PDA

View Full Version : Exegeting for Debate by Jaltus


Jaltus
March 14th 2003, 04:24 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/articles/preacher.gif There are a host of rules when it comes to doing exegesis of the Bible. There are such things as remembering the author, time of composition, dealing with genre issues, and the like. However, when one does exegesis for a debate, it must be done slightly differently than most people do their regular exegetical work.

Preliminaries

The first thing to do when dealing with a text is to pray. Obviously theology is a God-focused activity, so it makes sense to get to work with His grace given to you. The next step, or even part of your prayer, is to try to push all preconceived notions aside. This means sitting down at your Bible without your Calvinist, Arminian, Open View, preterist, futurist, or any other theologically non-essential convictions so what you read is filtered only by the Holy Spirit, and not your personal notions of who God is and how He operates. One must approach the text humbly, reverently, not looking to fit God into a box but looking to be fit into God's Word.

Author and Genre Considerations

The Bible is a book which contains a lot of different styles of writing and types of writing. Certain authors use words one way (such as John using "hour" to denote the specific event of the crucifixion and resurrection) and some use them in other ways (Matthew, Mark, and Luke use "hour" to mean only a specific hour). When dealing with the Bible, one must take into account how a specific author writes. Included in this, one must also deal with the type of writing the author is doing. Revelation is much different from John or even I John, but the author has not changed. It is because they are different genres. A genre is the type of writing a book is meant to be. Science fiction is written much differently than history, for they are different genres. In the same way, Revelation (an apocalyptic epistle) is written much differently than John (a gospel/biography) or even I John (an occasional epistle).

Understanding Context

Taking authorial and genre considerations into account, one can begin to try to understand what is meant by a specific verse. However, what comes next in the line of exegetical tools is recognizing context. You cannot interpret a single verse by itself, nor can you take a section of scripture by itself either. Every portion of scripture must be understood in the context of where it is in the specific book, what function it serves by being there, and how it fits into the entire canon as a whole. Each of these three steps needs to be realized in order for context to be fully covered. Generally the surrounding context is called "cotext," which is often considered the most important step of understanding context. The importance of the specific section in the scheme of the book as a whole is called the "importance" or "literary purpose" of the section. How the specific section and the book it is written in compare to the canon as a whole or how they relate to the canon as a whole is called "canonical context," and often is dealt with by putting the verses in question alongside other verses to see how they fit or do not fit.

All of this is standard exegetical procedure. Nothing mentioned to this point is new or innovative. However, it is the coming section which is why this article has been written.

Exegesis for Debates

The above steps of exegesis are what most people do, but then stop at. While this is not necessarily wrong, it generally leads one to affirm conclusions previously held, no matter how hard one tries to take one's theology from the text instead of to it. The reason for this is because most do not consider how the specific text being dealt with would be handled by an opponent of their view or, more positively said, a propenent of a different viewpoint altogether.

Remember, the goal of exegesis is to see what the text actually says, not to see what the text says to me or how it fits in my theology, but what the text actually says.

When debating, we all like to come off as if we are correct, as if what we have laid down is not only the best version of understanding the Bible, but the ONLY version. This most often leads to going right past what another person has written and not seriously considering it. When debating, however, you must always take into account someone else's viewpoint about the scripture in question. If you are trying to defend what you believe without thinking about what the other person says as being a rational (if not plausible) understanding of the text, you might as well not debate.

Too often debates turn into "my theology is right and yours is wrong." Generally this means that people are unwilling to even try to figure out how the other person could be reading the same passage so differently. Also, when preparing to post, it would make a lot of sense to figure out how an opponent would respond so that you could answer their objections before they are even voiced. If you cannot put yourself in that person's shoes in order to debate them, it shows you will probably never have anything meaningful to say anyway since their thoughts are so foreign. Think like your opponent does so communication is smoother. It may not help you win the debate, but it will help you show your integrity in debating.

The final thing to do when debating, though it has been previously brushed up against, is overcoming objections. Oftentimes when writing a sentence or two, you can already hear how your opponent will respond. Instead of neglecting that issue, write specifically to it. If you have a glaring weakness in your argument, then write about it. Shore up your post before you submit it. Clearly lay out possible objections to what you are saying and then refute them. It does no good to say "that is obviously not true," you need to have a full-fledged explanation for why it is not true. The more objections you answer within your post, the less room you give to an opponent to work against you.

Conclusion

Follow every step in the exegetical process when you are working through the Bible. Try to put aside your theological assumptions, remember to read the passage in context, remember to deal with genre and authorial matters. Never forget that every passage is part of a book for a reason and every book is part of the canon for a reason. The major difference in doing exegesis for debates, however, is dealing with your opponents theology and mindset. Be honest about what the person believes, and try to think as they do in order to see how they might respond to your point. Never assume your interpretation of scripture, rather make sure you have valid reasons for it. Above all, never let your reading of the Bible grow so theological that you neglect the spiritual. The Bible was written for salvation reasons first, to encourage and refresh the soul second, and last for theology.

Now go out there and debate!

Pilgrim
March 14th 2003, 04:38 PM
What about issues of grammar? Linguistic issues? Literary issues?

I think most serious exegetes would include those questions as well.

Pilgrim
March 14th 2003, 04:39 PM
Oh yea, and the most important step...Establish the text.

Jaltus
March 14th 2003, 04:41 PM
Pa,

I am not going to tell people on here who do not know Greek to do text criticism nor will I tell them to deal with Greek grammar.

Pilgrim
March 14th 2003, 04:45 PM
Ok Ok. Point well taken. I'll just hang my head and slink over here to the corner.:shy:

Pilgrim
March 14th 2003, 04:48 PM
Hey wait a minute, but Literary considerations are still important. How and where does the pericope fit into the larger text of the chapter, book, Testament and Bible? How does it compare with other like writings of the time?

And establishing the text can still be done to a lesser degree in English or other languages. At least in terms of defining the bounds of the pericope right?

Bowing to your expertise,
Pilgrim

adam.naranjo
March 14th 2003, 05:47 PM
Just one note:
quote
or any other theologically non-essential convictions so what you read is filtered only by the Holy Spirit

First of all, IMHO, I dont think it is possible to completely set aside all presuppositions.

Secondly, and more importantly, I dont agree with the assumption that stripping away presuppositions (or 'convictions') will leave the Holy Spirit as the only possible filter. There is no indication of this logically, anthropologically, or Biblically.

Thridly, Jaltus, I'm sorry to hear you say that you would not encourage those who do not know greek to never-the-less get involved with liguistic considerations. I think that this attitude has caused the Church to lose its place in society as the pinnical of academic intellect -- or wisdom. We ought to encourage those who do not read greek to never-the-less involve themselves in linguistic analysis of the texts in consideration. This will not only make for more responsible debate, but will improve exegesis done by lay men, raise the bar on average Christian knowledge/wisdom, and possibly get people interested in these areas, thereby bringing more professional Christians into these feilds. As you can see, every little bit of encouragement helps.

On the other hand I propose we point people to more wholistic and exhaustive aticles on exegesis, as there is a LOT more involved then what has been mentioned here.

I also found that this short articles does not really deal with exegesis as exegesis is used in debate. Rather, it merely discussed the importanse of context and then continued to encourage people to undersand what the text acutally says and keep some things (not associated with exegesis) in mind while debating. I think that more practicle methods should be discussed in regards to how those debating a certain text(s)might format their arguments, so as to make arguments clear, detailed, and contextualized in to the rest of the debated subject.

This is a highly applicable area of internet debate which I have never seen handle well. Usually, vesus are thrown around and rarely dealt with in a clear way. And when they usually are, they (the texts) usually take up the whole debate format (time, space) and are not brought back into correlation with the other points and subjects in debate. Just my opinion.

One problem is that forums and groups that dont allow for technical outlining. like word publishers etc,.
I would like to a see a debate system utilize word publisher documents and post them like posts....this can be done, but might take some time...And now I'm getting off topic...Seeya.

Adam.naranjo

Jaltus
March 14th 2003, 06:15 PM
Hey wait a minute, but Literary considerations are still important. How and where does the pericope fit into the larger text of the chapter, book, Testament and Bible? How does it compare with other like writings of the time?I deal with this in the section of context.

And establishing the text can still be done to a lesser degree in English or other languages. At least in terms of defining the bounds of the pericope right?Yes and no, in terms of the pericope. I am assuming delimitation before this point.

Jaltus
March 14th 2003, 06:18 PM
Adam,

I realize it would be a better world if everyone knew the biblical languages, but realistically people teach themselves enough to be dangerous and then never learn any more. Unless someone is reading Wallace or Porter (two mid-level grammar books), they should not be debating in the original language. There is no way Strong's is going to give you enough information, let alone the fact that many helps that laymen use are hopelessly out of date and generally wrong when it comes to details.

adam.naranjo
March 15th 2003, 06:50 AM
Jaltus,

I know your point -- I've heard it before, and I have given it consideration. However, I disagree.

1- I just want to make It clear that I never meant that we should teach the Biblical languages to people...So with regard to 'everyone knowing the Biblical languages', I don't know that the church has time or resources for that.

2- However, I do believe STRONGLY that those who do not know the languages can never-the-less be tought not only how to reaserch, to some degree, the languge, but also how and where to get ahold of the proper language studies already written. Yes, they must be taught also to bear in mind their own limitations, but this is overcome in that we ought never to ask them to rely on their own analysis (as necessarily correct).

3- I also think that PRACTICE corrects some of the more prevalent mistakes made by those who do not know the languages. PRACTICE also corrects the mistakes of those who DO know the languages. Besides, the debate itself will hopefully weed out these kinds of errors, as they are called out by the opposition.

4- Those who DO know the languages, USE books like strong's, anyway, however mostly for word counts etc,. BUT, never-the-less, those who know the languages pretty well STILL look at what the EXPERTS have to say in their linguistic analysis'. My point here is that, even those who know it, don't fully know it. They have to back up their understanding constantly, by way of the real linguistic scholors. These are the SAME materials that are used, in the same way, by those who do not know the languages: For example, exegetical words studies in the new.old test. Again, same books used; and used in the same way. I would propose that students who have taken 2 or 4 semesters of greek are only slightly better off then those who have taken none. Those who do not 'know' the languages, never-the-less, have at their disposal all of the meterial to help them with the proper parts of linguistic analysis....

(I really have to go, but I'll finish this later)

Adam.Naranjo

(sorry for typo's, I dont have time to check)

Iceman
March 15th 2003, 06:57 PM
I see that inserting little pictures also helps your post. :thumb:

stevencarrwork
March 17th 2003, 05:57 AM
03-14-2003 @ 08:39 PM
Pilgrim:

Oh yea, and the most important step...Establish the text.

That is very important indeed.

For example, it is useful when exegeting Isaiah 45 to know that the word used for 'create' (bara) is the same word used for create in Genesis. Indeed, the Hebrew name of Genesis is 'bara****' (assuming this forum allows me to name the books of the Bible)

Similarly, it is useful to know that the word for 'evil' in Isaiah 45 is 'ra', the same word used in Genesis for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Armed with this knowledge, Jaltus is able to refute sceptics who exegete Isaiah 45 wrongly.

adam.naranjo
March 17th 2003, 12:15 PM
Today @ 04:57 AM
stevencarrwork:



That is very important indeed.

For example, it is useful when exegeting Isaiah 45 to know that the word used for 'create' (bara) is the same word used for create in Genesis. Indeed, the Hebrew name of Genesis is 'bara****' (assuming this forum allows me to name the books of the Bible)

Similarly, it is useful to know that the word for 'evil' in Isaiah 45 is 'ra', the same word used in Genesis for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Armed with this knowledge, Jaltus is able to refute sceptics who exegete Isaiah 45 wrongly.


So, whats your point? No offence, I just don't get it.

Pilgrim
March 17th 2003, 12:19 PM
Today @ 04:57 AM
stevencarrwork:



That is very important indeed.

For example, it is useful when exegeting Isaiah 45 to know that the word used for 'create' (bara) is the same word used for create in Genesis. Indeed, the Hebrew name of Genesis is 'bara****' (assuming this forum allows me to name the books of the Bible)

Similarly, it is useful to know that the word for 'evil' in Isaiah 45 is 'ra', the same word used in Genesis for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Armed with this knowledge, Jaltus is able to refute sceptics who exegete Isaiah 45 wrongly.


You're not talking about establishing the text there, you are talking about linguistic and vocabulary issues.

Pilgrim

MuggleOrSquib
March 17th 2003, 07:40 PM
Today @ 09:57 AM
stevencarrwork:



Indeed, the Hebrew name of Genesis is 'bara****' (assuming this forum allows me to name the books of the Bible)



The Hebrew name of Genesis is Bereshit (In the beginnin). Probably due to the nature of scrolls, the books of the Torah are 'named' by the first word or words of the text. Thus, Exodus is 'Aleh Shmot' (These are the names...), Leviticus is called 'Vayiqra' (And he called), Numbers is called 'Bamidbar' (In the desert), and Deuteronomy is called 'Aleh Devarim' (These are the words).
In the Peshitta/Peshito, the Syriac scriptures, Genesis is called Brita (Creation), Exodus is Mpaqana (Departure), Leviticus is called Lewaye (Levites), Numbers is Minyane (Numbers) and Deuteronomy is Tre Namosa (2nd Law).

Sorry this is off topic.

Yours in Christ,
Bob Griffin

Theolog
March 17th 2003, 10:19 PM
Today @ 03:40 PM
MuggleOrSquib:

The Hebrew name of Genesis is Bereshit (In the beginnin).
Yours in Christ,
Bob Griffin sounds a little like Italian hilbilly to me.:idea:

MuggleOrSquib
March 18th 2003, 01:36 AM
Theolog,

It would sound a bit more like Chicano--buhraysheet.

Bob Griffin

Arminian
March 18th 2003, 05:50 AM
Is that what Jaltus really looks like? Man....he looks really happy for a guy who's missing fingers on both hands~ :huh:

stevencarrwork
March 19th 2003, 08:21 AM
03-17-2003 @ 11:40 PM
MuggleOrSquib:



The Hebrew name of Genesis is Bereshit (In the beginnin).



Sorry I was going by :-

http://www.dioezese-linz.at/einrichtungen/sion/websites/d/sion/rundbriefe/ostern_2002.htm

Pilgrim
March 19th 2003, 08:36 AM
Today @ 07:21 AM
stevencarrwork:



Sorry I was going by :-

http://www.dioezese-linz.at/einrichtungen/sion/websites/d/sion/rundbriefe/ostern_2002.htm

Which exactly proves Jaltus' original point. If you don't know the languages it is dangerous to simply use what ever sources you may find. Especially in debate. You never know what sort of information you are being handed. Especially from largely un reviewed internet sources.

Jaltus
March 19th 2003, 12:45 PM
What has frustrated me in the past is the person sitting at home with their Strong's telling me how little I know Greek.

After all, I only am working on my third degree in Greek.

Pilgrim
March 19th 2003, 01:03 PM
Iloved your old sig line..."If it's from Strong, it's probably wrong!"

Jaltus
March 19th 2003, 01:06 PM
Thanks. It came from my first debate forum where people drove me nuts.

So far no need to go back to that sig.

adam.naranjo
March 19th 2003, 08:16 PM
Jaltus

I agree with your statment about the use of Strongs.
(As I mentioned in my post, strongs is only usefull for giving a words count.)
What leads to this kind of misuse is the unwillingness of those who know how to study the linquistic aspects of the text to take the time and effort to teach those who do not know how to do the same. Education is the answer, not indifference.
The knowledge of things is useless if it is not taught to all those willing to learn it.


Adam.Naranjo

Jaltus
March 19th 2003, 08:49 PM
Preaching to the choir, Adam.

After all, I plan on spending the rest of my life teaching Koine Greek, NT studies, and theology.

adam.naranjo
March 20th 2003, 09:55 PM
Jaltus,

I kind of figured that, and I highly respect it.


Adam

Pilgrim
March 21st 2003, 09:52 AM
Andyet, you can't epect everyone to take the many years that are necessary to learn the languages at high levels.

That's why you have certain people who are highly trained and why you wouldn't expect others to bring that level to an exegetical debate.

Jaltus
March 21st 2003, 09:58 AM
Exactly, Pa.

That is why solid commentaries are so important, and why the lack of good OT commentaries is such a shame.

Pilgrim
March 21st 2003, 10:04 AM
There are good souces though. If Strong could so something like Owen's Anylitical Key to the OT then there would be a lot more people who were betteri nformed.

Lazy Agnostic
March 22nd 2003, 09:17 AM
03-14-2003 @ 03:48 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=35408#post35408)
Pilgrim:

Bowing to your expertise,
That sentence lies near the kernel of skepticism.

Pilgrim
March 22nd 2003, 10:36 AM
only if I didn't already realize that Jaltus' knowledge in this area far exceeds my own.