@Susan Btw - thanks for the link to the Ruth 3:16 article - interesting!

@Davïd @curiousdannii @JamesShewey @PaulVargas @Dan @Tau regarding the hold/close of my question, I'm still not grasping how the doctrinal focus of the textual critics/interpreters I seek clarification on is any different than questions seeking clarifications on other hermeneutic positions that have doctrinal focus as I linked to in my former comment.

The hold reason of "This question does not appear to be about the analysis of biblical text" is invalid, as the question is a text critical/hermeneutical approach question, which does not need to have a biblical text, but is on topic.

Additionally, the question relates directly to the on topic point of "historical context (with regards to a particular text)," the particular text here being the forming of the autographa of the NT text vs. OT text, and also relates some to "source criticism" (since the question is asking about editing of NT text as the "source" for the autographa). And even though it is not listed in our help (it should be), textual criticism is on topic, which should include procedures, viewpoints, etc.

So I see my question as being on topic in 4 areas of what we consider on topic, yet because there is a slight doctrinal focus I'm interested in knowing about (doctrinal focuses being allowed on other hermeneutic approach questions, since differing hermeneutics arise from differing doctrinal positions), it is considered questionable.

Any further clarifications any of you who voted to close can add, please do so, because it really makes no sense to me.

@ScottS Up to you, of course, but I wonder if it may make the most sense just to ask a Meta question to get feedback on the topicality of this specific question.

@Susan I'm going to do that. Thanks for the suggestion.

And here it is: