathetic display of all is Mikey’s pseudo-argument:
The argument for an errorless ( inerrant ) Bible can be put in this logical form :
God cannot err .
The ( KJV ) Bible is the Word of God .
Therefore , the Bible cannot err .
Which I skewered before, as an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, eg.:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-christian-genuine-phrase-or.html
This fallacy is also a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
Example:
(1) God cannot err.
(2) The Bible is God’s word.
(3) Hence the Bible is inerrant.
Which exactly mirrors Mikey’s “argument”.
This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise: Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.
It is sadly clear that Mikey knows no more about exegesis (in the true and accurate sense) than he knows Latin.
Maybe he ought to have taken at least one year, like I did.
No comments:
Post a Comment