Hi Charles,

Presumably, “rich and powerful theology” is all about affirming and denying things consistent with the entire witness of Scripture through the prism of a regula fidei or metanarrative itself derived from Scripture. I assume that is what Rabbi Judah did, even if, in the process, he failed to respect the particularity of the exegeted text.

I prefer that kind of eisegesis to heretical and hopelessly sectarian eisegesis whereby cultural notions specific to our time and place are affirmed on the basis of scripture and alternatives to them condemned on the basis of scripture. That’s what happens all the time in the culture wars, on both the left and the right, for example, in the realm of economic theory or gender relations.

It will be obvious to many American Christians that Marxism and feminism have little in common with biblical teaching, but not so obvious, apparently, that capitalism and the Danvers Affirmation are also far removed from that same teaching.

Lingering problems indeed.

John, you are correct in your description of Rabbi Judah’s method and I would agree with you that if someone is going to make a hermeneutic mistake that it is better to err on the side of the overarching metanarrative than have one (mis)interpretation of one passage then set the agenda for the metanarrative. I also agree that all sides are guilty of both of these mistakes. Alas, there are many lingering problems.

It’s true that there are theologies that privilege one or a couple of theological notions (e.g., justification by faith), scriptural portions (e.g., the Book of Romans), socio-economic ideas (e.g., middle class ethics), or contemporary concerns (e.g., women’s suffrage >> female ordination) and build off of them, so that new scriptural portions are enlightened while others scriptural portions or ideas are undermined in the tradition. So I understand what you’re both saying . . . but I think your eagerness to affirm the “regula fidei” has led you astray. (It also looks like you imply, though I know you know better, that the “regula fidei” is timeless.)

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.

Alan, I certainly agree with you concerning the large degree to which culture, community, and time shape metanarratives. I think that this is one of the major insights of recent scholarship and we should be very appreciative for it. However, I still think that there is the possibility of discovering (to a reasonably accurate degree) metanarratives that are “authorially”(even this term is culturally and temporally conditioned) embedded within accounts. For instance, does the deuteronomistic history have a metanarrative and can we, to a reasonably accurate degree, discern?

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.

On “authors”: “I still think that there is the possibility of discovering (to a reasonably accurate degree) metanarratives that are “authorially” (even this term is culturally and temporally conditioned) embedded within accounts.” I’d like to think so too, but I think in reality various historical-critical readings are really just trying to present, in as self-critical fashion as possible, which interpretations, according to our own interests, best elucidate the text, as best we can determine it, in its original context, as best we understand it. Perhaps the fact that many ancient texts don’t have an author can help you with the issue of a metanarrative of the Bible. I don’t mean that in an ironic atheistic way; rather, by replacing “author” with “text” one can then try to see which interpretations jibe with the big picture best. I think that’s what John was getting at with the “regula fidei.” In community, however, which interpretations jibe best with the whole is determined by collective reading and tradition–what is always already known–more than critical, multi-perspectival interpretation. That’s why new emphases in communities have such a hard way to go to gain acceptance. That really was my point.

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.

I think we agree. One caveat though, I do happen to agree with Rabbi Judah’s end result, that is, that resurrection is a concept that is found within the Hebrew Bible, however, I don’t agree that it is found in the passage that he cites. Also, I’m not quite as pessimistic about the ability for self-criticism as well as “system” criticism as I sense you are. However, I am not overly optimistic either, rather, I opt for passably adequate reflection. Certainly we are conditioned readers, but adequate communication is still possible or we wouldn’t be typing to each other (and of course I grant that our communication is much easier than discerning thousands of years old texts in different cultures and languages). I do fully grant your point about the shifting nature of what communities perceive as orthodox.

I think Levenson does a good job in his other book, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, in showing continuities between the Rabbis and the Hebrew Bible on resurrection. He therefore provides an important corrective. But the differences in the Hebrew Bible’s general views of death / afterlife and, say, the views of Daniel 12 and the later Rabbis are still very real. The later as well as the contemporary ideas of resurrection may be related to the Hebrew Bible then, but they are not exactly “found” there, especially given the much more individualistic spin of the later formulations–until Dan 12.

[...] encountered this a few times, so I was delighted to find this little discussion, courtesy of John Hobbins, whose post on the educational value of reading biblioblogs is also [...]

Alan, we agree again. I think that Levenson does a good job at showing the development of the idea of resurrection. I do think that death and afterlife is a complicated topic as Levenson has helped us see.

I’m probably not as pessimistic as I sound “about the ability for self-criticism as well as “system” criticism.” We all get stretched out of shape, including communities, by things / experiences, and we learn and change. We become open to new perspectives for some reason and the hermeneutical spiral continues.

I would question the statement “Judah interpreted the text in line with what he “knew” it had to say”,if by this the suggestion is being made that the rabbis had a hard and fast list of “prooftexts” for theological beliefs such as is often found in Christian circles; or that R. Judah knew that this was THE or only correct “exegesis” of this passage. While there were certainly popular texts, there also seems to be some sense of pride in rabbinic literature in being able to find or prove certain beliefs from obscure passages (e.g. petichtot).

No, Shane, you’ve misunderstood my use of “knew.” I simply mean to say that R.Judah interpreted texts in light of his “metanarrative,” which could have predisposed him toward a resurrection interpretation.