Background information and the sufficiency of Scripture

Andy Naselli asks the question Is 'Background Information' Ever Necessary to Understand the Bible?  His answer to the question is that "historical context may sometimes be necessary to understand the Bible accurately." I think I am not misrepresenting him to say that he means historical context found outside of the Bible.

In contrast he quotes Wayne Grudem writing that he is "reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

In this statement Grudem is maintaining "a distinction between (a) lexicographical resources in ancient literature and inscriptions that I think to be necessary for understanding the words of Scripture and (b) resources that provide historical background information (such as archaeological evidence and historical evidence from ancient texts) that I think to be helpful for improving our understanding but never necessary for gaining a correct understanding of the sense of a text."

Naselli "pushes back" with three biblical examples that I quote below with a few related comments.

1. How can we determine what a δηνάριον (denarius) is without historical context? (Δηνάριον occurs 16x in the NT: Matt 18:28; 20:2, 9, 10, 13; 22:19; Mark 6:37; 12:15; 14:5; Luke 7:41; 10:35; 20:24; John 6:7; 12:5; Rev 6:6 [2x].)

What do we need to know about a δηνάριον from history for the interpretation of these verses? Can we get enough "historical context" from the Bible itself to interpret the meaning of contexts that uses the word δηνάριον? I believe the lattr is sufficient. We learn from the Bible itself that this is a coin -- money -- that is roughly equivalent to a day's wages for a laborer. Is there any verse we can't understand without more information? I think not.

2. It's important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible, and those passages are part of deeply important typology. But what if someone today (such as an adult in a remote tribe or a child in America) has never heard of (let alone seen) a lamb? They would need some extra-biblical information in order to get "a proper sense of a text" (to use Grudem's words).

This example might teach us that the Bible gives us far more information than we initially think. Perhaps we do not "need some extra-biblical information in order to get 'a proper sense of a text." It is important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible. But must we experientially know what a lamb is, or could we possibly understand what a lamb is from reading the Bible? From the Bible we learn that it was a domestic animal used in ritual sacrifice, that it has wool and can be sheared, and so forth. This is not to say that someone who is a shepherd might catch details that others miss. How many of us have ever seen an animal sacrificed? Yet this does not keep us from grasping the idea and its meaning of the sacrifice of a lamb or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

3. D. A. Carson writes this regarding Revelation 3:15:
A fair bit of nonsense has been written about the exalted Christ's words to the Laodiceans...Many have argued that this means God prefers people who are "spiritually cold" above those who are "spiritually lukewarm," even though his first preference is for those who are "spiritually hot."...All of this can comfortably be abandoned once responsible archaeology has made its contribution. Laodicea shared the Lycus valley with two other cities mentioned in the NT. Colosse was the only one that enjoyed fresh, cold, spring water; Hierapolis was known for its hot springs and became a place to which people would resort to enjoy these healing baths. By contrast, Laodicea put up with water that was neither cold and useful, nor hot and useful...it takes a bit of background information to make the point clear today.

With all due respect to Donald Carson, I would have to add that I have seen a "fair bit of nonsense" written about Revelation 3:15 from those who know or think they know something about the condition of the springs in Colosse, Hierapolis and Laodicea. Further, I have seen people who knew nothing of the condition of the waters in these cities of Lycus Valley get the point of what John was writing to the church of Laodicea. People on "both sides" get it and miss it. But taken in the context of the entire address to the church of the Laodiceans, we can get the point and the meaning of this without knowing the geographical/historical context behind it. It's not necessary to read the history of the Lycus Valley to understand Revelation 3, any more than it is necessary to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus on the cross. Getting a look at the hill of Golgotha and surrounding terrain will not be a magic potion to open the spiritual eyes of the dull reader, and a drink of the springs in Laodicea won't reveal things that are spiritually discerned.

Extra
"Cf. Wayne Grudem's seven sensible qualifications: "Scripture affirms that it is able to be understood but (1) not all at once, (2) not without effort, (3) not without ordinary means, (4) not without the reader's willingness to obey it, (5) not without the help of the Holy Spirit, (6) not without human misunderstanding, and (7) never completely." "The Perspicuity of Scripture," Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 288-309."

Is Scripture Enough?, in the July-August 2013 9Marks Journal