It has been suggested that questions such as the following should be considered as off topic:
While these posts may be of interest to those in the field of Biblical Studies, they don't start from a text nor ask about specific hermeneutics, which means they are technically off topic. Should we allow questions of this nature, or do they need to be closed as off topic?
If "biblical hermeneutics" is about the art/science/philosophy of interpreting "biblical" texts, then questions about how practitioners have done this in the past, and what we can learn (or avoid) from their work would/should be fair game.
I don't have a strong feeling, though -- except to endorse observation in a comment to the question that the point is the light shed on interpretation, and not a "beauty contest", opinion poll, etc. THAT kind of thing is surely beyond the pale.
In the questions used as illustration in the Question, my hunch would have been that Edersheim shades towards "on-topic", but Ehrman veers "off-topic" -- and yet the Ehrman question elicited a quality and "on-topic" reply. And I'm interested myself in an expert take on Edersheim's legacy (which would say something about the nature of his interpretative project).
Frankly, I'd be interested to get a closer sense of Rashi's "method", and Calvin's, and Kimchi's, and Wright's, and a host of others. This looks towards the method rather than the text, of course, but the two go together.
Technically, they are off topic, but since you were the originator of the 1st question, others will give you more 'latitude'. But what if someone with a "1" reputation asks them? Will you be as equally magnanimous?
The Real Question is: Where do you draw the line, and how do you 'define' the line you draw?
You have a definite vision for this site, and you use your 'mod' power to reign in us unruly scoundrels and keep us in line. You do go to extreme lengths to explain it, but at the end of the day, you have to 'enforce' it-how much ambiguity do you want to allow before individuals cry "Foul!" and challenge your leadership and direction?
I've learned w/teenagers that simple, well articulated, enforceable rules are better than ones replete w/exceptions. If you can articulate it, and the boundaries of it, then by all means do, but if someone says,"Wait a minute-you gave a pass to that person who asked this, but when I asked the same thing, the hammer came down", "I told you so" is one of the most useless phrases in the English Language.
Consider our tax code, and I'm sure you'll make the right choice.; > )
As an addendum to my answer: I believe if one 'evaluates' a body of work(Alfred Edersheim et al) as conclusive evidence, either supporting or refuting it as it relates to a particular textual concern(ie: use Edersheim's work because he addresses issue "X" where other scholars avoid or inadequately address) then it is entirely on topic, since one's main concern is the text; the author may be the 'benchmark' by which certain texual issues are addressed.(Consider Rashi, Darby, and a host of other commentaries).
My recommendations:
I've elsewhere pointed out my opinion that:
Secondary texts open for direct examination are extrabiblical texts that are helpful in understanding primary texts and/or are commonly referenced/studied by Biblical scholars.
Edersheim's book falls into this category, but the question is too broad. It should deal with a specific claim of the work, not the entire work itself.
