A few thoughts on exegesis

How do we read and understand the Bible? Most of us began this process by simply picking up a translation and reading the words as if they were written by one of our contemporaries. What I mean is that even though we know the Bible was written centuries ago, we treat the words and ideas of the Bible like they are part of our view of the world. We think that because the Bible uses the word “mercy” in our English text, the author meant the same thing that we mean by the word “mercy.” Because it is easier for us to rely on the integrity and accuracy of the translator, we don’t usually ask what that original word was, nor do we seriously inquire about the meaning of the original word from the perspective of the author. When pressed on this obvious dependence, we are inclined to answer in one of two ways.

First, we either defer to the translators as men who are moved by God to do this work and who are inherently trustworthy in their efforts, even suggesting that God Himself would not allow them to insert wholesale errors into the text (after all, it is ultimately God’s word and therefore His reputation that is at stake). This approach often includes the statement that all these men over all these years simply can’t have been wrong; therefore we should honor the “tradition” of the translation. Theologically, this approach contends that the Church is the shepherd of the text and what the Church teaches is ultimately the truth about the text. Methodologically it doesn’t matter if the authority is the Pope of the local pastor. The meaning of the text is determined by the “authority” delivering the meaning. No further questions asked.

The second justification for accepting the translated text is the belief that the Spirit will guide us to the truth regardless of potential errors in the text or our lack of scholarship and study. “God revealed this to me,” is the attempt to avoid any serious critical work (and criticism). It amounts to a personal disclosure directly from God about the meaning of the text. While it might be true that God revealed something to you, that only means it is your particular insight or understanding. This is not the same as investigating what the original author said, what his audience understood or what any public investigation of the text might discover. This approach insulates the person from criticism at the price of removing oneself from discussion.

Both counts are inadequate. The first must ignore multiple examples of translation errors, deliberate or otherwise, that are a part of the historical record of the Bible. The insertion of verse, the elimination of words, the reordering of phrases, the inclusion of theologically motivated idea: all of these and more are a part of the history of translation. Furthermore, it is patently obvious that each translation depends on the cultural assumptions of the translator and the theological influences of the time of the translation. For example, Luther’s anti-Semitic stance greatly influenced his interpretation of Galatians (and still does). Augustine’s view that Romans 7 was a statement of Paul’s conversion of Christianity still underlies much of our view of Romans and Christian conversion. Even without debate about the words themselves, Trinitarians read the text very differently than orthodox Jews. The historical truth is that translations always contain bias, especially when the translation moves from an ancient Semitic language to any contemporary Indo-European expression. Relying on translations alone when it comes to God’s message to men is simply naïve and inadequate.

The claim that God will reveal the meaning of His word to me (or to my assembly) in such a way that it is impervious to outside examination and critique is even more dangerous. History is filled with examples of men and groups who adopted this brand of mysticism, causing great harm to them and others. Of course, this does not mean that God refuses to reveal personal insights. That is clearly part of Scripture itself. But God’s insights are typically public, open to critique and examination. In fact, serious biblical interpretation demands this sort of human investigation and the Bible provides criteria for such investigations. The rationalization that “God told me” is simply unacceptable in the public arena.

With these cautions in mind, how do we go about reading and understanding the texts of the Bible? It seems to me that there are rational, public steps that anyone can take. But they begin with a determination to follow the pathway to the truth, no matter where it takes us or how much it challenges our prior beliefs. If we begin this process with the precondition that some ideas and some beliefs cannot be challenged, we will have ipso facto eliminated the possibility of really finding the truth. Frankly, the biggest obstacle to understanding the Bible is what we think we already know. We can proceed, but only by suspending our commitments to any “indubitable” theological proposition. We will have to begin with, “Let me see what the Scriptures say apart from my preconceived notions.” We will have to be particularly diligent in guarding ourselves from those preconceived notions since most of them will be accepted as simply “the way the world works,” without further examination.

Here are a few steps that might help us along the way.

1. We must work, as best we can, with the original languages of the text. Translations are helpful but not sufficient. And translations always contain bias, even in lexicons. Therefore, as much as we are able, we must press toward understanding the text as it was written when it was written.
2. Words are not the end of the story. Translating the words often leaves out the nuances that actually provide the real insight into the text. Language communicates on many levels and word-for-word renditions tend to miss the human context of the communication. Emotion, body expression, idioms and cultural assumptions must be considered when we are trying to capture what the original audience would have understood.
3. The history of the time, the people, the author and the culture cannot be underestimated. We are all products of our age. The same is true of all the biblical authors, even Yeshua. Ideas that arise in the biblical texts have origins and that means we must investigate where those ideas came from if we are to recognize how they shaped the thinking of the men and woman in the Bible. This will require serious historical investigation, not simply of events but of thought patterns, cultural influences, traditions, oral transmission and historical interpretation.
4. We must set aside our own reading of the text, especially its theological interpretation, in order to consider what the original author knew and communicated to the original audience. In other words, the Bible was not written to us and until we can empathetically enter into the situation of the original audience, we will have little chance of understanding the message and meaning of the text.
5. Biblical texts are subject to critical analysis just like any other historical material as long as we realize that the concepts of history for the ancient world are not our concepts. Words means what they mean because of how they are employed in the culture that uses them, not in a culture that later examines them. “It is impossible to read a word without its neighbors.”[1]
6. Perhaps the most important step in this approach to exegesis is the recognition that the Bible is not theology! It is a record of the experience of men and women with God. If our investigations do not allow us to come into contact with the lives of these people as people, we will seriously distort our appreciation of the purpose of the text.

Let me give you an example:

Ruth 1:18 When she saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her. NASB

The Hebrew phrase translated “she said no more to her,” is techdal ledabber eleha. It can be translated as the NASB suggests, but there is more to the translation than just the words. This is a story about the emotional trauma of Naomi. Ruth is the foil God uses to restore Naomi. Translating the text without this emotional context misses the real meaning, in spite of the fact that the emotional element is the driving force of the story. The Hebrew construction is a bit odd (and it is even more awkward in the next verse). This suggests that the narrator wants the reader to pause and ask, “Why does Hebrew express the situation like this?” The answer, it seems to me, is that Naomi rejects Ruth as a valid human being. She sees Ruth as an obstacle in her way. She does not want Ruth to accompany her to Bethlehem. Consequently, when she is unable to persuade Ruth to return to Moab, she not only stops speaking to Ruth, she actually dismisses Ruth as if she doesn’t count as a person. The grammar employs the verb as if this is a continuous action by Naomi. Furthermore, the use of the preposition “toward” implies that Ruth is “at a distance,” unlike the preposition “to” which usually implies relationship when the circumstances involve people. Ruth is an object, not a person. We see the result of this attitude throughout the rest of the story, but here, at the beginning, it is foreshadowed in the grammar. Naomi does not simply stop talking. The text says that Naomi desists (active continuous sense, not past tense) to speak toward her (it). Naomi cuts her off from human interaction.

None of this is obvious in the word-for-word translation. In fact, it can’t really be seen unless we read the story backwards. After we know how it ends, we can go back and find the clues. After we realize the story is about redeeming Naomi, then we can find the hints about the emotional drama. Ruth is not a love story, as most Christian believers imagine. It is a story about redeeming a bitter, discouraged woman who expresses hopelessness about life.

Exegesis requires a lot more than translation skills.

When we examine the next verse (v. 19), our exegetical approach is confirmed. The next verse reads, in translation, “So they both went until they came to Bethlehem.” But the grammar is wrong. The part of the Hebrew the verse we are interested in is vattelakna sh’tiehem ‘adboana beit lachem (literally, “they went on the two up to enter Bethlehem”). The first verb is a third person feminine plural, as we would expect (“they went” – that is, the two women). The “two of them” which the NASB translates as “both,” is a masculine plural. The second verb, “to enter” is a feminine plural. In other words, the opening and closing actions recognize two women departing and arriving, but they travel as one woman and one thing! And, by the way, when the two of them arrive in Bethlehem, Ruth is not even acknowledged.

Exegesis. Slow, careful, without presuppositions, putting myself in the shoes of the one described, noticing the clues and using empathetic imagination.

Have fun!

[1] Aviya Kushner, The Grammar of God, p. 13.