13
BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we1
propose to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously. The other answers here
illustrated a division in the community2 and we hope to be able to move forward together by focussing on
what we agree on.
Writing descriptively -- "such-and-such source says ...
9
As far as I'm concerned, yes these always have been and still should be on topic. I've been kind of frustrated when I've run across similar things where some of our community can't seem to separate the field of hermeneutics from random theological debate.
I understand why theological topics not framed against a specific passage on which hermeneutics can be ...
8
Yes, I think these questions should be on-topic and perhaps tagged as either audience or destination.
We've generally allowed these kind of introductory matters such as provenance, authorship, dating, or even canonicity. I don't see why audience would be would be any different from those. The intended audience is a key part of the interpretive process for ...
8
In the spirit of how SE communities are defined and the answers to the previous related questions, I feel pseudepigraphic/apocryphal works should be considered on topic. Experts in these texts are almost universally experts in canonical texts as well, so the expert this site aims to appeal to would include experts of pseudepigraphic/apocryphal Judeo-...
8
In my understanding, Meta is for discussion of Hermeneutics.SE site policy. None of these questions is about the site. They are indeed “meta-” in a way, but they are meta-hermeneutics rather than meta-Hermeneutics.SE. Some, such as the reading recommendations question, could be tweaked to become meta-Hermeneutics.SE questions: “What shall we use as ...
7
Change the wording to allow for (most of) these questions
Based on community votes for these questions, it seems clear that we do want them here. But we need to also be careful that we don't turn into a site devoted to learning these languages or asking general reference questions about them. We should change the wording to the following:
Don't ask about....
7
ScottS wrote the following in a comment on another answer, which I think is very clear and helpful (emphasis mine):
...they are undoubtedly a special category of tertiary, as the controversy around them is whether the "Gnostic gospels" deserve a canonical (primary) position, and if secondary writings from those therefore deserve such status. So it seems a ...
7
I think they are all on topic.
Potential contradictions should be examined. Even if one does not hold to a necessary unity to Scripture by a Divine Author behind the text through inspiration (opposite what I and a number of people hold), that the Scripture is studied as a body of work shows that nearly all interpreters understand there is a connection ...
7
Questions about the history of a doctrine in Christianity such as when a particular viewpoint came on the scene or came to prominence are probably better suited to Christianity.SE. Even though the question involves hermeneutics, it's not specifically about a passage and how to interpret it so much as how a specific subset of Christians have interpreted it. ...
7
It's a reasonable question, but my own sense is that "historical linguistics" ("HL" in what follows) questions are not a good fit for BH.SE.
The examples provided would only very tangentially -- if at all -- illuminate the interpretation of given texts. I can only think of one Q&A (on "Mahanaim") where HL was a significant element for the answer. There ...
7
My own sense is, Yes -- "history of intperpretation" questions are "on-topic" for Hermeneutics.SE. I have some caveats (noted later), but here's my rationale.
The BH.SE community is already supportive of "questions that evaluate sources and scholars of interest to Biblical Studies". As it happens, the most up-voted answer there (10+/0-) is my own, and some ...
7
It's On-Topic as far as I'm concerned.
In the Site Tour we link to What Texts are Open for Examination?.
The community consensus is currently as follows:
"You build a site for a group of experts. If there are related texts which experts in this field tend to study because the texts are so closely tied to the subject, I would include them as "on ...
6
Would a comprehensive investigation of a passage in the context of the whole of Scripture would welcome/on-topic?
This is great question, especially because some hermeneutics rely on bringing in the context of other or all biblical texts to bear.
We are talking about answers here, and my verdict would be a qualified "Yes it is welcome".
The qualification ...
6
Useful question, but a little tricky to answer.
It is a lot easier to find examples on the site of questions that do 'start from the text' than those that don't of course: because we've been closing/deleting questions that start from an idea or framework since the early days of the site.
Also, many bad questions that arrive on the site are bad for more ...
6
Thank you for asking here before posting.
Asking for a biblical reference to support an idea is off topic. Questions about biblical topics should start from a specific Bible passage.
If the question arises from a specific passage that describes the character’s viewpoint and you’re asking us to help with interpretation of the text, that works. Questions ...
6
It seems to me that there are two main audiences for this page:
People who meander onto Hermeneutics.SE and want to learn what we’re about before asking questions. (Rare!)
People who have been rebuked for asking off-topic questions and are trying to do better.
Within both groups there are probably those who just want a few bullets and others who really ...
6
Do both texts describe the same event ?
. . . is an hermeneutic enquiry.
I do not see how it can be anything else, nor has anyone (yet) attempted to show that it is not.
There are two possible hermeneutic answers :
Yes
No
Both answers then must demonstrate their conclusions from scriptural references.
Those with sufficient reputation may vote to close (...
5
Yes, they are on topic. We've previously proposed changing our name to Biblical Studies or Biblical Texts (which avoids the association with bible studies) or another broader term implying the same concept (and even have a roadmap for moving towards this) — personally I prefer 'Biblical Texts' but it doesn't have a lot of votes on that meta proposal &...
5
The problem with these questions and certainly with that one in particular, is that that aren't 'answerable' in the SE sense of lending themselves to a single definitive answer:
...point me to any modern biblical scholars ... looking for specific scholars/theologians and their texts...
They are similar to the category of 'shopping list' questions that ...
5
You've raised a number of good points and I'll try and give my take on the main one's at least:
Should Textual Criticism be a valid topic for the site?
Yes, it should. Textual Criticism (also called 'lower criticism') is a topic of interest to many of the experts we have and are keen to attract. By the same logic Robert uses here, we should let folk ask ...
5
I concur with the existing answer that this question would be "off-topic" as posed.
I also think there are at least two "on-topic" questions lurking in it, and to let them out it would mean:
(much!) tighter focus; and
restricting the "corpus".
Essentially the question as it stands is about a the "doctrine of man" [sic] or "biblical anthropology" (in this ...
5
Why can those other questions pass, while this one cannot?
With exegesis questions, we draw a distinction between those that arise from a text and those that do not, with the latter being off-topic.
By analogy, it may make sense to do the same with hermeneutical-approaches questions: allow them when they are about a known, practised, hermeneutic but not ...
5
1. Reason for VtC
OP notes the "hold" reason provided by the system. Just to be clear, I did not point to that text with my VtC, but rather invoked the "bespoke" field, filled with this text:
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns a specifically Christian and doctrinally-related understanding of inerrancy and inspiration, and ...
5
I don't see any need for this.
First of all, "appeals to doctrine" is a more common problem for answers than it is for questions. Close reasons apply to questions, they are not for handling answers.
Second, we already have appropriate messages covering off topic reasons when questions are not about a specific text.
Third, I would argue that several of ...
5
I agree the close reason is sometimes miss-used, and would be incorrect applied to that question, but that doesn't mean it's actually an invalid close reason.
Questions "about Biblical topics" is meant to cover abstract doctrinal questions. Questions about the application of hermeneutics itself as a field are of course on topic and should not have this ...
5
I suggested this wiki excerpt before, but it was rejected for reasons I don't really understand:
Biblical Theology is an approach to theology which emphasises the progressive nature of Biblical revelation, with later texts building on earlier ones and revealing more of God and his works
We also discussed it a little in chat.
This Zondervan article is ...
5
Well, there are two principles to remember:
Questions are considered on their own merits. A good answer can't make an off-topic question into an on-topic question. If someone thinks the question is primarily a systematic theology question, then they should vote to close/flag the question, even if it has good exegetical answers.
Sometimes answers can ...
5
This question was a journey for me, as no matter what it's definitely close to the boundaries of scope for the site. It doesn't get much more 'meta' than this, when we're debating the authorial intent of Questions rather than passages!
Why I reached the conclusion to keep it Open at the time
At least ten of us in the community engaged with the question, it ...
4
I don't think the distinction between secondary and tertiary text has any particular bearing on this issue. What matters is whether the expertise necessary to construct informed answers on topics ranging through manuscript evidence, historical religious context, translation, and interpretation is the same expertise that we apply to texts belonging to various ...
4
(I'm not sure that what follows "deserves" to be an "answer", but I'm quite sure it's too long for a comment. I'm counting on the higher tolerance level of "meta" to accommodate some fringe activity. :)
This thread has me scratching my head. In the brief period I've been active on the site, I thought I had more-or-less got to grips with its purpose and ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible