My least favorite thing about graduate studies in biblical studies was coming to the realization that there was a multisyllabic, Latin- or Greek- derived word for everything<\/i>, and that precious few of these words would be found in a standard dictionary. Elder Dallin H. Oaks had an experience with this:
\n
\nSome of us have never even heard of some of the subjects in which professional ministers have spent many years of professional preparation. A few years ago I encountered an example of this. I was talking with a Protestant minister who taught in a seminary. When I asked what subject he taught, he said, \u201cHermeneutics.\u201d I had never heard that word, so I said, \u201cWhat is that?\u201d My minister friend explained that hermeneutics is the art of interpreting and expounding the scriptures. I smiled and said, \u201cWell, yes, I guess I understand a little bit about that, but I\u2019ve never heard it called that.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n
I avoid peppering Church lessons with these words because I think that would be evidence of hubris, but I do think they are sometimes useful because of their precision. At any rate, a nice working definition of ‘hermeneutics’ is ‘the theory or methods used to interpret a text’, in this case, the scriptures. <\/p>\n
There have been occasional stabs at developing a formal LDS hermeneutic, but for the most part, we are plodding along with unexamined assumptions about what is and what is not legitimate to do when interpreting the scriptures. I want to toss out just one question here for our consideration: Under what circumstances are the details in the scriptures important?<\/p>\n
I recently had an interesting discussion here<\/a> with Matt Evans as to whether Nephi’s use of ‘clinging’ in 1 Nephi 8:24 and ‘continually holding’ in verse 30 are significantly different, or are merely synonymous. How might we approach this question? Before we consider it, let’s look at a few other examples of the same phenomenon in the scriptures:<\/p>\n (1) Here is John 21:15-17 with a few of the Greek words included:\t<\/p>\n So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (agapas<\/i>) thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (philw<\/i>) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.<\/p>\n He saith unto him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (agapas<\/i>) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (philw<\/i>) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.<\/p>\n He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (phileis<\/i>) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest (phileis<\/i>) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (philw<\/i>) thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.<\/p>\n You’ll notice that the word the KJV translates as ‘love’ is actually two different Greek words. Agapas<\/i> is a stronger word than philw<\/i>: it is possible to translate the former as \u2018love’ and the latter as \u2018like’. Some scholars think these words are used interchangeably, others do not. Obviously, you would interpret the passage very differently depending on which position you chose. Is this detail significant? How do you know?<\/p>\n