Talk:Hermeneutics/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Biblical hermeneutics

I propose to move the section on "Biblical hermeneutics" out of this main article on "hermeneutics", and create a new article entitled "Biblical hermeneutics". [This is, incidentally, how the German wikipedia treats this issues as well.] If you think that this is a bad idea, please say so and we'll discuss it. --Szessi 11:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is "Hermeneutics" capitalized? Why is there no sub-section in this entry with a concise recap of "Biblical hermeneutics"?. This is part of the job, Szessi. I will title the subsection: please provide the text. --Wetman 20:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one objected, the sub-section on biblical hermeneutics has been deleted and may now be found under Biblical Hermeneutics. --Szessi 17:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Szessi lost interest in Wikipedia: the user has no edited since 26 January. So a sub-section in this entry with a concise recap of "Biblical hermeneutics" has still not been written. A do-it-yourself manual to Bible readinng is not a substitute. Can anyone provide a precis of the article at Biblical hermeneutics for this article? --Wetman 18:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A personal note. Feyerabend: Anything goes! Oh, how I love that man. - Sigg3.net 21:40, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So... how does the hermenuetical approach work, as opposed to critical theory? - cobra libre 19:41, 20 Apr 2004 (CDT)

What do you mean by critical theory? Traditional hermeneutics was superseeded. Critical theory may be critical hermeneutics. Please fill in:) - Sigg3.net 07:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the last addition is plain wrong. Admittedly, you'll find someone who would claim that, but Hermeneutics in any meaningful sense of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with Critical Theory, and vice versa, some real mental acrobatics are in line. That critical theorists (if they are top-drawer), when they get older, tend to start realizing the value of Hermeneutics, is another matter entirely. :-) Clossius 19:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article seems confusing and incomplete right now. Before reading it, I didn't know what hermeneutics was except that it had something to do with interpretation and literary criticism. After reading it, I'm still just as fuzzy. What is hermeneutics, exactly? What methods does it involve? What is it good for, and why do we need a fancy word instead of just talking about "interpretation"? --Shibboleth 20:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Biblical Hermeneutics

It seems that the list of 'principles' derives from a single source (is it Virkler's Hermeneutics?); if so, it would be good to indicate this. Also, I agree with Dkmiller's comment that this is a particular take on Biblical hermeneutics which may be found in 'orthodox' protestantism, especially (but not exclusively) in the USA, but which is not representative of Biblical hermeneutics as a whole. I'll add something later to offer a different perspective which will hopefully complement the section. --Szessi 09:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems that the portion of this article regarding biblical hermeneutics is coming from a particular POV. There are lots of ways to look at biblical hermeneutics that aren't related to the principles listed. Is there some way to clean this article up by showing who or what school approaches biblical hermeneutics in the way presented by the article and by putting that approach in a larger context? Dkmiller 18:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Continental European

"Continental European" (or "Continental") within Philosophy refers to a specific approach to Philosophy that has something to do with origins (i.e., as contrasted to Anglo-American ones, such as Analytical Philosophy), and clearly Hermeneutics is that, even if practised in Idaho or Cambridge. Thus, the recent deletion of that qualifier is sad in that it takes some important information away. Clossius 08:30, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Return it to the entry, and accurately characterize what is specifically "continental" about it, and what aspects of "hermeneutics" (which is the entry subject) is not "continental", and then it will become information. Wetman08:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While it has some such associations, they're vague and unclear, and mostly manifested simply because of who currently puts forth most hermeneutics theories. Classical hermeneutics, for example, has more in common with Anglo-American philosophy than it does with Continental philosophy. --Delirium 20:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, no; but this kind of philosophy talk - especially in areas that are not too interesting to too many people - is always very emotional here, as well as, shall we say, geographically biased, and so, never mind. Clossius 19:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneutics of Schleiermacher

Maybe ( / I hope that) this diletant utterance is enough to trigger a conversation on this subject:

I'm relying on a maybe double translation here, but; goal is to understand the speech better than the original speaker it understood.

"the circle of language" may also be a triple translation by now, but icludes preliminary knowledge shared by the participants of the circle. the interpreter starts with this preliminary knowledge, shares it which the speaker-listener and moves from the community's circle toward individual's circle.

principles of S's hermeneutics, which combine;

sides of interpretation; psychological (facts inside the speech) and grammatical (language used in the speech) methods of interpretation; divinatory and comparative

psychological side + divinatory method; guessings on the ways of presenting things grammatical side + divinatory method; guessings on the structural connections of things

psychological side + comparative method; comparing the ways of presenting things grammatical side + comparative method; comparing the structural connections of things

Guide to do-it-yourself hermeneutics

What to do with this non-encyclopedic manual?

"The most helpful principal of understanding the biblical texts, or any cohesive material, is something called "analogy of Scripture". Early in its development with the early church fathers, and later articulated by the Reformers, this principal means let the text interpret itself. If one believes the Bible is Inspired (ie God's Word), than its message will have perfect harmony. The didactic portions of the text (eg Pauline Epistles) that have the more simple and "straightforward" approach of teaching should be used to interpret the more complicated verses. +

"This invaluable principal will help the interpreter to stay away from an unorthodox understanding of the bible; more specifically, never build your theology or doctrine from a single passage of Scripture. "To know the part one must first know the whole" BCH"

Can a version be made encyclopedic and neutral enough to stand at Biblical hermeneutics? --Wetman 18:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Hermeneutics

"Medieval traditions of extrapolating allegory and other meanings from Scriptural texts continue unabated, within traditionalist and fundamentalist Christian circles."

this doesn't sound too neutral to me (Anon. post from [[User:146.232.64.2)

Misuse

What is a reference to the Sokal affair doing here? Alan Sokal explained his intent in numerous articles and in his bookFashionable Nonsense. He wanted to demonstrate the misuse of mathematical and physical concepts by French and American intellectuals. Specifically, he targeted Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Irigaray and Deleuze.

Irrespective of the merits of the point Sokal hoped to make or of the appropriateness of the methods he used, none of the authors he targeted have been considered, or have considered themselves, to be representative of the philosophical movement of hermeneutics. Conversely, prominent authors in hermeneutics have not been criticised for abusing concepts in physics or mathematics. It is quite evident that the word "hermeneutics" appearing in the article that Sokal submitted to Social Text was inconsequential in the context and did not represent his target. It is then uninformed, and misleading, to mention the Sokal affair in an encyclopedic article on hermeneutics. It does not serve any useful purpose on one or the other topic and can only confuse the unaware reader.

I therefore propose to delete the reference to the Sokal affair in this article. I will take on to do that in two or three weeks from now if nobody objects in the meantime. Bilodeau 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Sokal used "hermeneutics" as a sample buzzword, one typically bandied about by the kind of pseudo-intellectuals he was targeting. He used "quantum" for the same reason. No blame attaches to either.

However, the point about philosophical hermeneutics and scientism is worth noting, and a link to Sokal (and others) might be appropriate. But NPOV phrases like "the rather brazen academic dishonesty" and editorializing/oversimplifying e.g. "perhaps arguing that things are either meaningful (i.e., scientific) or not (i.e., come from the humanities)" need deleting. Zac (--202.154.157.86 06:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

I agree that a reference to the Sokal hoax, especially such a seemingly partisan exposition, is out of place in an article on hermeneutics. A deletion of the section would not elicit a protest on my part, though the compromise suggested by the previous poster sounds acceptable also. Vonsnip 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the Sokal section since even after some recent edits it really seemed superfluous. The thinkers Sokal criticizes in Fasionable Nonsense, although they might draw on some of the methods and practices of hermeneutics (e.g., Heidegger's), really have nothing to do with what I guess we could call "mainstream hermeneutics," that is, the work of Gadamer, Ricoeur, etc. and the stuff the article should focus on. Re-deleted most of the Sokal section (and put a reference to the proper article). We really don't have to go into any detail here as hermeneutics is not the particular aim of Sokal's paper. Ig0774 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

My dictionary shows the etymology as < hermēneutikós of or for interpreting = hermēneú(ein) to make clear, interpret, der. of hermēneús an interpretor + -tikos -tic.; as does the Online Etymological Dictionary[1]. I'm not suggesting all the etymological details be included, just thought Ἑρμηνευτικός might be better here? Of course, I'm no Greek scholar, so if any of you are, I do trust your judgement better than my dictionary entry.Khirad^talk 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its more common to derive words like this from the Greek verb like the page here does (particular in post-Heideggerian hermeneutics). The little stories about Hermes are accurate, and in fact, probably represent where the verb root came from (its really hard to dig back in time...). Ig0774 01:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On much later thought, "hermēneús" is clearly the more original (and appropriate) term, referring to those who act as Hermes does —despite what it says in the Etymological Dictionary (see particularly Liddell & Scott, though the paper edition, and not the version on Perseus, which, unfortunately, loses some of the etymological information). ^iggy_talk 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermeneutics techniques

The article focuses just on the history of hermeneutics. I think it should also include a section that explains which are the hermeneutics techniques; e.g. In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language says, supposes, doesn't say, implies.--BMF81 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not make a stab at it yourself? —with the understanding that everyone will jump all over it and pull it apart, with an improved result developing? Look how far this article has come in a year! --Wetman 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) --Wetman 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: Put this up for a bit of polling: Should the section on hermeneutic techniques be migrated to Biblical hermeneutics? My gut reaction is to do this, since the content of the section focuses entirely on Christian scriptural exegesis. This is not to say that there isn't anything interesting there for philosophical hermeneutics, just that the information as presented seems to belong somewhere else. Thoughts? Ig0774 06:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Organization

It strikes me that this page is miserably unorganized. Some information is glossed two or even three times. I suppose it was probably the result of some sort of merge or the other. I just figured I'd point out that I am in the process of reorganizing most of this page. It looks like the cleanest way to break up most of the information we have now is to place it in the history section, though I'm rather keen to add something about the techniques of hermeneutics (as fuzzy as they sometimes are). Cheers.Ig0774 01:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganized everything to make it cleaner and simpler. I've left out some sections for the future, such as a terminology section and a section that deals with the theme of Hermeneutics itself (which utilizes a deleted section--I hope to get back to that). Hopefully this will make it easier for everyone. If not, uh, do what you do best. Moshe (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

On sleeping dogs

JA: I don't see much point in revisiting that whole Sokal business here, as it only serves to detract from the positive task of the article. Whatever his point was, it seemed to have more to do with his perception of excesses in post*modernism than with the nature of hermeneutics in general. And similar hoaxes by others have shown that editors of science journals and organizers of science conferences can be equally sloppy about checking claims presented with all due air of authority, so that aspect of human nature is hardly newsworthy anymore. Jon Awbrey 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I already deleted most of the crap about the Sokal affair from the page. What I left on does do something positive though, because it emphasizes that the critique of "Scienticism" is not a critique of science as such but a critique of taking natural science as the only source of truth. Ig0774 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Exegesis vs!? Hermeneutics

JA: I don't find that writers in this field make all that hard-&-fast or cast-in-stone (Medusan?) a parting of the ways between micro-interpretation and macro-interpretation, or exegesis and hermeneutics as some are styling it — indeed the entire spin of the hermeneutic circle revolts agin it. If anybody has a favorite source who uses the words this way, then it would be a good idea to index those views accordingly. Jon Awbrey 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, you're right, but I've been more concerned with better organizing the contents of this page than with what the article says. Anyways, I'll go ahead and delete that paragraph. Ig0774 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Late coming justification

Sorry, I was in the process of adding a justification for my change of the See also section when I lost my internet connection. Anyways, basically what guided my edits is the idea that this page is about philosophical hermeneutics in particular and not aboutinterpretation or the use of the word "hermeneutics" in general. That said, most of what I deleted from the See also section has a place on this page, but it belongs within the text of the article itself and not as a general See also (the point of a See also section is not to function as a disambiguation page like meaning, and the mess that that is. Some examples:

Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias: A very important text in this field. We really need a reference in the section on ancient Greece, not at the end of the page.
Computational linguistics and friends: This belongs in the relevant section of the page. These topics draw on philosophical hermeneutics but are not themselves the subject of philosophical hermeneutics.
Semiotics and friends: Philosophical hermeneutics owes a huge debt to semoticians, this much is clear and beyond dispute. However, the notion of "sign" and "sign relation" are not the basic units of philosophical hermeneutics (nor are sentences, statements, etc). Instead, philosophical hermeneutics is focused on "texts". Ricoeur himself, though he draws on Peirce, is careful to point out that Peirce's analysis of interpretation is "neither more or less analogous to" philosophical hermeneutics, even though there are formal similarities, especially to Peirce's triadic relation of sign, interpretant, and interpreter. This page thus should include a reference to semiotics, but the number of references seems to obscure the differences between hermeneutics and semiotics — and again, I stress that the notion of "sign" itself is not of particular import to philosophical hermeneutics. Similarly, I modified the Meaning entry to point to meaning (linguistic) and meaning (non-linguistic) as these are more directly related to the subject at hand than the meaning ascribed to signs. That said, more reference could be made to the work of de Saussure.

I also made some additions that I thought were lacking, particularly to understanding, which is a concept of vital importance to hermeneutics particularly since Schleiermacher. Ig0774 00:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: (1) Many people find the QV's useful as a synopsis or a syllabus, worth a quick scan even before reading the text, and useful on a recurring basis as a compendium of related links that you "know" you saw somewhere in one of several related articles but don't really have the time to scan the whole articles again looking for. Some editors find them useful too as promissory notes of topics they are "getting around to" expanding someday. So it's no big deal if a link gets repeated once in the text and again in the QV's. (2) Many people I know in several different subfields of hermeneutics are especially interested in mutual applications and cross-fertilizations among textual and hypertextual hermeneutics, the semantic/pragmatic web, and computational semiotics. So all of these topics are quite timely and pertinent here. (3) I will simply have to join a host of others in recommending the relevance of Peirce's brand of semiotics in particular. Well, 3's the charm, so I will quit here. Jon Awbrey 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the direction

Although I realize virtually no one is paying any attention to this page, I figured I'd add a few notes on the sort of things it would be good to see expanded in this article (pretty much the whole thing needs some more explanation).

Ancient Greece: I think this section is pretty close to being done (a lot more could be said, however...), but it needs some information on Stoic hermeneutics which has a great deal of relevance for early Biblical hermeneutics and hence the development of hermeneutics as a whole. I will be digging more into this, time permitting.
Early Biblical: In desperate need of expansion to say the least. Both Christian and Jewish styles of interpretation derive (to some extent) from the ideas of Philo, and so, something needs to be said about his take. Similarly, expansion is needed at least on Origen (who set the tone for Christian hermeneutics — John Chrysostom and Jerome might also be appropriate), and, of course Rabbinical interpretation (coverage of which is poor throughout the article).
Medieval Interpretation: The current scope of this section is huge, covering, as near as I can tell, about 1200 years. That is not necessarily wholly inappropriate. This has been the most complete section of this article (and I use the term loosely), but a lot more could be said. Particularly, Augustine and Aquinas need a mention. Rabbinic interpretation is very vaguely covered and could use a good deal of detail — particularly as the Medieval period saw the rise of things like Maimondines, the Alphabet of Ben-Sira, and Halakah. Also missing is anything on Muslim exegesis, which is sorely missing. I also have some doubts about the usefulness of the Ebeling quote.
Renaissance and Enlightenment: Quite poor, and a little too centered on Protestantism. Where is Vico (important in modern developments)?
Everything else in the history section: Miserable. I don't no where to start. Schleiermacher and Dilthey, for all their importance, are poorly covered. Heidegger is only touched on and there are about three sentences on anything else.
Applications: I'll leave this alone for now, though it could benefit from expansion by knowledgeable editors (something that I cannot claim to be for any of these topics).
Semiotics: Ideally, this will, at some point, be incorporated into the history section, but I am unsure where to start with it, aside from a few references in Ricoeur's works. I am fairly ignorant of Peirce.
Themes: The Hermeneutic circle is, I think, coming along (though severely lacking in reference to a post-Heideggerian understanding). The rest of it is pretty much just space waiting for content. Additional topics or critique of the topics I have introduced would be most welcome.

Missing stuff:

Islam: Not important in the development of philosophical hermeneutics in the West per se, though of increasing relevance. Something desperately needs to be said besides just a reference to Tafsir.
Deconstruction: A brief mention at the most, but it is important for how hermeneutics is understood in the contemporary context.
De Saussure/Structuralism: Similar to the above.

Anyways, I guess all I can do is hope that maybe this list both of what I know, and also of the (vast amounts) I don't know will inspire someone else to contribute. Additionally, I would welcome any criticism of my restructuring of this page and the content that I have added (its being slowly revised as my investigations continue, but there are gaps in my knowledge). I am sorry if any of my reversions, comments, or other edits to this text has scared anyone off — it really doesn't seem a good idea to have only one editor working on a page. ^iggy_talk 09:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Well, just speaking for all of us nobodies, the corner of the field where hermeneutics, semeiotic, and semioticsmingle is a pretty active plot, and the cross-pollinations thereof are essential to the avoidance of a sterile monoclonismtaking root. It's not just history, not by a long shoot. So I'll be tending to this garden from time to time, weather permitting. Jon Awbrey 11:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I was never saying the relationship between hermeneutics and semiotics was history — I just think that I may have somewhat marginalized it by placing it where it is. Moving it into the "history" section, as I see it, is more of moving it into the main thrust of the article, but hey — whichever way the wind blows is fine with me. ^iggy_talk 11:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm kind of inclined to end the history section with Dilthey to remove the notion that hermeneutics is something over and done with... ^iggy_talk 11:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems nothing is said about contemporary Evangelical hermeneutics. Speaking of deconstruction would be relevant to postmodern hermeneutics but not necessarily Evangelical hermeneutics. There is a lot of material that could be added in this regard.--Loudguy 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation templates

What's wrong with the quotation templates? I think they look much better than the bare text. -- noosph e re 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: For 1 thing, if your eyes were as old as mine you'd know —everything looks way too gray already. For thing 2, blockquotes are perfectly standard format for extended quotes, and do not marginalize the quote as though it were a disconnected epigraph or an incidental op-ed balloon. Jon Awbrey 00:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Text usually flows around incidental op-ed baloons. Here the quotation is clearly in between the two sections of text, so doesn't look at all arbitrary to me, especially as the text leading in to the quotation consists of a partial sentence ending with a colon, which prepares the reader for the quotation as an integral part of the text.

Though the blockquote may be a standard, I think that's only because there haven't been many options... the quotation template is relatively new, and I don't think most people are aware of it yet. Anyway, we should be bold in improving articles, not allow ourselves to be hampered by tradition.

However, I respect the difficulty some may have in reading black text on a light-gray background, and won't press this issue further for that reason. -- noosph e re01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Clear language

The article at present seems to me rather heavy going, and seems to obscure as much as to explain the meaning of 'hermeneutics'. It would be better to start off using simple, clear language, so that readers know roughly what the word means, before they get into the subtleties and the different theories. That would be more in accord with the spirit of hermeneutics, which is surely to clarify rather than to obscure meaning. Therefore I would propose inserting at the beginning of the article something like:

'Essentially, hermeneutics is a posh word for being able to see things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces which may influence their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artefacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or current.' EmmDee 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I left it a couple of weeks, nobody has commented or objected, so I inserted, as new second and third paragraphs of the article, a modified version of the above, as follows:

'Essentially, hermeneutics is a posh word for being able to see things from somebody else's point of view, and to appreciate the cultural and social forces which may have influenced their outlook. Hermeneutics is the process of applying this understanding to interpreting the meaning of written texts and symbolic artefacts (such as art or sculpture or architecture), which may be either historic or contemporary.

'In recent times, the scope of hermeneutics has expanded to include the investigation and interpretation not only of textual and artistic works, but of human behaviour generally, including language and patterns of speech, social institutions, and ritual behaviours (such as religious ceremonies, political rallies, football matches, rock concerts, etc.). Hermeneutics interprets or inquires into the meaning and import of these phenomena, through understanding the point of view and 'inner life' (Dilthey) of an insider, of an engaged participant in these phenomena.' EmmDee 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Article on "text"?

I came upon the article paratext, and was going to clean it up as best I could, without being a cultural-studies or lit-crit maven myself. I wanted to link to an article on text in the cultural-studies sense, and couldn't find one. I figured that people who have hermeneutics on their watchlist might be the best folks to ask. Is there such an article on Wikipedia? If not, why not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be Text (literary theory). 68.44.132.25 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism

The brahmanas are exegetical texts that predate this Rabbi Ishmael guy. Hinduism has a long, perhaps the longest, history of exegesis and hermeneutics. It's also one of the few religions where commentaries are later inducted into the canon of scripture. Check it out. I can help find information to this effect.

64.9.127.136 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporae

10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

"Hermeneutics may be described": may it be scribed?

"I wish the article discussed actual methods as a central sub-topic."?

Efficatiousness

Wasn't hermeneutics the field in which those interesting effects regarding unexpected improvements inperformance were yielded by means of introducing unlikely events into well established routines?

Knotwork (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hermeneutics Page - An Explanation of a Techinique Used to Explain Things Better in 200,000 Words

This is a fascinating topic - but a LONG article! Two issues - 1. I've never dealt with pronunciation on Wiki pages - so I won't now - but it would be nice if there was a pronunciation key at the top of the page, since it's one of those "spelling bee" words that you don't hear too often.

2. I ran out of patience and couldn't read the whole article, because it's so long! My opinion, of course. But someone had inserted numerous markup messages to "expand sections" - really? I don't think I'm alone in this - but - I clicked on the link to this article because, although I had seen the word used before, I didn't know what hermeneutics meant. I had to read several paragraphs before I understood the general definition of the word. I would know more about hermeneutics if the article was shorter, because I would have taken the time to read it. As it is now, though - it's too much. I think it's begging for being condensed and given subcategory links - not expanded! I always appreciate more - and even with this article, I appreciate the amount of work -but I'm speaking in the interest of Wikipedia readers in general - more isn't always better! It's like when people put bumper stickers on their car with a whole paragraph of text on them, too small to read - it grabs the interest, but after trying to read it while following for 2 miles, you end up giving up before killing yourself in an accident. And you still don't know what the sticker said. (I can think of metaphors but I hate writing them!)

Like I said, I always appreciate more info on Wiki pages - but when it gets to a certain point, it's time to break it down, put some of it in a nutshell, and move some of it to new page(s.) (Wow, is that hermeneutics too? ) Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Over analysis

Lets not over analyze this article please. ;-) --Glubbdrubb (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

folk etymology

the contrived etymology of Hermes from 'Har Emet' in hebrew, mentioned at the start of the article, strikes me as quite improbable and as a folk etymology. i tried to follow the citation, but it is just the name 'Alcalay', with no further publication information. it strikes me that the reference is to a rabbinical scholar from the early 19th Century -- but not to a scholar of linguistics or etymology. furthermore, i should point out that the pronunciation of Emet as 'Emes' is a phenomenon limited to Eastern European Jews in the last millennium. ancient jews would never have pronounced it as such (it would have been Emet or Emeth). regardless, someone should examine the claim, because i do not believe that it is a claim that any scholar would uphold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by89.138.242.235 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) also, the wikipedia article on Hermes lists the following under etymology:

The name Hermes has been thought, ever since Karl Otfried Müller's demonstration,[6] to be derived from the Greek word herma (ἕρμα), which denotes a square or rectangular pillar with the head of Hermes (usually with a beard) adorning the top of the pillar, and ithyphallic male genitals below; however, due to the god's attestation in the Mycenaean pantheon, as Hermes Araoia ("Ram Hermes") in Linear B inscriptions at Pylos and Mycenaean Knossos (Ventris and Chadwick), the connection is more likely to have moved the opposite way, from deity to pillar representations. From the subsequent association of these cairns — which were used in Athens to ward off evil and also as road and boundary markers all over Greece — Hermes acquired patronage over land travel.

there is no mention of this false ashkenazi jewish pronunciation as an anachronistic etymological source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by89.138.242.235 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreement on meanings not requisite

"The possibility of communication between different beings depends on them being able to agree on the meanings of the signs they may exchange."

Communication with only partial agreement as to meanings is common. Conceivably there might be communication even where there is no agreement as to meaning, e.g. inter-species communication. Communication where there is (full) agreement on meanings would seem to be a relatively uncommon situation.

What is required for communication is recognition of sign/symbol by each party, i.e. the attachment of some meaning by both parties, not necessarily agreement as to the sign's meaning.

Moreover, is there any way to assess agreement of meaning that is independent of communication and symbols? If not, it would seem the best you could do is triangulate symbols. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 71.225.59.92 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blyden (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Blyden

Hermes and Enoch

I think that some ancient theologians, among the Church Fathers, believed that Hermes and Enoch were the same person, which would explain the use of the words hermeneutics in a strictly Judeo-Christian context. Part of this equation involves arguing that Metatron and Enoch are also the same person, hence Hermes becomes similar to Metatron (i.e. metatronics). It is a complicated story, but it explains how certain ancient Christians sought to justify the study of ancient pagan culture without compromising their commitment to the Gospel. ADM (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Traditional Hermeneutics

From the abstract :

"Traditional hermeneutics — which includes Biblical hermeneutics — refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law."

Since religion is already covered in the description of 'Traditional hermeneutics' it seems redundant and a bit out of scope of neutral to list one area specifically like that. There are already sections covering various types of religious hermeneutics and several links to Biblical hermeneutics. Also I'm not familiar with the classification of 'Traditional hermeneutics', I'll see if I can find a better and sourced description on this. If so I will add such. Der.Gray (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the article, the phrase "which includes Biblical hermeneutics", could be either left in or taken out. The deciding factor is what the sources on 'Traditional hermeneutics' say. If it turns out that Biblical hermeneutics is the vast majority, then "which includes Biblical hermeneutics" should remain because it is the primary usage.Obankston (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Links?

What's the link complaint? Are there too few, or inappropriate links left? A shallow review immediatelly indicates that there isnot too many links. Didn't the call to Template:External links time out after one year? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gematria

I added the following... ==Gematria== The Kaballists have always taught Hebrew & Aramaic Gematria: the alphanumeric code/cipher used to encode scripture with added meaning. The New Testament was encoded with Greek isopsephy (gematria)<ref]Gematria - The Numbers of Infinity by Marke Pawson (Green Magic, 2004)</ref]<ref]Magdalene's Lost Legacy (symbolic numbers and the sacred union in Christianity) by Margaret Starbird (Bear & Company, 2003)</ref]. Freemasonry and the Grand Master Mason King James I and his 47 experts<ref]The Bible (KJV) p. xii of Introduction (Penguin Classics, 2006),</ref] encoded his Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version of the Bible with Simple English Gematria.Rosicrucians also practiced gematria. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it under WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. The source you cite for "Freemasonry and the Grand Master Mason King James I" does not support mentioning Masonry at all, and you give way too much prominence for a legend that isn't proven. The bit about the KJV being encoded is outright WP:FRINGE and unsourced. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)