Talk:Interpretation of the Bible

From Theopedia

Excellent. Where'd you find the list of principles? -Aaronshaf 16:44, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I found them Here JordanBarrett 16:46, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Well, go here and see what you think - it says it can be copied, but not "reproduced and distributed for sale or profit by any individual or organization". You know this stuff better than I do. JordanBarrett 16:52, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Hrmmm unfortunately we're not merely quoting or copying: we're serving up some eggs to scramble and the copyright only allows for easy side up. If ya know what I mean. We need express permission to use their material as base content which will be developed/manipulated without attribution. :( -Aaronshaf 17:00, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Hermeneutics --> Interpretation of the Bible (?)

What do you think of this? -Aaronshaf 15:07, 17 November 2005 (EST)

That'll work. We can adjust the opening sentences as necessary. Gomarus 15:14, 17 November 2005 (EST)

What about changing the article title to "rules of interpretation" or something of that sort. This helps get rid of the confusion between hermeneutics and exegesis (and the article clearly expresses this distinction). Right now the title seems to be saying that hermeneutics is simply interpretation and not just the theory of it. We could always leave this page and treat it like the Jesus article where it shoots off to sub-articles related to this one. Jordan Barrett (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm more confused. I'm seeing different authors define hermeneutics as an umbrella term for exegesis, application and homiletics. Yet, others are saying it is distinctly a science and simply deals with the rules and theory of interpretation (whereas the actual act of interpretation is "exegesis"). Any thoughts? Jordan Barrett (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I still like Bernard Ramm's explanation best: "Hermeneutics . . . stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game. . . The rules are not the game, and the game is meaningless without the rules. Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but exegesis is applied hermeneutics." Your hermeneutic establishes the rules for interpretation, the actual interpretation involves exegesis. To see it as an umbrella term for everything including homiletics (the art of preaching) is a stretch and contributes to the confusion. Just my $0.02. The problem is we entitled the article "Interpretation" which is not synonymous with hermeneutics, yet begins as if it is. Interpretation = hermeneutics + exegesis. Maybe we need to think about a revised intro that properly sets the stage. Jim Ellis 16:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed revamp

Hey all - I was thinking of making this page similar to the Jesus Christ article where there are short sections that introduce a lot of sub-pages. Thoughts? Jordan Barrett ^(talk) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.  :-) Jim Ellis 11:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a draft outline for what I'm thinking. Feel free to suggest changes to the order as well as additions/deletions. I expect that most sections will have sub-articles. Jordan Barrett ^(talk) 04:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

History of biblical interpretation

Early church

Medieval

Reformation

Modern

Terminology

Interpretation

Hermeneutics

Exegesis

Meaning

Guidelines for reading and interpretation

Genre

Context

Literary, Social, Canonical, Application

Models

Speech-act theory

Relevance theory

Literary theory

Narrative theology: the priority of stories

Canonical interpretation

Grammatical-historical

Other issues

NT use of the OT

Contextualization

Theological interpretation

Intertexuality

The role of the Holy Spirit

Word studies

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics