I understand the perspective I think, but I don't think most experts in Biblical Hermeneutics feel this way whether Christian or Jewish. All fields make presuppositions, hermeneutics is no exception. For example theologions that employ the study of Biblical Hermeneutics generally pre-suppose that there is something to be learned in the text and that that something was placed there by the author for us. Christians presume this to be God as the ultimate author, but even non Christians must assume the human author meant something by the words they wrote in order for hermeneutics to be meaningful.

Non-Christians don't accept the doctrine of a holy spirit being infused into people. Hence my first clause -- if this is a Christian site then one set of guidelines applies, but if it is meant to include others you can't pre-suppose that doctrine. I'm fine either way -- just tell me so I know whether to stick around.

This isn't a site just for Christians. Jews are definitely welcome as are any textual experts that have something to bring the the field even if their doctrines are different. Not is it my place to say who's welcome or not. However I do think the HS plays SOME role so I was hoping to hear from experts in the field about where they draw the line between their study of the text and inspiration in order to draw their conclusions about the meaning of the text. Any expert much have some defined rules in place to mange these influences, and since many do believe the Spirit plays a roll...

...it seemed like it was a fair thing to ask about the field itself. How experts view the balance they have to make in this regard seems quite relevant. No?

I think asking how Christians can apply the idea of the holy spirit to hermeneutics is just fine. Other answers seem to assume that the holy spirit is a necessary precondition for hermeneutics, and I don't think that's true as the site has been explained so far. (Elsewhere somebody asserted that this site presumes mainline protestant; I assume from your comment, and the lack of mention of that in the FAQ, that that's not actually true, but some may believe it and be answering questions through that unexamined lens.

The bit about this site presuming mainline protestant views is mistaken. The only reference I've found is from another new visitor that picked up that idea somewhere, but I can't find the source -- it might be just an assumption he made. In fact the major discussions on meta, chat and comments have all shown the community fully supports non-Christian participation, particularly since we share a field of study in common with Judaism. You'll even find a call on the Judaism.SE site for people to participate here.

Back to your answer however ... many experts in this field DO believe in the Christian doctrine AND examine the text as an objective academic discipline. I wanted to hear how that group of experts balances these inputs.

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the question. That's not how I understood it, so sorry about the mis-matched answer. I don't want to delete the answer because I think this comment thread is important to preserve, but I'm not sure what to do now.

There, I've moved this discussion to chat. In the SE world chat is actually a more permanent archive than comments anyway as comments eventually get purged as obsolete while chat is permanently logged add a conversation.

Maybe I can make my question more clear, but it should be directed at the subset of experts that have to deal with both those influences.

Thanks for moving this to chat. This is actually the first time I've used chat (on any SE site) -- had no idea it was more permanent than comments, since my instinct is the other way around. Now that you've moved it here what's the correct thing for me to do -- delete my comment, edit it to just say "redacted" or the like, or what?

Hi. I can't find the source now either. You can delete the whole thing if you wish.