Jump to content

Exegesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromScriptural exegesis)
For other uses, seeExegesis (disambiguation).
A Bible open to theBook of Isaiah

Exegesis(/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/EK-sih-JEE-sis;from theGreekἐξήγησις,fromἐξηγεῖσθαι,"to lead out" ) is a critical explanation orinterpretationof a text. The term is traditionally applied to the interpretation ofBiblicalworks. In modern usage, exegesis can involve critical interpretations of virtually any text, including not just religious texts but alsophilosophy,literature,or virtually any other genre of writing. The phraseBiblical exegesiscan be used to distinguish studies of the Bible from other critical textual explanations.

Textual criticisminvestigates the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type ofliterary genrespresented in the text and analysis ofgrammaticalandsyntacticalfeatures in the text itself.

Usage

[edit]

One who practices exegesis is called anexegete(/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːt/;from Greekἐξηγητής), the plural of exegesis isexegeses(/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsiːz/), and adjectives are exegetic or exegetical (e.g., exegetical commentaries). In biblical exegesis, the opposite of exegesis (to draw out) iseisegesis(to draw in), in the sense of an eisegetic commentator "importing" or "drawing in" their own subjective interpretations into the text, unsupported by the text itself.Eisegesisis often used as a derogatory term.

Mesopotamian commentaries

[edit]

One of the early examples of exegesis, and one of the larger corpora of text commentaries from the ancient world, comes fromMesopotamia(modern day Iraq) in the first millennium BCE. Containing over 860 manuscripts, the majority of which date to 700–100 BCE, these commentaries explore numerous types of texts, including literary works (such as theBabylonian Epic of Creation), medical treatises, magical texts, ancient dictionaries, and law collections (theCode of Hammurabi). Most of them, however, comment on divination treatises, in particular treatises that predict the future from the appearance and movement of celestial bodies on the one hand (Enūma Anu Enlil), and from the appearance of a sacrificed sheep's liver on the other (Bārûtu).

As with the majority of the thousands of texts from theancient Near Eastthat have survived to the present day, Mesopotamian text commentaries are written on clay tablets incuneiform script.Text commentaries are written in the East Semitic language ofAkkadian,but due to the influence of lexical lists written inSumerian languageon cuneiform scholarship, they often contain Sumerian words or phrases as well.

Cuneiform commentaries are important because they provide information about Mesopotamian languages and culture that are not available elsewhere in the cuneiform record. To give but one example, the pronunciation of the cryptically written name of Gilgamesh, the hero of theEpic of Gilgamesh,was discovered in a cuneiform commentary on a medical text.[1]However, the significance of cuneiform commentaries extends beyond the light they shed on specific details of Mesopotamian civilization. They shed light on what the concerns of the Mesopotamian literate elite were when they read some of the most widely studied texts in the Mesopotamian intellectual tradition, a perspective that is important for "seeing things their way."[2]Finally, cuneiform commentaries are also the earliest examples of textual interpretation. It has been repeatedly argued that they influenced rabbinical exegesis.[3]

The publication and interpretation of these texts began in the mid-19th century, with the discovery of the royal Assyrian libraries at Nineveh, from which ca. 454 text commentaries have been recovered. The study of cuneiform commentaries is, however, far from complete. It is the subject of on-going research by the small, international community of scholars who specialize in the field ofAssyriology.

Commentaries on Plato

[edit]
See also:Commentaries on Plato

Commentaries on Plato include a large corpus of literature, especially in the ancient and medieval world, to explain and clarify the works of Plato. Many Platonist philosophers in the centuries following Plato sought to clarify and summarise his thoughts, but it was during the Roman era, that the Neoplatonists, in particular, wrote many commentaries on individual dialogues of Plato, many of which survive to the present day.

Biblical commentaries

[edit]
See also:List of Biblical commentariesandJewish commentaries on the Bible

A common published form of biblical exegesis is known as a Bible commentary and typically takes the form of a set of books, each of which is devoted to theexpositionof one or twobooks of the Bible.Long books or those that contain much material either for theological orhistorical-criticalspeculation, such asGenesisorPsalms,may be split over two or three volumes. Some, such as theFour Gospels,may be multiple- or single-volume, while short books such as thedeuterocanonicalportions ofDaniel,Esther,andJeremiah(i.e.Book of Susanna,Prayer of Azariah,Bel and the Dragon,Additions to Esther,Baruchand theEpistle of Jeremiah), or thepastoralorJohannine epistlesare often condensed into one volume.

The form of each book may be identical or allow for variations inmethodologyamong the many authors who collaborate to write a full commentary. Each book's commentary generally consists of a background and introductory section, followed by detailed commentary of the bookpericope-by-pericope or verse-by-verse. Before the 20th century, a commentary would be written by a sole author, but in the recent period, a publishing board will commission a team of scholars to write a commentary, with each volume being divided out among them.

A single commentary will generally attempt to give a coherent and unified view on the Bible as a whole, for example, from aCatholicorReformed(Calvinist) perspective, or a commentary that focuses ontextual criticismorhistorical criticismfrom a secular point of view. However, each volume will inevitably lean toward the personal emphasis bias of its author, and within any commentaries there may be great variety in the depth, accuracy, and critical or theological strength of each volume.

Christianity

[edit]

InChristianity,biblical exegeses have relied on various doctrines.[4]

The doctrine offour senses of Scriptureis a concept used in biblicalhermeneutics.[5]In the 3rd century, the theologianOrigen,a graduate ofCatechetical School of Alexandria,formulated the principle of the three senses of Scripture (literal, moral and spiritual) from the Jewish method of interpretation (midrash) used byPaul of TarsusinEpistle to the Galatianschapter 4.[6]

Thehistorical-grammatical methodis a Christianhermeneuticalmethod that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text.[7]It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject thehistorical-critical methodto various degrees (from the complete rejection of historical criticism of somefundamentalistProtestants to the moderated acceptance of it in the Catholic Church sincePopePius XII),[8]in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation, often to the exclusion of all other hermeneutics, inliberal Christianity.

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method orhigher criticism,is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".[9][10]This is done to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense.[11]

Revealed exegesis considers that theHoly Spiritinspiredthe authors of the scriptural texts,[citation needed]and so the words of those texts convey a divinerevelation.In this view of exegesis, the principle ofsensus pleniorapplies—that because of its divine authorship, the Bible has a "fuller meaning" than its human authors intended or could have foreseen.

Rational exegesis bases its operation on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration (in this sense, synonymous withartistic inspiration), so their works are completely and utterly a product of the social environment and human intelligence of their authors.[citation needed]

Catholic

[edit]
See also:Roman Catholic theology of Scripture

Catholic centres of biblical exegesis include:

Protestant

[edit]

For more than a century, German universities such asTübingenhave had reputations as centers of exegesis; in the US, the Divinity Schools ofChicago,HarvardandYalebecame famous.

Robert A. Traina's bookMethodical Bible Study[12]is an example of Protestant Christian exegesis.

Indian philosophy

[edit]

TheMimamsaschool ofIndian philosophy,also known asPūrva Mīmāṃsā( "prior" inquiry, alsoKarma-Mīmāṃsā), in contrast toUttara Mīmāṃsā( "posterior" inquiry, alsoBrahma-Mīmāṃsā), is strongly concerned with textual exegesis, and consequently gave rise to the study ofphilologyand thephilosophy of language.Its notion ofshabda"speech" as indivisible unity of sound and meaning (signifier and signified) is due toBhartrhari(7th century).[13]

Islam

[edit]
Main articles:TafsirandEsoteric interpretation of the Quran

Tafsīr(Arabic:تفسير,tafsīr,"interpretation" ) is the Arabic word for exegesis, commentary or explanation of the HolyQur'an.[14]It explains those aspects of the Holy Qur’an that cannot be known by reason and logic such as the context of the revelation or abrogation of a specificayah( "verse" ). They are explained using reliable sources: other Verses of Holy Qur'an itself as some explain the other; the hadiths of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, as this Holy Quran was revealed on him; the narrations of the Holy Prophet's Companions as they were the main context and reason for the revelation of a specific Verse of the Holy Qur'an; and so on and so forth.[15]Such an author oftafsīris amufassir('مُفسر,mufassir,plural:مفسرون,mufassirūn). To see a glimpse of the richness oftafsīrin Islam, refer toImam Razi'sTafsir Kabirin Arabic and Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi'sTafsir Naeemiin Urdu.

Judaism

[edit]
Main articles:Jewish commentaries on the BibleandPardes (Jewish exegesis)

Traditional Jewish forms of exegesis appear throughoutrabbinic literature,which includes theMishnah,the twoTalmuds,and themidrashliterature.[16]Jewish exegetes have the titlemefarshim(מפרשים,"commentators" ).

Midrash

[edit]

TheMidrashis a compilation ofhomileticteachings or commentaries on theTanakh(Hebrew Bible), a biblical exegesis of thePentateuchand its paragraphs related to the Law orTorah,which also forms an object of analysis. It comprises the legal and ritualHalakha,the collective body of Jewish laws, and exegesis of the written Law; and the non-legalisticAggadah,a compendium of Rabbinic homilies of the parts of thePentateuchnot connected with Law.

Halakha and Aggadah

[edit]

In thehalakhicas well as in theaggadicexegesis, theexpounderendeavored not so much to seek the original meaning of the text as to find authority in a Hebrew Bible passage for established concepts and ideas, rules of conduct, and teachings, for which he wished to locate a foundation. Thetalmudical hermeneuticsformasmachtais defined as finding hints for a given law.[citation needed][original research?]

Midrashic

[edit]

Midrash exegesis was largely in the nature ofhomiletics,expounding the Bible not primarily in order to understand the documents of the past (although in some instances it is indeed the case), but to find religiousedification,moral instruction, and sustenance for the thoughts and feelings of the present. The contrast between explanation of the literal sense and the Midrash, that did not follow the words, was recognized by the Tannaim and theAmoraim,although their idea of the literal meaning of a passage may not be allowed by more modern standards.[whose?]The above-mentionedtanna,Ishmael b. Elishasaid, rejecting an exposition ofEliezer b. Hyrcanus:"Truly, you say to Scripture, 'Be silent while I am expounding!'".[17]

Tannaim

[edit]

Tannaiticexegesis distinguishes principally between the actual deduction of a thesis from a passage as a means of proving a point, and the use of such a passage as a meremnemonicdevice—a distinction that was also made in a different form later in theBabylonianschools. The BabylonianAmoraimwere the first to use the expression "Peshaṭ"(" simple "or face value method) to designate the primary sense, contrasting it with the" Drash, "theMidrashicexegesis. These two terms were later on destined to become important features in the history of Hebrew Bible exegesis. InBabyloniawas formulated the important principle that the Midrashic exegesis could not annul the primary sense. This principle subsequently became the watchword of commonsense Bible exegesis.

How little it was known or recognized may be seen from the admission ofKahana,a Babylonianamoraof the fourth century, that while at 18 years of age he had already learned the wholeMishnah,he had only heard of that principle a great many years later (Shab63a). Kahana's admission is characteristic of the centuries following the final redaction of the Talmud. The primary meaning is no longer considered, but it becomes more and more the fashion to interpret the text according to the meaning given to it in traditional literature. The ability and even the desire for original investigation of the text succumbed to the overwhelming authority of the Midrash.

It was, therefore, providential that, just at the time when the Midrash was paramount, the close study of the text of the Hebrew Bible, at least in one direction, was pursued with rare energy and perseverance by theMasorites,who set themselves to preserving and transmitting the pronunciation and correct reading of the text.

Mikra

[edit]

TheMikra,the fundamental part of the national science, was the subject of the primary instruction. It was also divided into the three historic groups of the books of the Hebrew Bible: thePentateuch,theProphets,and theHagiographa,called in traditional Hebrew attribution theTorah(the Law or Teaching), theNevi'im(the Prophets) and theKethuvim(the Writings) respectively. The intelligent reading and comprehension of the text, arrived at by a correct division of the sentences and words, formed the course of instruction in the Hebrew Bible. The scribes were also required to know the Targum, the Aramaic translation of the text. The Targum made possible an immediate comprehension of the text, but was continuously influenced by the exegesis taught in the schools.

The reading of the biblical text, which was combined with that of the Targum, served to widen the knowledge of the scholars learned in the first division of the national science. The scribes found the material for their discourses, which formed a part of the synagogue service, in the second division of the several branches of the tradition. The Aggadah, the third of these branches, was the source material for the sermon.

Jewish exegesis did not finish with the redaction of theTalmud,but continued during ancient times, theMiddle Agesand theRenaissance;it remains a subject of study today. Jews have centers for exegetic studies around the world, in each community: they consider exegesis an important tool for the understanding of scripture. Associated with the rabbinic text studies, such methodology is known to adopt a wide assortment of literary tools, in conjunction with meticulous, widespread engagement with classical exegetical literature.[18]

Zoroastrianism

[edit]

Zoroastrian exegesisconsists basically of the interpretation of theAvesta.However, the closest equivalent Iranian concept, zand, generally includes Pahlavi texts which were believed to derive from commentaries upon Avestan scripture, but whose extant form contains no Avestan passages. Zoroastrian exegesis differs from similar phenomena in many other religions in that it developed as part of a religious tradition which made little or no use of writing until well into theSasanianera. This lengthy period of oral transmission has clearly helped to give the Middle Persian Zand its characteristic shape and has, in a sense, limited its scope. Although the later tradition makes a formal distinction between "Gathic" (gāhānīg), "legal" (dādīg), and perhaps "ritual" (hādag-mānsrīg) Avestan texts, there appear to be no significant differences in approach between the Pahlavi commentary on theGathasand those on dādīg texts, such as theVendīdād,theHērbedestān and the Nērangestān.Since many 19th and 20th century works by Zoroastrians contain an element of exegesis, while on the other hand no exegetical literature in the strict sense of the word can be said to exist, the phenomenon of modern Zoroastrian exegesis as such will be discussed here, without detailed reference to individual texts.[19]

In a secular context

[edit]

Several universities, including theSorbonnein Paris,[20]Leiden University,[21]and theUniversité Libre de Bruxelles(Free University of Brussels),[22]put exegesis in a secular context, next to exegesis in a religious tradition. Secular exegesis is an element of thestudy of religion.

At Australian and British universities, the exegesis forms part of the required work for fine arts, including creative-writingdoctorates.A scholarly text accompanies a creative work, such as a film, novel, poetry or other artistic output by the PhD candidate. Together, the two elements form the candidate's research thesis.[23]

Straussian reading

[edit]
Strauss's study of philosophy and political discourses produced by theIslamic civilization—especially those ofAl-Farabi(shown here) andMaimonides—was instrumental in the development of his theory of reading.

In the late 1930s,Leo Strausscalled for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching."[24]In 1952 he publishedPersecution and the Art of Writing,arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.[25][26][27]

Taking his bearings from his study ofMaimonidesandAl-Farabi,and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in thePhaedrus,Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art ofesotericwriting is the proper medium for philosophic learning: rather than displaying philosophers' thoughts superficially, classical and medieval philosophical texts guide their readers in thinking and learning independently of imparted knowledge. Thus, Strauss agrees with the Socrates of thePhaedrus,where the Greek indicates that, insofar as writing does not respond when questioned, good writing provokes questions in the reader—questions that orient the reader towards an understanding of problems the author thought about with utmost seriousness. Strauss thus, inPersecution and the Art of Writing,presents Maimonides "as a closet nonbeliever obfuscating his message for political reasons".[28]

Strauss's hermeneuticalargument[29]—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably inThe City and Man[1964])—is that, before the 19th century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their "art of writing" was the art of esoteric communication. This was especially apparent in medieval times when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of theInquisitionor comparably obtuse tribunals.

Strauss's argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric, hidden one for the few (hoi oligoi), but that, through rhetorical stratagems including self-contradiction and hyperboles, these writers succeeded in conveying their proper meaning at the tacit heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to "the letter" or historical dimension of texts.

Explicitly followingGotthold Ephraim Lessing's lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by "the many" (who did not read), but by those "few" whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality. It was precisely these righteous personalities who would be most inclined to persecute/ostracize anyone who was in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which the authority of the few over the many stands or falls.[30]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^BM 54595 (CCP4.2.R). See T. G. Pinches, "Exit Gišṭubar!",The Babylonian and Oriental Record,vol. 4, p. 264, 1889.
  2. ^Pollock, Sheldon (2009). "Future Philology? The Fate of a Soft Science in a Hard World".Critical Inquiry.35(4): 931–961.doi:10.1086/599594.S2CID162350464.
  3. ^SeeAkkadian Commentaries and Early Hebrew Exegesis
  4. ^Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard, Edgar V. McKnight,Mercer Dictionary of the Bible,Mercer University Press, USA, 1990, p. 372-375
  5. ^Bruce Corley, Steve Lemke, Grant Lovejoy,Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture,B&H Publishing Group, USA, 2002, p. 102
  6. ^Kevin J. Vanhoozer,Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible,Baker Academic, USA, 2005, p. 283-284
  7. ^Elwell, Walter A. (1984).Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.ISBN978-0-8010-3413-8.
  8. ^The Biblical Commission's Document "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" Text and Commentary; ed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer; Subsidia Biblica 18; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Bibllico, 1995. See esp. p. 26, "The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts."
  9. ^Soulen, Richard N.; Soulen, R. Kendall (2001).Handbook of biblical criticism(3rd ed., rev. and expanded. ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 78.ISBN978-0-664-22314-4.
  10. ^"Journal of Higher Criticism".
  11. ^Soulen, Richard N. (2001).Handbook of Biblical Criticism.John Knox. p. 79.
  12. ^Traina, Robert A. (1985).Methodical Bible Study.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Francis Asbury Press.ISBN978-0-310-31230-7.
  13. ^see also chapter 3.2 in Peter M. Scharf,The Denotation of Generic Terms in Ancient Indian Philosophy(1996)
  14. ^"al-Baydawi's" Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil "with Frontispiece".World Digital Library.Retrieved28 February2013.
  15. ^See Izza Rohman, “Tafsir Al-Qur’an Bi Al-Qur’an as A Distinctive Methodology”,Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research(ASSEHR), Volume 137, International Conference on Qur'an and Hadith Studies (ICQHS 2017), pp. 33-37.
  16. ^Vermes, Géza(1993) [1970]."Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis".InAckroyd, P. R.;Evans, C. F. (eds.).The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome.Vol. 1.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.pp. 199–231.ISBN0-521-07418-5.
  17. ^(Sifraon Lev. xiii. 49)
  18. ^Helfgot, Nathaniel (2012). "Author's Introduction".Mikra & meaning: studies in Bible and its interpretation.Jerusalem: Maggid Books. p. xxiii.ISBN978-1-61329-001-9.OCLC779489142.
  19. ^Kreyenbroek, Philip G. (1999)."EXEGESIS i. In Zoroastrianism".Encyclopedia Iranica.Vol. IX, Fasc. 2. Costa Mesa: Mazda. pp. 113–116.
  20. ^"Ecole pratique des hautes études (EPHE)".sorbonne.fr.
  21. ^"Organisatie".leidenuniv.nl.
  22. ^"Centre interdisciplinaire d'étude des religions et de la laïcité – CIERL".ulb.ac.be.Archived fromthe originalon 2007-11-12.
  23. ^Krauth, Nigel(2011)."Evolution of the exegesis: the radical trajectory of the creative writing doctorate in Australia".Text: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses.15(1).
  24. ^"Exoteric Teaching" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). InReorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s.Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, p. 275.
  25. ^Smith, Steven (2007).Reading Leo Strauss.University of Chicago Press.ISBN978-0226763897.Archivedfrom the original on 2020-11-09.Retrieved2006-09-20.excerpt entitled "Why Strauss, Why Now?"
  26. ^Mansfield, Harvey (1975). "Strauss's Machiavelli".Political Theory.JSTOR190834.... a book containing much that is appreciably esoteric to any reader stated in a manner either so elusive or so challenging as to cause him to give up trying to understand it.
  27. ^Damon Linker (October 31, 2014)."What if Leo Strauss was Right?".The Week.Archivedfrom the original on 2014-11-03.Retrieved2014-11-04.
  28. ^Michael Paley and Jacob J. Staub inJewish Philosophy: Medieval and Modern,printed inThe Schocken Guide to Jewish Books(1992) p. 215.
  29. ^Winfried Schröder (ed.),Reading between the lines – Leo Strauss and the history of early modern philosophy,Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 39, "According to Robert Hunt, '[t]he Straussian hermeneutic... sees the course of intellectual history as an ongoing conversation about important philosophical questions'."
  30. ^Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Straussp. 25
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related toExegesis.
Wikiquote has quotations related toExegesis.
Look upexegesisin Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exegesis&oldid=1246265712"