BiblicalHermeneutics.SE has the tag (see tag info and tagged questions). Should Christianity.SE has this tag with the same tag info?

I was going to use it to retag this question: Did Jesus and NT authors think OT was literal history? Or maybe that question belongs to BH.SE?

Regardless of how one would tag that particular question (maybe that Q is not a good example), should Christianity.SE has the tag also? If so, should the tag info be different, such as more tailored to Christian theology?

1 Answer 1


I think that's a non-good tag name for the site. "Hebrew Bible" isn't a term Christians are apt to use.

is too long

how about pairing and . A Christian scholar on the subject of intertextuality is probably not going to specialize in ot/nt intertextuality and my more than ot/ot or or nt/nt intertextuality.

I'd hope that most of us would see the New Testament as a continuation or a fulfillment of the Old Testament so you don't have to narrow it down too much.

There are a handful of questions that might be taggable https://christianity.stackexchange.com/search?q=intertextuality

I'm not an expert on Biblical Hermeneutics (the site or the subject) but the feeling I always had was that NT questions that touch on modern or classical doctrine should always be on this site and NT questions that focus purely on the words themselves should be on the other site.

Personally, I have very little appreciation or use for the whole topic as I don't believe worrying about what the words mean in context is more important than worrying about what the Church says they mean. So I would move 99% of the questions here and ask the OP to place a denominational tag on them on them and save a lot of headaches for people who bring their baggage to BH.SE and call it objectivity.

  • 1
    In Biblical studies (but not Christian theological studies), "Hebrew Bible" is now the term to use, out of respect for the Jewish heritage. "Old Testament" carries the theological connotation that is offensive for adherents of Judaism, since the exegetical meaning is controlled by New Testament. Intertextuality is a lot more general than "NT use of OT" where the latter is the term for much more explicit allusion or even citation. Feb 19 at 21:33
  • So for OP's question I agree that your suggestion works. But in other cases where the question has to do with NT citation of OT, the Meta question should have an answer as to WHEN the question is to be treated in C.SE rather than in BH.SE. Feb 19 at 21:39
  • 1
    @GratefulDisciple I think that's a question for the BH.SE meta - I've always felt that it was OK to ask virtually any New Testament question and almost any Old Testament question. But ought to be scoped to the doctrine that they're asking about. The linked question has got to be too vague, especially if you believe the Ultimate Author of the New Testament is Jesus - who is also the Ultimate Author of the Old Testament. But if you simply want to know whether Jesus and His Jewish disciples were taught that the OT was literal history in their synagogues, that's question for here or history
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Feb 20 at 14:11
  • For the example question, that the Word is the Ultimate Author of scripture is not relevant here. The Word became incarnate in a human being who interpreted the sacred texts of the day operating in His human nature. This is a question of how Jesus as human interpreted the text, so yes, the Q "wants to know whether Jesus and His Jewish disciples were taught that the OT was" to be interpreted in a literal manner "in their synagogues". Evangelicals like the acronym WWJD (What Would Jesus Do), they should want to seek after HWJI (How Would Jesus Interpret). Feb 20 at 14:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .