Exegetical Fallacies (Book Review)

'Exegetical Fallacies' was written by Canadian theologian David A Carson who currently serves as a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The book is 153 pages long and divided into six sections. Four of these six sections highlight different genres of fallacy and are further sub-divided into short sections on each particular fallacy. The book was published in 1984 by Baker Book House in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Carson's introduction reveals that his intent in writing 'Exegetical Fallacies' was to correct many of the most common logical mistakes that appear in Christian thought. He hopes the Church will be able to think and communicate more correctly by guarding against these errors.  

Word Study Fallacies 

The first section deals with word study fallacies. Most of these are the result of abusing the original Greek. By misusing individual words, one can often change the meaning of entire passages.

The root fallacy is when an interpreter makes too much of the Greek root from which a word derives. Carson writes that it is common for preachers to use Greek roots to argue for a special meaning behind individual biblical words. Carson illustrates the absurdity of this, however, by pointing out how ineffective this is in English. For example, the English word "nice" is actually derived from the Latin for "ignorant." A hypothetical future preacher speaking a thousand years after English become a dead language would totally misunderstand the original meaning of the word "nice" if he tried to integrate the Latin "ignorant" into his exegesis. 

The semantic anachronism fallacy occurs when one tries to integrate a word's later definition into the meaning of a verse written at an earlier date. Although this fallacy can be committed in the same language, Carson draws attention to its most exaggerated uses. For example, many preachers will replace the translated word "power" in Romans 1:16 with the word "dynamite" because the Greek word for "power" eventually evolved into our English word for "dynamite." Carson points out that in Romans 1:16 the Greek actually implies the exact opposite of the destructive force of dynamite, but because of the chronological distortion the guilty preacher ends up warping the whole passage.

The semantic obsolescence fallacy is the mirror image of the semantic anachronism fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an interpreter reaches back in time from documents written centuries earlier in order to argue that a Greek word should be interpreted in the same way it was in the older document. Carson uses the example of the word "martyr" which evolved from meaning "one who gives court evidence" into its second century meaning of "one who dies for a cause." Anyone trying to interpret an example of "martyr" appearing in a second century document would achieve nothing by consulting the word's original meaning. 

The appeal to unknown or unlikely meaning fallacy is when an interpreter claims a word holds a certain connotation when in fact there is little evidence it does. Carson suggests this fallacy most often results from bad research and a failure to check primary source documents.

The verbal parallelomania fallacy is when an interpreter uses verbal parallels to draw connections between two pieces of literature. Carson states that these connections are often highly dubious. He uses the many scholarly parallelisms asserted about the Johannine prologue as an example. 

The linkage of language and mentality is a fallacy involving the concept that languages limits the range of thought for those that use them. For example, some might argue that Greek words related to time might force those who speak that language to have a certain conception of time that differs from those who speak Hebrew. 

The false assumption about technical meaning fallacy relates to when readers try to take individual words and argue that every time they appear in the text they represent a specific theological concept. For example, the word "foreknow" is often alleged to mean something very specific in relation to predestination.

The selective and prejudicial use of evidence fallacy is committed when a person picks and chooses the verses and evidence that best supports their thesis while simply ignoring all the information that might blatantly contradict or destroy their thesis. 

The thirteenth fallacy discussed by Carson is the unwarranted restriction of the semantic field. This fallacy takes place when an interpreter forces a word to mean only one thing when in reality it could have other meanings. For example, some people argue that the Greek words behind "this is my body" forces one to interpret the passage as the bread literally being the body of Christ. However, this assertion is simply wrong because the term "is" can also mean "represents."

The final three fallacies in the section deal with people's overemphasis on the idea that a Semitic language underlying the Greek New Testament, transferring the meaning of certain words across authors, and the general use of words as specific references when they contain no references.

Carson closes the first section by saying that most biblical word fallacies are committed because of people's limited understanding of the Greek language, and he suggests that most preachers who learn Greek don't have the ability to understand it in context. 

Grammatical Fallacies 

In his intro to 'Grammatical Fallacies,' Carson writes that word study fallacies are far more common than those in grammar because few people know enough Greek grammar to truly generate grammatical fallacies. He also points out that the law of entropy works on languages as much as anything else, and that the rules of grammar observed in Classical Greek do not necessarily follow into Hellenistic Greek. 

The first grammatical fallacy deals with the aorist tense. Some have claim this tense, when relating to an action, means "once for all." This allegedly means that when Jesus died he did so once for all and completed it. The problem with this interpretation of the aorist tense, however, is that this same tense is used in other ways. For example, the aorist tense is used when Sapphira falls at the feet of Peter. There are always exceptions.

Another fallacy is the interpretation of the middle voice as supposedly always meaning that a subject acts of itself. Carson uses the example of I Corinthians 13 were some have claimed that the gift of tongues will pass away on its own accord while the other gifts in the list will vanish by other means.

Pages 79 to 90 deal with several more grammatical fallacies related to the interpretation of Greek. Among these is the abuse of Matthew 16:19 and the periphrastic perfect tense, badly connecting the tenses of clauses, and a general admonition to avoid interpreting Sharp's Rule and the Colwell Rule too rigorously.

Carson finishes the chapter on grammatical fallacies with a note of hope for advancements in the study of New Testament grammar with the recent creation of GRAMCORD software. 

Logical Fallacies 

Carson defines logic as "workable" and proceeds to list the logical exegetical fallacies.

Carson's first logical fallacy is the false disjunctions fallacy. This refers to when an author presents two possible extremes as an either/or choice when an alternative could be made for something in the middle. 

The second fallacy is the failure to recognize distinctions. This occurs when a person tries to argue that since two things are alike in many respects they must also be alike in all respects.

The third fallacy is the selective use of evidence. Many authors and opinion leaders fail to observe all the relevant evidence and simply pick the material that best supports their claims.

Carson discusses the fallacy of improperly handled syllogisms before he delves into improper question framing, in which a question is framed in such a way that the answer cannot reflect a truly accurate set of circumstances. For example, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Another common fallacy is the confusion of truth and precision. Sometimes the scripture is not completely precise about things, but this does not mean that it is not, in some sense, still accurate and true.

Common amongst the less educated is the emotive fallacy in which a person will base an argument on emotions. For example, one might argue that Hell cannot be real because it is painful to imagine God condemning a person to such a place for eternity. 

Unwarranted generalization and over specification are fallacies often embraced by those wishing to draw support from a passage where no true support can be found. For example, we can't take Jesus' exchange with the rich young ruler as representing a universal model for all conversion approaches.

The tenth logical fallacy discussed by Carson is asserting from a negative inference. Just because a proposition is true does not make its negative also true. 

Carson writes that preachers often find it easy to make a fallacious associative jump. In many cases, these are caused by a lack of context before eventually devolving into proof-texting.

There is the logical fallacy of false statement. This fallacy describes statements that are false as the result of bad sources or faulty memory. 

A non sequitur fallacy is committed when someone draws a conclusion which does not follow from the evidence presented. This occurs often in documents drafted by consensus and based on compromise.

Fallacies based on equivocal argumentation is when one makes an argument that is not necessarily wrong but claims to be more certain than it really is. The argument lacks the evidence that would be required to back up its claims. Related to this fallacy is the cavalier dismissal in which a person will dismiss the possibility of an opposing argument being correct without actually providing evidence against it. 

Inadequate analogies represent an author's attempt to fuse an analogy with a text or argument which clearly does not properly represent or encompass the argument or text being addressed. 

Simplistic appeals to authority are common when an author can appeal to someone famous and respectable to back up their argument. They assume that by simply saying someone's name in the context of their argument a reader will accept it as truth. 

Presuppositional & Historical Fallacies 

Carson introduces the final section of his book, 'Presuppositional and Historical Fallacies,' by talking about the New Hermeneutics and the limits of mankind's ability to understand history.

The first fallacy falling under this title is uncontrolled historical reconstruction. This fallacy centers on the tendency by many modern scholars to interpret New Testament texts in the context of extreme historical speculation, and even to dismiss parts of passages based on wild speculation. 

The second section discusses fallacies of causation. These fallacies deal with mistaken assumptions that specific events were the direct result of factors which may or may not have actually contributed to them. Related to this fallacy are fallacies of motivation which in their extreme result in scholarly psychoanalysis of Biblical characters.

The last fallacy in Carson's book is that of omission of distanciation in the interpretive process. Broadly speaking, this fallacy occurs when people read their own theology into the text. 

Conclusion 

In his conclusion, Carson warns there are many more scenarios that might lead to fallacy. He talks about issues of genre in the Bible, the various juxtapositions of text, and statistical issues.

Carson's 'Exegetical Fallacies' is an excellent summery of the many pitfalls involved in interpreting the Bible. However, his book can be overwhelming to the point where it might discourage many from even attempting to interpret the Bible. The section on Greek, for example, might leave a reader wondering whether there is any use in an amateur studying that language, or whether contextual interpretation is the only legitimate way to understand a passage.