{"id":5067,"date":"2021-10-21T11:31:20","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T09:31:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5067"},"modified":"2025-06-17T13:05:46","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T11:05:46","slug":"interpretation-exegesis-hermeneutics-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/interpretation-exegesis-hermeneutics-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpretation, Exegesis, Hermeneutics"},"content":{"rendered":"

INTERPRETATION AND ARGUMENTATION<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. The arts of understanding<\/span><\/h1>\n

Hermeneutics, exegesis and interpretation are the arts involved in the understanding of complex texts such as the Bible<\/em>, the Criminal Code<\/em>, the Quran<\/em>, the Iliad<\/em>, the Communist Manifesto<\/em>, the Talmud<\/em>, the Upanishads<\/em>, etc. (Boeckh [<\/strong>1886], p. 133; Gadamer [1967], p. 277; p. 280). Texts require an exegesis because they are written in forgotten languages, or are historically distant, or are hermetic. The fellowship believes that vital things depend on the precise meaning of such texts. This meaning is not immediately accessible to the contemporary reader. It must be established and preserved to ensure its accurate transmission.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hermeneutics<\/em><\/strong> is a philosophical approach to interpretation, defined as an effort to share a form of life\u2014a search for empathy with the text, its author, and the language and culture in which it was produced.
\nThus, hermeneutic understanding<\/em> is opposed to the physical explanations<\/em> sought in the natural sciences, where \u201cto explain\u201d means \u201cto subsume under a physical law\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

Psychoanalysis and linguistics have demonstrated that ordinary actions and words also can require interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The theoretical language of interpretation becomes complicated by the morphology of the lexicon, as is always the case when a theory develops within ordinary language. What is the difference between hermeneutics<\/em>, exegesis<\/em> and interpretation<\/em>?
\n<\/strong>The three respective lexical series contain a term designating the agent exegete<\/em>, hermeneutist<\/em>, interpreter.<\/em> Two of the series contain a noun referring to the process and result, interpretation<\/em>, exegesis. <\/em>These terms can also refer to the field of study, as can hermeneutics<\/em>. Only one series contains a verb: <\/strong>\u00a0to interpret<\/em>:<\/span> This verb will therefore be used for the three series, imposing its meaning on the entire lexical field.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the philological and historical sense, exegesis<\/strong> is a critical activity whose object is typically a text belonging to a cultural or religious tradition. The text is examined in terms of its material conditions of production and original practices, linguistic features (grammar and vocabulary), rhetorical features (genre), and historical and institutional context.\u00a0 It also considers the genesis of the work and its links with the life and milieu of the (sometimes unknown) author(s).
\nPhilological exegesis<\/em> <\/strong>establishes the text and reveals its meaning(s). Thus it contributes thus to resolving conflicting interpretations and articulating different levels of interpretation. It stabilizes the \u201cliteral meaning\u201d, or the core meaning of the text, thereby determining the material to be interpreted. Broadly speaking, exegesis encompasses interpretation; both aim to bridge the historical gap between the text and its\u00a0 contemporary readers.
\n<\/span>
\nThe purpose of philological exegesis<\/strong> is to express the text’smeaning. It seeks to create conditions that allow readers to project themselves into the past.
\n<\/span>In contrast, Interpretative exegesis<\/em><\/strong> (or interpretation<\/em>, hermeneutics<\/em>) reformulates that meaning to make it accessible to a contemporary reader; It actualizes the meaning of the text. The connection between hermeneutics and the rhetoric of religious preaching lies here.<\/span>
\nWhile exegesis aims to understand the meaning as expressed by the text; interpretation and commentary expand that meaning beyond the text itself. Unlike philological exegesis, interpretation can be allegorical. Philological interpretation is exoteric, whereas hermeneutics can be esoteric.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Rhetoric and Hermeneutics<\/span><\/h1>\n

Hermeneutics works on texts and attempts to make them understandable to a distant audience. In this sense, hermeneutics as the \u201cart of understanding\u201d is the counterpart of rhetoric as the \u00ab\u00a0art of persuasion.\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/span> Their complementary directions of fit are as follows:
\n<\/span>Rhetoric takes the perspective of a speaker or writer striving to persuade an <\/em>audience, the listener or reader. In contrast, hermeneutics takes the perspective of a reader or listener seeking to understand a speaker or writer <\/em>addressing them through a distant enigmatic text.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Rhetoric relates to live speech<\/em>, and considers the beliefs of the audience, in order to minimize effort. Hermeneutics relates to reading distant speech:<\/em> the reader must adapt to the text’s <\/span>meaning
\n<\/span>Together, hermeneutics and rhetoric establish dual cultural communicative competence, to understand<\/em> and to be understood<\/em>.<\/strong> <\/span>Rejecting rhetoric in favor of pure intellectual demand shifts the burden of understanding onto the reader, and thus requires hermeneutics.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Interpretation and Argumentation<\/span><\/h1>\n

The interpretive process applies to any component of discourse , from words to whole texts, in order to derive their meaning<\/em>, and this meaning is necessarily expressed in another discourse. The interpretive relation thus links two discourses, and the link between the interpreting<\/em> and the interpreted<\/em> texts is made according to transition rules<\/em> that are not different from the general argumentation schemes<\/em><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In argumentation, an argument is any statement that expressing a true or accepted view of reality. In interpretation, the data\u2014the argument statement\u2014is the utterance<\/em> to be interpreted, in its precise form in the text. Once this statement is available, the linguistic mechanisms are the same. If we consider the argument-conclusion relation in its greatest generality, we will say that the conclusion is what the speaker has in mind<\/em> when he presents the argument, and the conclusion is the argument’s meaning. Thus, the argumentative relation is no different from the interpretive relation. When the listener or reader has grasped the conclusion of the text, they have achieved an authentic understanding of that text. This means that\u00a0 there is always a lack of meaning\u00a0 within the statement, and the statement is only given meaning in relation to a later statement. Meaning is thus constructed in an endless process, see orientation<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

As with argumentation, interpretation is valid to the extent that it conforms to a transitional laws accepted by the interpreting community concerned, such as the community of lawyers or theologians for example:<\/span><\/p>\n

The rabbis regarded the Pentateuch as a unified, divinely communicated text, consistent in all its parts. Consequently, by adopting certain principles of interpretation (middot<\/em>; \u201cmeasures,\u201d \u201cnorms\u201d). it was possible to uncover deeper meanings and to provide for a more complete application of its laws<\/span>
\nJacobs & Derovan, 2007, p. 25<\/span><\/p>\n

The same principles apply to the Muslim legal-religious interpretation (Khallaf [1942]), or to legal interpretation. The forms of argumentation used in law are the same as those used in interpreting all texts considered to have a systematic character. This is because they are considered to be the best expression of the legal-rational views of the time, either because they come from a divine source or an individual genius, see juridical Arguments<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

This postulate of strong, even perfect coherence is fundamental to the structuralist interpretation of texts, as well as to the interpretation of legal or religious texts, as mentioned in the previous quotation. It may conflict with the genetic argument<\/em> which constructs the meaning of a text through inferences justified by \u201cpreparatory works\u201d, such as the manuscripts, or by the author’s intentions<\/a>, as revealed , for example, by their correspondence.<\/strong> Genetic arguments are one aspect of the philological interpretation of the text.\u00a0 True believers <\/span>may view them with suspicion,<\/span> because genetic arguments assume that the text has a non-divine, at least partially human, origin.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INTERPRETATION AND ARGUMENTATION 1. The arts of understanding Hermeneutics, exegesis and interpretation are the arts involved in the understanding of complex texts such as the Bible, the Criminal Code, the Quran, the Iliad, the Communist Manifesto, the Talmud, the Upanishads, etc. (Boeckh [1886], p. 133; Gadamer [1967], p. 277; p. 280). Texts require an exegesis […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5067"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5067\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14387,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5067\/revisions\/14387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}