On R.Judah: “I am sure that he did not consciously think he was “misreading” the tense of that verb, however, this is really the point that I was trying to make.” Right. Judah interpreted the text in line with what he “knew” it had to say.

On C.Halton: “However, I fully realize that I do my fair share of eisegesis as well, as you have helpfully pointed out.” No, I don’t think either you or John were eisegeting. I just think you were siding with R.Judah’s end result because it was more appealing to your system of thinking. I don’t blame you at all. We all have to choose sides. I just was playing the devil’s advocate to show that what is heretical or disruptive today in communities may prove acceptable or even the norm tomorrow. I’ve seen this over the years in the community I grew up in and my parents are still in.

Now, I admit that by choosing the deuteronomistic history for this example that I have picked a corpus of literature that most scholars agree was edited by a particular individual/group. Moving to the Bible as a whole (whether Jewish or Christian) is a more difficult affair. Maybe I will have time at some point to try to tackle metanarratives within multi-edited/community/stream-of-tradition compilations but right now I don’t. But, on this point I do think that there is room for tradition or myth (in a C.S. Lewis kind of definition) in our understandings of Scripture. In this regard I am in between the positions outlined by James Kugel (How to Read the Bible) who is in my reading on the total tradition polarity for reading within a faith community while Joseph Fitzmyer (The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method) is on the other polarity of strictly “critical” readings (and who I’m not sure that read any postmodern critics). Maybe I will have time to flesh out this more later.

One last point. In my quotation of Rabbi Judah I did not really intend to make a value judgment on the orthodoxy of his beliefs. My concern was merely the fact that he read what modern scholars discern as an old preterite as a future in order to advance his view of the resurrection. I am sure that he did not consciously think he was “misreading” the tense of that verb, however, this is really the point that I was trying to make. The ability to interact thoughtfully and substantially with the biblical text is so low among those who earn their paycheck by doing it that most probably have no idea that they are engaging in such dramatic eisegesis.

However, I fully realize that I do my fair share of eisegesis as well, as you have helpfully pointed out. However, I like to think my eisegesis is possibly a bit more sophisticated–maybe I’m not as far from Rabbi Judah as I think–he did discuss Hebrew verb tenses afterall On a more serious note though, interacting thoughtfully with the biblical texts causes one to realize that things are more complicated on several levels than many typically assume. For this last observation, I am very thankful for my rigorous textual and theoretical studies.

As I’m sure you know, metanarratives are built up by communities from a certain number of privileged passages, portions, ideas, and interpretations. These metanarratives can be supported positively by interpreting more scriptures to fall into line with them by those who want to maintain the received metanarrative, or metanarratives can be re-shaped by dissenters and other troublemakes who give prominence to a new contemporary concern and re-interpret key passages in light of them—and sometimes the distinction is blurry. In other words, metanarratives are in a state of flux within a community, though the level of challenges and necessity of defense also vary. All of this is to say that the quantitative distinction you are making between heretics and orthodox is a product of your own preference for orthodoxy. We do need ways to distinguish dominant (“orthodox”) from marginal (“heretical”) factions, etc. But qualitatively speaking both groups are doing the same thing (as you admit) when they interpret: they are engaging in eisegesis. It’s just that one is doing the same thing quantitatively WRONG, in your opinion, because they appear to be over-emphasizing one idea at the expense of the system. But that’s how the system changes–and it does change, through time . . . because of new contemporary concerns that are championed by someone willing to rock the boat–orthodox or marginal (e.g., Luther)!

The “regula fidei” at one time actually did acquire the present idea of resurrection (or something like it). There was a time when the issue was divisive in Judaism, being, distinctive to some groups and rejected by others. Some groups found it expedient to find a way to make scripture support their understanding of resurrection. So they engaged the biblical text to get it, sometimes—often—in ways that we find fanciful (witness the rabbis, DSS, and NT). Many other groups did the same thing for an array of issues–and still do today. So again by distinguishing R.Judah’s eisegesis as something quantitatively different from what other “heretics” and ideologues do, you are simply siding with one group over another because that group rings truer to a historically favored or dominant position. In other words, you side with the winner. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. But that fact should ideally inspire some self-awareness in scholars, especially since important innovations in Christianity, indeed, its formation, came from the margins.