Product Description

Assuming that the reader possesses a working knowledge of Greek, this book identifies the common grammatical, lexical, cultural, theological, and historical mistakes Bible exegetes can make. In Fundamentalist Journal, Robert Yarborough reviewed Exegetical Fallacies this way: "Carson has furnished a pithy and practical manual of many of those mistakes to which all of us who deal with the text in earnest fall prey." Paperback.

[ ^Top ]

Difficult but Rewarding        Rating:

(I have to admit that doing a review or critiquing this book was really a challenge (or really a pain in the head experience) mainly because there are too many technical terms that Carson used that were simply out of my vocabulary. So this book is not meant for the casual reader to enjoy on the weekends. It's a serious book with a hard hitting purpose; unmasking exegetical mistakes, but to drive the meaning to what Carson ascribes to as Exegetical Fallacies.)

Summary

Donald A. Carson has written a book focusing mainly on fallacies dealing with the task of exegesis in his book entitled "Exegetical Fallacies." Carson explains that the thrust of the book does not seek to be an exhaustive study but as he explains on his focus that the citation given are based on errors that are "among the most common." The book is divided into four main chapters. The first chapter deals with fallacies on word-studies which, is largely contributed to an over focused attention on just meanings of words. The second chapter deals with fallacies that focus on the grammatical aspects where interpreters tend to be too rigid on tenses or moods of words where the New Testament Greek is seen to be more flexible. Next is a chapter on logical fallacies where the error lies in assumed meanings of certain passages or texts without the rigors discernment and study. The fourth chapter focuses on presupposition and historical fallacies which highlights errors that deal with the interpreter's disregard to the bible and its message. In conclusion Carson cites discussions on other fallacies that one can follow through in future discussions.

Critique
There are many books out there that are centered on the task of proposing principles of helps to a certain task. In biblical scholarship the field of books helping in this matter is of no impending shortage. These books have a positive outlook to them. But what D. A. Carson has written in "Exegetical Fallacies" is of a different nature in where it focuses on errors accorded to the task of exegesis. Carson makes it clear that he is not intending the book to be an exhaustive study but focuses on four main issues that largely contribute to fallacies.

One of the things that would leap to the reader's attention is the importance of context. Errors would, be easily, if not minimized if interpreters follow this rule. Reading a certain passage, taking on the meaning of a certain word, judging the grammatical structures, seeking the possibility if it's historical findings needs the interpreter to be guided by the context of how these correlate together. This I believe is what Carson is stressing on every chapter of his book. He also draws our attention to studies or discoveries that are narrow in their conclusions as well as those that are rather oversimplified in their contention of weighing certain natures of how grammars are constructed in the Greek New Testament. Interpreters could be also left to blame when they seek not to express the message of the bible when they add meaning into the text, disregarding what the bible is supposed to be as well as the witness it is supposed to hold.

The book has much strength but where it suffers if that is a valid contention to weigh, has to be where it is difficult to read unlike the book written by Peter Enns "Inspiration and Incarnation" which deals with a difficult subject but takes the route of being more easy to grasp. Now I'm not at all saying that Enns is better than Carson in terms of who is right and wrong but this is solely on presentation and readability. It would have helped if Carson had prepared a chapter detailing meanings of certain terms to help those who have little knowledge in the technical terms he uses to describe his arguments. But what the book really achieves is to convey the task of interpreting the bible has to be done with care and humility out of reverence to the Word we seek to expound.

Exegetical Fallacies        Rating:

Just received the book after returning from vacation, performed a high teir skim and this book is full of good details. This will require more study on my part but offers a good foundation and knowledge base.

Is it or Is it not the Word of God?        Rating:

If the answer to that question is `yes, it IS the Word of God' and we REALLY believe that, how concerned should we be at interpreting and exegeting a Biblical passage correctly?! Would we not readily invite correction to avoid fallacies in our reasoning, whether obvious or subtle? D.A. Carson has written this helpful little book so that teachers of God's Word accurately handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Carson presents useful real-life examples (including himself!) to explain each fallacy. We might be guilty of an exegetical fallacy if we:
1. approach the text as if we know what the text means already, but actually we are imposing our own thoughts on the text. (pg 24)...when we select the evidence to say what we want to say (pg 54, 93-94)
2. investigate and determine a meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word based exclusively on etymology, by the root(s) of the word. (pg 28-32)
3. read a late or modern use of a word back into earlier literature. (pg 33-35)
4. read an earlier word meaning (such as in classical Greek) into a later rendering of the word (pg 35-37)
5. read an unlikely, obscure meaning back into a word (pg 37-44)
6. assume that a word always has a certain technical meaning (pg 45), that synonyms are always identical (pg 49), or that a word has a certain meaning without appreciating its full semantic range (pg 55-56)
7. select a meaning of a word based its entire semantic range and reading it back into a specific context. (pg 60-61)
8. fail to appreciate the Semitic background of the Greek New Testament. (pg 61-62)
9. assume that one author's use of a word is equivalent, in all cases, to another author's. (pg 62-63)
10. assume that profound understandings of a text is possible by simple word studies alone. (pg 64)
11. fail to appreciated that "semantics, meaning, is more than the meaning of words. It involves phrases, sentences, discourse, genre, style." We must see how words relate to words & why one word is used instead of another word. (pg 64)
12. fail to appreciate the use of the aorist tense - it is undefined action with a poorly defined "semantic shape" compared to other tenses (pg 68-75)
13. assume that every middle voice is reflexive or suggests that the subject acts on itself (pg 75-77)
14. assume that classed conditions or definite articles exclusively dictate meaning (pg 77-84)
15. assume an "either/or" requirement for meaning when a "complementarity" approach might be acceptable (pg 90-92)
16. assume that, because `x' and `y' are alike in certain respects, they are alike in all respects (i.e. we fail to recognize distinctions) (pg 92-93)
17. fail to logically develop thought that necessarily and sufficiently leads to the conclusion (pg 95-101). It includes conclusions that do not follow from the evidence and arguments presented (pg 117-118)
18. assume that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true (pg 101-102)
19. Think that one's own experience and interpretation of reality is the proper framework for interpreting the biblical text. (pg 103-105)
20. Fail to appreciate lack of precision in the Biblical text. (pg 106)
21. Appeal to emotion as a substitute for reason (pg 106-108) or make cavalier statements (pg 118) or abuse expressions such as "obviously." (pg 122)
22. overgeneralize or overspecify a text and, thus, go beyond that which is written. (pg 108-115)
23. use ideas, concepts, or experience that has no close relation to the text. (pg 115-116)
24. use arguments that may not technically be wrong, but are nevertheless faulty, equivocal, and unsatisfying. "They claim to deliver more than they can." (pg 118-121)
25. use an inadequate analogy (pg 121-122)
26. simply appeal to some authority (pg 122-123)
27. make arguments on meaning based on presuppositions. This includes the belief there is no real or single meaning. It also includes reading ones own personal theology into the text. (pg 125-130)
28. ignore the bible's obvious story line and "givens." (pg 130-131)
29. attempt to reconstruct the history behind the text in an uncontrolled fashion. (pg 131-133)
30. attempt to attribute causation or motivation. (pg 133-134)

In the last chapter, Carson briefly introduces other areas for further discussions of fallacy: Literary genre, New Testament use of the Old, arguments from silence, juxtapositions of text, statistical arguments, and figurative vs literal language. He concludes the book by encouraging the reader with a healthy balance of self-doubt and confidence (pg 142).

Exercise Care In Selecting Words        Rating:

Exegetical Fallacies has a limited purview in that it does not consider brilliant exegesis, but woeful and fallacious errors. 'Ignorance is not a virtue', states DA Carson, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. But don't be surprised if some of your favorite verses appear in this attempt to pay attention to biblical correctness.

Don Carson asserts that unwarranted notions can be costly. Theologians have developed an extensive vocabulary to combat this phenomenon. Grouping the erroneous assumptions into four categories, Carson combines the theological import of each fallacy to its specific area of exegesis. There are, to his reckoning, 1) Word-Study Fallacies 2) Grammatical Fallacies 3) Logical Fallacies 4) and Presuppositional and Historical Fallacies.

Carson mitigates the necessity of this type of study when he identifies that the generation of conservative Christians before the present one, faced charges on the reliability of the Scriptures, but with the advent of rapid technological advances, the skills and demand for precise and well constructed defenses of the faith have increased, and the need to be conversant with the ever-increasing database of critical Christian knowledge is imperative to biblical scholars as himself. Mistakes common to all believers are perpetuated by the overwhelming availability of vaunted and popular Christian literature, and the tyranny of untested assumptions is proliferated by our failure to cope with being robbed of the emotive, psychological advantage we assume we have gained by attaching foreign meaning and unusual interpretations to the God-breathed Word. Carson does much to correct the naivety of exegetes in the pursuit to discover the grammatical meaning of words and phrases of Scripture. Insisting that only by inductive study and proper contextualization can we exact proper conclusions, he indicates that a working knowledge of Greek and Hebrew plays a much more important role than often suggested. The lack of comparative materials also suggests that these studies are the realm of the most learned, as their thoroughness constitutes the closest thing to gaining a proper understanding of the intent of the words.

'A third level of the same problem was painfully exemplified in three articles about the blood in Christianity Today (Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, 'Blood: The Miracle of Cleansing'; 'Blood: The Miracle of Life'; 'Life in the Blood' - all issued 1983). What a wonderful picture (we were told) of how the blood of Jesus Christ purifies us from every sin, 1 John 1:7. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. Worse, it is irresponsibly mystical and theologically misleading. The phrase 'the blood of Jesus' refers to Jesus' violent, sacrificial death. In general, the blessings that Scripture show to be accomplished or achieved by the blood of Jesus, are equally said to be accomplished by the death of Jesus (e.g. justification: Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-9; redemption: Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; Rev 5:9). If John tells us that the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ purifies us from every sin, he is informing us that...' p 35 The efficacy of the cross is subjected to crass application and denudes the glory of redemption.

'Manson suggests that Rom 1-3 'is really an elaborate confession of sin for all mankind, with its climax at 3:23', and that it 'is followed immediately by a description of the death of Christ which can be properly understood only by being brought into relation to the ritual acts of the high priest on the day of the atonement' - this being apparently a reference to the 'in His blood'. This, too, is difficult to accept.' Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross p 191

Exacting semantics and accomplished linguists are required to overturn these kind of fallacious teachings. Says Carson: 'In some instances an intrinsically unlikely or ill-attested meaning receives detailed defense and may even become entrenched in the church.' p 38 Explaining how this is done, he provides acute critical insight: 'First, they argue that translators of the Septuagint and New Testament writers have invested agape love with special meaning to provide an adequate expression by which to talk about the love of God; and only this accounts for the word's rapid rise to prominence in our literature. But this argument has been overturned by the diachronic study of Robert Joly, who presents convincing evidence.' p 51 The problem at church level is how to unlearn the intricate web of deceit spun by those whose popular views serve their agenda in gaining converts and financial profit.

'But my concern at the moment is his selective use of biblical evidence. He turns to John's writings and cites those passages which in some way relate knowing God or believing in God to keeping God's commandments and loving others. But he fails to cite those many passages, both in John's writings and elsewhere, that show there is also propositional content to Christian belief. The fallacy lies in his implicit supposition that the presentation of selective evidence constitutes proof.' p 54 Sufficient evidence that even a learned scholar is capable of the most common menace of 'proof-texting'.

'One of the most common errors preachers make in the area of literary genre occurs in their handling of Proverbs. A proverb is neither a promise nor case law. If it is treated that way, it may prove immensely discouraging to some believers when things do not seem to work out as the promise seeks to suggest.' p 137

See Carson's excellent presentation on deception from pp. 112 -115.

Excellent book.        Rating:

This book is invaluable. I learned things here that I had never heard anywhere else that truly helps with interpreting the word of God.

[ ^Top ]