The Devil's Toolbox

[Brian2]

none of this addresses my post. However.

There are no “earlier texts” for Jesus.


I’m taking an exegetical approach. Anthropology is part of that approach. The issue of divine provenance is immaterial to exegesis. It only applies to to how we feel about what the texts say; it does not inform what the texts say.

Maybe I am not doing exegesis then. Certainly not the exegesis that you are talking about.
Divine provenance is important in what the full picture of the text means, and later scriptures in that regard do speak to the meaning of certain texts.
Exegesis.
From the site above I got this quote which tells of the differing exegetical methods. I see the historical setting and subsequent meaning as informative but not definitive for the meaning of the text.
Christianity[edit]
Main article: Biblical hermeneutics
Views[edit]
The main Christian exegetical methods are historical-grammatical, historical criticism, revealed, and rational.

The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the Biblical author's original intended meaning in the text.[3] It is the primary method of interpretation for many conservative Protestant exegetes who reject the historical-critical method to various degrees (from the complete rejection of historical criticism of some fundamentalist Protestants to the moderated acceptance of it in the Catholic Church since Pope Pius XII),[4] in contrast to the overwhelming reliance on historical-critical interpretation, often to the exclusion of all other hermeneutics, in liberal Christianity.

Historical criticism also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text".[5][6] This is done to discover the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense.[7]

Revealed exegesis considers that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the scriptural texts,[citation needed] and so the words of those texts convey a divine revelation. In this view of exegesis, the principle of sensus plenior applies — that because of its divine authorship, the Bible has a "fuller meaning" than its human authors intended or could have foreseen.

Rational exegesis bases its operation on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration (in this sense, synonymous with artistic inspiration), so their works are completely and utterly a product of the social environment and human intelligence of their authors.[citation needed]

 

[sojourner]

Divine provenance is important in what the full picture of the text means

But not in what they say.

and later scriptures in that regard do speak to the meaning of certain texts

But, again, not in what they say.

 

[Brian2]

But not in what they say.

But, again, not in what they say.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "not in what they say".

 

[sojourner]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "not in what they say".

Exegesis helps us discover what the texts actually say. Exegesis assigns no particular doctrinal meaning to the texts.

 

[Brian2]

Exegesis helps us discover what the texts actually say. Exegesis assigns no particular doctrinal meaning to the texts.

That sounds like a good thing, but if exegesis means to first of all dismiss the idea that the Bible is inspired by God then the full meaning cannot be discovered if the Bible is inspired.
If exegesis means that we assume that the Jewish religion came from other religions and that the stories were copied from other religions then we probably are assuming from the start that the Bible is wrong.
Admittedly in my position I assume that the Bible was inspired and so I end up with different meanings than you would.
But it is interesting to look at your sort of exegesis to potentially gain more insight into the meaning of the text.
With the serpent I notice in the Bible that it did know more than Adam and Eve and that Adam wanted the wisdom the fruit gave, but I also notice that the serpent lies to them about the fact that they would die as a result of them eating the fruit.
I think it is a stretch to say that the snake on the cross represents medical knowledge.

 

[sojourner]

That sounds like a good thing, but if exegesis means to first of all dismiss the idea that the Bible is inspired by God then the full meaning cannot be discovered if the Bible is inspired

It doesn’t “dismiss” the idea of inspiration; it simply doesn’t take it under consideration, because the concept of “inspiration” has no bearing on what the texts actually say.

If exegesis means that we assume that the Jewish religion came from other religions and that the stories were copied from other religions then we probably are assuming from the start that the Bible is wrong

“Right” and “wrong” are not part of the exegetical process. In exegesis, we assume that the texts are what they are: ancient texts written by ancient people, and that they say what they say. Discovering that they come from older traditions and cultures helps us to understand what they say.

Admittedly in my position I assume that the Bible was inspired and so I end up with different meanings than you would

We’re not dealing with meaning in exegesis. We’re concerned with what the texts say. “What the texts say” and “what the texts mean” are two separate things.

But it is interesting to look at your sort of exegesis to potentially gain more insight into the meaning of the text

Exegesis — discovering what the texts say — forms the basis for a valid interpretation.

With the serpent I notice in the Bible that it did know more than Adam and Eve and that Adam wanted the wisdom the fruit gave, but I also notice that the serpent lies to them about the fact that they would die as a result of them eating the fruit

Actually it was the other way round. God told them that they would die when they ate it. But they didn’t. They lived, were expelled from the garden, and had children. That’s what the text says.

I think it is a stretch to say that the snake on the cross represents medical knowledge

It doesn’t. It is common knowledge that the serpent, in many cultures, represents wisdom. In the case of the caduceus, The rod symbolizes power, and the wings diligence and activity. The Greek Rod of Asclepius, the god of medicine, features a serpent wound around a rod. It is the case that the literary character of the serpent in the garden, coming from Sumerian mythos, also represents wisdom. That’s the way the text should be exegeted.