« first day (552 days earlier)      last day (2785 days later) » 

1:26 AM
Q: What are the most common "definition" sites which have been beneficially used for jargon?

Qoheleth-TechSometimes I may use a word that has significant historical usage in hermeneutics/exegesis, and since I am mostly a book fan, I don't use online dictionaries pertinent to this subject matter. What have been your most helpful sites? (I have not seen this covered. If it turns out a marginally helpf...

15 hours later…
4:13 PM
@MonicaCellio That reminds me:
Q: What do we want our FAQ to say

RichardWe have been in beta for over 50 days now and so far our FAQ has simply said: This is a free, community driven Q&A for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. We, as a community, have complete, free reign over this very first section of our FA...

@JonEricson you got him to un-accept your answer? Cool, I thought he was gone.
@JonEricson though now that we have the "what are we looking for in answers" link, we probably ought to update that FAQ link to point there instead.
And that latter answer, in turn, ought to link to the "show your work" answer that we ultimately agree on, assuming people go and weigh in there.
4:29 PM
@MonicaCellio yes, I thought about that then forgot all about it
I'm pretty sure that is the right thing to do
@JackDouglas since we now have a clearer statement, with more votes and also distance to other answers, on a question that's actually about answers and not (as in the original) editing, it seems non-controversial to me to move that pointer.
Someday we should consider the status of the "why are correct answers downvoted?" post, but separately.
@MonicaCellio done
also reworded slightly: comments welcome
@JackDouglas thanks. Looks good, though I wouldn't object if the phrase "show[ing] their work" appeared somewhere in there.
Hey all, since there are people here... I'm interested in hearing feedback on my answer to the "Jewish vs. Christian approaches" question. Not shilling/complaining/etc, but I had thought my answer would fare better, being one of the only ones to talk about both sides of that. Did I miss something important? Is it just kind of "meh"? I'd like input on how to improve.
A: How do Jewish scholars differ from Christian scholars in their approach to the Tanakh?

Monica CellioJews and Christians both consider the tanakh to be important scripture (usually seen as of divine origin, though individual denominations/movements may vary). They differ in how they derive meaning from that text, however. In this answer I'm going to describe some approaches used by each group,...

@MonicaCellio Nope, I deleted it.
4:45 PM
@JonEricson mods can do that? I learned something new. :-)
@MonicaCellio You add the disclaimers and all about your limited experience/knowledge of Christian interpretation so you can hardly be faulted, but I don't feel like the second half where you explain Christian exegesis is very representative.
@MonicaCellio I'm not sure if it's because I'm a mod or because it's my answer.
@Soldarnal ok, thanks. Can you suggest some things I should be looking at?
@MonicaCellio Hmm, not sure if I know a good resource. The Historical-Grammatical method is popular in some parts.
That article has a short summary of methods across traditions (Catholic, liberal, Orthodox, conservative protestant)
@Soldarnal thanks!
4:59 PM
@MonicaCellio Sure; kinda makes me want to read a good book on the subject
@MonicaCellio And like I think I mentioned earlier when you first drew up your answer, the question seems like it might be overly broad, since drawing up an answer that covers the full range of hermeneutics (Jewish or Christian) likely would require a book
4 hours later…
8:48 PM
@Monica Cellio: Are there any particular meta-posts that you think we should revisit?
9:10 PM
@JonEricson Several, including: meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70/208
currently active, yay:
not so much revisited but acted on: faq tag? link from faq? integration with "good answers" post?
not old, but an unresolved sore spot:
and relatedly:
I think y'all have been having some mod-private discussions of this; anything to share?
Q: How should we welcome new users?

Jon EricsonEvery now and then you'll see a question or an answer from someone you don't recognize. They might have a reputation of 1 or 101, a generic avatar or an image you've never seen before, and they've never contributed anything to the site before. Perhaps you perused the first questions or first an...

And, of course...
http://meta.hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/417/208, and anything with "doctrine" in its title.
@JonEricson I saw some others last night in browsing at home; might have them in tabs there.
@MonicaCellio Uff da! Ok. That's a lot.
@MonicaCellio Looks like Biblical Studies answer is tied for first. But I'm not sure how feasible it is to change our name at this stage.
@JonEricson I think we should pursue it. We have two kinds of problem, the people who don't twig to "hermeneutics" (including some of the under-represented target audience), and the "oh that means not exegesis, wait all the Qs are exegesis, huh?" problem.
@JonEricson yeah, well, I hope you weren't really surprised...
@MonicaCellio Yeah. That's complicated. We may need some outside help on that one.
@JonEricson yeah. The outside help and I had a brief conversation last night; I'm waiting for more. I fear a premature decision. (Um, yeah. Sigh.)
All: please go weigh in on this:
Q: What does "show your work" mean in the context of exegesis?

CalebAs a result of recent debate over whether certain answers would be considered acceptable on this site, we posed the question "What are we looking for in answers?". In my foray into the issue, I noted that of the two main classes of questions we field (questions about the field of hermeneutics and...

9:26 PM
@MonicaCellio It looks like the real voting on "Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis" is running at +8/-3 compared to "Biblical Studies" at +6/-0.
@JonEricson and one of those up-votes on the former is mine, from way back, which I can't retract without editing the post.
@MonicaCellio Looks like Ray agrees with you. ;-)
@JonEricson I just saw that. What brought Ray back, BTW? (If you know.) He's been inacative for months.
@MonicaCellio Feel free to change your vote... now. ;)
@JonEricson done. Thanks.
9:36 PM
@MonicaCellio Now there is just one answer that we have no disagreement on. Too bad it's not the answer that has been implemented. I guess we should see if a change is possible.
@JonEricson the previous top-voted answer wasn't implemented either, by the way.
@MonicaCellio True. It seemed unworkable.
10:22 PM
@MonicaCellio I notice that's one of my questions and two of my answers. What, in particular, do you think ought to be done there?
@JonEricson I would like us to have a conversation about (a) framing such questions and (b) defaults in the absence of a frame. Also, whether C answers (what I consider "out of scope" and others consider fair game) should declare their perspective up front. I DVed your top answer, UVed your other and Richard's. I don't think any of the answers is exactly right, a year and a half later, but how much of a lightning-rod do I want to be by answering? Need to think more on that.
To make this easier on bystanders, Jon and I are discussing this:
Q: Are questions about the Old Testament from a purely Christian perspective off-topic?

Jon EricsonThis morning a question arose about whether Jesus fulfills a prophesy in the Old Testament. From a Christian perspective, this a fairly standard lens through which to look at the Tanakh. Obviously, the question is quite foreign (and potentially offensive) from the Jewish perspective. Richard c...

@MonicaCellio I think when it comes to questions, we should try to make them open for anyone to answer. The first iteration of the question in question just asked if Micah 5:5-6 meant Jesus. That's not a good question under our current rules since it doesn't spring from the text.
@JonEricson, would you consider pinning this? chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8897510#8897510
@MonicaCellio No problem. ;)
@JonEricson and to me, the question should stop at "what does this mean?". Or, if the OP specifically wants a Christian answer, he should say that up front (and in the title) -- but I'm not sure we should allow that, if we're trying to be open to all perspectives. On that question, there is no reason for anyone to bring a non-Christian answer, but if you want a range of answers, how is that good?
@JonEricson thanks.
Gotta disappear for about an hour; back later!
10:50 PM
@MonicaCellio I'm going to try making an extended analogy that probably would be better in a meta post rather than chat:
Suppose we were creating a Stack Overflow for C/C++. And suppose I used C only and you were a C++ programmer. Now some questions (on objects, templates, I/O streams, etc.) would not interest me, but almost all will interest you.
So suppose I ask a C question and you reply with a solution in C++. That doesn't help me much, but could help lots of folks with my problem who happen to use a C++ compiler. Should we allow such answers?
Personally, I think those answers would be fine, even encouraged. In the same way, I think Christian answers to Tanakh questions should be allowed and even encouraged.
Jews and Christians share a lot of code, but use different compilers.
11:53 PM
@JonEricson if the question is "how do I solve this problem" then it should be allowed. If the question is "how do I do this in C" then my C++ answer doesn't answer the question.
I figured out on the way home how to explain the problem. Meta post coming later, but "does this mean Jesus" (or insert other doctrinal position here) is also a question starting from doctrine, just more subtly than some. However, "according to (argument) this looks like it means Jesus; does it" is ok, because that's showing what you've tried. The key is that the same show-your-work rigor that we apply to answers also applies to hypotheses in questions.

« first day (552 days earlier)      last day (2785 days later) »