Topicality of a Textual Question related to a Group with a Specific Doctrinal Commitment

Question

This is a question about the topicality of this question on BH.SE:

Do any scholars argue a textual theory where the NT text was edited to make the autographa?

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.

Other discussion about the topicality of it has occurred in The Library, starting about here. But it was here that spurred this meta post.

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

• textual criticism is on topic also,

though for whatever reason has not been added to the list.

By those measures, I see my question as "on topic" in four ways:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. Source criticism: The question is related to what "sources" (original author and editors) that may be related to the formation of the autographa.
4. 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."

Answer 1

Why can those other questions pass, while this one cannot?

With exegesis questions, we draw a distinction between those that arise from a text and those that do not, with the latter being off-topic.

By analogy, it may make sense to do the same with hermeneutical-approaches questions: allow them when they are about a known, practised, hermeneutic but not when they are 'searching for a hermeneutic'.

This has two useful side-effects:

1. It discourages questions that have an element of 'fishing' which is my only cause for concern about the question on main that prompted Scott's post here (it is unhelpful to label it 'doctrinal', because arguably every question is, and because 'doctrine' it is a religiously loaded word. The definition of 'doctrine' is itself doctrinal).

2. By mirroring the most easily understood topicality guidelines, it is going to make it easier for everyone including newcomers to understand what is on-topic. Questions must then:

   1. Respect the text (or hermeneutic).
   2. Arise from a text (or hermeneutic).
   3. Show logical progression from the text (or hermeneutic).

(of course (3) applies also to answers but it is helpfully applied to questions, especially where the question includes research effort.)

Answer 2

1. Reason for VtC

OP notes the "hold" reason provided by the system. Just to be clear, I did not point to that text with my VtC, but rather invoked the "bespoke" field, filled with this text:

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it concerns a specifically Christian and doctrinally-related understanding of inerrancy and inspiration, and thus belongs on Christianity.SE.

It appears as my "comment" under the original question.

On reflection, I should have stopped at the comma. No matter: the rationale remains the same, even if the further recommendation was out of order.

2. Off-topicality

And I stand by the reason, even after much reflection.

Still, I could have worded that "close-text" better. My attempt to improve that same rationale now would be this:

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it revolves on matters of theological commitment rather than textual interpretation or hermeneutics.

That, anyway, is what I was attempting to convey with my original wording. My observations leading to this conclusion could be summed up (briefly!) this way:

Grisanti is not theorizing about text, per se, but about how inspiration might be related to aspects of textual development. His theorizing develops a category of "early, non-inspired textual intervention" as a "variant". That the term "variant" is also used in textual criticism does not make what Grisanti is talking about into textual criticism: it remains a theological reflection on the nature of inspiration.

"Autographa" are the domain of an Old Princetonian formulation of inerrancy, typically associated with B.B. Warfield. It is not a concept that has traction in the academic study of the Hebrew Bible (where the concept for quite a few books would be properly nonsensical), although it could make sense for some NT documents, especially the letters of Paul.

OP's questions (#1: Majority Text as "culmination of inspired development"? / #2: Any who see editorial activity as "inspired and inerrant"?) bring together these concerns, and both have theological commitment as their focal point, rather than any of the following:

• a hermeneutical approach;
• the historical context of biblical documents;
• "source criticism"; or
• textual criticism.

Rather, both questions are about:

• the relationship of "inspiration" and putative editorial activity (i.e., a question about inspiration); and
• scholars who believe continuing editorial activity to be compatible with a commitment to a doctrine of inerrancy (i.e., a question about inerrancy and commitment to it).

And neither of those things is "on-topic" on BH.SE.

3. Other questions

OP: Why can those other questions pass, while this one cannot?

Of the questions listed, I would happily close this one:

• How does John 5:28-29 fit with the dispensational hermeneutic

Of the remainder, these are clearly about recognized hermeneutical approaches (whatever loose doctrinal relationships they might also have), as opposed to doctrinal commitments that imply a hermeneutical approach:

• What is the "Grammatical Historical Approach" to hermeneutics?
• What is the "fourfold sense of Scripture"?
• What are the differences between allegorical and typological interpretation?
• How does "Sensus Plenior" differ from Allegory, Gnosticism, Kaballah, and Midrash?

This one, I think, inhabits something of a grey area in this discussion -- possibly, perhaps even probably, close-worthy -- but not quite so clear-cut:

• Catholic explanation of the "spiritual sense" of Scripture?

---

Further Reading

The following works provide some background and context for my thinking this meta-question. They are provided as such (in the FWIW category), and do not constitute an "appeal to authority":

• Jeffery S. Oldfield, "The word became text and dwells among us? an examination of the doctrine of inerrancy", University of St Andrews PhD, 2008
• Paul Helm, "The Idea of Inerrancy", in D.A. Carson (ed), The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016)
• Timothy Ward, Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (IVP, 2009); and Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture (OUP, 2002)

Answer 3

To me, the other questions you mention inquire about an exegetical method that is influenced to varying degrees by doctrine. Although they involve doctrine, the endpoint is a method of interpreting the text.

On the other hand, your question, in an (undoubtedly unfairly) simplified form:¹

I observe that:

1. Some OT scholars define the inspired text as one that has been edited.
2. NT scholars generally go about the project of textual criticism by trying to identify the text prior to editing.

Therefore I am wondering:

• Does anyone apply this OT paradigm (for identifying the inspired text) to the NT?

This involves various text critical and historical considerations, but the endpoint is the ascertainment of the inspired (authoritative, inerrant) text. The existence of such a text is a matter of doctrinal commitment, and the project of identifying it is irrelevant outside of such a commitment. This is why I continue to see it as off-topic.

---

_{1. Please do correct me if I've misunderstood the basic point. The many nuances that you bring to it do much to bolster its coherence and its appeal, but to me this seemed adequate for considering the issue of topicality.}

_{Note: I have purposely avoided the terms "hermeneutic(al)" and "autograph(a)" here because it seems to me that they can be used in ambiguous ways that straddle a line that is decisive for the issue at hand.}

Answer 4

The reason for my close vote is that I view this question as moving beyond the scope of hermeneutics and source/text criticism. This question is not asking about a framework a scholar uses for interpreting the text, but instead asks if any scholars holding a particular hermeneutic framework also adhere to a specific theology.

How this question does not meet help center guidelines

Your question (in my view) does not meet the help center criteria in the following ways:

• Source/textual criticism

  For the purposes of my answer, I think source criticism is a subset of textual criticism. At the least these can be adddressed together for the purposes of this question.You are asking if there are any scholars who view canon in a certain manner. Source and textual crititicism tells us how a text was formed and edited and tells us about some of the features of that text, but does not tell us what should be regarded as inspired text. Theology does that. Canon on the other hand is a theological decision as to what is and is not regarded as inspired text. Your question asks about a specific understanding of Canon, but Canon is theology, not hermeneutics. Source/text cirticism never state what should or should not be regarded as Canon.

• Historical context

  The help center states that question about historic context are on topic, but only historical context with regards to a particular text:

  If your question is about...

  • interpretation of a specific Bible passage
  • hermeneutical approaches
  • translation of Biblical texts
  • historical context (with regards to a particular text) <<<<<
  • source criticism

  ... then this is the right place to ask.

• Hermeneutical approaches

  What you are essentially asking is if any scholars who hold a particular hermeneutic framework also have a theological belief. This is different than asking about the approach or framework itself.

Breaking down some excepts of the question

In your question, you ask,

...are there any branches of text-critical theories where the adherents hold to inspiration/inerrancy as part of their hermeneutcal core

In a sense, the close vote answers this question because what we (I) am essentially saying is "No - because text-ctirital theories never consider inspiration or inerrancy as a part of their hermeneutical core." I simply fail to see any context in which inspiration/inerrancy would be an integral part hermeneutics and source/textual criticism. This is, by nature always secondary, theological and could not be integrated and still be considered "hermeneutics". It would, by nature, be something else.

You go on to ask:

Question AnsComment
have any scholars argued the NT texts developed over some periodYesHermeneutics
and yet still considered the adds/changes inspired and inerrant N/ATheology < !!

Hopefully, you can see from this breakdown how the first part of your question was on topic, but the last part moved into the realm of theology and was off topic. Similarly, you ask,

I.E. that the MT is in fact the culmination of inspired development of the text

With the removal of the bolded word, this would be on-topic, but has moved beyond the scope when asking about inspiration.

How your question is different from example questions

Grammatical Historical Approach

An excerpt from an answer to this question:

The grammatical-historical principle works within these points to understand the text. In other words, the language, culture, environment, practices, etc. of the authors and original readers are foundational to a correct understanding and application of the text and its principles.

This question is asking for an explanation of this approach which utilizes language, culture, environment or practices to determine how a specific text should be interpreted. Your question does not ask for an explanation of a framework, but is asking if a framework exists. That framework you are asking about is also not a hermeneutic framework, but a theological one.

---

• What are the differences between allegorical and typological interpretation
• During the Patristic Period in the Middle Ages practiced an exegetical tactic known as the fourfold sense of Scripture.
• "Spiritual" sense of scripture
• How does “Sensus Plenior” differ from Allegory, Gnosticism, Kaballah, and Midrash?

All of the above referenced questions ask about hermeneutic approaches for determining the genre of a text. In contrast, your question does not do this. It instead asks about scholars who hold a specific understanding of textual and source criticism who also hold a particular theological view.

How does John 5:28-29 fit with the dispensational hermeneutic

As as matter of fact, I fail to see how your question is substantially different from this question too - so I have nominated it for closure. The reason I gave for doing so was this:

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because the question begins about asking the dispensational hermeneutic, but then asks about dispensationalism itself. The two are distinct. Dispensationalism is a theological concept, while dispensational hermeneutic is a method of interpreting the text. Discussion of why dispensationalism is inconsistent with this theology's chosen hermeneutic is outside the scope of this site and should be asked on Christianity.SE

Two others also noted this was off topic and these comments received 2 up-votes each. This means that with my vote included at least 4 people, and possibly more now feel this question was off-topic as well.

Conclusion

While asking about a hermeneutic approach is on topic, asking if those using a hermeneutic approach also hold a particular theology is not on topic. There is probably a correlation between the two since those holding a particular theology will probably find it hard to continue to hold that theology if they apply certain hermeneutical approaches, but at its' core, this question is asking how inerrantists interpret scripture. That is theology, and therefore not a good fit for this site, but a perfect fit for the Christianity stack exchange. The question does some gymnastics to try to go the other direction, but at the end of the day, the question must flow one direction Inerrantist theology -> Hermeneutic Framework and you cannot integrate the theology into the framework or approach. In contrast, good hermeneutics should go the other direction or become eisegesis - the hermeneutic framework should lead to a theological conclusion. Inerrancy is a theological concept, so it can only use a hermeneutic approach - it can never be part of the approach.

In summary, Hermeneutics generates theology. It cannot be theology. Thus when we encounter a theological concept in a question, that question is asking about theology and not Hermeneutics and should therefore be off topic.

Answer 5

Disclaimer: Since this is a 'Meta' and not a "BHSE" answer, my remarks must be construed to support the 'why' of this question and not the overall topic of Inerrancy, of which I have my particular views.

The Subject of Inerrancy and Why(for some) it is not an Appropriate Topic on BHSE

The OP incorrectly 'suggests"(through his red highlight addition) that Textual Criticism was the source of the numerous VtC's he received on his probing question. We have in the past and will in the future receive and discuss serious Textual Criticism questions.

Since the term "Autographa"(Divine Autograph) was used, it is my opinion that those who are not persuaded or have a differing opinion on the Topic of Inerrancy reacted to what they perceived as a "theological question"(direct discussion of theology is deemed "Off Topic") and since no particular text was referred to in the question, it seemed 'merely a matter of faith' and not the praxis by which the text is treated.

Therein lies the "subjectivity" that the OP is referring to: by denying a question that may include but was never 'centered' on the "Topic of Inerrancy", we "denied" an opportunity to Critically Examine the Text, a goal of which our purpose has been emphatically stated.

So now we have the dilemma of the "Double Standard". 'You' can talk about the text anyway you like, but the minute you mention "Autographa" it suddenly becomes "Off-Topic".

This of course is unacceptable; we have already established that any discussion of the text includes certain presuppositions concerning it: whether it be Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, even Atheistic as long as it's about the text and those "methodologies"(hermeneutics) which aid in deciphering the text.

Therefore...

It is my view that this question and those like it must be included in our repertoire, not because they favor a certain view but it's simply being honest with our Site Directives. We have not changed the meaning or intent of them, we are simply acknowledging an area of investigation of the text that has been occurring for millenia. I would push even further and say, "How does Biblical Inerrancy affect the substance and treatment of Newly Discovered Manuscripts" and I would not have transgressed any site 'laws'.

Numerous avenues of previously 'unapproachable' topics have opened during the history of BHSE, I propose that this is merely one of those avenues which 'pique' the interest of certain folks and make BHSE more available.