11

Basically we don't want this to be a site for learning to read/speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek. Those would be sites with a different focus. We're trying to avoid questions like: What are the different case endings for nouns in Greek? How does word order function in Hebrew? What's the Aramaic word for 'love'? These are questions of a different form than ...


10

Yes, absolutely. If a proper answer* that strictly but completely addresses the existing question being re-posted under the one you are going to ask would not resolve your question, then it is not a duplicate and you should go ahead and ask a new question. * Note that such an answer might not have been posted yet but imagine one one based on the scope of ...


10

Because Mormons themselves Do Not Consider it the Bible This site is about "Biblical" hermeneutics, and while I realize that there is some differences of opinion about what books are to be included in the Bible (or was once discussed about such inclusion), one thing seems clear from Mormons themselves--the Bible and the book of Mormon are separate ...


9

Pseudo-neutrality never completely took off as official site guidelines (and despite being the primary proponent of them, I'm actually kind of glad about that after many discussions with folks like Jack Douglas, Jon Ericson, etc.). While elements of it are in effect to some extent, they are often clarified under other ideas (e.g. questions must start from ...


9

Theoretically they fit our subject matter, but in practice the questions tend to be full of hot air. Usually they are somebody trying to validate some hunch they have or doctrinal conclusion they have already drawn. The answers are either easy (grep -c anybody?) or crazy hard (sure you write a script that parses ancient Hebrew and reliably gets the context ...


8

These should be closed as off topic These are merely another type of "searching for a text" question (or 'no text specified'), except they don't necessarily need the specific textual occurrences to be specified, merely their count/frequency. Answering these questions doesn't really help anyone better understand the Biblical text(s). If the OP is interested ...


8

I have already added an answer on "main", and UV'ed here. The question is a (better than) good one. Perhaps there was a slightly better way of framing the question, although OP's tweak from "actually" to "likely" headed in a good direction. ;) The main points I want to make on Meta are: This question is no more "opinion based" that 84.7% of the questions ...


7

Yes, this is a very good question. It's about an interesting turn of phrase that doesn't necessarily have an obvious translation and may or may not have implications depending on how it's interpreted. But really what makes it a good question is that it stems directly from the original text and is already well researched. Furthermore it's specific, meaning ...


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

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 ...


5

As the author of the first version of the text in question, I think I have some authority to weigh in here. From it's inception, this site has been focused on the art and science of interpreting the Bible. We can quibble about the meaning of all of these words (and have) but the general purpose of the site is clear enough to people who've spent a little ...


5

We have no agreed-upon list of what books/texts constitute 'the Bible' This really is an inaccurate statement. The top two answers on the question you link to: warn that we should not attempt to define topicality too rigidly broadly define which books are on topic This is a good combination: evidenced by the fact that there has been no controversy on the ...


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

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

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 ...


4

At first bluff I didn't see any reason at all for this to be "off topic". Having reviewed Mark's reasoning I have to admit there is some sound logic there. However I think still have to defend my original position that this question should get a pass. Barely — it is marginal — but a pass none the less. While it's true that you could easily substitute the ...


4

Yes, I think it's on topic, and everything like it. In the same way that exegesis and hermeneutical approaches are both on topic, I expect that applied textual criticism and the theory of textual criticism are both on topic. Is this correct? Broadly we have on-topic questions about the text, and on-topic questions about questions about the text, so here ...


4

Christianity.SE is the right place for that. It is not a question of hermeneutics.


4

This is a list / general reference question and is off topic The existing answer to the question demonstrates that it can easily be answered simply by linking to a few URLs containing lists of early works. The link given in the answer contains sublinks at the top of the page for the additionally listed writers. I believe it meets the criteria of a 'general ...


4

I am one who has been opposed to the question as is (as can be seen by the comments). And though I come from a perspective that sees the hypothesis of Q as a huge waste of time and effort, I would not be opposed to reopening if the question was edited in two respects, as I do not oppose the academic value of it. The main problems I had with the original ...


4

When I read the question here (even in the original form) it seemed to me that the poster had in mind recent arguments along these sort of lines: "The purpose of this parable isn't to address the nature of the afterlife but to make a statement about a disciple's relationship to money and the poor. Therefore we can't learn anything about Luke's (or Jesus') ...


4

Conceptually the point you've made in this meta question makes sense, but the specific instance cited doesn't match your argument. First let me point out that you've accepted an answer that's basically nothing but a logical fallacy. Your question asks for whether something was justifiable based on their situation at the time, then accepted an answer that ...


4

I cannot answer for those that voted to close it, since I was not one. Some things I see that probably need correcting: I agree with you, the question retitling was poorly done by Ruminator, as the new title definitely implies you are seeking other examples of such out-of-order chronology in Scripture (which would not be on topic, as it seeks texts), when ...


4

I don't see any problem with this. Questions across different sites are not usually considered duplicates as long as they are tailored to ask something specific tailored to the subject matter/expertise of each site. The only really issue here is whether the question you want to ask is really better aimed at this site (is your goal reviewing the actual ...


3

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....


3

Leave that question closed! I have contributed to the skein of comments at the closed question, and opined on this Q&A in chat. Only fair, then, to contribute here, too. I believe the question as posed ("Which is considered more reliable about Jesus' words, Mark or Q?") is far too broad for the Q&A format we work with here on BH.SE. It flags up an ...


2

No, I don't believe they should be. In fact, I disagree with the premise of your question above. This site is geared toward understanding the meaning of biblical texts. I think it's quite a bit more than that. Specifically I think this site is/should be geared towards exchanging knowledge about field of expertise that is "hermeneutics" and the ways in ...


2

The following are OFF TOPIC when ALL of the specified conditions are present that are listed under a specific category. Please note that I am not proposing that these categories themselves are all entirely off topic. That is by no means the case. In fact, if any of these categories of questions does not meet any one of the specified conditions which make it ...


2

My view is that the questions are on-topic because they arise from the text. Not all questions that arise from the text are about the text - a question does not have to be about words to be on-topic, for example: "Pre-Christian, Jewish interpretation of Psalm 22" is about an idea that arises from the text rather than the grammar of the text, and is one of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible