« first day (1564 days earlier)      last day (2098 days later) » 

2:47 AM
@ScottS Is the term "autograph(a)" being used in that question to mean something different from "inspired text"?
2 hours later…
5:14 AM
@Susan No, it means inspired text. What the question seeks to ascertain is if any NT people have carried over similar OT ideas of editing unto the inspired text, such that instead of the autographa arising fully complete by the end of "roughly" 1st c. AD (for instance) and we are trying to "find" the reading, that rather the inspired editorial process continued into the 2nd or 3rd, or ... 9th, or 10th ... or 20th centuries to come to the completed, inspired, edited autographa.
@ScottS This [comment](http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/21009/what-factors-bear-on-the-authenticity-of-matthew-2314/21200#comment38053_21200) was what I was referring to. Chicago Statement of Faith Art. X, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the
providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm
that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the
5:43 AM
@ScottS I believe if we accept Divine Preservation, then we also accept the process of uncovering various types and codexes does not alter the "Autographa' but illuminates it, being brought into Textual Context as a whole. The danger is when we pursue the Original Text as being the "Autographa" and discover some scribal manipulation in the process, does it change the "autographa"? This has been fervently debated and each side coming away more convinced of it's position.
@ScottS OK, thanks. Still seems to me off-topic here (more a C.SE thing), but evidently nobody else agrees.
@Susan It's Biblical Hermeneutics at it's core-if you can't agree on what is inspired text, then what is there to talk about?
6:14 AM
@Susan - I think the question is on topic, but it sounds like the answers are veering off into theology.
4 hours later…
10:26 AM
@Tau @ScottS @Tau @JamesShewey + @interested It concerns one specifically (and perhaps uniquely) Christian understanding of divine involvement in the production of written Scripture -- which (I have to agree with Susan) suits it better for C.SE. Since BH.SE "isn't a Christian site".
2 hours later…
12:03 PM
@Susan ^^^^ I thought I had linked that message to this anchor - but didn't. I have now VtC'ed with what I hope is a pithy but clear "custom" rationale. An interesting question, but veered off BH.SE topicality, I believe.
12:25 PM
@JamesShewey topicality is a question metric — it's not relevent for answers. The standard here for answers (beyond whether they are actually an answer) is whether they build from the question and show their work, they aren't judged on their 'theology' and we never need to worry about whether an answer is Christian or not — all theologies are welcome here.
so when you say "it sounds like the answers are veering off into theology", the issue is whether they are 'veering' in a 'not showing your work' way, not whether they are heading 'into theology' (which of course all answers do in the broad sense).
@Davïd When we say 'BH.SE is not a Christian site', we never meant that Christian theology is not welcome: quite the opposite. What we meant is that all other viewpoints are welcome too — so long as they 'respect the text'. This has of course been hammered out on meta ad nauseam :)
A: Should we positively discriminate in favour of all non-Protestant perspectives on BH?

Jack DouglasNo, we should not positively discriminate in favour of all non-Protestant perspectives Our site aim to welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints as long as they take seriously the process of understanding the Biblical texts should not be understood as an aim that we end up with ...

1 hour later…
1:41 PM
@JackDouglas Hiya! I appreciate (and think I understand!) that. :) As I read it (essential caveat!) Scott's (interesting!) question has its starting point, roots, and rationale within a particular Christian doctrinal commitment and arises from it. It doesn't start from the text; it isn't about a "hermeneutic": it's about a doctrinal commitment in conjuction with textcritical corollaries.
That's fairly different from posing a question about a text which leads naturally into theological reflections, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise.
In sum! I'm not trying to exclude Christian theology. I'm thinking (I hope carefully) out loud about the best home for this particular question of Scott's. HTH!
2:06 PM
@Davïd At the core, theology and hermeneutics meet in one's view of (1) God (does He exist or not) and (2) Scripture, where if Yes to (1), then was He involved and how so in the text. Where one falls on the mix of possibilities there becomes the foundation of your hermeneutic.
Now BH.SE is not just about specific textual interpretations, but also welcomes questions about (1) textual criticism, and (2) hermeneutical approaches. Further, questions about how specific methods of textual criticism are on topic as are specific hermeneutical approaches. Just because this question asks something related to the core of both TC and HA where one's theology overlaps ought not to disqualify it for the site.
2:17 PM
If I had asked a question about what the purpose of Textual Criticism is (to determine the "authoritative" or "original" text), or Majority Text theory (a branch of TC), or one about Literal Heremeneutics (a branch that has at its root the autographa is God's word via inspiration), then I do not think we would even be discussing this. But because I rolled all those concepts into one in a question, they relate directly to one another it is questioned.
> In light of the above, are there any branches of text-critical theories where the adherents hold to inspiration/inerrancy as part of their hermeneutcal core ideas that have approached from this viewpoint? I realize not all hold to those two doctrinal positions in their hermeneutics...
@ScottS Thanks for that - I think my responses are already implicit (and explicit!) in my remarks above. I still find them compelling :) even in light of these further qualifications (+ see quote from your Q ^^^^), so will leave it there.
2:46 PM
@Davïd Scott's question? I thought this was the question being discussed: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/21009/43. Can you link to the other and sorry for not following the thread!
Wait, you must mean this one:
Q: Do any scholars argue a textual theory where the NT text was edited to make the autographa?

ScottSOne Textual Creation/Transmission Theory Michael A. Grisanti in "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (December 2001):577-598 proposed a view based on Hebrew Scripture analysis...

well for my money it is squarely inside our topic, but I'm concerned it might not be the right 'type' of question for the Q&A format: questions that ask about a known hermeneutic fit the model better than questions asking if one exists. It is at least specific and detailed enough not to be 'too broad' but I do wonder if it will attract quality answers, which ultimately is what we are looking for. Of course there is no harm in waiting to find out.
Jeff Atwood on June 13, 2011
In March 2010, we rebalanced our reputation system to favor answers.
^^^ old but gold
@ScottS sorry to sound negative about a question that you've put a lot of effort into: I'll be delighted if I'm proved wrong and it gets a great answer ;)
3:13 PM
@Davïd I'm trying to figure out what you see as relevant (to your position on closing?) with respect to the quote you gave from my question. It would seem to me the quote supports my point. I am asking a question about a specific branch of heremenutical theory, yes, but it is still hermeneutical theory that is the question.
@JackDouglas This was the one thing that gave me "pause" before asking the question. It is, in some respects, a "fishing' question. Ultimately, though, I know the approach is used for OT text criticism, so is it applied to NT text criticism in this same way seemed like a reasonable question (when reduced to that simple statement--asking it was far more complex).
3:27 PM
@JackDouglas - in fact, no theology is welcome here and I think it shouldn't be. Hermeneutics is a subset of Biblical Studies - an endeavor interested in asking "What does the Bible say and mean". On the other hand, Theology is the study of what a bunch of other people think the Bible says and means. Because of this we close questions regarding systematic theology and doctrine:
Q: Revising Off-Topic Close option addressing "systematic theology"

ScottSPursuing further the topic discussed in the Library here. The current (as of 10-14-2014) wording for one of the off-topic close options is Questions regarding systematic theology are off-topic. For more information, see this meta post. I understand (and agree) that questions based in ...

I'm not interested in what Augustine, or Origin, or Catholics, or Calvinists think about the Bible, I am interested in what the Bible actually says.
In that regard, inerrancy and whether you believe the original autographs are inerrant or all autographs are inerrant certainly has some impact on how you understand the texts, but that concept is one of doctrine arising squarely out of the theological discipline.
Which is why I say it was "veering". It is not wholly off-topic but it is definitely wandering into that gray area.
4:04 PM
My defense against closing this question can be found here. However, if it deems to be closed, I do not wish for it to move to C.SE, but simply remain closed here on BH.SE. — ScottS 55 secs ago
I do not want to see the question moved if it is closed.
3 hours later…
7:05 PM
@Davïd Score one more point for you. He seems pretty conscientious....
2 hours later…
8:47 PM
@ScottS Because it suggests to me that the question is "about a doctrinal commitment in conjuction with textcritical corollaries", whatever other glosses might be applied. :/
@Susan LOL. Probably you're finding the places I got it from in the first place. Would be interesting to check dates on these exemplars.
9:30 PM
@JamesShewey that depends what you mean by 'theology': you appear to be referring to the kind that is not rooted in the text itself but that is anyway covered by the 'show your work' principle: by all means quote Augustine if he supports your line of thinking and if his words are themselves comprehensible and show their progression from the text.
A: What is a good source?

Jack DouglasI'd like to propose we keep things simple. As background, we've already got these easily understood and very helpful guidelines: Respect the text Start from the text Show your work I wouldn't say that it is "strongly encouraged" to have a source1 if an answer clearly shows it's work for the m...

A: Is it true that Systematic Theology is not welcome on this site

Jack Douglas Would a comprehensive investigation of a passage in the context of the whole of Scripture would welcome/on-topic? This is great question, especially because some hermeneutics rely on bringing in the context of other or all biblical texts to bear. We are talking about answers here, and my ve...

9:47 PM
@Davïd I begin to understand the subtlety of what you mean I think (at least it is subtle to my mind!): '…it isn't about a "hermeneutic"…', in other words is isn't about an existing, known hermeneutic — it's sort of 'a question searching for a hermeneutic' in a similar way we have 'questions searching for a text'. I don't think this distinction has been explored on meta but it probably should be
10:02 PM
Isn't the topic of the question "how to determine what stage in the textual history is inspired"? I feel like the word "autograph" is being used as a textual term, but the endpoint is where autograph = inspired text.
10:41 PM
@Davïd Q's about hermeneutic approaches all involve some doctrinal commitment of some type.
@Susan More generally, "how we determine what stage in the textual history is authoratative," with my particular emphasis toward those who consider authoritative = inspired, since it is that group that is more likely to have issues with an "edited" text being authoritative, yet some believe OT text was.

« first day (1564 days earlier)      last day (2098 days later) »