Eisegesis

Eisegesis refers to a text design in which something is being read into the text that is not it, or was meant. In German, one also speaks of " Into reading ," " Into interpreting " or " Into interpreting ".

Origin of the word

" Eisegesis " is a new formation on the term exegesis ( exegesis ). The word is from the Greek prefix εἰς ( eis, " into " ) the verb ἡγεῖσθαι ( hegeisthai, " lead, conduct " ), and the suffix - σἰς for the verbal noun ( nomen actionis ) together. One can see it as its corruption by the prefix " ex " ( out - ) is replaced by the prefix " cis " ( zoom in ).

Use

In practice, the term " eisegesis " usually used for a failed interpretation of a biblical text. " Eisegetisches " behavior is in contradiction to serious hermeneutics ( science of textual interpretation or textual interpretation ). As a eisegesis always a misinterpretation and further conclusions are untenable due to eisegesis, the term is consistently pejorative.

Emergence of Eisegesen

Eisegesen usually come before unintentionally, whether from lack of critical distance or historical knowledge or because of the ambiguity of linguistic expressions. But Eisegesen may well be intentional. Intended Eisegesen serve ideological purposes (political agitation ) or the maintenance of a view or doctrine. For instance, the deliberate misinterpretation of statistics, a form of eisegesis, which is used in political or social debates of disinformation. It is inherently difficult or impossible to recognize an intention, except when they are added.

Examples of unintentional eisegesis

Example from the Old Testament

From the theorem in the book of Joshua, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and moon, in the valley of Ajalon ( Jos 10:12), Luther is said to have concluded that the new view of Copernicus on the celestial motions must be false. For "the Scripture tells us that Joshua was resting the sun, not the earth. " The eisegesis here is the implicit assumption that the text say something about the movement of celestial bodies in space, ie about astronomical conditions. However, Joshua used the everyday, phenomenon related language (, phenomenal language ' ). From today's perspective, he says something about the position of the sun to the observer on earth ( unless you understand the story symbolically rather than a historical event ). Despite astronomical knowledge we continue to say that the sun rises or go.

Example from the New Testament

In Revelation 3:15-16 the church in Laodicea is reprimanded with the words:

" I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot! But because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth. "

The usual interpretation is: It would be better, indifferent, aloof ( "cold" ) to Christ or fiery, committed ( "hot" ) to be for Christ. Many interpreters are indeed irritated that Christ is a cold -hearted actions of a municipality prefers a half-hearted ( " warm "), but go over it. The historical context sets - along with the image of Ausspeiens from the mouth - a different interpretation close: the wealthy Laodicea lacked its own water. The water used was passed through an aqueduct in the city of Colossae, where it arrived lukewarm and rich in bacteria and vermin. It was disgusting and had to be cooked. The hot - His was referring possibly to the hot springs of Hierapolis, who had healing powers.

So what did the church ( " thy works " ) was, apparently as it receives headed real water: neither refreshing and soothing ( clean ) nor purified by heat or naturally hot and healing; it made ​​her sick.

The eisegesis is happening here with the usual interpretation of the words " cold" and " hot " according to the imagery of modern languages ​​, detached from the then circumstances.

Eisegesis as a battle cry

If the detection of eisegesis succeed, according to the author in question loses total credibility. Therefore enjoyed working in philosophical or religious clashes with the insinuation of misinterpretations or Eisegesen. So, for example, threw the psychoanalyst and theologian Joachim Scharfenberg his colleagues Eugen Drewermann prior to reinterpret the concept of sin deeply psychological. The theologian Martin Hengel threw Rudolf Bultmann ago, he used the term " Christ after the flesh know " in 2 Cor 5,16 deliberately misinterpreted in order to maintain their own doctrine can that Paul had - so Bultmann - is not for the historical Jesus or interested in its earthly life. " A text is made ​​its own dogmatic prejudice docile. " For though Bultmann admit, "but that the adverbial meaning, likely ' is blurred [ he ] then this clear meaning through an absurd reversal. "