@Soldarnal The unregistered account wasn't really used yet, so I just converted the answer into a comment and commented on the new answer.

@JonEricson Cool; I think that's a good solution for now

@JonEricson oh, oops. I see you've already updated the question -- nice job! Sorry I had to run off.

I wonder if the other downvoter feels up to responding to this comment:

My reasons are: interesting theory in p1 and p4 but "speculation not inconsistent with the text" isn't very strong; p2 revolves around an anachronistic reference to Mosaic law; p3 seems to be commentary on modern(ish) culture. (I did not read the linked article since nothing in the answer suggests it's relevant.) I kept trying to write this in a comment that would be acceptable to all, but failed.

Hi all. I've been going through the translation questions to add missing languages (hoping we'll eventually kill translation, per earlier discussions). I've only just realized that I might be stepping into the Greek-versus-Aramaic-primacy argument for the Christian scriptures, which was not my intention at all. So I'm going to stop touching those and just focus on the unambiguous ones -- but I've retagged several, so if any of those were erroneous, my apologies & please roll back.

How should this question about resources (concordances, in this case) be tagged? We don't currently have any tags like "tools", "resources", "sources", etc.

@MonicaCellio greek is really safe, actually.

@JonEricson I thought so when I started, then wondering how tagging some texts greek but not aramaic would interact with the Aramaic-primacy question. (I don't have a horse in that race so I'm not completely up on it -- just what I've read here.) So I just set those aside for later and/or someone else, especially since we don't want to retag everything in one batch anyway. :-)

@MonicaCellio If it's a translation question, greek is unambiguously correct.

@TRiG ok, thanks. I saw some that just quoted an English translation and then asked questions about that translation, so I assumed a Greek source but the question didn't actually go back to a source.

@MonicaCellio If it's ok with @Jon and @Caleb I'm been thinking of offering to superping anyone you think we need to engage about their posts, along the lines of how we tried to get Jonathan in here yesterday after discussing his post. We can't force people to engage of course, any more than we can with comments/edits/votes, but I think this room is usually the right place for the discussions we want to have?

@JackDouglas that sounds like a good thing to try. It's a pity Jonathan hasn't come in yet (he's been back since the ping; he replied to your comment), but let's keep trying.

@JackDouglas, I tried to explain this in a flag on this -- Mike Bull has an unusual approach to the text (his tabernacle/calendar motif; I don't really understand it), and he added some discussion of that in this answer but it didn't really help there. As with Bob's SP approach, I think we should encourage Mike to ask and answer a question about this approach in general. Thoughts?

@MonicaCellio My first thought is to wonder if he has some online work published that summarises his approach.

(The main reason it didn't help is that, like with Bob, he's just asserting connections but not showing how he gets there. If he didn't feel constrained by the text for any particular answer maybe he could explain it.)

@JackDouglas ah, that would be useful. Still good to have it here too, though, as an explanation of a hermeneutic. (Summary here at least; he shouldn't reproduce a book. :-) )

yes definately, I was thinking of reading it first if it exists to see if I can make sense of it :)

@JackDouglas and anyway, it would be handy to have a name for this methodology if there's a real methodology there that's more specific than allegory.

@JackDouglas Fine by me. I have mixed success with getting people into chat, so we might need to consider other ways to reach out if we can't pull folks into the Library.