Talk:Exegesis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jayscraw.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

as for Biblical exegesis: my 2 cents

leave exegesis as its own page. It applies to literature other than the Bible, ya know. So why not have a page for the larger category of exegesis as well as Biblical exegesis. Otherwise would we have to make another page for when someone writes about exegesis of ancient Malaysian religious texts? That would just be annoying! Thenavigator1 07:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Exegesis is becoming a common word in disciplines other than Biblical Studies. The close interpretation of a text, particularly from another language, in the way that Biblical Studies have been doing for years, is also being done by other Language Studies and History. In fact, we should expand the definition here to include exegesis done in these disciplines too. --Historian 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with this aswell. It is annoying that absolutely no other definition of exegesis is available other than that which relates to religious texts. What about an artisit's reveiw or critique of their own work - itsn't this an exegesis too?--Mouse marais 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exegesus isn't a word, i've redirected the page here, and deleted the old one. 206.155.48.217 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q

Sorry, I'm not English mother tongue. I just would have an idea of the shape used to show what is exegesis to fullfill the French version. I stopped on the "Christianity" paragraph which gave the idea that exegesis was a roman Catholic creation although it forbidden it along the 19th century (with the modernist crisis)

I'm going to write such an article in the french version. May I translate the Jewish paragraph ? Thanks Mulot

I think "Exegesis" itself should be that l;ittle sentence/stub at the top. If anyone has any non-religious exegesis it could go here. The rest, the bulk of it, should probably be merged out. Student7 13:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word (link) canonical

I am busy with the disambiguation of the word canon. This article has the following link to the disambig page that I need to resolve:

  • the Biblical Institute of Rome practises exegesis in a more canonical way

As I am not very familiar with the subject matter, I am not exactly sure of the meaning here. I can see three interpretations:

I insert the last of these references as in its description under Religion it includes the other two. Feel free to change it to any of the other 2 should it be more correct.

Minor changes made

Changed verbs to nouns under "requires". An alternative might be:

"Traditional exegesis requires start edit you to do end edit the following: analyse significant words in the text in regards to translation; examine the general historical and cultural context, confirm the limits of the passage, and lastly, examine the context within the text. [1] (Gave New Testament exegesis source).

This didn't seem as well-worded and "professional", though.

STurner 16:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this debatable?

This paragraph was maked in the article with an NPOV notice. I'm not sure, so I've removed the note, and copied the text here:

Robert A. Traina's book Methodical Bible Study has become influential in the field of Protestant Christian exegesis. Many regarded it as the standard text describing the inductive approach to interpreting the English-language Bible.

BCorr|Брайен 02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Moved from the top of the page

Exegesis = Explanation. It's as simple as that.I deleted the complex and silly definition that was written previously. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 84.254.0.13 (talk • contribs
) 17 August 2006.

The "complex and silly definition" that you removed is commonly known as an etymology. Please don't remove it. The word exegesis is already an English word, so a translation is not necessary. I did try to include a bit about explanation as a sort of synonym for exegesis, though it really isn't. Exegesis is used almost exclusively in textual studies, where it has a very specific, and somewhat complex meaning. Hence the need for a more detailed encyclopedia article, rather than a simple dictionary entry. –RHolton≡– 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Link spamming

We seem to be having a problem with spamming about the 'Kingdom Scribes' belief group. Edits have been made, linking to personal websites and personal businesses (bookstore) under the username Emilswift, and IP address 70.41.215.3. If you actually follow the link to the Kingdom Scribes blog, they offer a bio with email address. How does one recommend that specific users get blocked for spamming? Sam 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikra

The article on Mikra appears to have been lifted from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Bible Exegesis that is in the public domain. While there is nothing wrong with that per se, it's a bit difficult to keep up with JE conversions/adaptations without some kind of record which is now done externally. Probably done a long time ago. Anyone with a long memory? Yes, it's in the log there somewhere I suppose!  :) Student7 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious

Not all "exegesis" are biblical or religious, there are secular exegesis too. Like the study of how to interpret

Talk, Editor review 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Expanded Definition of Exegesis

Exegesis is not confined to interpretation of spiritual texts. To the extent that it implies the interpretation of any authoritative text, it should not be combined with "Biblical Exegesis". Also note that "biblical" would not apply to non Judeo-Christian exegesis in any event.

My4lane 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Marc[reply]

Drasha

The term 'Drasha' redirects here, but is not explained on the page.--212.187.4.108 (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??From where? Drasha is another term for Midrash and should redirect there, I would think. To better understand we would need to know where the link was from. I am puzzled that another apparently knowledgeable editor would cause Drasha to link here. S/he may have simply misplaced the link. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Understand. I've changed it to redirect to Midrash. Thanks for pointing this out. Student7 (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

There is a large bibliography in

List of Biblical commentaries. I do not know whether it would be applicable to this article or not. But if so, perhaps they could share a fork in common. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Query refs tag

A question: if references are dictionaries and commentaries, as tertiary refs should they be inline cites? I thought only secondary/primary texts were cited inline. Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a really good point. Articles, such as this one, might have been lifted originally from a "tertiary source." So it wound up only having a cite at the top or bottom about its origins. This had to be done for brevity or the conversion never might have happened. The problem arises when people insert more up-to-date research. Now we can no longer tell which was original, but must assume original if not footnoted.
To be short, I think all sources need to placed inline. If we can find a secondary or primary to replace it, great. But we need to know where the original update came from. As you are suggesting, we aren't usually supposed to quote tertiary sources, but sometimes it happens.
BTW, I usually link brackets-Wiktionary-(colon)-word-brackets inline. Obviously only works for simple definitions which might not help this article that much! Student7 (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present bibliography is just not applicable to this article on exegesis. I'm not sure if anyone cares, but I'll try to find a more relevant home for it before its deleted. Lamorak (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NT/OT citations came from a public domain article, and they are just too old and short to be of any use here. So I will delete and replace it with a newer bibliography.Lamorak (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split article?

I don't feel that strongly about this either way, but what do people think about giving Biblical exegesis its own article and making this page an article about other types of exegesis? The page is currently listed on WikiProject Judaism and WikiProject Bible, but if we were to expand the article to include extensive coverage of Buddhist exegesis, Hindu exegesis, Shinto exegesis etc., the current categorization would be problematic, since we can't classify the article under all of these projects.

A good solution would be to split the article. Or, perhaps, we should move the article to Biblical exegesis over the redirect, and then create a new article on non-biblical exegesis under this title, in order to preserve the edit history?

talk) 02:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm vaguely in favour; then someone might discuss whether there's a difference between exegesis and exegetical theology. -- TimNelson (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is hardly any material in the article on biblical exegesis per se, and no mention here of what section(s) might be split, (and little interest,) so unless or until the article expands to an unwieldy size, there is no need for a split, or for the template.
Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exegesis / Eisegesis : Asymmetry

A quick skim over the two articles for "Exegesis" and "Eisegesis" would almost lead one to believe that the former applies in many fields of religious and secular consideration, whereas the latter is limited to the Christian faith. Is it just me, or should there be a certain symmetry between the two, and any discussion under "Exegesis" pertaining to a particular faith/perspective should have some parallel in the "Eisegesis" article?

Just a $0.02 opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.90.0 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive further-reading and external links cleanout

The article's been tagged as needing cleanup of the "further reading" and external links since January of 2010, and looking at the huge long list, it's clear that it's thoroughly out of hand. As it happens, this is the field my degree is in, so unlike most "let me work through the cleanup tags backlog" articles I run across, I'm actually qualified to evaluate these sources!

Unfortunately, looking at them, it appears that they're pretty universally not strong enough to be included here. Some of them are "introductory textbook"-style works, which would certainly be appropriate to convert into citations and use as footnoted references inside the article itself, although that's a massive undertaking. Many of them duplicate each other -- I haven't read all of the books on the Further Reading list, but from the ones I have read and what I can find on the others, they mostly cover the same topics and discuss the same material.

In terms of the "other works", most of them are older texts that have contributed to the field, but there's more interesting and relevant scholarship being done more recently. They might belong in a "history of Biblical exegesis" section that discusses the influence they've had on the field, but I don't think they're necessary in an "other works" section.

The external links, meanwhile, were in need of a very sharp pruning, as they were divided between "here is my favorite scholar's articles on exegesis" and "here is my favorite Bible study website". I cut those down as well, removing dead links and links that I didn't feel added much to the article.

What I took out is reproduced below, unchanged, for the regular editors to go through and rescue the very best references from the list. Please don't revert this edit wholesale: by removing all of them I am asking the regular contributors to this article to go through and evaluate each one very carefully. Given the morass of ever-expanding cruft these lists were gathering, I think the bar to re-include them should be very high indeed, and the aim should be to keep the lists pruned down to the three to seven best items in all of the lists.

Further reading

Other works

  • Bertholet and A. Meyer, article "Bibelwissenschaft" in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Tübingen, 1909).
  • Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der chrislichen Kirche (Jena, 1869)
  • Farrar
    , The History of Interpretation (London, 1886)
  • Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica (Leipzig, 1863)
  • Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen (Breslau, 1857)
  • Ginsburg
    , Introduction to the Massoretic Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897)
  • Hody, De Bibliorum Textibus (Oxford, 1705)
  • Nestle, Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament (Leipzig, 1897, 1909)
  • Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenum (Berlin, 1886, 1902)
  • Rosenmüller, Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesia Christiana (Hildsburgshausen, 1795–1814)
  • Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (London, 1900)
  • Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica (Jena, 1715–33), continued by Köcher as Nova Bibliotheca hebraica (Jena, 1783–84)
  • Zöckler, Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften Nördlingen, 1890)

And, the removed external links:

--rahaeli (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"views" section not currently congruent.

"Views The main Christian exegetical methods are historical-grammatical, revealed, and true." Well and good. But, while the section goes on to cover historical-grammatical and revealed methods, the "true" Christain exegetical method is not described. Additionally a "rational" method is described at the end of the section but not announced in the intro sentence, "The main Christian exegetical methods are historical-grammatical, revealed, and true". 124.171.128.162 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Exegesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exegesis&oldid=1194077059"