I recently watched a video done by Dr. Michael S. Heiser that reviewed so-called "exegetical fallacies." Of course, the scholar, who put such terminology on the map was D.A. Carson--the author of a book with that title.
Exegesis (especially used in the biblical sense) means to explain, interpret or unfold a text (see John 1:18); the act of exegesis involves drawing meaning from (out of) a text, not reading sense/meaning into it. Exegetes base their explanations on close readings of textual sources in their respective biblical language, whether that language is Hebrew-Aramaic, Greek, Latin or other. Nevertheless, like any task, there are right ways to undertake exegesis: bad exegesis usually entails committing exegetical fallacies or one sort or another. In logic, "fallacy" is normally defined as "a mistake in reasoning." E.g., argumentum ad hominem.
Other definitions for fallacy include:
a) a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
b) a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
c) faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
Two kinds of exegetical fallacies are grammatical and presuppositional/historical fallacies. For example, to understand the Greek aorist as the "action that happens once in the past" tense is fallacious, since many uses of the aorist do not fit this definition. Furthermore, aspect research now suggests that aorists are default Greek verbal forms; and they likely portray action as a whole. See Matthew 4:9; Philippians 2:12; 1 John 2:1-2.
Historical fallacies might occur when exegetes try to reconstruct historical circumstances for Gospels or NT Epistles. We do not have access to precise historical conditions for the ecclesiae at Corinth, Philadelphia or Pergamum, apart from NT records. So while reconstructions of history might be interesting, they can lead to fallacies when imposed on the text from outside. But many other traps await interpreters of Scripture.
See https://www.wls.wels.net/review-exegetical-fallacies/
41 comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-BHrOdvDo
When Heiser can demonstrate that ancient Hebrew has some know predecessor then he could apply the root fallacy.
Context is king including historical background and religious background.
He sound extremely arrogant in his introduction considering some of the flights of fancy I have witnessed in some of his lectures.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=butterfly
https://www.altalang.com/beyond-words/2008/10/08/etymology-of-barbarian/
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetch&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=board
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=will
Not "reconstruct historical circumstances for Gospels or NT Epistles" - this is almost impossible. If we attempt not doing so we usually interject our own culture and history into the mix.
IMO there is no such animal as Sola scriptura.
Just to address one point now, NT scholars routinely undertake historical reconstructions. Raymond E. Brown did it and so did R. Bultmann. But a reconstruction is just Jay-Z construct. It is sometimes called the Sitz-im-Leben.
Jay-Z should be, just that, a construct
my fist port of call is usually Vermes in "whos who in the age of Jesus" as this gives referees to what might be called evidence.
https://youtu.be/Hz8J4DTIkEg
This is what I mean by flights of fantasy which like ehrman does not make clear to his audience. Basing his personal musing on Jewish two powers scholarship and twisting it out of shape.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice
There are other ‘fallacies’ which themselves are fallacious, however. Below are enumerated three of these:
a word has no meaning apart from context;
diachronics are not helpful; instead one must focus entirely on synchronics;
etymology is always worthless.
https://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/08/lexical-fallacies-by-linguists/
1) One book states that words have potential meaning apart from context, but actual meaning within a context of use. E.g., "bank" which can be used of a financial institution or to reference a river bank.
2) I don't know many scholars, who would argue that diachronics are useless. Instead, they assume that synchrony takes precedence over diachrony. Take the Greek word MORFH: we have to ask what it means in Homer, Aristotle or the GNT. We cannot impose the Homeric meaning of the term on the Pauline usage.
3) If anyone argues that etymology is always worthless, he/she is clearly mistaken. Again the question is which takes precedence.
We also have to be careful about folk etymology: a word's origin is not always known for certain. As for Heiser, I agree with him to some extent, but not in all matters.
Hi Edgar,
I also enjoyed Carson's book, and agree that it is a valuable resource. I have to say, though, that there's a certain irony in here we have a man who presents himself as an authority on exegetical fallacies, yet commits them himself no less often than anyone else;-)
For example, see his comments on John 1:1c, which start out reflecting some sound insight, but then he ends by claiming that Lane McGaughy's book, "Toward a Descriptive Analysis of 'Einai as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek", settles the matter in favor of the traditional rendering. I reviewed the pertinent pages of McGaughy's book and it does NOT establish a default of definiteness for PNs in the PNV construction!
See also Carson's fallacy riddled book "The Gagging of God".
~Kas
Hi Kaz,
Guess I've compartmentalized what Carson writes about exegetical fallacies vs. his other writings, including his commentary on John. But when a person sets him or herself up as a fallacy-finder, then all eyes are upon him/her. It's comparable to a grammarian nitpicking everyone's language, then the grammarian when writing/speaking, makes numerous errors.
You make a good point about John 1:1; I remember that section in Carson. I have not read "The Gagging of God," but will add to my wishlist.
Thanks, my friend.
You are again making my point when referring to the two INDEPENDENT terms, bank (Germanic) and bank (French/Italian). This is where etymology is useful, when available. And this is inevitable when languages are hybrid . Another example is Law. The Germanic any the Gaelic .
Duncan, I never said that etymology is useless, nor does Carson make that claim. Secondly, I was talking about how we determine the meaning of bank in English. The answer basically is context. Yet I agree with you that etymology has its appropriate uses.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/blogs/thinking/2009/04/banks-and-benchs---a-complicat.html
"Bank in English" today.
Brings me back to this point:-
"Others allege that the text actually contains similar, though different, words. Stigers argues that “crush” and “bruise” represent "a play on two Hebrew words that look alike, as though from the same root. But bruise is from suph, whereas crush is from saaph, an allied root (Stigers, 79; see also Harris, et al., 912; VanGemeren, 67)." Inappropriate? - supporting evidence?
Duncan,
Guess what I was trying to say, is if we read in English about banks of the Euphrates, financial institutions don't usually spring to mind. Context helps us determine what banks mean in that case. It is similar with ancient language studies.
I wouldn't think the quoted statement is inappropriate, but exegetical decisions should not be made on the basis of dubious roots. Alter believes the two words are homonyms:he claims the second word probably alludes to the hissing sound of a snake.
Nothing wrong with setting forth possibilities.
I have not got all the details. But where does he get that possibility from? Taking into account the lxx translation. Does the Greek term have two possibilities that fit the context. Anyone can suppose but again roots with evidence is not the same as roots without. And as I have already stated, head and heel are also used for first and last so where is the definite context?
The comment is found in Alter's translation of Genesis, in the 3:15 footnote. I would have to review the Septuagint, but my understanding is that Alter is only dealing with the Hebrew text and its context.
He is the first writer that I have seen make this claim. I am not sure what the basis is for this possible understanding.
There is a dissertation written on Genesis 3:15 by J.L. Donning. Entitled "The Curse on the Serpent." If you read the study, use homonym as a search term.
http://postbiblical.info/PDFS/The_Curse_on_the_Serpent.pdf pg 110.
Wolfram von Soden said that •˚H cannot be explained by relating it to an Akkadian verb. Although the difference between crushing the head and biting the heel might suggest there are two homonyms in Gen 3:15, also in Job 9:17; Ps 139:11, von Soden says there is no interchange of middle waw and middle aleph fientive verbs in Hebrew, so •˚H should not be compared to •'H. He thinks that one can translate all four instances of •˚H with “hart angreifen,” attack hard, assail hard.12
Pg 12.
But the fact that •˚H is rendered “watch” in the LXX Gen 3:15d is problematic for the view
that the LXX translation is “messianic.” The problem is that, although the pronoun referring to
“seed” is masculine singular, the activity described (watching the serpent’s head) is not obviously
messianic. Some of those who advocate the view that the LXX is messianic do not address this
problem. Martin does not mention it at all. Vorster seems to forget that he noted the LXX
translation of •˚H by τηρéω, for three paragraphs later he says “the messianic interpretation is
connected to an individual in the LXX.
"read in English about banks of the Euphrates". Just a small point here. Someone of a non biblical education may note interpret the same.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+bank+of+the+Tigris+and+Euphrates+rivers+and+Dar+es+Salaam&oq=the+bank+of+the+Tigris+and+Euphrates+rivers+and+Dar+es+Salaam&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.1209j0j4&client=tablet-android-pega&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
The only thing I'll add is that one doesn't need a biblical education to know what the Euphrates is, even though it might help. But in everyday discourse, when someone speaks about river banks (etc), most people know what type of bank the speaker has in mind. They would most likely conclude that financial institutions are not being referenced. Euphrates just makes the reference more specific.
I only read the first page of search results, but I don't see how they refute my basic claim.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=46240029
Context can sometimes be deceptive if one ignores other factors more subtle. One might say that 9 times out of 10 it would indicate one thing because there are enough other indicators in the context like a boat or crossing from one side to the other but a bank of the Euphrates could mean a turn in its course or a short form for a financial institute and I am always looking for the 1 out of 10 that does not fit the generalisation. There is always the possibility that the 1 out of 10 might become more once recognised.
But this is an as side to the point of gen 3:15 in this thread. There is no actual evidence of two roots. This is the use of one possible context to fabricate a root that is then being perpetuatedor referenced through other literature as fact.
I will admit that context and other factors help to determine meaning, but my comments were meant to be generalizations and simple explanations of how lexical decisions normally work. True, there will be exceptions to the general rules.
It doesn't seem possible to be dogmatic about Hebrew roots. Work has been done in these roots, but they are tricky. Semiticists tend to claim that two roots for Genesis 3:15 are certainty possible. But the point of my OP was that etymology should take a back seat to synchronous meaning.
"We do not have access to precise historical conditions" - we do not have the PRECISE anything. This is a fallacy in itself along with the attitude that we UNDERSTAND the synchronic makeup of many of the verses that tend to be used in pivotal ways.
As per my previous comments regarding seismos. To assume that synchronically it can only mean earthquake or tempest when we DO have evidence pre and post that commonly associate famine & extortion with warring. cf Mat 24:29 - σαλευθησονται.
My entire statement was that we don't have the precise conditions for the 1st century congregations apart from the NT records. History will always be an incomplete enterprise since it's a telling/retelling of transpired events. But we do know some things with precision, whether from the NT documents themselves or by examining writers, who lived concurrently with the early Christians. Granted, history is a reconstruction of what occurred. But many historical events have multiple attestations. For example, the promiscuity of Corinthians in general was known by numerous Greeks.
Lexicographers/students of language apply synchrony to words rather than verses--we wonder what MORFH or PAROUSIA meant in the first century CE as opposed to the 5th century BCE. The composition of biblical verses is another matter.
Applying synchrony to SEISMOS would mean that the lexicographer wants to know what a word means (for example) in the first century CE. BDAG narrows the focus even more to early Christian literature. So when BDAG limits the meanings of SEISMOS, Danker and company are chiefly dealing with denotations for the NT or Christian literature. Again, context normally helps us to unravel what a term means, but it's not perfect.
I don't believe Danker would have denied the potential meaning for SEISMOS, but the evidence for the extortion usage in the GNT or other Christian literature remains an open question in my mind. I have not seen evidence that makes me believe Mt 24:7 is talking about extortion or symbolic earthquakes. Yet I keep an open mind to such possibilities.
I am refering to usage pre and post. So someone would have to rule it out of the first century rather than work to include it.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sclZnr2SUIgC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=promiscuity+corinth&source=bl&ots=w-SWimKk7y&sig=4xmXFQGn19xXL0QlhlpuBFtTwVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_8Nn7-ZrUAhXILVAKHQR9AeIQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=promiscuity%20corinth&f=false
See the difference between Greek and roman Corinth.
We've talked about the difference between two Corinths before, but I will read the link. The Corinthians to whom Paul wrote were clearly dealing with an immoral atmosphere. They had even capitulated to sensual temptations. Not all Corinthian Christians, but a goodly number.
That's fine but when commentators try to back up the account with information that is not synchronic to the period they are not helping. There are many Greek cities know for there depravities in earlier times like kameros on Rhodes (interestingly it has a temple to the unknown god) & Lindos where Paul was thought to have arrived (it has a very protected natural harbor).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Ancient_Greek_theatre_in_Lindos_02.jpg
He probably spoke here below the acropolis but as far as I can tell the place had changed somewhat by then.
Sorry, cannot remember discussing this before so I hope i am not covering the same ground.
What is of most interest to me is αφειδια σωματος ουκ in Col-2:23. Is it part of a summing up of that which came before. If it is, to what is it referring?
There is good evidence that Paul established a congregation in Greek Corinth and wrote to the Christians there. Otherwise, passages in Acts and Corinthians don't make sense. Compare 1 Cor. 1:1 with Acts 18:1ff.
As for Col. 2:23, it might refer back to 2:21 with the aforementioned decrees there.
https://romangreece.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/roman-corinth/
Just a short comment since we have discussed this subject before. The blog post was interesting, but I do not think it refutes the notion that Corinth of the NT was a Greek city.
http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/history/corinth.pdf
No one doubts that corinth is in Greece but that is not the point. We have the Roman rebuilt corinth to which some commentators have attributed characteristics of the pre-roman corinth. I still cannot recall a previous discussion a!omg these lines.
If I run across the old discussion, I will bookmark it. Okay, so we can possibly agree that Corinth was rebuilt. Guess I am having trouble understanding how this point affects the exegesis of 1 Corinthians.
It's just that some commentators have picked up on phases like "playing the Corinthian" (or some such phrase) used in antiquity to describe the general level of immorality Roman corinth when the phrase originates from the earlier greek time. It does not change the interpretation of the letter in of itself but it is a poor method of trying to accentuate or emphasise the contemporaneous point.
Post a Comment