Gamera

One theme that recurs on this board is exegetical readings of Hebrew scriptures to elucidate the intent of the author. But is it at all clear that the exegesis was hermeneutic that Hebrew authors would have even understood before the 1st century CE. As far as I can tell, the earliest examples of exegetical readings of Hebrew scripture are from Philo and Paul. I'm not aware of any textual evidence indicating an earlier use of the method.

Does anybody know of earlier texts that demonstrate familiarity with exegesis in Jewish culture? I'm beginning to think it was a later, as opposed to an early, hermeneutic.

Malachi151

The story of Noah and the flood....

The Book of Daniel?

Gamera

I don't think either of these demonstrate the exegetical method of interpreting texts. What exactly are you refering to in these texts that demonstrate a text being interpreted in an exegetical manner?

By the way riddle literature (which I assume you're refering to with Daniel, is not exegetical in nature.

Malachi151

Those were shots in the dark off the top of my head. I'm not sure about either. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to call the story of Noah an exegetic of prior writings or not. Daniel does a lot of interpretation, though I don't recall off hand if it does this in reference to prior scriptures or not.

Clivedurdle

Wiki

But are not the various sources of Genesis and later editors, looking critically at texts from their own perspectives? Can it not be argued that exegesis occurs whenever someone rewrote and edited a text? Why should arguing and critically looking at someting start as late as Paul and Philo?

Gamera

Daniel is clearly in the genre of riddle literature, an ancient (perhaps one of the most ancient) genre. Virtually every literate society has an early riddle genre, and it clearly has an oral origin.

Exegesis isn't just "interpretation." Every reading is an interpretation. It's a specific kind of (originally biblical) interpretatation which posits various levels of meaning, the literal, the moral, the anagogic, etc (depending on the system). St Augustine developed the method to new heights, but it clearly has some roots in rabbinical writing, and clearly Jesus and Paul engaged in it (See John 3:14 and 1 Corinthians 9. Philo was an exegete.

Daniel's interpretation of a riddle isn't exegesis because it isn't concerned with hidden levels of meaning. It's just decoding an ambiguous text, much as you would decode the Delphic Oracle's proclamation (another example of riddle literature).

Gamera

See my response below. Exegesis isn't interpretation or reinterpretation. It is a specific type of literary analysis (originally applied to scriptures and then spilling out onto other texts and the phenomenal world). Redaction and reinterpreation of a text, as the Genesis redactors did, has nothing to do with exegesis.

Clivedurdle

Isn't this a continuous evolution versus punctuated evolution argument?

Malachi151

True, I was thinking of eisegesis apparently, reading in, which would be more along the lines of Daniel, etc.

Gamera

Not really. It's a definite semiological theory that arose most obviously with Augustine as a way of interpreting scripture (and later, any other text and the "signs" of the world). Origen had his own system, as did Gregory, as did most Christian writers. The differences usually involved the number of the levels of analysis.

Here is Huge of St Victors "simplified' exegetical method (which derived from Gregorian tradition).

"In his De scripturis, Hugh begins his treatment of the interpretation of Scripture by distinguishing three ways in which it may be understood:
Sacred Scripture may be explained according to a threefold meaning. The first exposition is historical, in which first the meaning of the words is considered in reference to the matters treated... The second exposition is allegorical. Allegory is when by what is literally signified, something else is meant, either past, present or future. This is divided into simple allegory and anagoge. It is simple allegory when by a visible fact another visible fact is signified. Anagoge is ‘leading above’, when by a visible fact an invisible is declared.

He gives the example of Job: historically, a rich man brought low; allegorically, Christ coming down to share our misery; and when we ask what we are to do, Job is the penitent weeping for his sins. Hugh clearly uses ‘anagoge’ here to indicate ‘moral’:

The medaeval period experiences Christian writers going line by line through the bible, making exegetical analyses such as these. It really was the great Christian project of the middle ages.

This is a "method" for understanding texts (which by the way YOU AND I STILL USE). It developed at a particular time and place and context. Greco-Roman culture had no notion of exegesis. Totally alien to their view of texts