Rubric · canonical · SCRIPTURAL-INTERPRETATION-v1

Scriptural interpretation under text, tradition, and method

For arguments specifically about what a sacred text means or requires — not about what doctrine should follow from it. Tradition-agnostic: applies to Tanakh, New Testament, Qur’an, Vedas, and other primary scripture.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (weighted 30/25/25/20) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s conclusion is about what a specific passage or set of passages says or requires — "this verse means X," "this command applies to Y," "this passage cannot support Z." The disagreement turns on the text and how to read it, not on what to do downstream.

Not appropriate when: the argument is about doctrine more broadly (use THEOLOGICAL-REASONING), about the historical reliability of the text (use SCIENTIFIC-CLAIM), or about the moral implications of the text once its meaning is settled (use MORAL-PHILOSOPHY).

Criteria

1. Engagement with the actual text in context

weight 30%

Does the argument quote and parse the operative passage, including its literary and historical context?

10Quotes the passage; engages literary form (narrative, prophecy, law, poetry); addresses the historical setting and the surrounding pericope. 7Cites the passage but reads it loosely; misses one contextual feature. 4Refers to the passage by reference only; conclusions float free of the text. 1Treats the text as a mood, not a text — or quotes a phrase wrenched from any context.

2. Use of interpretive tradition and commentary

weight 25%

Does the argument engage how the text has been interpreted within its receiving tradition — classical commentaries, schools of jurisprudence, conciliar interpretation?

10Names specific commentators or schools and engages how they read the passage; explains why this argument’s reading should be preferred. 7Acknowledges that the passage has been interpreted variously without specifics. 4Treats the argument’s reading as if it were the only possible one despite a long interpretive history. 1Asserts a reading that ignores or contradicts the entire interpretive tradition without acknowledgment.

3. Treatment of competing readings

weight 25%

Does the argument acknowledge plausible alternative interpretations and explain why they should be rejected?

10Names the strongest opposing reading and engages why it should be rejected on textual grounds. 7Engages one alternative; ignores another that has serious support. 4Strawmans the opposing reading; ignores the actual textual case for it. 1Acts as if no one has ever read the passage differently.

4. Distinguishes textual claim from doctrinal application

weight 20%

Does the argument keep "the text says X" separate from "we should therefore do Y"?

10Textual claim and doctrinal application are clearly distinguished; argument scores even if the application is rejected. 7Mostly distinguished; one place where doctrinal preference colors textual reading. 4Textual reading is bent to fit the desired application. 1Asserts the text supports the application solely because the application is desired.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication