In order for a text to remain a viable, living document in the modern world, a certain amount of hemeneutical interpretation is necessary. It allows us to dig deeper and deeper into a text and to, ultimately derive a fuller meaning from that which is said.
However, at what point do your interpretations cease to be valid? Where is the fine line between hermeneutics and exegesis? Are either approaches valid and/or useful? What are better points of reference?
I had to google both words to refresh my memory of actual definitions.
My take is; you have to comprehend and fully know the society and the actual intent of the creators at that time when the document was created,to interpret any document accurately. The older the document is the harder it becomes to translate accurately. It is hard to keep intent and text the same for a generational document. Society has a habit of editing definitions to fit the time that they are in.
Translating just text tends to warp the document. Deciphering intent becomes necessary on the older document, but ,then you must generally base your knowledge on someone elses translation of the past which may or may not be accurate.
So to truly comprehend a generational document such as a religous artifact or Gov’t document. one must research and know the era in which it was written, furthmore a working knowledge of the author/s mindset would clearly help. Plus keep in mind that religous documents are never written with cold hard facts, that alone makes them harder to translate then a gov’t document.
Hmm I guess which ever way you choose depends upon the type of document you plan on translating. I would use both for either, then recheck in reverse and then use each seperately. I believe if one translates, you must be thorough, alot may be riding on accuracy.