Talk:Four senses of Scripture
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | 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). |
Poor article edit
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)
GA criteria changes edit
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)
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)
- 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)
- PS. The GAR discussion can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geometry guy (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
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 edit
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)
Henri DeLubac edit
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)