Evaluating Non-Biblical Examples in Biblical Exegesis Methodology
Biblical exegesis, the critical explanation or interpretation of biblical texts, often involves careful consideration of the text's internal context and historical background. However, interpreters sometimes draw upon non-biblical examples to illuminate or clarify biblical passages. This practice can serve various functions, from illustrating a point to providing comparative cultural context, but it also raises questions about the boundaries and authority of such external references.
One common use of non-biblical examples is for illustrative purposes, helping to make a biblical concept more tangible. For instance, Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Numbers 12:12, explains Miriam's leprosy by comparing her condition to a stillborn child, "half of whose flesh is consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb" [3]. This vivid, albeit non-biblical, image helps to convey the severity and physical manifestation of leprosy as understood in that cultural context. Similarly, when interpreting Exodus 22:12, Ibn Ezra references Amos 3:12, where a shepherd rescues "two legs, or a piece of an ear" from a lion, to illustrate what kind of proof an individual might bring to demonstrate an animal's death [5]. While Amos is a biblical book, its use here is as an external example to clarify a legal point in Exodus, demonstrating a broader principle of evidence.
Non-biblical examples can also be employed to address perceived difficulties or ambiguities within the biblical text. In Numbers 11:21, Moses expresses doubt about God's ability to provide meat for the vast Israelite population. Commentaries, such as Ibn Ezra's, note that "Many interpret this section in various ways," with some suggesting that Moses was paraphrasing the Israelites' potential complaints rather than expressing his own doubt [4]. This approach uses an interpretive lens, possibly informed by extra-biblical understandings of prophetic speech or divine-human interaction, to reconcile a challenging passage.
The use of non-biblical examples can also extend to broader theological or ethical discussions. The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Hebrews 8:9, in discussing the new covenant, contrasts it with the old covenant, which "only 'worked wrath' (Rom 4:15) through man's 'not regarding' it" [2]. While Romans is biblical, the commentary's emphasis on the Spirit's inward impulse producing love as a characteristic of the new covenant implicitly draws on a theological framework that might be articulated more fully in systematic theology, which often synthesizes biblical teachings with broader philosophical or ethical considerations.
However, there are also cautions regarding the use of non-biblical examples. The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Ecclesiastes 12:12 distinguishes between "many books" of "mere human composition" and "these inspired writings" as the "only sure source of 'admonition'" [6]. This suggests a hierarchy where biblical texts hold ultimate authority, and excessive study of non-biblical works can "weary the body, without solidly profiting the soul" [6]. This perspective underscores a concern that non-biblical sources, while potentially illustrative, should not overshadow or supplant the unique authority of scripture.
The distinction between divine command and human judgment, even within inspired writings, further highlights the careful evaluation of different types of statements. In 1 Corinthians 7:25, Paul clarifies that he has "no express revelation from the Lord commanding it," but offers his "judgment (opinion)" [1]. The commentary notes that this judgment is given "under the ordinary inspiration which accompanied the apostles in all their canonical writings," yet it is presented as a recommendation rather than a positive command [1]. This demonstrates an internal biblical example of distinguishing between direct divine mandates and inspired human counsel, a distinction that could be extended to evaluating the authority of non-biblical examples.
Sources
- 1 Corinthians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 1 Corinthians 7:25: no commandment of the Lord: yet . . . my judgment--I have no express revelation from the Lord commanding it, but I give my judgment (opinion); namely, under the ordinary inspiration which accompanied the apostles in all their canonical writings (compare Co1 7:40; Co1 14:37; Th1 4:15). The Lord inspires me in this case to give you only a recommendation, which you are free to adopt or reject--not a positive command. In the second case (Co1 7:10-11) it was a positive command; for the Lord had already made known His will (Mal 2:14-15; Mat 5:31-32). ”
- Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 8:9: Not according to, &c.--very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only "worked wrath" (Rom 4:15) through man's "not regarding" it. The new covenant enables us to obey by the Spirit's inward impulse producing love because of the forgiveness of our sins. made with--rather as Greek, "made to": the Israelites being only recipients, not coagents [ALFORD] with God. I took them by the hand--as a father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps. "There are three periods: (1) that of the promise; (2) that of the pedag”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rationalist)) “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Numbers 12:12: LET HER NOT, I PRAY, BE AS ONE DEAD. Let our sister not now be as a stillborn child, half of whose flesh is consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb. The same is true of the flesh of a leper. 59 Hence Moses compared Miriam to a stillborn child. There is no need for a scribal emendation. 60 According to the Midrash, His mothers womb should be read as if written our mother’s womb, and “half of his flesh” as if it read half our flesh, for Scripture employed the third rather than the first person plural because it wanted to avoid using non-flattering langu”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rationalist)) “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Numbers 11:21: SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN ON FOOT. There is no need to mention the lesser ones. 91 Those under the age of twenty. If these were included then the number would be much higher. Or the reference is to the 3,550 Israelites above the number of 600,000, for the Israelites numbered 600,350 (Num. 2:32). Many interpret this section in various ways. 92 The commentaries were bothered by Moses apparently doubting the ability of God to provide meat for all of the Israelites. Some say that Moses paraphrased what the children of Israel would say to him. When they would ask, ”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rationalist)) “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Exodus 22:12: LET HIM BRING IT FOR WITNESS. Let him bring a piece of the carcass as proof. This is in line with As a shepherd rescueth out of the mouth of the lion, Two legs, or a piece of an ear (Amos 3:12).”
- Ecclesiastes (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Ecclesiastes 12:12: (See on Ecc 1:18). many books--of mere human composition, opposed to "by these"; these inspired writings are the only sure source of "admonition." (over much) study--in mere human books, wearies the body, without solidly profiting the soul.”