Biblical Hermeneutics and Non-Biblical Examples Assumptions
Biblical Hermeneutics and Non-Biblical Examples Assumptions
The use of non-biblical examples in biblical hermeneutics is a complex and contested issue across various Christian traditions. The assumption that non-biblical examples can inform or validate biblical interpretation is not universally accepted.
In the Reformed tradition, John Calvin's commentary on Genesis illustrates a cautious approach to using external sources. Calvin acknowledges the insights of other scholars, such as Vitringa and Hengstenberg, but also warns against overly refined or fanciful interpretations that may not align with the simplicity of Scripture [4]. This reflects a broader Reformed emphasis on the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture.
In contrast, some Patristic sources, such as Augustine, demonstrate a more expansive view of the role of external knowledge in biblical interpretation. Augustine discusses the use of dialectics in understanding Scripture, suggesting that valid reasoning can be applied to biblical interpretation, even if the conclusions drawn are not necessarily true [6].
one commentary tradition tradition, as represented by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, tends to focus on the internal coherence and context of Scripture. For example, their commentary on Hebrews 13:9 warns against being "carried aside by diverse and strange doctrines," emphasizing the importance of adhering to the teachings of those who have the "rule" over the community [3].
The Catholic (Scholastic) tradition, as exemplified by Aquinas, employs a more systematic and philosophical approach to biblical interpretation. Aquinas's Summa Theologica engages with Aristotelian philosophy and other external sources to articulate a comprehensive theological framework [5].
The Jewish (Rabbinic) tradition, represented by the Babylonian Talmud, also grapples with the issue of using external principles to interpret Scripture. The Talmud discusses the hermeneutical principle of deriving halakhot from context, highlighting the complexities and debates surrounding the use of external interpretive frameworks [7].
While some traditions, like the Reformed and Presbyterian, tend to emphasize the internal coherence and context of Scripture, others, such as the Patristic and Catholic (Scholastic) traditions, draw upon a broader range of external sources and philosophical frameworks to inform their biblical hermeneutics.
The use of cross-references within Scripture itself, as noted in OpenBible.info, underscores the complex intertextuality of the Bible. For example, Hebrews 1:9 is cross-referenced with Psalm 45:7, and Hebrews 3:15 is linked to Psalm 95:7 [1, 2]. These connections highlight the ways in which biblical texts interpret and allude to one another.
Sources
- OpenBible.info “Cross-reference: Heb.1.9 → Ps.23.5 (confidence: 15 votes)”
- OpenBible.info “Cross-reference: Heb.3.15 → Ps.95.7 (confidence: 11 votes)”
- Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 13:9: about--rather, as oldest manuscripts read, "carried aside"; namely, compare Eph 4:14. divers--differing from the one faith in the one and the same Jesus Christ, as taught by them who had the rule over you (Heb 13:7). strange--foreign to the truth. doctrines--"teachings." established with grace; not with meats--not with observances of Jewish distinctions between clean and unclean meats, to which ascetic Judaizers added in Christian times the rejection of some meats, and the use of others: noticed also by Paul in Co1 8:8, Co1 8:13; Co1 6:13; Rom”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 6.10: be found to Vitringa and others. Against this view, however, Hengstenberg argues with considerable force, in his Dissertation “on the Names of God in the Pentateuch;” and if some of his reasonings in the use of these names seem too refined for the simplicity of the Holy Scriptures, and for the comprehension of those to whom the Scriptures are chiefly addressed, yet we may discover the germ of very important truths, thought they may be, in some degree, hidden beneath a variety of fanciful developments. By a very careful examination”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Human Nature, Art. 2: Article: Whether the Son of God assumed a person? I answer that, A thing is said to be assumed inasmuch as it is taken into another. Hence, what is assumed must be presupposed to the assumption, as what is moved locally is presupposed to the motion. Now a person in human nature is not presupposed to assumption; rather, it is the term of the assumption, as was said (Question [3], Articles [1],2). For if it were presupposed, it must either have been corrupted---in which case it was ”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. 31.--USE OF DIALECTICS. OF FALLACIES. (part 2): nor was their faith in vain who had believed it. But all these false inferences followed legitimately from the opinion of those who said that there is no resurrection of the dead. These inferences, then, being repudiated as false, it follows that since they would be true if the dead rise not, there will be a resurrection of the dead. As, then, valid conclusions may be drawn not only from true but from false propositions, the laws of valid reasoning may easily be learnt in the school”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Keritot 4b.9: The Gemara raises a difficulty: But can one conclude from here by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive halakhot by employing the hermeneutical principle of: A matter is derived from its context? This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted, basic principle of exegesis.”