archshrk

Turns out neither is correct.

In studying scripture we tend to come at it (or away from it) in two ways. One is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text. The other is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one’s own ideas. Now few will admit to the second but many if not most of us tend to do that very thing. But that’s not my point.

The first is called Exegesis (ek-sə-ˈjē-səs) and the second is called Eisegesis (ī-sə-ˈjē-səs). With names like that, its kind of hard to remember which is which but try this, Exegesis is what you get out of the text (Exe = exits) and Eisegesis is what you put into the text (Eise = inserts). The real problem is, they are both nouns. Think of them as commentaries - a thing.

So you can have an Exegesis of the text or an Eisegesis of the text. An exegete is a practitioner of this art, and the adjectival form is exegetic. The plural of the word exegesis is exegeses. In the same way, n individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, and the adjectival form is eisegetic and eisegeses is the plural form.

But what is the verb form of these two words?

Turns out there is no verb form. But that doesn’t stop us from making one. At first pass, we want to say we exegete the text but as we already discussed, that’s a person who interprets the text. While commentaries have commentators who comment, there are no exegetes who exege the exegesis. So the question is, what would the verb form be and why isn’t there one already? Should there be a verb form or should we simply say, “we interpret the text” vs. “we read into the text”.