Exegesis Vs. Eisegesis

On Tuesday, DeLauro gave us a side note where I learned something new. There are two ways to read a book (specifically the Bible), exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is reading it from an almost scientific standpoint; "this is where it's accurate historically," "this is why the author wrote like this," "these are the values and beliefs that influenced the writer and the audience of his time." Eisegesis is where you read into the text, you project what you want to read in order to read it. So, if you are reading the Bible to say, "this is why I'm right," then you'll read what confirms your beliefs. It's not exactly the best way of going about things.

When DeLauro said this, I thought, "oh crap. I'm going about this completely the wrong way." I had been reading the Bible looking for things that made it invalid. These thoughts came with a feeling of guilt.

But, it did get me thinking, and I came to the conclusion that exegesis is almost impossible. No matter what your background, you're going to project some idea from yourself onto the Bible when reading it. If you're a die-hard Christian, you're going to try to strengthen your faith by seeing the things that make you right. If you're a shifty Christian, you're going to see both the good, but realize there's a lot of things that don't make sense and that contradict each other within the same chapter. If you're Muslim, you might find the things that made Jesus a prophet, but not the messiah. If you're Jewish, you may read it looking at why Jesus was a great guy and all, but he's not what people label him as. If you're a Buddhist, you look for what Jesus was saying that coincides with your beliefs. If you are an atheist, you may find every little thing that's wrong and proclaim that that is why you think there is no God.

I think the only ways to read the Bible exegetically is if you are a passive agnostic or atheist, where you're fully content with yourself and are not searching for any change in your views of religion. You can't be hostile towards those with different beliefs than you, like some atheists floating around. *TANGENT* Seriously, there are atheists out there that complain and bitch about how hypocritical Christians try to save their souls and won't leave them alone. Here are a couple posts from a Christian and an atheist on a group on facebook called "Please Don't Try to Save My Soul Without My Consent":

Christian: That's kind of the point of asking. We (Christians) want to get into a conversation like that because we're told to share God's Word with everyone we meet. Granted, some (a lot of) people go about it the VERY wrong way, like shoving it down people's throats and/or judging them unfairly, but Christians are responsible for making sure that everyone has at least heard about Jesus so that they have had the opportunity to accept Him. If they never hear, how can they make the choice whether or not to accept Him (that comes from a Bible verse)? We don't want anyone to end up in Hell because we didn't say anything. Some of us (like me) actually do care where people will spend eternity and don't mean to upset anyone, we just want them to know. But ultimately it is the other person's choice what to believe.

Atheist: Ok, you guys are "responsible" to do this??? This is a "responsibility" you have given to yourself that has no actual basis in reality. It's absolutely none of your business what someone believes in or doesn't. Why do we have to hear about Christ? And who are you to assume that anyone who doesn't believe in him is going to hell? You don't know any of this, and it is incredibly arrogant to assume that you are right to patronize other people who have thought about the question of God/afterlife/religion and have drawn a different conclusions. I don't immediately get into an argument with anyone who has different political beliefs from me, or comes from a different ethnic background. Why don't you stop worrying about where people spend the afterlife and start worrying about improving this life for people? This world is very tough on a lot of people and we are very lucky to live in the country that we do. You could be helping people that are living right now instead of chasing your peers around with your dogma. I'm not saying Christians are wrong for believing in Christ. I do think, however, that it is wrong to view other people as damned and beneath you just because they believe in something else, or nothing at all. If their is a God, ultimately He/She/It will be the one to judge, not [Christian].

Wow. Which one of those seemed a bit more hypocritical than the other? I think it was the atheist who thinks the best way to go about things is slam Christians into the ground that are just trying to peacefully tell the group why they do what they do. Instead of "helping people that are living right now", the atheist finds it more beneficial to society to rip the poor Christian to shreds with her own beliefs, with what I find to be an ironically religiously fueled argument. And she doesn't immediately get into arguments with people who have different beliefs (bold)....uh. huh.

Don't get me wrong. Every atheist I've met (at least one....not a great basis for this, but still) is awesome and just stays out of religious nonsense. They aren't the psycho-super-b*tch that this atheist was who is waaaay more hypocritical than most religious folk I've met. *END TANGENT*

So, in order to read the Bible exegetically, you would almost have to come from a different culture that doesn't have much of a Christian influence. It's like us today reading Gilgamesh or the ancient Greek mythologies. Although, that still isn't completely exegetic, since we still try to grab morals from the stories and apply them to contemporary life.

But, that's what I think. Any input you guys have would be fantastic. I have to see every point of view on things. It's almost an obsession.








What's that coming over the hill? Is it a monster?