@ThaddeusB As it happens, our own tag wiki calls it 'authoritative', presumably without recourse to doctrine. I've been meaning to ask David what he meant by that.

@Davïd I believe you that by some definition of ‘fixed and authoritative' and some cogent understanding of the MT it is so, but I'd be curious if you could elaborate. (And thank you, as always, for the helpful tag wiki.)

@Susan @ThaddeusB Our tag wiki extract now reads "textually authoritative" which (I believe, I hope) should sufficiently clarify the nature of its "authority".

@Davïd I actually kinda' don't really get it. But that's most likely my problem not yours.

@Davïd (But just for clarity's sake....I don't think any of us was talking about anything other than textual authority. Thaddeus had mentioned a possible doctrinal basis for ascribing textual authority, but that's still textual (I thought that was his meaning anyway, but I just reread it, and maybe he actually was talking about doctrinal authority, not sure. I wasn’t.) What I'm not following something within the notion of textual authority as it applies here.)

@Susan I meant that it is a matter of Jewish doctrine that the text of the MT is perfect. @Davïd I don't think the MT is "textually authoritative" for all - perhaps something like "generally considered textual authoritative" would be better.

or even "The fixed and textually authoritative written form of the Hebrew Scriptures. Also, used as the basis for most versions of the Christian Old Testament." would make it clear it is authoritative only in Jewish thought, not necessarily Christian

@ThaddeusB @Susan Well, I suppose we could tweak this thing into submission. If you look at e.g. the Encyclopedia Judaica ("authoritative"! ;)) article (linked in the wiki) and search on "authoritative", you'll see how the term operates within the framework of rabbinic Judaism - which is where the MT comes from and the community it serves, of course.

Either of you (or anyone else!) is welcome to edit (that's why they call it a "wiki", I suppose), but the qualifier "textually" circumscribes the nature of the authority sufficiently for my money.

As for other communities ... I don't know what you might do with the Vulgate for Catholics, or the Septuagint for Orthodox. Saying a little more (e.g. about the Christian OT) almost needs saying a LOT more ... and that's not the point of these little entries. The MT is what it is. Or so says I! :P

And Tov ... (from Text Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, commenting on the MT):

^^^I'm not sure why this question ended up getting closed, since after the edit, it met the requirements to which both close reasons given stated it was closed for.

I.e. it has a scripture reference associated to it, and it is seeking "the meaning of that biblical text ... in context" (historical context).

@ScottS I thought you made an effective salvage edit. I had voted to close, but rescinded in light of your intervention. Maybe others didn't see it in its new form? I've now added my "re-open" vote.

@ScottS Oops, I forgot retracting a close vote was a possibility - will vote to reopen.