« first day (1512 days earlier)   

12:00 AM
@JamesShewey I know there are some others around that probably deserve the tag, but I can't recall what they were about well enough to identify by search at the moment. I think the most recent one we also pestered David into answering out of a comment, but I don't remember the topic more specifically.
@JamesShewey Oh, I see you already went at it. :-) Thanks.
But really.... I think that’s too many. It doesn’t need to apply to everything about hermeneutical approaches. Only things focused on tools (not theoretical frameworks) used to study.
I think we only have a handful of these.
@Susan Too many indeed.
Feel free to vote some off the island.
I figured it was better to collect too many, then kick some out than leave a bunch untagged.
There also wasn't a description for the tag. Perhaps we should limit it to things like physical books? Eg, a textual criticism methodology could be seen as a "tool" but since it's not something I can hold...?
If so, we might want to put it in the tag description.
I know a went a bit overboard though.
@JamesShewey You're right, I should have written a tag wiki at the same time. Lots of these have been electronic tools, so not necessarily physical books, but concrete.
@Susan Yes, I think the key is a question about a "resource" as opposed to exclusively the text
Good lecture on Bible Typography - youtube.com/watch?v=tu4t9FKn9M4
12:15 AM
@ThaddeusB That's a good word. If you want to write a wiki or even just a wiki excerpt, feel free.
@Susan Was I write to say that he had swapped your primary and secondary questions?
I don't know what kind of references he would be wanting you to include in your question - it isn't based on there being multiple Isaiahs
Many of the new tags are good though, and most others probably should have been tagged "hermeneutical-approaches" but weren't, so mostly productive tagging :)
@Susan I've noticed this for several unconstructive people, that they often think that in order to commend on the merits of a question you must be able to write an answer for it. Rather odd.
@Susan Wiki suggested. Feel free to adjust.
I see that tools-of-biblical-studies is being used very broadly
12:24 AM
@curiousdannii I dunno, I was interested in both. My motivation for writing it in the first place probably had more to do with feeling out how redaction considerations apply to the series of them rather than an interest in the nature of exaltation of the servant in Chap. 52.
When I heard you talking about tools I thought you meant a much narrower set like dictionaries, grammars and corpuses
@curiousdannii Right, see conversation above....some of them need to be reversed probably.
@Susan In that case his rewrite might be fair. Doesn't explain any of the attitude though!
I would've called the tag exegetical-tools
@curiousdannii He’s being silly to pretend that the question covertly assumes multiple authors.
@curiousdannii But I wouldn’t exclude text critical tools, for instance.
@Susan But.. what? It's blatantly explicit that it's asking about that.
@Susan Sure, they would be included in my mind
or the tag could just be "tools"...
doesn't really matter though. Was Thaddeus writing a wiki for it?
12:28 AM
@curiousdannii ? Is that a question directed to me?
@curiousdannii Yes, I proposed one.
@Susan That's the question mark of incredulity :P
For requests for resources that help analyze the Biblical text in a specific way, or questions about how to use those resources.
@curiousdannii Sorry, what are you incredulous about?
@Susan That someone could think that it was covertly asking about multiple authors
12:30 AM
@curiousdannii OK, gotcha. Sorry, slow this evening.
OK, finished re-editing the tags :)
12:53 AM
I think we might still have some work to do. For example - this one
Q: What is "Midrash" and how does it relate to Christian principles of hermeneutics?

CalebWhat is the Midrash method of interpreting a Biblical verse and what application does it have in Christian studies as a hermeneutic principle?

My understanding is that Midrash is a way of interpreting scripture, but it is also a collection of works by rabbis who engaged in midrash.
So that collection of works could be considered a concrete tool which would allow us to understand scripture in historical context.
Or we removed the tag on this one:
Q: Based on recent manuscript discoveries, is the LXX more reliable than the MT?

user1985Based on recent manuscript discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the text of the LXX more reliable than the MT?

But didn't remove the tag on this one
Q: Coherence-Based Genealogical Method vs. Local Text-Types Theory

DanThe NA28 text marks a departure from the traditional methodology of textual criticism. As described by Jeff Kloha in the Concordia Theology Journal, Previous generations learned to classify manuscripts based on “text-types,” such as “Alexandrian,” “Western,” and “Caesarean.” However, mor...

or this one
Q: New American Standard Bible vs English Standard Version: Which one's more faithful to the original text?

trusktrI've read that both the NASB and ESV versions are "formal, word-for-word translations". Is there any way to determine which is the most accurate version? Bonus consideration: Precise translation doesn't do much good if the English is difficult to read. Does one translation balance accuracy a...

I'm not sure why asking if the MT or the LXX is more reliable is not tools, but NASB or ESV is more reliable is...
And also, For Genealogical method (if we want to "vote it off the island" so to speak)
it is a resource that will help analyze the biblical text in a specific way, but it is not a concrete resource - it is a methodological resource.
@JamesShewey I certainly encourage a third eye to look at all of the questions... On these, I left the tag on translation questions even though I wouldn't have applied it myself because in a sense asking which translation should I use for purpose X is a tool question. I took it off the DSS/LXX questions because they were about interpretation and/or textual criticism not "should I use it do to such and such"
I do think the question on NA28 should definitely be considered a tools question though. It is not a resource people use for any purpose but translation or exegesis (i.e. not used for casual reading)
Right - but that is true for a lot of textual criticism methodologies and I think the question is about the Coherence-Based Geneological Method and the Local Text-Types Theory, not the NA28 so much.
1:16 AM
@JamesShewey The question asks about "Midrash method of interpreting ....and... application ... as a hermeneutic principle"
OK - that's a fair point.
@JamesShewey That's (a way too broad question) about text criticism.
@JamesShewey I don't understand that question -- no opinion.
@JamesShewey Not witnesses to the original text, but translations, which I would buy as tools, although probably should instead be considered under a rubric of translations, for which we have a few tags.
I still think the LXX vs MT and ESV vs NASB are so similar. The only real difference is the language they are in. And the LXX and MT are certainly concrete tools used in biblical studies.
I think we have to treat the one the same way we treat the other - and I think there are a couple more "which translation is better" questions.
This one seems to be about textual criticism
Q: Criticism of the Vulgate: alleged errors and inaccuracies in translation

Lover of StructureI often hear that the Latin Vulgate has many inaccuracies of translation. I often hear such criticism from Protestant circles; this (or the relative lack of such discourse among Catholics) might have to do with the role the Latin language and the Vulgate plays within the Roman Catholic church. I...

And I'm not so sure this one should be tagged if we are getting rid of methods
Q: What is morphological analysis, as it relates to Bible study?

Philip SchaffAs far as I can tell, morphological analysis is a technique used by Bible students to better understand the original languages in context. How does one go about using a tool such as Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes?

@JamesShewey I’m afraid I disagree with most of ^^^ .... going one-by-one:
@JamesShewey Do you not think that MT vs LXX is a text critical issue? The value of the LXX for HB studies is primarily as a textual witness (well, that’s what that Q is about anyway) .... ESV vs NASB is a totally different thing.
Why are they totally different? Sure they are part of textual criticism, but the MT and LXX are tools of textual criticism making them tools of biblical studies.
Also, they don't necessarily have to be used only for textual criticism and knowing which one is more reliable might be helpful in those cases could be useful.
I have to run some errands, but I'll be back later.
1:30 AM
@JamesShewey This is about the Vulgate per se -- translation. It would only be about textual criticism if it focused on how the Vulgate helps us determine the original (Greek >> Hebrew) text.
@JamesShewey MT and LXX are witnesses. This is very different from other “tools”, and different from translations.
@JamesShewey I don’t understand that comment. The determination of “reliable” with regard to “witnesses” = text criticism.
How do we use the Vulgate differently than the Septuagint in that endeavor - they are both translations from the original language...
But how is text criticism != part of biblical studies?
@JamesShewey Just to clarify -- for that comparison we’re dropping the Vulgate of the NT, where it’s more useful for text criticism. For OT.... LXX is just a much more important witness because it’s older, and the period in between was a period of flux in the text, whereas the Vulgate witnesses mostly just the Hebrew text that we have in the MT, which we’re better off getting from Hebrew.
But those comments are all about text criticism. The reason the Vulgate Q you have copied above isn’t is not because it’s about the Vulgate, but because it’s about the Vulgate per se rather than about using it to try to determine the original (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) text.
@JamesShewey It is, yes. But we’ve conceptualized “tools” as a specific group that falls outside the categories we already have. Text criticism is a very particular thing with its own tag, and it just isn’t helpful to group it into this new tools tag.
(To clarify, I don’t think that Latin question is about either tools in our sense or text criticism.)
The morphology question definitely works as a tools question as far as I’m concerned.
1:49 AM
@JamesShewey How does one go about using a tool such as Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes? Seems pretty explicitly about a specific tool to me.
2:30 AM
Just before that he explains it as a method though - not a concrete thing. But if everyone else is happy with the tagging, then it's fine by me. Just looking them over, it seemed like we had a few misses.
3:08 AM
@JamesShewey I wonder if, to some extent, the reason we’re having trouble being precise about what is included is that we’re actually thinking of it in terms of a group of questions that we’ve had that are not covered by our existing tags -- tags which correspond to discrete concepts that we recognize within the field of Biblical studies (translation methodology, text criticism, hermeneutical approaches, etc.).
The types of questions we’re calling “tools” are a sort of “meta” group that are not those things themselves, but resources for achieving them.
4 hours later…
7:00 AM
@curiousdannii Also the question he added just doesn’t make sense: "Does the use of this phrase in Isaiah, lend further support to the view that the text of Isaiah may have had more than one author?” In addition to the misplaced comma, why would it support that?
7:20 AM
@JamesShewey That is interesting. But I got caught up on the syntax + pronouns of Isaiah 52:14 so haven’t made it past the 10 minute mark. How do we not have a Q&A about this?
About the typography?
@JamesShewey No no, about the syntax. It’s weird even in translation + nice typography. The typography.... is probably off topic except insofar as it reflects the syntax. Which I guess it must if punctuation is included as he has it. So sure, about the typography.
7:33 AM
I had to go back and watch the video - but now I'm tracking with you. I'm not sure how there isn't a post on Isaiah 52:14 already.
@Susan I keep seeing things which I personally wouldn't categorise as tools based questions... it's probably time to take this all to Meta
Q: New American Standard Bible vs English Standard Version: Which one's more faithful to the original text?

trusktrI've read that both the NASB and ESV versions are "formal, word-for-word translations". Is there any way to determine which is the most accurate version? Bonus consideration: Precise translation doesn't do much good if the English is difficult to read. Does one translation balance accuracy a...

This question for example... I don't see at all how it's helpful to tag it with tools
@JamesShewey You've done most of the tagging of tools- so I think it would be most constructive to base a Meta discussion off your vision for the tag.
@curiousdannii I agree about that one. It's about translation. I really only thought we had a handful that needed this.
Q: What should we do with questions about tools used in Biblical scholarship?

SusanThis question arose yet again, this time in reference to this question that, at the time of this writing, remains open on Main: What do the "Goodrick-Kohlenberger" numbers represent? What features does this system offer in distinction from previous numbering systems? Rather than having the ...


« first day (1512 days earlier)