Talk:Four senses of Scripture

Four senses of Scripture was a Language and literature good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: December 9, 2005. (Reviewed version).

On 25 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Four senses of Scripture (Christianity). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Poor article

A literal interpretation is NOT a type of 'allegory': It is a type of interpretation so the whole "4 types" section is a poor representation of allegory. The suggestion that Philo was the first to write allegorically is totally misleading as there is allegory in Prophets like Ezekiel and there is allegorical interprtation of Biblical books in many of the writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Enochic works have allegories of Noah and the animals in the ark. I think this article needs scrapping until it is better researched- as it is so misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.118.42 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria changes

There's been quite a bit of discussion concerning making inline citations mandatory, so just a fair warning, this article may be delisted soon if those books can't be shown to actually be referencing this article. Also, I think it could use some general expansion, but that's just me, the citation thing is probably the biggest concern. Homestarmy 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

I am listing this for a Good Article Review, on the basis of the lack of any citations. As it stands, this reads a whole lot like original research. Pastordavid 19:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just delisted this: GAR is for disputed or controversial reassessments. Anyhow, I'm delisting it now. Geometry guy 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The GAR discussion can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometry guy (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this does read more like a piece of personal research. I have changed one of the most contentious bits, "The Divine Comedy. Probably the greatest medieval work of literature, and the greatest work of allegory ever written". That is not acceptable in Wikipedia, as that suggests quality is somehow on a fixed scale rather than being relative. 9/4/09.

typology and allegory

This was added by someone at some point in the main article but really is a gloss on the article and belongs on the talk page:

(The paragraphs above do not seem to distinguish between typology and allegory, but there is an important distinction. This distinction is debated, but there are many books and articles published on the topic. See for example, the collection edited by John Whitman entitled Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity to the Modern Period. Moreover, the term anagogical may refer to a transcendent or spiritual state of mind, not necessarily prophetic events. An anagogical interpretation, then, may lead the mind to contemplate and know spiritual things, transcendent of the material world, which is not the same as knowledge of future events.)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henri DeLubac

It seems quite strange to me that this entire article fails to mention the work of Henri DeLubac. Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture is an important study on this topic. Over the next few weeks I will see if I can remedy this lack. Philosopherva (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems

I noticed that this article has a lot of problems.

First off, I think this article should probably be moved to Four senses of Scripture (Christianity) since it's specifically about the four Christian senses of scripture. (The four Kabbalistic senses are covered by the Pardes (Jewish exegesis) article.)

That said, we'd then need to cut some irrelevant information from the first few paragraphs. The stuff about the four Kabbalistic senses as well as the stuff about the Jewish midrash also do not seem relevant at all, since I don't believe there is any historical continuity between these things and the four Christian senses. The stuff about Philo is also irrelevant, although kind of interesting.

Then it seems the article goes off the rails for most of the "History" section. The article is supposed to be about the four senses of scripture, but the "History" section seems to be about the history of allegories in general (allegory as a literature genre, the "allegorical" interpretations of dreams or Plato or whatever, etc.), which has very little (or nothing) to do with scripture or scriptural exegesis. Essentially I think it's just an equivocation on the word "allegory". (When we talk about the "allegorical sense of scripture", what we are talking about is typology--how the persons and events of the Old Testament can be understood as types of Jesus or types of events in Jesus's life. It has very little to do with the "allegory" genre, and in many ways it is the exact opposite of allegory.)

Then the article gets back on topic for the "Four types of interpretation" section and is, for the most part, good, though there is one sentence which I don't think is accurate:

"Thus the four types of interpretation (or meaning) deal with past events (literal), the connection of past events with the present (typology), present events (moral), and the future (anagogical)."

(I've bolded the part I think is especially wrong. The allegorical sense is not about connecting the past to the present. The allegorical sense is about connecting the past to Jesus's earthly ministry which is also past.)

Lastly, I think the Speculum Humanae Salvationis deserves mention at least somewhere in the article (probably in the "History" section, though maybe in the "See also" section). 2601:49:8400:26B:7D04:C827:8A9C:D6FB (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four senses of Scripture → Four senses of Scripture (Christianity) – The article is primarily focused on the four senses that Christians use when interpreting scripture. There is a separate page for the parallel Jewish practice (see Pardes (Jewish exegesis)) so I think this article should just be the Christian version and its name should reflect that. Maybe this article could be moved to Four senses of Scripture (Christianity), and the current name Four senses of Scripture could be changed into a disambiguation page. 2601:49:8400:26B:7D04:C827:8A9C:D6FB (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Is the Jewish practice ever actually referred to by the term "four senses of scripture"? If not, the article about Christian exegesis would appear to be, at the very least, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Graham (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:OVERPRECISION. A dab page is unnecessary. If Pardes (Jewish exegesis) is ever referred to as four senses of scripture, a hatnote on this article will be sufficient. Station1 (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.