As a hermeneutic approach to Sarah Ruhl's Eurydice and In the Next Room, this study is inspired by Paul Ricoeur's philosophy of hermeneuticsand Rudolf Bultmann's demythologization and remythologization theory as a method of interpretation. It reflects upon the deconstruction and reconstruction of meaning in Ruhl's two plays. Though, on a superficial level, the plays seem to be an adaptation of a myth (Eurydice) and a contemplation of frustrated female sexuality, they are, on a deeper one, a revision of some taken- for-granted Biblical issues. Both plays, as the research suggests, build upon Freud's and Ricoeur's precept of divesting religion of its major quality, spiritual and theological need, and propounding instead that religion is a matter of fear and a need for protection. This necessitates an embarking upon such Biblical concepts as hell, heaven, sin, redemption, and reprobation that indicates that some fallen angels and humans will suffer in hell eternally, plus the concept of God as a replica of the primal father. Hermeneutically revising such issues, the research juxtaposes the two concepts of a god of love and a god of wrath by posing the question once brought about  by Julian Norwich in her Revelations of Divine Love : How are such ideas suited to divine love?(Adams 1992, 198) .
Introduction 
      In the twenty-first century, skepticism or rather uncertainty has become the distinguishing and defining feature of the age (Baumann 2009, 7). Consequently, in accordance with the cynical spirit of the age, many philosophers and thinkers, including Paul Ricoeur, have initiated a philosophy of hermeneutics, one that seeks to define the self and reveal its ambiguity. According to William Franke, "(h)ermeneutics can be conceived either as an unmasking and discarding of the apparent sense by bringing out the hidden sense as the true one , or as revealing of a deeper sense beyond the immediate one, which, however ,remains nevertheless still true symbolically" (1998, 70) . In Ricoeur's thinking, language is an essential and indispensable part of man; what man utters defines him. However, the fact that language itself is complicated and is not always straightforward and direct adds to the complexity of the process of self-comprehension (Itao 2010, 2). Due to its figurative and symbolic nature, language is not to be understood literally. Ricoeur, on the other hand, defines symbols as: "any structure of signification in which a direct, primary, literal meaning designates, in addition, another meaning which is indirect, secondary, and figurative and which can be apprehended only through the first" (qtd.in Itao 2010, 3). Hence, symbols, according to Ricoeur, should not be understood on a superficial level because beneath the outward meaning there is a more profound inward one. The duality of meaning that distinguishes Ricoeur's definition of symbols gives rise to the importance of interpretation through hermeneutics, a process that is meant to clarify the diverse meanings a symbol might carry beyond the literal one (Kaplan 2003, 21).