Christianity SE is quite rigorous in requiring questioners to specify the context of one or more specific Christian traditions within which they wish their question to be answered.

Why does BH not exercise the same sort of rigor?

It seems to me that:

(a) Questioners should be required to specify which particular set of hermeneutic principles they expect answerers to employ in their exegesis;


(b) Answerers should be required to specify which particular set of hermeneutic principles they are following in their exegesis.

If they are employing hermeneutic principles which are not commonly known or understood, they should at least explain in broad terms what principles they are following.

At present, it seems to me impossible to determine whether answers are accepted or rejected on the basis of the author's particular hermeneutic principles, or on the basis of how the author conducted and presented his or her exegesis under the principles adhered to.

| |
  • 1
    See What are we looking for in answers? – Paul Vargas Oct 30 '16 at 17:11
  • 1
    then BH will become Christianity; and lose its value. If we dont accept all kinds of answers and open to all then there is no value of BH. What qualifies as accepted ans is the personal satisfaction of Questioner, its his discretion. – Michael16 Nov 2 '16 at 11:57
  • @Michael16 - I am not suggesting that all kinds of answers not be accepted. I am only suggesting that when one answers the question, one clarifies the hermeneutic principles under which one completed one's exegesis. In my opinion, answers should be scored on how well the answer was crafted within the answerer's specific hermeneutic guidelines. Currently, the scores awarded to answers are completely subjective. – user15733 Nov 2 '16 at 13:32
  • thats narrowing it like Christianity, which makes Q and A both impossible many times. Who knows the questioner gets satisfied from a new methodology or principle outside of his criteria. Even in that case it would be subjective decision on which is the accepted ans. It doesnt become objective. – Michael16 Nov 2 '16 at 13:38

The rule here is to Show Your Working. It's a kind of "Show, Don't Tell" whereas your suggestion would be a Telling.

If you can show your workings and give good arguments for your conclusions then labels won't really help much. But if instead we made answers label their methodology then it wouldn't really help so much if they didn't actually demonstrate it, especially because stating you use some methodology doesn't mean you use it particularly well.

And perhaps also there are fewer major schools of hermeneutics compared to theology. There are a few major schools like historical-grammatical vs allegorical, but the specifics of how an answer is argued will make a more significant difference, and it is easy to identify allegorical interpretation etc.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.