The thin narrow line --- Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

There is more then one LXX or Greek translation.

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot ABP-G+ (by the defaut downloads of e-Sword) has another text that is closer to the Hebrew text.

Sometimes is the verse numbering different in the LXX.

Num 7:88 πασαι αι βοες εις θυσιαν σωτηριου δαμαλεις εικοσιτεσσαρες κριοι εξηκοντα τραγοι εξηκοντα αμναδες εξηκοντα ενιαυσιοι αμωμοι αυτη η εγκαινωσις του θυσιαστηριου μετα το χρισαι αυτον (ABP)

Num 7:88 πᾶσαι αἱ βόες εἰς θυσίαν σωτηρίου δαμάλεις εἴκοσι τέσσαρες, κριοὶ ἑξήκοντα, τράγοι ἑξήκοντα, ἀμνάδες ἑξήκοντα ἐνιαύσιαι ἄμωμοι. αὕτη ἡ ἐγκαίνωσις τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου μετὰ τὸ πληρῶσαι τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ καὶ μετὰ τὸ χρῖσαι αὐτόν. (LXX)

1Ch 29:5 εις το χρυσιον τωχρυσιω και εις το αργυριον τω αργυριω και εις παν εργον δια χειρος τεχνιτων και τις ο προθυμουμενος πληρωσαι τας χειρας αυτου σημερον τω κυριω(ABP)

1Ch 29:5 διὰ χειρὸς τεχνιτῶν. καὶ τίς ὁ προθυμούμενος πληρῶσαι τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ σήμερον κυρίῳ; (LXX)

Isa 13:3 εγω συντασσω και εγω αγω αυτους γιγαντες ερχονται πληρωσαι τον θυμον μου χαιροντες αμα και υβριζοντες (ABP)

Isa 13:3 ἐγὼ συντάσσω, καὶ ἐγὼ ἄγω αὐτούς· ἡγιασμένοι εἰσίν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἄγω αὐτούς· γίγαντες ἔρχονται πληρῶσαι τὸν θυμόν μου χαίροντες ἅμα καὶ ὑβρίζοντες. (LXX)

πληρωσαι Does not appear in the ABP for Numbers 7:88 but it does in  1Ch 29:5 and Isa 13:3 As well as all the other LXX passages: 2Ch 13:9; Job 20:23; Psa 20:4; Psa 20:5; Isa 8:8; and Jer 33:5.

 

1Ch 29:5 εις το χρυσιον τωχρυσιω και εις το αργυριον τω αργυριω και εις παν εργον δια χειρος τεχνιτων και τις ο προθυμουμενος πληρωσαι τας χειρας αυτου σημερον τω κυριω(ABP)

Isa 13:3 εγω συντασσω και εγω αγω αυτους γιγαντες ερχονται πληρωσαι τον θυμον μου χαιροντες αμα και υβριζοντες (ABP)

1Ch 29:5 ABP-G+  εις^G1519 το^G3588 χρυσιον^G5553 τω^G3588 χρυσιω^G5553 και^G2532 εις^G1519 το^G3588 αργυριον^G694 τω^G3588 αργυριω^G694 και^G2532 εις^G1519 παν^G3956 εργον^G2041 δια^G1223 χειρος^G5495 τεχνιτων^G5079 και^G2532 τις^G5100 ο^G3588 προθυμουμενος^G4287.1πληρωσαι^G4137 τας^G3588 χειρας αυτου^G5495G1473 σημερον^G4594 τω^G3588 κυριω^G2962

1Ch 29:5 ABP+  for^G1519 the^G3588 gold^G5553 for the^G3588 gold things ,^G5553 and^G2532 for^G1519 the^G3588 silver^G694 for the^G3588 silver things ,^G694 and^G2532 for^G1519 every^G3956 work^G2041 by^G1223the hand^G5495 of craftsmen.^G5079 And^G2532 who^G5100G3588is feeling eager to^G4287.1fill^{G4137 G3588} his hands^G5495G1473 today^G4594 to the^G3588 lord ?^G2962

This phrase “to fill his hands” is an interesting one.  It is a Hebrew idiom for Ordination and Consecration.  This exactly parallels the King James and Young’s Literal.

1Ch 29:5 KJV  The gold for things of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and for all manner of work to be made by the hands of artificers. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the LORD?

1Ch 29:5 HOT+  לזהב^H2091  לזהב^H2091  ולכסף^H3701  לכסף^H3701  ולכל^H3605  מלאכה^H4399  ביד^H3027  חרשׁים^H2796  ומי^H4310  מתנדב^H5068  למלאות^H4390  ידו^H3027  היום^H3117  ליהוה׃^H3068

1Ch 29:5 YLT  even gold for things of gold, and silver for those of silver, and for all the work by the hand of artificers; and who is he that is offering willingly to consecrate his hand to-day to Jehovah?'

if the interpreter is honest with himself and the text when studying, then "eisegesis, letting our doctrine determine what the text means" can be avoided.  In studying words:
 
Find the word (Greek, or Hebrew-Aramic) locating its Strong or G/K number.  When studying a word locate all occurrences.  Study all or most occurrences in their contexts, note people, places, things in connection.  Study all occurrences for best results, unknown words, words appearing many times, and cognates.  Do not force all definitions on the word, nor sensationalize but choose the definition fits the context.  Then check conclusion with word study books, theological dictionary like BAGD, NITDNT, NITDNT and/or commentary.  Yeah!!!! This requires more than quoting one's favorite Christian leader or scholar.

There is a circle which we claim does not exist.  We are depedant on commentaries (including Translations of Greek and Hebrew, the KJV, NIV, NAS).  yes Translations of Greek and Hebrew, the KJV, NIV, NAS are commentaries

Translations Commitees do make mistakes.  I do not mean Translations cannot communicate the Greek and Hebrew.  Everything outside the orginal Hebrew/Greek is basically a commentary, which needs to be checked.

M

the KJV, NIV, NAS are commentaries

"I now call this the biggest "But" in the Bible.  That little "but" completely changes the meaning of the verse.  The addition of the "but" was the translators commentary on what they wanted the verse to mean, not what it said."

It is very rough translation to do word by word that being so-called literal translation.  Translators sometimes have to smooth things out.

here is similar example:

God's servant (Isa 49:6) is TO BE salvation or  SO THAT (the purpose of salvation).  Slightly different.  Oswalt (NICOT) and Moyter (IVP) argue TO BE.

Translation is not as easy as 123.

M

All of us want our study of scripture to be God communicating his intent to us without our preconceived notions. That is exegesis, letting the text determine our doctrine. However we all have far too much religious baggage. We all tend to make preconceived assumptions about certain texts without realizing it. That is eisegesis, letting our doctrine determine what the text means.

 

I have to admit that in all my years of studying hermeneutics, I've never come across a definition of Exegesis and Eisegesis as this. It certainly is an original take on it.

That said, usually when statements like this are made, the author tends to have an axe to grind, or is on some sort of crusade to prove himself to be right (correct) and everyone else is wrong, and therefore when differing thoughts come along, though not incorrect (or in error) still will not be listened to. They become paralyzed in their own particular world view or perspective.

Perhaps the two most extremes of differing world views of interpretation of Scripture is that of Calvinists (Reformationists) and non-Calvinists; Pentecostals/Charismatics and Conservative Evangelicals. And in all of these camps, everyone has accused the other of heresy and etc. I don't want to leave out the liberal theologians, gay theologians and etc., as all of them also have a part to play in what is determined to be either Exegesis and/or Eisegesis. So, when it comes to these kind of things, well, someone's gotta be wrong, and someone's gotta be right. Not everyone can be right, and not everyone can be wrong. So how do we make those determining factors? What is error, what is heresy, and what is the right doctrine that we are to believe in?

The one thing is for certain, in viewing these things, we cannot take the moral relativists world view as their take on this is there is nothing that is absolute, and everything is relative. And we know that is next to near impossible to live out. Moreover, having a take on unity as "agreeing on the important things, and leaving out the minor things," doesn't work either, because how do we then determine what is important against what is not important in Scripture, especially if we believe that "All (emphasis mine) Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJV)? So it looks like everything Scripture teaches is really important and relevant.

So, we have a huge task on our hands on determining what is truth against what is error, and what is orthodoxy against what is heterodoxy.

Blessings,

I'm no theologian or translator, but I think it's simplistic and somewhat unfair to label translations as "basically commentaries". Most solid translators / committees make a concerted effort to avoid preconceptions when engaging in translations. They're not inerrant, but I think we can be confident that the Word of God is communicated accurately in most good translations. We can follow the example of our Lord who, while on this earth, didn't go back to the original Hebrew for His use of Scripture but apparently had full confidence in the LXX.

I'm no theologian or translator, but I think it's simplistic and somewhat unfair to label translations as "basically commentaries". Most solid translators / committees make a concerted effort to avoid preconceptions when engaging in translations.

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. That said, I have to also admit that there are "translations" I wouldn't touch with a ten foot barge poll as they really are, well best described as Perversions rather than versions.

However, on the whole, of all the translations I have (over 80 of them) I tend to think they are of excellent quality. As for my pet translation, I go more with the NKJV than anything else. My Pastor disagrees with me as he is an NIV fan. He reckons that is the version that God reads, but I reckon the one that God reads has to be the CJB. As for any other one, well I'll let everyone else argue over that

Blessings,

While I agree in principle that translations are not (and should not be) commentaries, I tend to lend more credence to the "word for word" translations like the KJV and NASB, and so that is what I use for much of my studies.

I have found that the more "dynamic" the translation the more it does tend to sacrifice accuracy for ease of reading.  Still, I use the NLT (as an example) for devotional reading and on occasion even cite(where I feel that it has value in helping others understand a difficult passage.

None the less there are some "translations" that I consider (and use as) commentaries, most notably the J. B. Phillips and the Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest.

You will notice that those are one person translations or paraphrases.

A good commentary, like a good translation is an attempt to make the scriptures understandable...to me the primary difference between the two is that a commentary is an OPINION of a  person (or a group) as to what the scriptures mean, while a translation is an attempt to faithfully reproduce the scriptures in a language other than the original.

Both are valid tools for spreading the Gospel, otherwise we would be like the

followers of Islam who insist that only by learning Arabic can one properly study the Koran.

Christianity has, from its earliest days, been translated into the language of the people that the Apostles, missionaries and church planters were trying to reach.

I'll throw in another monkey wretch.  Translations are based on edited Greek/Hebrew.  In other words we have editors who insert commas, sentence breaks, parthenesis etc.  The originals had no breaks between words.  We do not have the orginal autographs so we are trusting translations.  This is why we check variants readings and multiple translations to undertand which translation is correct.  Many times different translations are correct But for different reasons such as the NIV, NLT, MESSAGE TRYING TO bring out the meaning whereas the NAS keeps its literal. It all depends what you want to accomplish.

 
Someone asked me which translation accurately communicates greek/hebrew PERFECTLY W/O FLAW. I replied NONE.  YOU HAVE TO STUDY!!!! AND WORK HARD (LABOR)!!!.  This is what God wants.  We were discussing "deacon" as church officer in every reference. It is not church officer in every usuage.  But their version did. One leader used this version w/o studying deacon usuage to support church officer in every reference.

none here would say the translators intently trick or mislead others with their versions. However, eisegesis does exist in translations.  Whether we are willing to admit or not.

The whole point is to check translations/conclusions/teachings realizing that errors can pop up. Be honest and open for correction.

M

I'm no theologian or translator, but I think it's simplistic and somewhat unfair to label translations as "basically commentaries". Most solid translators / committees make a concerted effort to avoid preconceptions when engaging in translations. They're not inerrant, but I think we can be confident that the Word of God is communicated accurately in most good translations. We can follow the example of our Lord who, while on this earth, didn't go back to the original Hebrew for His use of Scripture but apparently had full confidence in the LXX.

I'm sorry but don't agree with your assertion of a lack of Hebrew by the Messiah.  There is written evidence that at least up until the second Jewish revolt 135 A.D. the Hebrew language was alive and spoken! How can written evidence prove this?  During the revolt there are written orders that were written in Hebrew that contained contractions like our English wouldn’t vs. would not, or didn’t vs. did not. Contractions only occur in a living spoken language.  Not a dead one.

There is also growing evidence that parts of the New Testament may have originally been written in Hebrew.  But most scholars are so entrenched in Greek that any evidence against Greek is ignored. 

In recent years it has come to light that there are two to three dozen copies of the book of Matthew written in Hebrew.  These were originally dismissed as translations from Greek into Hebrew  But when copies of the Hebrew Matthew have been studied by scholars that are fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, along with their grammatical constructs and idiomatic turns of phrase - it becomes obvious to them that the Hebrew Matthew is a reproduction of an original document.   One copy of Hebrew Matthew was discovered among the items destined for Adolf Hitler’s “Museum of the extinct races.”

The phrasing and use of Hebrew poetry used in the Hebrew Matthew cannot be achieved by simply translating the Greek into Hebrew. However if the Hebrew is used as the original and Greek was the target then the sometimes obtuse Greek grammar is recreated.  These same scholars believe that Koine Greek is the result of this type of translation, not simply a “common man’s Greek.”  It makes sense that because the LXX was already available any passages that were quoted in the New Testament would have been simply copied without re-translating them.  

there are instances in Acts where the writer makes a point that Paul spoke to a group in Hebrew.  there are many instances where places are specifically referenced to the name in the Hebrew tongue.  and the placard at Jesus' crucifiction was translated into Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. see Luk_23:38; Joh_5:2; Joh_19:13; Joh_19:17; Joh_19:20; Act_21:40; Act_22:2; Act_26:14; Rev_9:11; Rev_16:16;

Act 26:14-15 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.  (15)  And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

 

Clint

 We were discussing "deacon" as church officer in every reference. It is not church officer in every usuage.  But their version did. One leader used this version w/o studying deacon usuage to support church officer in every reference.

In Greek society a deacon was a person perhaps regarded as the lowest form of a slave. You know, right down the bottom of the heap. In fact, he was nothing more than just a table waiter, a person who the head cook could take his temper out on and lay the boot into him. That is a deacon.

A bishop, well in Greek society he too was a slave, but was much higher in the pecking order of slaves. A bishop was a slave who supervised other slaves (a supervisor) and used deacons as a football (that is if football was around at that time).

Blessings,

But when copies of the Hebrew Matthew have been studied by scholars that are fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, along with their grammatical constructs and idiomatic turns of phrase - it becomes obvious to them that the Hebrew Matthew is a reproduction of an original document.   One copy of Hebrew Matthew was discovered among the items destined for Adolf Hitler’s “Museum of the extinct races.”

 

Good when its authenticated then let us know.  I heard of an ancient tradtion of Hebrew/aramaic Matthew but so far NADA.

There is also growing evidence that parts of the New Testament may have originally been written in Hebrew.  But most scholars are so entrenched in Greek that any evidence against Greek is ignored.

NT times spoke Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.  I doubt that "most scholars are so entrenched in Greek".  This is an opinion not a fact supported w. evidence.  However, because most teach from NT there is a lean toward greek.  Also the latest Hebrew studies are under COPYRIGHT, I.E., Dictionaries, language works.  So $$$ are needed.  We all will be dead before they enter PD.

 

In other words, do not hold ur breath waiting for hebrew research in e-sword it will not happen anytime soon.

 

 

In other words, do not hold ur breath waiting for hebrew research in e-sword it will not happen anytime soon.

I have put together a fairly comprehensive group Public Domain Hebrew Research tools for e-Sword.  The list is here: http://www.biblesupp...o-hebrew-roots/

correction: "hebrew research in e-sword it will not happen anytime soon."

I meant NICOT, kolenberg's multi-lexicon, holaday's lexicon, TDOT, NIDOT,.  Nice stuff, which some I own in Hard copy but $$$$$.  They are worth it.   Not for the novice but serious students.  I'm not sure how much different the update Grammars are to Davidson, and G.K.'s grammar.

Is that BDB full or the brief abridged w. just definitions?

M

the BDB is just the definitions.  I know what you mean about $$$$ My son bought a hard copy of hatch and redpath concordance to the septuagint

it wasn't terribly pricey but it wasn't cheap, and it almost took a rocket scientist to be able to decipher it... 

Logos has some incredible resources but i couldn't see the $$$$ for that with more and more available for e-Sword almost every day.

Clint

I believe we have come a long way w. Hebrew/OT studies.  Some of WBC OT are nice as well and not that Techincal unless you study the notes.

My adivice is use a scanner for commentaries that you need. Cumbersome, but far cheaper than $1000 + for logos software unless you find a great deal on someone selling the Platnium version.  Very few people will steal a commentary on bible but electronics is different

e-Sword has vastly improved over the years w. resources.