@ScottS Ha! Sorry about that! I didn't notice what the tag history was on that Q. A couple of @Caleb's answers on tag issues begin to get at what might be my "tagging philosophy".

Thinking about it now, I would say my "tagging philosophy" (grand thought!) is (a) that the central texts raised in a Q should have tags; and beyond that (b) the tag (or tags) that capture what that Q is about should be added.

I think that's why I lopped off those three tags on the Q you linked: authorship went because it wasn't about authorship, but awareness of writer of Rev of Paul, whoever that might be, as your answer helpfully notes. Ergo, not an "authorship" question.

Similarly for context and history -- although (as you note above) any answer will make appeals to history and/or context, the Q is not about those things. They may or may not be involved in an answer.

I think we need some discipline in the use of especially these sorts of tags, because on the grounds you suggest here, probably 90%+ of our Q's could have these tags! There are precious few questions on BH.SE that won't have some historical or contextual element!

I think that's the best I can do for now. Let me know what you think!

@Dɑvïd Well, those two posts did not help much for me in the context of this discussion, since they were largely about site taxonomy (i.e., what tags should be available, rather than what tags to use on a specific question). So let's talk about the specific question, as I agree with you that "the tag (or tags) that capture what that Q is about."

Would you agree that the question is not directly about either Revelation or Paul (even thought both those tags are not it [and I think they should be])? It is really a question about the history/context of the book of Revelation with respect specifically to the knowledge of the author of that text, correct?

So as far as our on topic categories, it falls under the "historical context (with regards to a particular text)" classification, the text here being the whole book, though it did "arise from a Biblical text" with its relation to the other question of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.

But really, an authorship question such as this can only be answered by either or both of a historical/contextual, so it is not just that "they may or may not be involved," at least one will be.

@ScottS Well, if you picked up the notion of "taxonomy", then that's the key idea. And indiscriminate :) tagging will only muddy the taxonomic waters.

@ScottS Not really (so, no, I wouldn't agreed): the Q is about the extent of Pauline knowledge one can find in Revelation. It really is a question about Paul and the book of Revelation, and those tags capture it. "authorship", "context", and "history" are all peripheral.

@ScottS It isn't primarily about "author": doesn't really matter who wrote it (= "authorship") -- the Q is what knowledge of Paul is betrayed in the book.

@ScottS And as I said above, 90%+ (no, I haven't counted! ;)) of our Qs would involve "history" and "context" to the same degree as this one. Well -- that's how I see it, anyway! :) Would be good to get impressions from other Library patrons.

@Dɑvïd I don't see the OP's final summary of his question, "Is this evidence the writer of Revelation was aware of the apostle Paul? Is there other evidence the author of Revelation was aware of Paul and his work as an apostle?" confined to what is only "betrayed in the book." So while I agree "who" exactly wrote it is not a focus, "what" that author knew is. The 12 apostles knowledge is something that would come outside the book itself.

So I guess I see this as a both in and out of Revelation for evidence question.

But I still then wonder when context or history tags would be applied.