TIP of the day (logic): Proof text

Remember Logic studies the patterns of thought not the contents.

1. In an argument, one must first determine that you mean the same thing by the same words. By proof text do you mean this?

OR do you mean From The Other Side of "Proof-Texting"" by Robert C. Crosby on Patheos:

[quote]

The oft-cited old adage concerning “proof-texting” is: “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” Allen and Swain cite “three primary charges” leveled by the critics of “proof-texting”. They include: (1) The charge that “proof-texts fail to honor the specific contexts of biblical texts”; (2) that “proof texts too easily suggest that doctrinal language is the biblical language with no sensitivity for the horizon of the interpreter or the hermeneutical task involved in working with the biblical language”; and (3) that “proof texts interact with ecclesiastical history rather than biblical history.”

If you mean the second, you are likely breaching the convention to interpret your opponent's position in the best possible light - unless, of course, your opponent uses the term in the same manner.

2. In the first meaning of "proof text", the Bible itself is filled with examples. You can find a number of them with a search for Paul NEAR "Proof text":

[quote]

Paul concluded his argument in 8:15* with a proof text from Exod 16:18*, introduced by a quotation formula, “as it is written” (καθὼς γέγραπται):

Hans Dieter Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul, ed. George W. MacRae, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 69.

[quote]

How is Paul’s use of Scripture a fair and faithful use of proof texting? (Primarily, as N. T. Wright and Richard Hays note, Paul’s use of the Psalms and Isaiah was done with the context of the passages in mind. As a student of the whole Hebrew Bible, Paul would have been fully aware of where each passage came from. The rabbinic practice of stringing pearls, as it was called, was in Paul’s day an accepted way of studying and teaching.)

Mark Price, Adult Bible Studies Summer 2016 Teacher (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2016).

[quote]

Paul’s other deduction from the example of Abraham, that justification applies to the gentile in the same way as to the Jew (Rom. 4:11 f.; Gal. 3:7–9), is not considered by James. Nor does he attempt an alternative exegesis of Paul’s second major proof-text, Hab. 2:4, ‘the just by faith shall live’ (quoted in Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11), which one might have expected him to do if he was attempting both to engage with Paul and to establish his case from scripture. Conversely, his second scriptural example, that of Rahab (v. 25), has no place in the Pauline argument.

Sophie Laws, The Epistle of James, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1980), 129.

[quote]

 since the terminology is so tightly tied into the context and integral to Paul’s distinctive argument at this point, with proof text following in characteristic Pauline style. The words of Deuteronomy again provide the justification and explanation of the train of thought

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 1993), 177.

[quote]

Verses 5–9 reveal Paul’s purpose in choosing for his proof-text Ps. 51:4. It suggests a truth which may be perverted into a last excuse for sin.

Joseph Agar Beet, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1901), 100–101.

[quote]

And his exegetical method is a sophisticated version of proof-texting2—he constructs a “canonical network” within which problematic texts were properly (that is, orthodoxly) to be read.

Kathy L. Gaca and L. L. Welborn, Early Patristic Readings of Romans, Romans through History and Cultures Series (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 134.

3. Proof texts, like any other evidence presented in an argument needs to be evaluated by neutral criteria:

• does the text apply to the statement it is given as evidence for?
• is the interpretation given the text the result of reliable interpretative methods?
• is the interpretation within the bounds of commonly held interpretations?
• does the interpretation require premises not yet presented/accepted in the course of the argument?
• are there other texts presenting a view contrary to or refinements of the given text?

You may arrive at a slightly different list of questions. That's fine. The point is to get past a knee-jerk labeling of a passage as "proof texting" in a negative sense without putting forth the effort to determine whether or not the meaning of the text is, in fact, being abused. And getting past letting doctrinal or ecclesial terminology create a false aversion to what may be a valid point.

4. Logic requires that if we reject a statement we be able to state logically why we reject it. In putting this into practice, the greatest problem I have with proof texts is often seeing how they relate to the statement they supposedly support. I often find that the Cited By tool can lead me to other resources using the text in a similar manner solving the puzzle - or clarifying why I don't see it as relevant (violation of first requirement).

For another approach for identifying the abuse of proof-text see Facing the Text Proof Method.