Talk:Biblical hermeneutics

message: 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)
replies: text: This article has a number of failings, not least of which is that it starts with Schleiermacher 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)
replies: text:  It seems that someone tried to address this by replacing "Up till Schleiermacher" with "Up to the Enlightenment" which is no help. I have made it "late Enlightenment" and moved the first two paragraphs to the Protestant section which needed filling out. So now the Christian section starts with definitions, which I think was Wesley's point. (On the issue of pre-19th Century hermeneutics, I have added a quote from Irenaeus and a mention of Erasmus/Valla/Philology, which is a start.)Rick Jelliffe (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Authentic?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hermeneutics Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not so helpful article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's the Real Problem Here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The problem with systematic Biblical hermeneutics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge to do 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Invitation from Wikiversity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Not so helpful" article, part II 

message: Anyone working on this "Biblical hermeneutics" article that is so inclined, is welcome to harvest as much as you think is worth from the subsection Authority in the article on the New Testament. The sub-section is entirely out of place in the article on the New Testament, and is slated to be removed, so feel free to use what you can from it before the page is updated. (Added 25 April 2010 by 91.46.208.30 - Obankston (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging a sub-section from a different article 

message: This section could be improved as follows:
* Perhaps change the section name to redemptive-movement hermeneutics (RMH) because that may be the standard term.
* Include information from a number of authors both supporting and critical of RMH.
* The paragraph with the information on the book of William J. Webb should be summarized in a few sentences, and the full information should go into a different article because this information is too detailed for an article of the scope of Biblical hermeneutics. It could go into the article William J. Webb, or into a new article just for the book, or into a new article with a slightly broader scope that discusses the implications of the subject matter of the book. A new article would need to establish notability by having at least two references in addition to the book, preferably both supporting and critical. Obankston (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trajectory hermeneutics 

message: I've removed the NPOV tag on the article, please use  for sections or  for a sentence, and clarify the issue(s) here. This will help address problems. - RoyBoy 18:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: I would like to see some more information documented on the controversy surrounding trajectory hermeneutics. Specifically the following
1 The criticism by more conservative theologians (specifcally Wayne Grudem from Phoenix Seminary and Thomas Schreiner have written scholarly articles) which  that this hermeneutic undermines the concept of sola sriptura , which within evangelical circles is considered to be a serious charge. 
2 The use of this hermeneutic by prominent evangelicals (Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren, Steve Chalke) to argue in favour of gay marriage  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.228.6 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Developments in trajectory hermeneutics 

message: The section on Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles under Techniques is exceptionally bizarrely written. Query neutrality and good referencing practice? Constant usage of first person plural and lack of referencing undermines the scholarly quality of the article. Just me who thinks this? 89.168.70.81 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was completely deleted in 2021.  I have added the headings Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox for better structure. In the Orthodox section I have added the most minimal material from the OrthodoxWiki page (ones which seem to be Orthodox distinctives), and given a more correct author citation. So this is not a reversion, as such. But perhaps it is an adequate start where more knowledgable people could improve it.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox hermeneutical principles revision? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biblical hermeneutics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231045103/http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/2010_07-09 to http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=./faithpulpit/2010_07-09
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Biblical hermeneutics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit.php?article=.%2Ffaithpulpit%2F2010_07-09
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123100313/http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm to http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A sentence citing Zuck was flagged as needing verification. I found the book at  and read it, and I could not verify the sentence. I do not believe that Zuck claims that with the proper theological "parameters" all significant different interpretations will be resolved, or whatever.  Instead, the book gives principles, checklists and approaches for what Zuck believes is sound hermeneutics: as a divine book, it has no contradictions; as a human book, we may not know everything, I gather is his approach. The book is as clear as the Holy Spirit makes it to us, perhaps. 
Also, the page number given in the citation is from the forward, written by someone else, which definitely does not say what the sentence says it says.  
Rather than delete the citation, which may be an interesting resource for people, I moved it to the previous paragraph and replaced the sentence with a useful statement by Zuck.   
For the Catholic portion, I added some supporting material, which is Irenaeus' vivid analogy of a picture of a dog made from jewels. This is also useful, I think, because it shows the issues are not just limited to the Post-Reformation era.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zuck verification 

message: A new subsection has been added under "Jewish", that of "Biblical Source Criticism":
Among non-Orthodox Jews, there is growing interest in employing Biblical source criticism, such as the Documentary hypothesis and the Supplementary hypothesis, for constructing modern Jewish theologyhttps://images.shulcloud.com/3205/uploads/Documents/Why-should-a-Jew-or-anyone-read-the-Bible.pdf
https://networks.h-net.org/node/28655/discussions/3194699/cfp-biblical-scholarship-modern-jewish-hermeneutic-special-issuehttps://zeramim.org/current-issue/volume-iii-issue-3-spring-summer-2019-5779/contemporary-jewish-theology-in-light-of-divergent-biblical-views-on-revelations-content-david-frankel/, including the following objectives:
:*Reconciling modern morals with Biblical passages that condone morally problematic acts, such as genocide and other collective punishment
:*Rejecting or accepting folkways, social norms, and linguistic trends, picking and choosing as more fully informed Jews
:*Learning lessons in spite of Biblical underrepresentation, or outright exclusion, of particular modern phenomenahttps://www.thetorah.com/article/male-homosexual-intercourse-is-prohibited-in-one-part-of-the-torah
To at least some extent, this is an application of Talmudical hermeneutics to traditional source criticism of the competing Torah schools: Priestly, Deuteronomic, and one, two, or more that are non-Priestly and non-Deuteronomic. 154.5.237.13 (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Source Criticism subsection added under "Jewish"