The difficulty in the exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus

[Marcion]

The exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus is difficult because you have to try to ignore (reject) the eisegesis of the two authors of the gospels Matthew and Luke on those teachings which leaves you with much fewer points to lean on in the text itself.

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Luckily the text itself is very coherent and philosophically consistent which helps, but what does not help is the consciously veiled type of expression by Jesus.

Ignoring the eisegesis of the text by the two synoptic authors of the gospels makes it almost impossible to communicate with Christians about the teachings of Jesus because they are not familiar with dropping the eisegesis of the gospel writers and searching for the more genuine Jesus under the surface.

 

[Brian2]

The exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus is difficult because you have to try to ignore (reject) the eisegesis of the two authors of the gospels Matthew and Luke on those teachings which leaves you with much fewer points to lean on in the text itself.

The sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yahshua the Nazarene

Luckily the text itself is very coherent and philosophically consistent which helps, but what does not help is the consciously veiled type of expression by Jesus.

Ignoring the eisegesis of the text by the two synoptic authors of the gospels makes it almost impossible to communicate with Christians about the teachings of Jesus because they are not familiar with dropping the eisegesis of the gospel writers and searching for the more genuine Jesus under the surface.

What sort of eisegesis are you talking about?

 

[Marcion]

What sort of eisegesis are you talking about?

The eisegesis of the authors of Matthew and Luke on the sayings of Jesus that they copied from Q-lite.
Their eisegesis can be found in the newer texts which they added around the original sayings and in the edits they made within the original sayings themselves.

That it is their own eisegesis can also be concluded from their diverse personal treatment (editing) of many sayings. The two different types of eisegesis often clash with each other.

 

[Brian2]

The eisegesis of the authors of Matthew and Luke on the sayings of Jesus that they copied from Q-lite.
Their eisegesis can be found in the newer texts which they added around the original sayings and in the edits they made within the original sayings themselves.

That it is their own eisegesis can also be concluded from their diverse personal treatment (editing) of many sayings. The two different types of eisegesis often clash with each other.

Have you got examples?

 

[Marcion]

One example is this Q-lite saying:

Q* 13: 18-21 / Luke 13: 18-21 = Matthew 13: 31-33

18 What is the Rule of God like, and with what am I to compare it? 19 It is like a seed of mustard, which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches. 20 And again: With what am I to compare the Rule of God? 21 It is like a yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.

The exegesis of this important mystic saying can be found in the commentary on the page I linked to in my opening post.

So what does the author of Matthew add before and after this saying?
Nothing but a load of religious fantasy about the role of Jesus as the author of Matthew sees it!
The explicit eisegesis is underlined.


Matthew 13:

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,

Q* 13: 18-21 / Luke 13: 18-21 = Matthew 13: 31-33

18 What is the Rule of God like, and with what am I to compare it? 19 It is like a seed of mustard, which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches. 20 And again: With what am I to compare the Rule of God? 21 It is like a yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.

34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: 35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The author of Luke adds:

Luke 13:
22 And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 . Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,

(followed by another saying from O-lite).

The author of Matthew does the most editing, the author of Luke often copies whole blocks of sayings without adding much but in other sayings even he does a lot of editing (and eisegesis).
In this important saying the author of Matthew does not do any real explaining of the central saying from Q-lite but just embeds it in his own religious thoughts and theories showing his total disinterest in the real teachings of Jesus. He uses the saying only as a second hand building block for his own religous construction and totally disregards its real, its deeper meaning.

 

[danieldemol]

The exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus is difficult because you have to try to ignore (reject) the eisegesis of the two authors of the gospels Matthew and Luke on those teachings

And what about the "eisegesis" to use a funny word of Q-lite? Considering Jesus did not have anyone recording what He said/did on the spot and Q would have been composed some 20-50 years after the life of Jesus assuming Q even existed, chances are much of Q itself was made out of wholecloth.
In my opinion.

 

[Marcion]

And what about the "eisegesis" to use a funny word of Q-lite? Considering Jesus did not have anyone recording what He said/did on the spot and Q would have been composed some 20-50 years after the life of Jesus assuming Q even existed, chances are much of Q itself was made out of wholecloth.
In my opinion.

You don't have to accept that Q-lite was spoken by a real historical Jesus and properly recorded by his disciples. But they are clearly the coherent words of a single personality with a deep understanding of spiritual practice and its philosophy. Q-lite is a strong coherent text, not just a collection of loose sayings.

The Christians got their hands on the sayings collection of Q-lite withouth really understanding its deeper meaning. Just like they got their hands on the Marcionite versions of the Pauline epistles without taking a deeper interest in its gnostic ideology. They midhandled both texts so they could appropriate them declaring themselves as the 'universal or catholic' Church.

 

[Brian2]

One example is this Q-lite saying:

Q* 13: 18-21 / Luke 13: 18-21 = Matthew 13: 31-33

18 What is the Rule of God like, and with what am I to compare it? 19 It is like a seed of mustard, which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches. 20 And again: With what am I to compare the Rule of God? 21 It is like a yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.

The exegesis of this important mystic saying can be found in the commentary on the page I linked.

So what does the author of Matthew add before and after this saying?
Nothing but a load of religious fantasy about the role of Jesus as the author of Matthew sees it!
The explicit eisegesis is underlined.


Matthew 13:

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. 31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,

Q* 13: 18-21 / Luke 13: 18-21 = Matthew 13: 31-33

18 What is the Rule of God like, and with what am I to compare it? 19 It is like a seed of mustard, which a person took and threw into his garden. And it grew and developed into a tree, and the birds of the sky nested in its branches. 20 And again: With what am I to compare the Rule of God? 21 It is like a yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.

34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: 35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. 36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The author of Luke adds:

Luke 13:
22 And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 . Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,

(followed by another saying from O-lite).

The author of Matthew does the most editing, the author of Luke often copies whole blocks of sayings without adding much but in other sayings even he does a lot of editing (and eisegesis).
In this important saying the author of Matthew does not do any real explaining of the central saying from Q-lite but just embeds it in his own religious thoughts and theories showing his total disinterest in the real teachings of Jesus. He uses the saying only as a second hand building block for his own religous construction and totally disregards its real, its deeper meaning.

I found no link to the commentary you mentioned.

 

[Marcion]

I found no link to the commentary you mentioned.

It's given at the beginning of the thread:

The difficulty in the exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus

I have not yet found anyone else who tried to do a serious exegesis of the Q-lite teachings.
Maybe I did not yet search hard enough.
Even the specialists in Q-sayings reconstructions don't go much further than saying that they are "wisdom sayings". They do seem to imply that religion ends where you get to the Q-lite sayings but they fail to identify them as spiritual philosophy and socio-spiritual instructions to the disciples.

 

[Brian2]

It's given at the beginning of the thread:

The difficulty in the exegesis of the original teachings of Jesus

I have not yet found anyone else who tried to do a serious exegesis of the Q-lite teachings.
Maybe I did not yet search hard enough.
Even the specialists in Q-sayings reconstructions don't go much further than saying that they are "wisdom sayings". They do seem to imply that religion ends where you get to the Q-lite sayings but they fail to identify them as spiritual philosophy and socio-spiritual instructions to the disciples.

I see the so called commentaries as what Jesus told His disciples about the meaning of what He said. He wanted them to know so that they could tell us.

 

[Marcion]

I see the so called commentaries as what Jesus told His disciples about the meaning of what He said. He wanted them to know so that they could tell us.

You flatter me by suggesting that my commentaries are how Jesus too would have explained his sayings to His disciples.
What disappoints me though is that the authors of the gospel stories made no attempt to do the same.
They re-used the sayings and reworked them into their own texts but don't seem at all interested in their proper deeper meaning.

 

[Brian2]

You flatter me by suggesting that my commentaries are how Jesus too would have explained his sayings to His disciples.
What disappoints me though is that the authors of the gospel stories made no attempt to do the same.
They re-used the sayings and reworked them into their own texts but don't seem at all interested in their proper deeper meaning.

I did not mean to flatter you, sorry. I meant by "so called commentaries" those things that the Gospels say that Jesus said and you say that later disciples made up to fit their theories.
But yes the apostles would not be interested in philosophising about the parables of Jesus apart from telling us what Jesus said. If there is a deeper meaning than the ones Jesus gave about some of His parables then the Holy Spirit will lead Christians into it. But really what Jesus said about some of His parables certainly helps us to see what He was getting at and then to work from there in seeing any deeper meaning. There is a danger with parables of reading too much into them however.
But of course if you don't even believe the Gospels as handed by the Church what can I say.

 

[Marcion]

I did not mean to flatter you

I suspected as much.
The thing is, it was not Jesus himself who commented further on his own parables (except by saying why they were worded in such a secretive way). Nor was it the so-called apostles that commented on them, if you can speak of apostles at all.

The surrounding texts produced purely by the evangelist authors however are not real commentary at all, i.e. they don't help in explaining the meaning of the sayings. For one thing they each differ in the way they treat the sayings!

The evangelist writers use the sayings as mere ornaments, as illustrations of things Jesus said during his travels.
They feel free to change those ornaments as they please and also feel free to put them into contexts they fancy appropriate (and change their "Sitz im Leben").

By doing so they also destroyed the unity between the sayings, which they did not care about as they cared little about the original meaning of the sayings (if indeed they understood them to start with).

This all becomes apparent only after you start fathoming the original meaning and Sitz im Leben of the sayings and the great loss starts bothering you more and more.
But of course if you don't even try to understand the original sayings then what can I say, you will want to stick with the disjointed and incoherent visions of the evangelist authors.

 

[Marcion]

What few Christians realize is that the individual New Testament gospels are hybrid texts, texts that were created by multiple authors.
The problem with these hybrid texts is that the different authors or the speaker have quite different ways of thinking.

So when you go through the texts in their present form, you are sent in different directions again and again and cannot find a steady and consistent stream of thought.
The way Christians deal with this, is that they kind of keep out of focuss and don't read the text as it was originally meant but much more vaguely.
In fact they are doing a similar thing as to what the authors of the gospels did when they re-used and added the texts which they used as sources without paying much attention to the original meaning of those older texts (if indeed they had the ability to understand them properly, which I doubt).

When you read gMark, you are in fact sometimes reading the words of Jesus and sometimes reading the words of aMark himself.
When you read gMatthew, you are reading the words of aMark, the words of Jesus, as well as the words of aMatthew himself.
When you read gLuke, you are reading the words of aMark, the words of Jesus, the words of aLuke as well as the words of the later editors of gLuke.

If you really want to make sense of what you are reading, you have to be aware of who is actually speaking or writing in which part of the text.
It is wiser to pull such texts apart and read the sections by the different authors separately in order to more clearly see the trains of thought of the individual authors or speaker.
So this will make it easier to do exegesis instead of eisegesis.
When you try to do exegesis on the original teachings of Jesus you will have to let go of all the Christian thought patterns that were introduced by the Christian authors later in time, i.e. if you want to avoid their (as well as your own) eisegesis.

 

[Brian2]

I suspected as much.
The thing is, it was not Jesus himself who commented further on his own parables (except by saying why they were worded in such a secretive way). Nor was it the so-called apostles that commented on them, if you can speak of apostles at all.

Why wouldn't you call them apostles? Certainly Luke said that he got his information from eye witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning. Luke was not an apostle but we can see where he got his information.

The surrounding texts produced purely by the evangelist authors however are not real commentary at all, i.e. they don't help in explaining the meaning of the sayings. For one thing they each differ in the way they treat the sayings!

The context the sayings are in help with the interpretation and what Jesus is said to have said about the saying also help. They do not help if you are looking for completely unrelated interpretations however.

By doing so they also destroyed the unity between the sayings, which they did not care about as they cared little about the original meaning of the sayings (if indeed they understood them to start with).

This all becomes apparent only after you start fathoming the original meaning and Sitz im Leben of the sayings and the great loss starts bothering you more and more.
But of course if you don't even try to understand the original sayings then what can I say, you will want to stick with the disjointed and incoherent visions of the evangelist authors.

If Luke sourced his information from those who were witnesses and there from the start why would the context not be right?
I do not find the gospels disjointed and incoherent.

 

[Brian2]

What few Christians realize is that the individual New Testament gospels are hybrid texts, texts that were created by multiple authors.
The problem with these hybrid texts is that the different authors or the speaker have quite different ways of thinking.

So when you go through the texts in their present form, you are sent in different directions again and again and cannot find a steady and consistent stream of thought.
The way Christians deal with this, is that they kind of keep out of focuss and don't read the text as it was originally meant but much more vaguely.
In fact they are doing a similar thing as to what the authors of the gospels did when they re-used and added the texts which they used as sources without paying much attention to the original meaning of those older texts (if indeed they had the ability to understand them properly, which I doubt).

When you read gMark, you are in fact sometimes reading the words of Jesus and sometimes reading the words of aMark himself.
When you read gMatthew, you are reading the words of aMark, the words of Jesus, as well as the words of aMatthew himself.
When you read gLuke, you are reading the words of aMark, the words of Jesus, the words of aLuke as well as the words of the later editors of gLuke.

It all sounds like interesting theory if you first of all reject the idea that the gospels are genuine recollections of what Jesus did and said. I see no reason to do that however.

If you really want to make sense of what you are reading, you have to be aware of who is actually speaking or writing in which part of the text.
It is wiser to pull such texts apart and read the sections by the different authors separately in order to more clearly see the trains of thought of the individual authors or speaker.
So this will make it easier to do exegesis instead of eisegesis.
When you try to do exegesis on the original teachings of Jesus you will have to let go of all the Christian thought patterns that were introduced by the Christian authors later in time, i.e. if you want to avoid their (as well as your own) eisegesis.

I think if I did that then I could end up reading into the passages what was never meant to be there. My own eisegesis and ideas would be the ruler of what the passages meant.

 

[Marcion]

Why wouldn't you call them apostles? Certainly Luke said that he got his information from eye witnesses and those who had been there from the beginning. Luke was not an apostle but we can see where he got his information.

The whole idea of apostles is a Christian myth. The original sayings of Jesus don't mention apostles either.

The context the sayings are in help with the interpretation and what Jesus is said to have said about the saying also help. They do not help if you are looking for completely unrelated interpretations however.

You don't seem to understand, the Christian context does not help with their interpretations. The original context in their proper position within Q-lite does however help. For that you need to read them in their reconstructed form and place. The interpretations follow from a deeper understanding of the sayings collection itself. There is no need to speak of "unrelated" as they are internally related to each other.

If Luke sourced his information from those who were witnesses and there from the start why would the context not be right?
I do not find the gospels disjointed and incoherent.

You don't find them thus because you did not analyse their proper origins. The author(s) of Luke merely copied parts of gMark and Q-lite and added stuff they made up themselves. There is no question of any independent witnessing nor of indirect witnessing.

It all sounds like interesting theory if you first of all reject the idea that the gospels are genuine recollections of what Jesus did and said. I see no reason to do that however.

I can understand you would think so as a Christian. I much prefer the original Jesus to what Christians made him into.

I think if I did that then I could end up reading into the passages what was never meant to be there. My own eisegesis and ideas would be the ruler of what the passages meant.

That would probably be so in your case. But for someone who understands Jesus well enough the explanation is exegesis rather than eisegesis. The proof lies in the universality of His teachings, you cannot read that into the text if it is not already there.

 

[Brian2]

The whole idea of apostles is a Christian myth. The original sayings of Jesus don't mention apostles either.

How do you know that?

You don't seem to understand, the Christian context does not help with their interpretations. The original context in their proper position within Q-lite does however help. For that you need to read them in their reconstructed form and place. The interpretations follow from a deeper understanding of the sayings collection itself. There is no need to speak of "unrelated" as they are internally related to each other.

Do you take the saying of Jesus concerning His death and resurrection and the meaning of that and concerning who He is as original or do you see Jesus just as a teacher?

You don't find them thus because you did not analyse their proper origins. The author(s) of Luke merely copied parts of gMark and Q-lite and added stuff they made up themselves. There is no question of any independent witnessing nor of indirect witnessing.

If Luke was the companion of Paul then he had every opportunity to hear witnesses.

I can understand you would think so as a Christian. I much prefer the original Jesus to what Christians made him into.

People make Jesus into all sorts of strange things when they neglect what the New Testament tells us about Jesus.

That would probably be so in your case. But for someone who understands Jesus well enough the explanation is exegesis rather than eisegesis. The proof lies in the universality of His teachings, you cannot read that into the text if it is not already there.

The thing about Jesus is that He is unique in that He was sent from God to do as the OT prophecies said He would do and did it. There is nothing universal about that, and nobody else is or has been in that position.

 

[Marcion]

How do you know that?

Acts is largely mythical, a late text just like the the altered (extended) form of gLuke is a late text. The idea of apostles was needed in order to give a justification for the authority of the bisschops who supposedly followed in their footsteps. We know very little about the real historical first mission of Jesus, the closest we can get is through some of the instructions to the missionaries in Q-lite.

Do you take the saying of Jesus concerning His death and resurrection and the meaning of that and concerning who He is as original or do you see Jesus just as a teacher?

There are no Q-lite sayings about His death and resurrection, those are a myth invented by Christians.

If Luke was the companion of Paul then he had every opportunity to hear witnesses.

We don't know who the real author of gLuke was. Such ideas are later projections.

People make Jesus into all sorts of strange things when they neglect what the New Testament tells us about Jesus.

It's exactly the other way round, the Christians myths about Jesus are the 'strange things', the personality of Jesus in Q-lite is nothing extraordinary for a spiritual Master, quite acceptable for people of any type of faith.

The thing about Jesus is that He is unique in that He was sent from God to do as the OT prophecies said He would do and did it. There is nothing universal about that, and nobody else is or has been in that position.

Those are Christian myths. Myths are always very special and unique because they have no connection to reality but are made up stories.

The Abrahamic people have a tendency of imagining that God sees their tribe as very special, chosen as the elite tribe with a special type of superior religion. This whole idea of being special is mythical, in fact spirituality is universal just like science is and Jesus was a spiritual Master just like any Hindu, Buddhist or Jain or Jewish mystic, nothing exceptional.

Religious mythical thinking however is not typical for Abrahamics, Hinduism is also full of mythical ideas.
The problem arises when religious people start using mythical ideas in their argumentations for or against certain religious viewpoints.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Some parts of gospels have more historical reliability than others. There were some quests for historical Jesus.

Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia