In many circles, academic and ecclesiastical, eisegesis is bad news. You are always told not to do it, and when you do, you are condemned. So what is eisegesis? It is reading your personal interpretations into the Biblical text. The “correct” way to read Scripture, say some, is using exegesis, which is bringing out the supposed “clear” meaning of the text or the intention of the author. I often find that nobody really does eisegesis, if you ask them at least. Exegesis is what you do with Scripture; eisegesis is what your opponent does.
I bring this up because I was in a conversation last night where a non-Catholic accused Catholics of being eisegetes for “finding” Mary in the Old Testament. Mary, according to “sound exegetical principles” is not in the Old Testament, he reasoned, therefore we have no right to use Old Testament Scriptures to back up “clearly unbiblical ideas” like Mary’s assumption and queenship.
At this point, I realized that I had a grave confession to make: I have no problem using eisegesis (there goes any chance of me getting into a Biblical Studies PhD program!). The thing is that I believe everyone is an eisegete. From the Baptists who claim to “just follow Scripture” to the United Church of Christ scholar who claims the same thing: every last one of us uses eisegesis. Can we ever approach Scripture totally objectively? Is there even an “objective” meaning (from a purely scholarly standpoint) to the text, since both the Old and New Testaments were written for living, religious communities, and the texts were intended for these communities only. So can a scholar in the 21st century really objectively find the meaning of the text? Maybe, Maybe not. Also, even the most objective researcher has biases that will, even subconsciously, be read into the text.
Additionally, we Christians are the original eisegetes: we read Jesus into the Old Testament. I hate to break it to everybody, but Jesus isn’t in the Old Testament if you strictly exegete the text, otherwise every Jew would have accepted Jesus as the Messiah, because his name and location would have been clearly spelled out. Basically we have to read Jesus into the Old Testament. The Church has consistently found Jesus (and Mary and all sorts of New Testament concepts) in the text where Jewish exegetes did not find him. My response to all of this: good! We Christians believe that Jesus is the interpretive lens through which we are to read Scripture. So yes, we are interpreting Scripture though a very biased lens, but if it is the right lens, then we are safe. We are truly eisegetes, by modern academic and certain Protestant standards, but what is wrong with that? If Jesus himself truly is the Word (logos), then it makes perfect sense that the Old Testament be read typologically to find Jesus there. From our standpoint, Jesus is there, and thus we find him everywhere we can, whether his presence is clear to all modern “exegetes” or not.
Now, I am not saying all interpretations are right, or that eisegesis itself is a divinely inspired concept or anything. There are limits to eisegesis, and the community that produced the texts, the Church, sets various limits on how its own documents may be read. So while we are obvious eisegetes by modern academic standards, as Catholics we are not permitted to “read into” Scripture anything that contradicts Apostolic Truth. In other words, we find Jesus in the Old Testament because he is truly there. So maybe (and I am thinking out loud here) Catholics tend to operate outside the strict modern categories of exegesis and eisegesis when reading, interpreting, and preaching Scripture. This is because we believe that we truly are finding the actual meaning of the texts when we read them with the Apostolic Church in light of the person of Christ. However, this seems like eisegesis from the perspective of non-Catholics, when it is really a sort of “Apostolic exegesis.”
Ultimately, the idea that we can use exegesis to neutrally find the objective truth of the Bible has led to various contradictory readings of Scripture. This means that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are “just using sound exegesis” when they conclude Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and so is the Jesus Seminar, when they conclude Jesus was just a good man. In fact, unchecked exegesis has certainly contributed to the myriad Christian denominations we now have.
So, I stand by my beliefs: I am an unrepentant eisegete! I read Scripture with the community that wrote it, through the lens of the Word of God. I find all sorts of Apostolic Truths in Scripture. Biased? yes. Right? I hope.
Note: this post was edited/updated for clarity.
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
March 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Careful there–you make it sound as if you might be exercisizing some sort of “private judgement” in a religious matter…is that allowed? ;-)
March 30, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I’m telling James White what you just wrote!
March 30, 2006 at 7:20 pm
The very best eisegetes I know are Protestants so, um, mind how you go. But, I take your point :)
March 31, 2006 at 1:25 am
Trackback Pontifications
March 31, 2006 at 5:49 pm
If you don’t get to the right interpretive framework by exegesis, then where’s the objective basis for knowing what that right framework is?
I’d respectfully submit that if you do your exegesis right, that you come to the conclusion that Jesus is the right interpretive framework.
Jesus as the cornerstone of systematic theology
March 31, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Weekend,
While I agree with you that if we “properly” do exegesis we come to the conclusion that Jesus is the lens through which we are to read the Bible. However, I believe that we know that this is proper only because Tradition has told us this is so. Otherwise, based on pure academic standards, Jesus isn’t in the OT. In the academy one is to read each book individually, rather than use Matthew to read Isaiah for instance.
I guess I think that the interpretive framework precedes exegesis, because the Church preceded Scriptures. In other words, Christians were not supposed to read the Bible objectively, drawing its true meaning from the text. Rather, they were supposed to read it with Apostolic Tradition that produced it. Thus the framework is not to be drawn from the text, but given from a source outside the text: the Church. It was the Gnostics who read the Bible the other way.
I hope I am not getting too confusing…because I am starting to confuse myself now, lol.
March 31, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Lest I get too confusing…what I just said boils down to this:
In the ancient Church, Christians weren’t expected to sort through the Scriptures to find the true meaning. They were told the true meaning from the Apostles. They didn’t have to exegete from the text that Jesus is in the OT, because they knew he was because of Apostolic Teaching. Maybe its a “chicken and egg” type thing here.
This is not to say there weren’t areas of Scripture that the Church Fathers disagreed about, just that Apostolic Tradition guided their reading of Scripture.
In fact, historically, the Bible was in the hands of the Church. Even individual parishes could hardly afford an entire copy of the Scriptures, let along the indivdidual. Depending on how much Scripture was read each week, I am sure most early Christians knew Scripture solely through the lens of their bishop and presbyters.
April 1, 2006 at 6:04 am
For finding Jesus in the OT, was Jesus using eisegesis on the road to Emmaus when he revealed to the disciples all that pertained to Him in the OT?
April 1, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Danny,
I would say he was revealing the true meaning of the text. But by the standards of many in the academy and and many Protestant churches, Jesus was himself an eisegete.
I was trying to word my post in a way that made it clear that we are actually reading Scripture the way they are intended to be read, but that by modern academic/some protestant standards, we, and the early church, are clearly eisegetes.
April 1, 2006 at 3:35 pm
David,
I get what you are saying. I was just curious in light of the post how you would answer it.
It was mostly tongue in cheek.
I took an OT class at Florida State when I was an undergrad and the professor was quick to say that there will be absolutely no eisegesis in the class. Of course, any reference to Christ in the OT was considered eisegesis by him.
April 2, 2006 at 3:07 am
Just as a note for those interested, the ancient Jewish sages said that all Scriptures should be interpreted through a Messianic lens. It’s not an innovation of the followers of Jesus as is often mistakenly charged.
And David, I know you’ve got “Catholic v. Protestant” as one of your themes, but I think that “line” between Scripture and Tradition is not a very solid line. Scripture is about Jesus, tradition is about Jesus, the church is about Jesus …
April 2, 2006 at 4:01 am
Fisher,
I agree that there is a very thin line between Scripture and Tradition, and it is all part of the Apostolic Witness. That is the point I was trying to make about Apostolic Tradition providing the framework for reading Scripture.
Also, this is not set up as a Catholic versus Protestant thing, and some protestants would agree that Scripture is to be read with the Church Fathers, and so forth.
April 2, 2006 at 4:25 am
Fisher,
Interesting link by the way. I think there are great reasons to read the OT messianically and so forth, but I honestly don’t think most professors in your average biblical studies program would agree with us. Maybe that is changing.
I guess Christians were the second earliest eisegetes. Well, its no shame to be second ;). I do wonder if there is any Jewish interpretation before Christianity that found a *particular* Messiah in the OT? I would be interested to find out.
April 8, 2006 at 7:04 am
Very good stuff as always, Chad! I think this is fairly related to what I was asking about the versions of the Bible (NAB vs. RSV) and that quote (I believe from Isaiah) that David mentioned…the question being how we know the word “virgin” was used vs. “young woman.” People get all worked up about these details (right or wrong) without even knowing the original language or context themselves.
I agree that most people read things in their own way. I’d go even further and say we all view the entire world differently. Everyone spins things their own way.
Nicely done,
Tom Reagan
November 18, 2007 at 4:07 am
you are right in several of your comments, but i would caution you on your disregard to the Doctrine of Inspiration. if the NT writers see Jesus in the OT, which all of them do, and use texts to back up their claim, then He is there. the NT writers are just as inspired as the OT writers are, and all the gospels and epistles say that Christ is referred to in pre-messianic terms. christians or baptists do not “read him in”, the NT writers do. the NT writers do not “read mary in”, so we can say that the idea of mary in the OT does go beyond the scope of the texts.
March 12, 2008 at 1:01 am
[...] Pontficator. Enloe On the O vs. the A. Papist. Our Own David Bennett the Eisegete. [...]
June 27, 2008 at 7:15 pm
[...] “PEAR”, were just the beginnings of the seemingly random flavors that these eisegetes were proclaiming. Like I said before, it just smelled like wine to [...]