More and more I see the aversion to "philosophy". I don't understand it but I see it.
Your question concerning a "method of hermeneutics" prompted my observation that there are various meanings to the term. That is different from saying there are different hermeneutical methods. So repeating the question doesn't even approach the issue.
Nonetheless,let me take a crack at it:
I suppose I am using the term in a very broad way, to mean interpreting the Scriptures to the end that they inform our thought and guide our lives. And as for "method" I guess I would say the interpretation should be done in communion with the Church and in dialogue with members of the Church.
As I think of the term, hermeneutics is more about bringing the meaning of the text and of the message conveyed through the text into our current situation. For a clergyman, a major sort of hermeneutical activity would be the final stages of sermon prep.
"Exegesis" in my usage (which I do not propose as normative, I'm just trying to be clear) would be the task whose tools would be translation, all the various "geschichten", 'comparing and contrasting' with other Biblical texts and so forth.
And somewhere in the process there needs to be something like "Lectio Divina" or some prayerful contemplation of the text under study. When I was in the game, my sermon prep started with what I called "blitzing" the texts: checking the Hebrew and Greek if I had any questions, rooting around among the commentaries and scholars, etc.
Then I would pray with the Scriptures and beg God for something to say to His people.
Then I would start the process of applying all that I'd garnered to "real life." And then I would organize the sermon.
So if I had a "scheme" it would be
Gratias tibi ago!
I suppose I am using the term in a very broad way, to mean interpreting the Scriptures to the end that they inform our thought and guide our lives.
Yes, the term, I suppose, could be used in a broad way. However, I use the term to describe a methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text. In doing so I look at how those of the writings time would understand what is said. That especially relates to the time period that the Scriptures were written in. If one can't understand what it meant to those who read it at that time, then we are in trouble - big, serious trouble! Yes, I agree that the Scriptures should inform our thought and guide our lives exactly as they formed and guided the lives of Christians at the time they were written.
"Exegesis" in my usage (which I do not propose as normative, I'm just trying to be clear) would be the task whose tools would be translation, all the various "geschichten", 'comparing and contrasting' with other Biblical texts and so forth.
Hmmm...I guess I'm confused with what you are really saying here. Are you saying that what you just said you don't propose as "normative"? Exegesis is the main method of all translators. Esiogesis should never be used, period, although you can find that used all too often in sermons, teachings and commentaries. I'll let you guess about what methodology is used by those using something other than exegesis.
So if I had a "scheme" it would be
Exegesis -- mostly consulting the exegetes
Lectio Divina(of a sort)
Hermeneutics (which might involve excursions into theologians, poets, whatever)
Homiletics (compose that puppy!)
Preaching (or teaching)
Okay, that's something. It's basically what I do, although I'm quite blunt in my choice of words. I appreciate your response, seriously. Again, thank you. If you read some of my more explicit writings, having what you stated here in your mind, you may see the hermeneutics I used.