It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics, which involves the study of principles of interpretation, both theory and methodology, for all nonverbal and verbal communication forms.
Interpretive methods listed above such as word play and letter counting were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture.
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 theology,[2][3][4][5] including the following objectives: 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.
In his foreword to R. C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture, J. I. Packer observes that Protestant theologians are in conflict about biblical interpretation.
[11] A mid-19th century book on biblical interpretation observes that even those who believe the Bible to be the word of God hold the most discordant views about fundamental doctrines.
On the other hand, Evangelical Protestant author Roy B. Zuck held that "no-one can fully comprehend the meaning of the scripture unless he is regenerate.
... (It) seeks to discover the living meaning of the Sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today while not ignoring the human mediation of the inspired text and its literary genres...(Christianity) perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.
Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, then rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox (even that but poorly executed); and then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed...[17]Irenaeus' prescription for this was that hermeneutics must at least accord with received apostolic tradition, specifically an early creed: the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it.
[19] Catholic humanist scholars of the Renaissance such as Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus emphasized the role of philology and genre as the foundation of hermeneutics.
David L. Barr states there are three obstacles that stand in the way of correctly interpreting the biblical writings: we speak a different language, we live approximately two millennia later, and we bring different expectations to the text.
Second, it is necessary to understand the transmission of Scripture includes contemplating the message being sent through the text, taking into account the concerns of individual writers/translators as well as its broader role in the unraveling narrative of history.
[34] Likewise, Esau McCaulley argues that everyone comes to Scripture with different life experiences and cultures which help to point out the blind spots in each other's reading.
The contemporary reader of Scripture is in some way envisaged by the biblical text as standing in continuity with a developing theme therein.
[37][38][39] William J. Webb, employing trajectory hermeneutics, shows how the moral commands of the Old and New Testaments were a significant improvement over the surrounding cultural values and practices.
Historically, the biblical witness has become progressively more stringent in its views of homosexual practice and the implications of this are not commented upon by Webb.