These two words (Hermeneutics and Exegesis) have seen so popularity on this forum, courtesy of Syrup. While I had some superficial familiarity with these words, I am not up to speed with the methodology yet. I have a number of questions about these arts, directed particularly at its advocates (Syrup and Imhotep).

1) Are these reliable methods of understanding ancient text?
2) have these been empirically validated?
3) Are they and text from the bible that have been illuminated by these techniques and subsequently validated by independent means?
4) Are the parts of the bible that do not admit of Hermeneutics and Exegesis analysis?


In the meantime, I shall do more research on the subject.

Hi huxley,

Finally I'm here as invited. As a background to discussing and expounding on this interesting topic, perhaps it might be a bit helpful to repost an earlier entry where I alluded to such terms in summarily. Here:

---

syrup:


Third, my dear huxley, even informed guesses are made on principles. You cannot sustain a view that you posit out of hand out of pretext rather than carefully examining those views contextually. In science, there are standard formulae, theorems and principles that are observed in investigating any phenomena. This is often known as the "scientific method". Honesty in those who passionately pursue truth of any kind will respect those "methodologies" in each case of study so that informed results are adduced.

So it is with philosophy - people don't go out of hand to engage in teleological (i.e., philosophical) discussions or debates without following certain models and logic. Even in applying logic, one has to know if the case advanced was put accross by "deductive" or "inductive" logic, and what particular path of reasoning such studies are carried out.

And what about theological discussions? Certainly, they follow established principles as well. Often, for those who may not have carefully been following that principle, I have intoned that they take care to not mix up eisegesis for exegesis - they are not the same. When I read so-called objections to the Christian faith (such as you are wont to assume are "valid", you make the serious mistake of drawing your conclusions before even examining the arguments of those who you plagiarize - which is like saying it is okay to hold just about anything as long as it supports your argument against "Christianity" even before you consider any case on the topic!

What is the point of all this? Just simply to remind you that every aspect of rigorous enquiry (whether they are theological or teleogical in nature) must be based on established principles best suited to their own mode of investigation. It is naive to assume that Chemistry can be better understood by applying the principles of Sociology! But the big mistake every single time your authors find themselves making is to cheat behind the counters by ignoring the "models, principles and methodologies" of theological enquries.

I'll build on that and then seek to outline them in simple terms.

Regards.

syrup:

Hi huxley,

Finally I'm here as invited. As a background to discussing and expounding on this interesting topic, perhaps it might be a bit helpful to repost an earlier entry where I alluded to such terms in summarily. Here:

---

I'll build on that and then seek to outline them in simple terms.

Regards.

Hello again.

When I don't know what to said, I rather shut up. And such is the case now. I shall need to do some work on these first and them come back to you. Promise!

In the meantime, if you could bring me up to speed with these arts, that would be much appreciated? You got any sources or references you could recommend?

I'll keep them in mind and see how I could offer a few that may be of help on the introductory level. . . then gradually offer others for deeper perusals.

Regards.

Hey,

Just found this on the internet: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W1200.pdf

more material: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Sailhamer_Gen1_TJ.pdf

huxley:

Hey,

Just found this on the internet: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W1200.pdf

I took a quick look at that article and found a few things that tally with what I was trying to establish. Good assessment in some aspects on the example on Isaiah 7:14 where the various theologians had attempted to apply the principles of exegesis (there are several of them) - and the critique that followed upon each.

More to come. . . I just thought to note those few for now.

Definitions =>

1) Hermeneutics may be described as the development and study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts. In contemporary usage in religious studies, hermeneutics refers to the study of the interpretation of religious texts. It is more broadly used in contemporary philosophy to denote the study of theories and methods of the interpretation of all texts and systems of meaning.

The concept of "text" is here extended beyond written documents to any number of objects subject to interpretation, such as experiences. A hermeneutic is also defined as a specific system or method for interpretation, or a specific theory of interpretation.

2.) Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. Exegesis also is used to describe the elucidation of philosophical and legal texts.

-----------------------------
Clarification =>

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction.
--> An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself.
--> A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.

-------------------------------------------------
Answers =>

huxley:

1) Are these reliable methods of understanding ancient text?

very very reliable.

huxley:

2) have these been empirically validated?

for over 2000 years, and counting.

huxley:

3) Are they and text from the bible that have been illuminated by these techniques and subsequently validated by independent means?

Yes, especially when the 'independents' are NOT prejudiced secular humanists.

huxley:

4) Are the parts of the bible that do not admit of Hermeneutics and Exegesis analysis?

No.

huxley:

In the meantime, I shall do more research on the subject.

Good.

Imhotep,

Thanks for your contribution, but it fall a little short. See below;

very very reliable.

Examples pls?

for over 2000 years, and counting.

Examples pls?

Yes, especially when the 'independents' are NOT prejudiced secular humanists.

Examples Pls?

No.

Examples Pls?

I look forward to you providing the much-needed examples to support your case

I only suggest you read more especially about hermeneutics => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

Resorting to examples at this time will only lead to argumentation and deviation from your search. These are deep concepts that should be taken slowly.


------------------------------------
BTW, I saw the picture below on wikipedia's article on Modernism, thought I might share it

[img]http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fund0714.gif[/img]

imhotep:

I only suggest you read more especially about hermeneutics => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

Resorting to examples at this time will only lead to argumentation and deviation from your search. These are deep concepts that should be taken slowly.


------------------------------------
BTW, I saw the picture below on wikipedia's article on Modernism, thought I might share it

[img]http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fund0714.gif[/img]

Thanks, but no thanks. This thread is no place for that picture. This thread is about hermeneutics and exegesis, just to remind you. I know you would like nothing more than to get into the atheism, existence debate. But this is no place for that.

Easy guys.

Okay, a few more to add:


@huxley,

huxley:


Thanks for your contribution, but it fall a little short. See below;

Examples please?

Examples please?

Examples Please?

Examples Please?

I look forward to you providing the much-needed examples to support your case

In my opinion, while I agree with imhotep's answers out-of-hand (from my limited understanding of the Bible, as I'm not a theologian), I think those are very legitimate questions you offered in return - and I warmly receive them. In due course, I'll try and find suitable examples to meet the points - but more than that, I might also want to look at any case where my own assumptions could be subjected to very rigorous testing by these acknowledged principles. What do you say?

@imhotep,

I appreciate your simplicity and wisdom in clearly outline the basic meaning of important terms in this thread. Duh! What was I thinking to have hastily offered an initial post without first seeking to define my terms?   Thank you for that wisdom.

Let me elaborate a little on something on exegesis which you posted:

-->  An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself.

Well, that may not be accurate and may tend to be misleading on the surface. Biblical exegesis is not based on the "text itself" - whether that "text" is a single verse in a Bible, or a particular Book of the Bible. One has to try to understand the meaning of a verse by recourse to other verses as well. One scripture that has always been helpful in this is 2 Peter 1:20 -

    "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

I tend to take that as a very bold text in scripture - how remarkable! To me, it concretely says that there is not a single verse which could be fully understood on its own (no private interpretation) unless we examine other verses on that text as well.

I don't know if this is helpful?

@Huxley
Isn't it contradictory that our dear huxley is searching for new ways to study and understand the bible As i mentioned in an earlier post i believe huxley is really passionate about the bible and it is only a matter of time befre he answers the call. Best wishes in this your quest for knowledge/ understanding the bible
Ps: i offered you an evangelical Job, yet to hear your response!

Guys, if you really want to know about Hermeneutics then you need look no further than one of the greatest hermeneuticists that the world has ever known. He hails from our own dear native land, Nigeria. The Late Great Olufela Anikulapo Kuti.

What is DEMOCRACY?

Demo (nstration) of Cracy(iness). A crazy demonstration.

TECHNOLOGY is a yoruba word. Because anything you want to do with technology you must press something whether it is a switch or a knob before the machinery or engine or apparatus will wake up and come to life. If you want to drive a car you will first press something and then the fire/energy will go forth to wake the engine up.
In other words you must te e ki ina lo ji. which means Press it so that the fire can wake up. Te e (press it) ki ina (that the fire) lo ji (go forth and wake it up). HEnce you have teekinoloji. TEchnology.

How did Fela find out that his Son Femi was in fact JEsus Christ. He thought about it. When you yab Jesus what is that? They say you Blasphemy. Blast Femi? What is implied here is that Jesus and Femi are synonymous and interchangeable.

Why does Germany start all the world wars? Yoruba exegesis reveals it. Ija ma ni! It's about fighting. Germany is Ijamani.

There are many more exegesis that can be applied. Fela, though one of the greatest exponents of the art, was not the only one. It is a method that has been used in nigeria for many years. England is Igi li a n di. We are tying sticks. and many more. . . .