Eisegesis Is an Integral Part of Biblical Proof-Texting

[MineralMan]

Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/; ) is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

Not "exegisis," a more common term, which means:

Exegesis (/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι, "to lead out" ) is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

The difference is context. Exegesis usually explains biblical quotes in context. Eisegisis usually ignores or hides context.

Proof-texting is used by some religious people to justify behaviors. A portion of the Bible is presented as proof of the scriptural support for that behavior. If challenged, eisegesis is used by such people to explain, while ignoring the context of the particular passage. It is a dishonest way to support behavior that would not otherwise be supportable. For example, out-of-context Bible passages were often used to justify slavery in the United States prior to the Civil war.

Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting" ) is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis. Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author,[1] and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext

When someone offers a single Bible verse to support an argument, it's wise to go to that part of the bible to determine the context. Proof-texting is often used to deceive the listener or reader. Do not be satisfied with excerpted biblical passages until you have determined the context from which they came.

[MineralMan]

1. Eisegesis is such a commonplace thing, that

it is used even to extract meaning from such mundane things as posts in a discussion group. For example, the use of the word, "believe," at any point in a post or reply, can be quoted out of context to draw an incorrect conclusion from that post or reply. Such eisegesis is dishonest, of course, as is all eisegesis. It is used to deceive.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. Eisegesis is a tenacious habit for many of the faithful.

Just around DU, you can see progressive liberals proclaiming the progressive virtues of Jesus Christ. It's no accident that, in their mind, Jesus agrees with them politically. They are very obviously injecting their personal beliefs into their interpretation of scripture, as there's no way in hell a Jewish man born 2,000 years ago is going to have much in common with citizens of the 21st century's Roman Empire analogue.

[MineralMan]

3. Yes. Absolutely.

You'll find Far-Right Conservatives doing the same, but using different proof texts. Eisegesis is very flexible, as it turns out. One can support almost anything with proof texts from the Bible.

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. It makes one wonder...

...wouldn't the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God be a bit, you know... clearer? Or at least a little less prone to misinterpretation?

[MineralMan]

5. Well, when creating a scriptural canon, it's important

to be as inclusive as possible. One never knows when a proof text passage might be needed. Better to cover all possibilities.

I'm sure the Roman Christians thought of all that. They weren't distracted by modern things like TV or the internet, so they had time to think carefully while creating the Bible.

[Igel]

12. And the faithfuls' response would be, "No."

The canonical text has Jesus saying that he spoke in parables so that the multitudes wouldn't understand.

"Many are called, but few are chosen." Sort of takes some Calvinist and neo-C attitudes and trashes them, but eisegesis to the rescue. It's all in the parsing.

However, that's not my actual point. That's a bit of snark.

My point is this: Whenever you grow accustomed to a text (and by this think along the lines of 'literary text' not a snippet of 8 words or so), you grow accustomed to the interpretation that you think exegesis naturally provides. So my background units OT and NT in a rather unusual way, and out of that flows certain constraints on what the text, if it's taken as a unified text. After several repetitions of the derivation of the constraints on a text, the constraints sort of get stuck to the snippets of discourse.

The constraints could flow from the means of textual analysis used. It could flow from "cultural constaints" on a "living document" as understood through "tradition" or "the Holy Spirit" or the need to "keep the pews filled and income rolling in" or the desire to be seen as "virtuous given today's political, ideological and pop-moral views". Whatever. The point is that after you've finished boxing in the text, the text is seen to dutifully stay in the box.

This is not a Xian thing. It's a human thing. I've seen it done with works of literature, with chunks of other religious texts. I've seen it done with Marxist-Leninist works, whether actual Marxian quotes or boxed-in quotes that already box in Marx. It was a glorious thing to see snippets of Obama speeches subjected to the same thing--when, if you look at the entire speech or the context the words mean something else.

And it's a negative, too. Often quote around here are freely bandied but, if you go back to find them in situ, you find that they can't possibly mean what they're taken to mean. That, too, is a kind of eisegesis. (D) do it to Trumpian pronouncements, and Obama-quotes were freely wrested in the same way by (R). We may be (D) or (R), but we're all (H).

[trotsky]

15. So Christians worship Loki.

He intentionally fucks with them, and then they go and fuck with others because they can't even agree on what it means to love your neighbor.

Neat.

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. Up front, I learned a new word, so thank you.

But there's always a "but."

I read two different versions of that depraved book cover to cover. Sadly, it didn't improve. The major lesson was that my time would have been better spent watching the grass grow. If I go back and read any part of it again, then clearly I didn't learn not to do so, and my time spent reading it twice was a complete waste. I owe it to myself to derive some value from the time spent having read it twice, and the only way to to that is acknowledge that I must never waste time reading it again.

[MineralMan]

7. The only value I have found from reading it multiple times

is my ability to recognize and quickly locate proof texts used by others. That lets me present the context that exposes the eisegesis.

[Pope George Ringo II]

8. That is definitely a return on investment if you want to argue with them on their own grounds.

It's just not enough of one for me.

I'd rather just cut to the part about how it doesn't actually support the existence of deity any more than comic books support the existence of Superman. I've stopped pretending it has any more significance than Adventures of Superman #254.

[MineralMan]

11. Well, for me, that's the only use it has.

I'm fortunate to have a very good memory of things I have read, so access is simpler. Still, these days, I rarely get involved in arguments that have to do with scriptural things. It's really not worth the effort, and is time-consuming.

[marylandblue]

9. I read the whole thing once and many portions multiple times

I found it useful on a lot of levels. It helps you better understand a lot of Western culture. It helps in political discussions with rightwingers. It helps when someone tries to convert you and you can say with authority, "No the Bible does not say that," because you have read the whole thing and they probably haven't.

[Pope George Ringo II]

10. I generally prefer the original stories.

Gilgamesh, for example, contains my favorite of the Ziusudra myths. It really is far superior to the Noah ripoff, and it's not alone in that. I also tend to believe that from a cultural standpoint the actual text is less important than the way it's perceived--kind of like money on Free Parking in Monopoly--and I get that part whether I want it or not.

Admittedly, I have accepted that if you could reason with religious people, then there wouldn't be any religious people. I actually prefer to keep my political discussions political, and am quite comfortable talking about how Hayek or Goldwater, for example. would view the current state of the GOP. As for conversion attempts, I know I'm not going to deprogram the poor fools, so I aim to make them unhappy enough to move on. I generally succeed.

Really, if you can find a use for it in dealing with its believers, that's fine. But it's by no means necessary.

[Bretton Garcia]

13. Yes. There are several books on line..

.. which collect the hundreds of parts of the Bible that preachers like to ignore or twist. Specifically the hundreds of parts that note bad,.and "false" things, in every aspect of religion; including Christian churches and disciples and so forth.

I often quote those parts to Christians. Who either try to twist them. Or simply ignore them.

Individual contexts too, by the way, can also be twisted. Often any given phrase can be seen in a dozen different contexts.

I recommend the Woodbridge Goodman books. Available online in rough drafts.

[MineralMan]

14. I keep a number of such biblical references in mind at all times,

and can reference others quickly, as needed. It's a minor hobby of mine.

[Lordquinton]

16. There's a word for it!

Not often I come across a word I don't know, and this is like one of those oddly specific German words to describe an exact situation.

[MineralMan]

17. I encountered the word for the first time on a website.

I looked it up, as is my lifelong habit. Its an excellent word, so I shared it here. Very useful in many circumstances, I think.

[MineralMan]

18. Based on this thread, I hereby coin a related word:

Arsegesis - Explanations of textual content, particularly religious content, extracted from one's nether orifice.