This is a question about the topicality of this question on BH.SE:
Which, as of this writing, is "on hold" and possibly to be closed because:
This question does not appear to be about the analysis of biblical text within the scope defined in the help center.
The current "on-topic" list is:
- interpretation of a specific Bible passage
- hermeneutical approaches
- translation of Biblical texts
- historical context (with regards to a particular text)
- source criticism
But also, previous meta posts have clearly shown that
though for whatever reason has not been added to the list.
By those measures, I see my question as "on topic" in four ways:
- Hermeneutical approaches: A particular approach is a major subject of the question, in particular, those who hold to inspiration/inerrancy as part of their hermeneutical approach, and particularly the view of the "authoritative" or "original" text as the basis (the autographa).
- Historical context: The particular text here is the NT as opposed to the OT, but the question is clearly about circumstances of the creation/finished form of the NT autographa.
- Source criticism: The question is related to what "sources" (original author and editors) that may be related to the formation of the autographa.
- Textual criticism: The question is related specifically, though not exclusively, to one of the main viewpoints on proper textual criticism theory (the Majority Text view); and specifically whether a competing version of that view with respect to the NT that may parallel a view of the OT.
So four of six areas BH.SE is designed to cover are found within this one question, yet it is being considered as possibly not "on topic."
Why? Because there is some "doctrinal" points noted in the question. Doctrine is deemed generally off topic for the site, as here, here, and elsewhere, though here was in point of fact that "systematic theology" was too nondescript. Specifically the doctrinal points in the question related to the hermeneutical and textual approach of the group in question, the idea of "inerrancy" and "inspiration" of the Scripture. NOTE: I am not seeking an answer supporting inerrancy or inspiration, so I am not seeking a doctrinal answer, that is just the background for the group in question.
However, multiple questions related to hermeneutical approaches on the site have some form of doctrinal skew to them:
- What is the "Grammatical Historical Approach" to hermeneutics?
- What is the "fourfold sense of Scripture"?
- What are the differences between allegorical and typological interpretation?
- Catholic explanation of the "spiritual sense" of Scripture?
- How does "Sensus Plenior" differ from Allegory, Gnosticism, Kaballah, and Midrash?
- How does John 5:28-29 fit with the dispensational hermeneutic
The doctrinal skew in these questions is because one's doctrine affects their hermeneutic and textual view at fundamental levels, such that most differences in hermeneutics come from some form of doctrinal distinctions between groups.
So the question is: Why can those other questions pass, while this one cannot?
Especially when this question relates to four on topic areas, and many of those only relate to one: hermeneutical approaches.
I fully believe those other questions belong, and that questions about hermeneutical approaches should be allowed, even though doctrinal distinctions are what sometimes distinguish those.
But I also do not see how my question differs on that level from those, and so is also "on topic."