Confession Time
So, I've been hard at work writing my dissertation since sometime in late June. This does not mean that I've been writing every day - in fact, there have been some periods of intense reading sprinkled around in there as well. But, the point is that I've been directly concerned with getting my dissertation on paper over the past months. Those of you who hang around here know that I'm a theologian by trade, and that is why this confession may shock some of you. Brace yourself while I try to convince myself to go through with this...
...OK, here it comes...
I LOVE doing scriptural exegesis!
There, I've said it. Everything is out in the open. I have no more secrets (OK, I may have one or two...or more...that's not important) - I am a theologian who loves to exposit Scripture. Some of my most enjoyable periods in writing my dissertation have been working on some extended exegetical excurses. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now. And boy, is it fun.
Now that I've put my cards on the table, I can't resit throwing an elbow:
I love doing exegesis, but reading exegetes can be incredibly frustrating.
Why? (you may ask)
Because, as a theologian, the theological presuppositions that they bring to the exegetical task are incredibly obvious. This is not what bothers me. I expect people to bring such presuppositions to the text. The problem is that, by and large, exegetes don't acknowledge that this is the case. Instead, they write their commentaries, discuss various grammatical and other questions, and pronounce upon "proper readings" of various passages without stopping to think explicitly about what theological reasons might be pushing them to read that "kai" one was as opposed to another.
OK, writing break is over. Back to work!
...OK, here it comes...
I LOVE doing scriptural exegesis!
There, I've said it. Everything is out in the open. I have no more secrets (OK, I may have one or two...or more...that's not important) - I am a theologian who loves to exposit Scripture. Some of my most enjoyable periods in writing my dissertation have been working on some extended exegetical excurses. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now. And boy, is it fun.
Now that I've put my cards on the table, I can't resit throwing an elbow:
I love doing exegesis, but reading exegetes can be incredibly frustrating.
Why? (you may ask)
Because, as a theologian, the theological presuppositions that they bring to the exegetical task are incredibly obvious. This is not what bothers me. I expect people to bring such presuppositions to the text. The problem is that, by and large, exegetes don't acknowledge that this is the case. Instead, they write their commentaries, discuss various grammatical and other questions, and pronounce upon "proper readings" of various passages without stopping to think explicitly about what theological reasons might be pushing them to read that "kai" one was as opposed to another.
OK, writing break is over. Back to work!
Comments
I just discovered your blog and have had a great time reading it and wanted to say thanks. I was entertained and I learnt things.
anton
I think you're right, most exegetes don't stop and ask this all important question. Which for me, is why learning how to answer 'that' question is just as important (if not more)as is knowing the difference between an objective and subjective genitive ;-).
What do you mean by "naive epistemology"?
Wasn't sure where you were coming from with that, so thanks.
Yes, I think the "post-conservatives" fall prey to this quite frequently (like Stan Grenz's trajectory et al).