Not a few such considerations arise when trying to explain the origin and development of a particular text (primarily the Gospels), about which much has been said in the previous chapter. Of course, such guesses can be interesting and useful, but when the text of a single book is dissected, only certain elements are taken from it as significant, and the rest are declared late and unreliable, then the main criterion for choice inevitably becomes the arbitrariness of the researcher. For example, for the school of demythologization (see Section 2.4.1.2.), one of the main criteria in the analysis of the Gospel texts is the expectation of the imminent Second Coming. If it turns out from the text that it should take place literally now, then the text is declared original and authentic. But if the text suggests that the Coming may not take place soon, the researchers believe that it was added at a later time, often precisely to explain why the Coming is delayed (the so-called "deferred parousia").

It is not difficult to see that such a difference is subjective and is based on the researcher's confidence that he has accurately comprehended the thoughts and feelings of the "historical Jesus". But such a researcher may not be alone, and as a result, one "historical Jesus" comes out as an anarchist revolutionary, another as a mystic detached from the world, a third as an ardent nationalist, and so on.

3.2.8. "So the Bible Supports ..."

Often, the meaning of a biblical text is adjusted to some modern system of beliefs that the text supposedly supports, if not proves. This, of course, is widely used by non-Christian and near-Christian religious groups, and anyone else. For example, Proverbs 5:15-17 is very clear in its context about fidelity to one's wife, but I have read these verses ("Drink water from your pool and flow from your well") quoted by supporters of urine therapy. The logic here is clear: urine therapy is an undoubted good, which means that it should be mentioned in the Bible, and if so, then it remains only to find where exactly. These poems seem to fit!

If the quote does not quite fit, it is "corrected" in this case. For example, the Gospel expression "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8) looks like this in one preacher of Eastern religion: "Blessed are those who cleanse their consciences, for they shall see themselves as gods." By the way, this interpretation is based on the fact that the verb form "they will see", οψονται, is given in the middle voice, therefore, it must mean "they will see themselves". In fact, the future tense from the verb οραω is always used in this voice, and if the author wanted to say "they will see themselves", he would have to express himself in another way, for example, εαυτους οψονται. But it is not a grammatical error that is primary here, but the desire to interpret the text in the spirit of pantheism, frankly speaking, alien to the Bible.

There is probably no Christian who does not recognize the absurdity of these constructions. But many, nevertheless, resort to such "exegesis" themselves, especially in an argument, when they select suitable quotations to prove a predetermined point of view, and even more so when they try to interpret these quotations in the right light, or to retranslate them in order to exclude undesirable understanding. This often happens in interfaith disputes, and recently such a move has often been made for the sake of political correctness. For example, translations in which the word "Jews" in the Gospels are translated as "Jewish spiritual leaders" are becoming more and more common, in order to eliminate interpretations that hold the entire Jewish people responsible for the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, in the spirit of combating anti-Semitism. The most radical examples to date are related to the justification of homosexual relations, which are unequivocally condemned in the Bible. All quotes condemning homosexuality are reinterpreted accordingly, and the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is translated as "Thou shalt not commit fidelity to thy partner" in order to include homosexual couples. For example, David and his friend Jonathan can even be declared such a couple, quite unsubstantiated.

Whether urine therapy, pantheism or homosexuality are good or bad, whether they are permissible for Christians – these are separate questions, and we will not touch on them at all now. But an impartial exegetical analysis will show that the Bible says nothing in their support.

Tasks for section 3.2.

What is the fallacy of the following reasoning?

♦ In the Bible, leaven is always a symbol of sin. Alcoholic beverages are also fermented, so the word "wine" in the Bible actually refers to unfermented grape juice. In addition, the Bible teaches that drunkenness is a sin, so Christians should not drink any alcoholic beverages. ♦In the original Phil 2:2 ("add to my joy: have one thought, have the same love...") the adjective conjunction ινα "so that" is used. Literally, these words can be translated as follows: "Complete my joy so that I may have only thoughts." For Paul, therefore, the goal of joy is unanimity. ♦ Scripture often refers to God as our Father, so wherever we find the expression "sons of God" (e.g., in Genesis 6:2), it refers exclusively to people who worship God. ♦By saying that the Apostle Peter would be the foundation of the Church (Matthew 16:1319), Christ thereby determined that all Christians would be headed by the bishops of Rome, the first of whom was the Apostle Peter. ♦The Psalmist, when he says, "The righteous is no more, for there is none faithful among the sons of men" (Psalm 11:2), means that all men are sinful and subject to condemnation; they can only be justified by faith through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, which was not yet offered, so that not a single person in the OT is righteous. ♦Jesus' speech in Mark 13 makes it clear that He expected the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world in the very near future ("this generation shall not pass away until all these things are," 13:30). When it turned out that the end of the world was late, clarifications had to be added to His original words, for example, "Of that day or hour no one knows" (13:32). ♦ The veneration of the relics of dead saints is mentioned in the Bible: for example, in 2 Kings 13:21 it is said that the dead were resurrected after touching the bones of the prophet Elisha. ♦The words "a spiritual man judges all things, but no one can judge him" (1 Corinthians 2:15) mean that every believer stands above worldly conventions (such as the rules of politeness) and is guided in his actions directly by the Holy Spirit.

Attention, here were judgments that the author considers erroneous! Give your example of an exegetical solution that seems to you to be erroneous. What is the mistake here? How could it be avoided?

CONTENT

[4] Some of the examples are taken from a survey of typical exegetical errors in Carson 1984. [5] See. the clearest exposition of such techniques is Povarnin 1923 (a classic book that has been reprinted many times and is not outdated to this day). [6] This text is published on the Internet, but the name of the translator and the link are not intentionally given here. [7] Carson 1984:70-71. [8] For an excellent analysis of the concept of "righteousness" in Paul's Epistles, see Wright 2010:93-109.

CONTENT