Talk:Biblical hermeneutics Information & Talk:Biblical hermeneutics Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biblical hermeneutics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Bible

(Rated Start-Class, Top-importance)

Bible portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Christianity

(Rated Start-Class, High-importance)

Christianity portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Authentic?

If a technique for eliciting authentic meaning from texts is valid, the corpus of texts to which the technique can be fruitfully applied will not be limited to a pre-selected few. The reader of Wikipedia should recall that the principles of "Biblical" hermeneutics can also be applied, in scrupulous detail, to the "Gettysburg Address"— with delightful results! --Wetman 21:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article has a number of failings, not least of which is that it starts with Schleirmacher in the 19th century. Is the reader to understand that nothing was written about hermeneutics before then? It also fails to mention borrowings from such broad studies as form criticism, textual criticism, etc., which were first applied to various general texts before anyone thought to bring them to bear on the Bible. Wesley 05:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermeneutics Section

Does that section on hermeneutic techniques look like it could be of any use here? I think it is a little too focused on specifically Biblical interpretation to remain on the Hermeneutics page, but it looks like it could add something here. Ig0774 01:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not so helpful article

I find this article rather messy and little helpful. Since I am an editor of the Italian Wikipedia, I wrote there a corresponding article with a different structure. For the moment I have no time to translate that into English. If someone would venture to read the Italian article, I would appreciate his or her evaluation of it. pcastellina 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is very messy. The article describes what we refer to as "conclusions" by the word "principles". What we mean with "principles", i.e. rules to be followed when applying the method of "Biblical hermeneutics", is severely confused with conclusions earlier drawn. If conclusions are used as principles, then the conclusions will most probably follow from applying the method, in which case the whole "Biblical hermeneutics" apparatus is a massive-force circular reasoning. That might be a fact, but this is not how I perceive "Biblical hermeneutics", so instead it's much more probable that the article is simply messy. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis

The section “Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis” is embarrassingly bad. Although the reference to the section is very amusing i.e. “This list of 'principles' in conservative evangelical hermeneutics appears to derive from: Hartill, J E 1960. Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.” I have never seen a reference with a qualifier before. Could someone rewrite this section with real references?--Riferimento 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than offering merely condescending and judgmental criticism, brother, I'm sure we would all find it refreshing and extremely helpful if you would take the time to exercise your obvious expertise to make this author's sincere effort even better. Many of us who struggle with understanding in this area, do not have your level of education. Therefore, we must rely upon these articles not only for basic information but also the sourcing for that information. You could choose to be a real blessing here.Mmayma 19:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the Real Problem Here?

As a graduate student knee deep in a Master of Divinity Degree program, the discipline of Biblical Hermeneutics is of great concern to me. Several of you criticize the placement of the text topically, question the validity of the author's sources, mention some additional discipines that could be included, or question the focus of the article, but none dispute the accuracy of what the author says--especially in regard to the list of Principles of Conservative Evangelical Hermeneutics. It would be so much more helpful, in the spirit of 1 Pet 5, if those of you who are more learned could provide constructive criticism vis a vis information accuracy issues vice relatively meaningless format issues.Mmayma 19:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with systematic Biblical hermeneutics

is that many of them are not biblically based. They are systems imposed upon the Bible rather than deduced from the Bible.

For instance: It is an a priori argument to say that each passage of scripture must have only one interpretation that is based on the literal-historical meaning. The story of Tamar challenges this man-made limitation.

God was so intimately involved in history that:

a town was named Timnath (the appointment)
a law was given requiring that a brother give his deceased brother and heir
a daughter-in-law lost two husbands without an heir
a father-in-law denied her his third son the daughter-in-law played the harlot to her father-in-law
she was promised a goat
she asked for assurance for the goat
she was given three items as an assurance: rod, ring, bracelet
she had twins
their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise"

God was so involved in the life of the author that the author recorded this odd transaction without really knowing why it was important. But God used the history, and the author, to paint a picture of the birth of His own Son such that:

Tamar:Mary made herself available at Timnath:the appointment
Tamar:Mary was promised a goat:scape goat "for he shall save his people from their sins."
When Tamar:Mary asked for assurance of the promise, she was given three things:
Rod: "The power of God will overshadow you"…"
Signet ring: "He shall be called the Son of God"
Bracelets: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife (in Numbers an empty vessel without bracelets is unclean. Mary was not unclean, and Judah was told "there was no prostitute here"
Tamar:Mary conceived , not by her legitimate husband, but by his father Judah:God
Tamar:Mary was going to be killed:divorced until the father was identified. Afterwards she was honored.
Tamar:Mary had twins: God-man
their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise" ::dayspring
Phares:Jesus though born to Tamar:Mary first, was really the second breach:second man

God was so involved in the history and lives of the people and authors that the human scribes were almost typewriters incarnate, and God left his fingerprints throughout his word with such shadows as the story of Tamar. The inspiration of the scriptures goes well beyond our conception of it. Every jot and tittle had real history behind the living, observation and recording of it. Every paragraph had God's hand on the whole of the author's life.

I would suggest that each principle either show how it is biblically derived or state who imposed the rule.--BobCJones 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And so what? This is an encyclopedia describing "biblical hermeneutics", not a forum for criticising "biblical hermeneutics". If you have a good source for that criticism, you should add a little section "criticism" and write a paragraph citing that source. Then you should add a reference for that criticism, so I can go there and debunk all submit-to-my-thinking-or-be-rejected-kind of "religion" (better termed cult). Said: Rursus (☻) 08:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to do

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trajectory Hermeneutics, that article should be merged here. Doing so is an exercise for the editors of this article, and the old content is available in the page's history.

I also note that there are undoubtedly several other hermeneutics of biblical interpretation that should be mentioned here. Go to it folks. GRBerry 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

DONE The merge has been completed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the see also articles should either be merged here or have a summary section placed here (and then be removed from the see also section). For these, I'd recommend Allegorical interpretation and Historical-grammatical method. Others probably should be mentioned in the text and linked therin, but need no more than a few words. Examples would be Talmudical Hermeneutics and Qur'anic hermeneutics. Some of the rest should be reviewed, do they really belong, and if so can we put some text in explaining why they are relevant? Examples would be Deconstruction-and-religion, Literary criticism, Literary theory, Postmodern Christianity or Summary of Christian eschatological differences.

On the other side of the coin, Scriptural sense is neither referenced nor linked here in any way. It is obviously relevant, and I even considered suggesting a merge, but am too tentative to be sure that is the right option. What should be done with it? GRBerry 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation from Wikiversity

Hi, this is Opensourcejunkie from Wikiversity. I'm part of a (very) small group of individuals building content in the School of Theology's Department of Biblical Studies, and I'm here to put out an invitation to you, my fellow wikipedians :-). Our Center of Biblical Hermeneutics is virtually nonexistant (we have a "welcome and expand", if that counts ;), and we need knowledgeable editors to build it up. If that sounds like something you'd like to help out with, either let me know, or just start doing it! Thanks for any time you can contribute to the cause,

--Opensourcejunkie (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Not so helpful" article, part II

Title borrowed from above.

Oh, it is pretty helpful, more so than before, but I think it could profit from lifting up the section Techniques of hermeneutics to the uppermost part of the article, because that section is central to what hermeneutics really is about: interpreting according to five leading principles (in the modern meaning, or "rules") so that the interpretations become "sane" in a full-text meaning, and readaptable to the needs in the current culture. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Contents