The biblical texts are the product of a long history of collection, redaction and revision. Texts put forward different ideas because they were written by different people. But also often texts reflect the same ideas because these people were embedded in similar cultures.

Often, a "what does this verse mean" question can be answered by collecting other verses, synthesising the ideas put forward there, and projecting those ideas to the verse in question. However, in my view, this kind of answer can often come close to doctrine, which we do not want to discuss on Hermeneutics.SE.

In a case such as this one, different texts are used to get a better idea of the underlying culture, under the assumption that the texts used are a product of the same culture. But in cases like this or this, different texts are used to support a certain theology and project it back on the original question.

I'm not quite sure where to draw the line here. Can we establish more objective guidelines to avoid 'doctrinalness' in answers?

Related: How are we to deal with non-mainstream positions with regards to methods and linguistics?


You must log in to answer this question.