Peter Kirby

The moderators of this forum and the administrators have agreed to change the name from "Biblical Criticism & Archaeology" to "Biblical Criticism & History." What does this mean?

First of all, we still want to see archaeology discussions, so if you have been thinking about that post on late bronze age pottery styles in the Levant, it is still welcome here.

Nevertheless, since archaeology is a subset of history, and we are here to discuss religious history generally in addition to biblical criticism, the name change seemed appropriate, with a few qualifiers:

- Discussion of the history of non-religious philosophy. That would fit best in the "Philosophy" forum.
- Discussion of the history of the creation/evolution debate. That would fit best in "Evolution/Creation."
- Discussion of church-state separation and constitutional issues relating to religion. That would fit best in "Church–State Separation & Secular Activism."
- Discussion of the history of Buddhism. That would fit best in "Non-Abrahamic Religion & Philosophy."
- Discussion of the coherency of transsubstantiation, or other theological issues that do not involve history or biblical exegesis. That would fit best "General Religious Discussions."
- Discussion of American or world history as it relates to public policy. That belongs in "Political Discussions."

While all of these discussions fit best in other forums, there has been a modest expansion of the scope of this forum. A discussion of the persecution of witches in the middle ages, for example, is now officially on-topic. Generally, we welcome discussion of historical issues that touch upon the Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and that do not fit best in the other forums. There is a focus on the Bible, but a discussion of modern cults for the purpose of comparison or of non-canonical books for their own sake are also on-topic. The history of Muhammed and the Qu'ran are also relevant.

We hope that you like the new name and have more fun than ever in BC&H!

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad

um....Peter?

What happens to archeological discussions? Are discussions of evidences prior to, or separate from, literary documents still relevent?

godfry

Secular Pinoy

You should be reading the OP carefully:

godfry n. glad

D'oh...

Well, that shows my reading comprehension for what it is...

Anyhoo, I think I preferred the BC&A title. The way it's stated now makes it look as though biblical criticism falls outside history, which it doesn't (or shouldn't...for some fundamentalists it does, though). "Biblical Criticism & Archeology" joined two fairly different scholastic fields aimed at getting at an reasonable historical chronology. "Biblical Criticism & History" is rather like having a list on "Sedimentary Analysis & Geology", the former category being a subcategory of the latter category....

Perhaps it would have been better to call it "De- & Re-Constructing Levantine History"

Yeah, yeah...I know, it's pedantic.

godfry

Peter Kirby

You do know that reconstructing ancient history is not the only thing we do with ancient texts? There are all kinds of biblical criticism--text criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, literary criticism, reader response, biblical theology, errancy debate. Yes there is overlap between "History" and "Biblical Criticism," but Biblical Criticism is not a subset of History.

Besides, your title sucks.

best,
Peter Kirby

godfry n. glad

Okay... I agree. My title sucks.

And, overlap rather than subset is correct.

Still...I dissent.

There...I feel better.

godfry

lpetrich

I find "History" a worthy substitute for "Archaeology"; I was pleasantly surprised at that decision, since I could not think of a very good alternative name.

Vinnie

I suggested dropping Archaeology a while back

Vinine