Is Extra-Biblical information needed for Biblical Interpretation?

[Presbyterian Deacon]

I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!). Furthermore, extra-biblical sources cannot be used to overturn what the Bible says about salvation. This is what the creeds and confessions are designed to protect. That should be our guide as to what constitutes the biblical doctrine of salvation, and what constitutes a challenge to that biblical authority.

That being said, a knowledge of extra-biblical information related to the literary and historical context is invaluable for understanding particular texts. Understanding that bread was a staple of life, and is not some hermetically sealed loaf in a plastic bag that is one choice among many at a supermarket, but is rather one of two things without which you died in ancient Palestine makes quite a difference in interpreting the Bread of Life passage.

Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means?

What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ?

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

Perhaps, the way I've worded that already shows my bias, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[Hippo]

The point is, the original audience did not need extra biblical sources. We however are removed by thousands of years and by culture. Sources are needed. Some though believe the HS fills the void. I do not agree,

On two levels we need extra biblical resources.

Firstly we need to understand what is written we need to understand language and logic, we do need to understand the basic social structure that surrounds the biblical naratives. For many of us this understanding is so obvious we ignore our reliance on such knowledge but that is because we grew up in a culture that understands (and indeed derives from) a judeo christian culture. However imagine you were a tribal person with a completely different understanding of family, property and morailty.

On a secondary level you cannot seperate the bible from apostolic authority, the original audience were guided in their understanding of scripture and indeed what scripture was (i.e. what was canon and what was not) by the rule of faith and the apostles teaching. We do not interpret the bible by feelings but by the faith.

 

[etexas]

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means?

What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ?

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

Perhaps, the way I've worded that already shows my bias, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

 

[JBaldwin]

Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means?

What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ?

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

Perhaps, the way I've worded that already shows my bias, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I am not the best one to answer these questions, but here is how I study and use extra-biblical tools (and I do nearly every time I study).

1. Pray
2. Read the Scripture to study in context. If have to read the entire book of the Bible, then I read the entire book. I can't read the original languages, but if I could, I would read them in the original.
3. Write down what the Scripture is teaching.
4. Outline the passage
5. If you haven't done so, go to the original languages to look up difficult passages.
6.Then, and only then do I start going to outside sources, historical information about the book, the time, etc. Then I often reread the passage in light of what of the historical information.
7. Then write down any new information and what I've gleaned.

It's not until I've done this kind of study that I even bother with commentaries, etc. I find commentaries, confessions, etc. to be more validating than anything. In other words, if I come up with something totally off what the commentaries say, then I go back and look to see if I missed something.

I used to run to the commentaries and confessions first, and I found this made me a lazy student, plus I often missed what God was teaching me from the passage.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

 

[DMcFadden]

Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

One of the gifts of the Lord to his church are what the Reformed tradition calls the "doctors." Eph. 4 says that the Lord will give his church what is helpful to its edification. Do we need extra-biblical aids to be saved? Of course not. But, we don't necessarily need a pastor to facilitate that either. Yet, nobody would argue that a pastor was not invaluable to the church just because one can conceive of salvation without pastoral agency. Commentaries and other scholarly aids can be of tremendous value in study even though they are not "necessary" for salvation.

in my opinion, part of the problem we experience relates to the trend towards untethered scholarship. When scholars are accountable to nobody, are rewarded for coming up with de novo ideas that contradict the Christian message, etc., then their work is less than helpful. That does not, however, mitigate the value of tools; it merely points out the need for discernment in selecting and using them.

For my 33 years of ministry, I have used my Greek NT (or Hebrew OT) and a goodly collection of reference books for preparing sermons and Bible studies. Even in my current retirement home ministry, this morning found me pouring over the exegesis of Galatians 1 for a series I am beginning tomorrow. Could I teach the class with just my Bible (and Powerpoint of course )? Sure. But, why cut myself off from the exegetical, linguistic, historical, and theological riches of the giants who have gone before me?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means? What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

What do you mean by "know"? Insofar as the Lord has inscripturated his word in human words, the words of the Bible are governed by the same rules of grammar and syntax as any other book. A good translation and the use of ordinary means will yield up the essential meaning. "Perspicuity" refers to the fact the the central message is clear and accessible to a person without the mediation of popes and priests. However, "knowing" is not a simple matter. What we "know" has a lot to do with the presuppositions we bring to the enterprise. A carnal mind blindled by sin will not discern spiritual truths. Since we are dead in sin, only the work of the Holy Spirit can open our eyes, give us the gift of faith, and effect the work of God's grace within us (that is one reason why I'm a Calvinist, not an Arminian).

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ?
Yes, every part is not equally clear. Some parts deal with milk, other parts are meat. Peter saw some of Paul's writings to be more difficult.

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

Private interpretation was never intended to mean autonomous interpretation, errant interpretation, or heretical interpretation. In this sense private interpretation violates 2 Peter 12:20-21. What was meant by the Reformers was a rejection of the Roman Catholic magisterium in favor of sola scriptura. Scripture applied by the Holy Spirit, not tradition, rules.

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

If I cite Calvin with approval for my interpretation, I am doing exactly what the Roman Catholic scholar does when he cites St. Thomas. However, what the Roman church means by tradition includes more than this. With Trent, tradition becomes a source of authority equal to the Bible. While some on this board may want to invest Calvin with incredible prescience and wisdom, none of us would say that Calvin is an equal authority to the Word of God.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

why the

Sorry. Didn't mean to confuse you.

It's an excellent question, and I meant to indicate that I would be sitting back and enjoying reading the answers as this is a subject I've had some musings about myself.

That's all I meant by:

thats fine.. just didnt know what a solitary meant

 

[Hippo]

the problem with the RC view of tradition is that they believe that they can create their own tradition and in effect whatever they do becomes tradition and is therefore authoratative.

The orthodox view is that the Church inherited tradition from the apostles and from decisions deriving from the tradations of the apostles and because of this origin the resulting tradition has authority.

Thus orthodox tradition is not equal to the Bible, it is the Bible.

 

[bookslover]

Written historic documents can also supplement and further explain Scripture where Scripture is silent. For example, when the Roman soldier is commanded to break the legs of the 3 men on the cross, the only reason Scripture gives is because the Synagogue leaders did not want the crucified bodies to remain on the cross as the Sabbath was approaching. But the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" is not well explained in Scripture. This is where "extra-biblical" historic records on the ancient Roman corporal punishment aids in understanding this.

This is a good example. The Bible writers did not feel the need to explain the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" because they assumed that their first readers, contemporary with themselves, would automatically understand the connection. We, however, living twenty centuries later, need to have it explained. Thus, the value of extra-biblical sources of information.

 

[bookslover]

I am not the best one to answer these questions, but here is how I study and use extra-biblical tools (and I do nearly every time I study).

1. Pray
2. Read the Scripture to study in context. If have to read the entire book of the Bible, then I read the entire book. I can't read the original languages, but if I could, I would read them in the original.
3. Write down what the Scripture is teaching.
4. Outline the passage
5. If you haven't done so, go to the original languages to look up difficult passages.
6.Then, and only then do I start going to outside sources, historical information about the book, the time, etc. Then I often reread the passage in light of what of the historical information.
7. Then write down any new information and what I've gleaned.

It's not until I've done this kind of study that I even bother with commentaries, etc. I find commentaries, confessions, etc. to be more validating than anything. In other words, if I come up with something totally off what the commentaries say, then I go back and look to see if I missed something.

I used to run to the commentaries and confessions first, and I found this made me a lazy student, plus I often missed what God was teaching me from the passage.

I would appreciate any thoughts on this.

This is very, very good. I envy the kind of time you have to put into this kind of study. The best part is that you've got the priorities right: Bible first, then commentaries and confessions. I very much agree that commentaries and the secondary standards can make Christians lazy when it comes to studying the Bible itself.

 

[bookslover]

the problem with the RC view of tradition is that they believe that they can create their own tradition and in effect whatever they do becomes tradition and is therefore authoratative.

The orthodox view is that the Church inherited tradition from the apostles and from decisions deriving from the tradations of the apostles and because of this origin the resulting tradition has authority.

Thus orthodox tradition is not equal to the Bible, it is the Bible.

Your last sentence demonstrates that, at the practical level, there's not much difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views of the place of tradition, in the end.

In other words, there's not much difference between "they can create their own traditions" (RC) and "inherited tradition from the apostles" and "decisions deriving from the traditions" (Protestant). What happens to sola Scriptura when we allow this to happen?

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Written historic documents can also supplement and further explain Scripture where Scripture is silent. For example, when the Roman soldier is commanded to break the legs of the 3 men on the cross, the only reason Scripture gives is because the Synagogue leaders did not want the crucified bodies to remain on the cross as the Sabbath was approaching. But the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" is not well explained in Scripture. This is where "extra-biblical" historic records on the ancient Roman corporal punishment aids in understanding this.

This is a good example. The Bible writers did not feel the need to explain the link between "break their legs" and "crucified bodies taken down before the Sabbath" because they assumed that their first readers, contemporary with themselves, would automatically understand the connection. We, however, living twenty centuries later, need to have it explained. Thus, the value of extra-biblical sources of information.

I agree. I have a friend who says, "We have to put ourselves in the seats of the first readers." To those first readers it was completely understandable, but the challenge for us is to become acquianted with the "manners and customs" of those days. Certainly, something which in our twenty first century western culture is not all that simple to get at without assistance from grammatical and historical sources.

 

[Hippo]

In other words, there's not much difference between "they can create their own traditions" (RC) and "inherited tradition from the apostles" and "decisions deriving from the traditions" (Protestant). What happens to sola Scriptura when we allow this to happen?

I am not sure what you think the problem is here, there is a world of difference between the two positions and the fact that originally the RC's once shared what is now the Protestant tradition is both to be expected and a "good" thing.

As to what happens to sola Scriptura is that it does not become solo Scriptura, scripture was not recognised outside of means, it was recognised by way of means which was tradition and this tradition was passed through and by the apostles.

 

[greenbaggins]

I would say that in things regarding salvation, no extra-biblical information is necessary beyond a knowledge of the mother-tongue (provided one has the Bible in one's mother tongue!). Furthermore, extra-biblical sources cannot be used to overturn what the Bible says about salvation. This is what the creeds and confessions are designed to protect. That should be our guide as to what constitutes the biblical doctrine of salvation, and what constitutes a challenge to that biblical authority.

That being said, a knowledge of extra-biblical information related to the literary and historical context is invaluable for understanding particular texts. Understanding that bread was a staple of life, and is not some hermetically sealed loaf in a plastic bag that is one choice among many at a supermarket, but is rather one of two things without which you died in ancient Palestine makes quite a difference in interpreting the Bread of Life passage.

Just some quick questions. Perhaps a bit --perhaps not!

How do you all see the use of commentaries and other human writings like Bible surveys, introductions and texts on hermeneutics fitting into this discussion?

Can we just pick up the Bible and "read it like any other book" (something I've heard somewhere in the past) and know what it means?

What is meant by the perspiscuity of Scripture?

Is there a difference (or should there be a distinction) between understanding the "essential clarity" of Scripture and the view that "Every part is equally clear." ?

What are the views here on the matter of "the principle of private interpretation"?

How does our appealing to the views of the Reformers, the Puritans, and other Bible scholars differ from the Roman Catholic practice of appealing to tradition?

Perhaps, the way I've worded that already shows my bias, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I don't really have anything to add to Dennis's excellent answers. I agree with him.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

For example, egalitarians insist that discoveries by archeologists over the past several decades are the basis for overturning two thousand years of Church teaching on male headship.

But most of their quotations don't come from the biblical period but periods 200-300 years removed after word definitions had changed. They read their conclusions backward into the bible here to try and promote egalitarianism where the original writers didn't intend it.

Homosexuals noticed how effective this tactic was and leapt in with their own new discoveries, which presumably shows that ordinary homosexuality isn't condemned by Scripture...just male prostitutes in pagan temples (well, something like that).

And they are arguing for a non-existent category at the time - there were no 'loving monogamous homosexual relationships' at the time which were considered the norm between adults (other than some pederasty). All of these are summarily condemned in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 regardless of what they try to call them.

And who can forget the new information that revealed that first century Jews didn't really believe in any type or form works salvation, meaning the Church had been misunderstanding Paul all these centuries?

No new information there - just someone taking existing information and misinterpreting it and drawing conclusions other than the truth.

No. This is precisely what extrabiblical sources are not to be permitted to do. If this were allowed, Scripture would be a shaky foundation, indeed, changing with every new discovery.

Agreed.

 

[Gesetveemet]

My questions are-

Is the date 70 A.D. considered Extra-Biblical information?

and

Is knowledge of Alexander the Great needed for Biblical Interpretation of the book of Daniel?




Thank you,