(*) My question isn't just whether principles are customarily derived from Scripture, but also whether scholars have found them in the past, and whether they have done so systematically. Can they be? Is it accepted or frowned on? During textual analysis is it something to look out for? In that sense it is a broad question and I'm grateful for your knowledge and any further reading
But I'm not asking the converse: "are principles of exegesis derived from the text instead of how they are actually derived"
Or the obverse: "how are principles of exegesis derived?"
[humour] Or the obtuse: "please can someone explain what this following list of famous bible images all mean" [/humour]
===============================================
Briefly and by way of hypothesis, stories in literature often show the reader how to read them. And I mean at the level of parsing the words in a particular way. (E.g. in Elias Canetti's 'Auto da Fe' the first passage trains the reader to take each sentence as a fragmentary idea in the character's mind.)
If Matthew 13:1-23 is supposed to be (and I do) Jesus explaining how parables work, can with this be placed verses like the three examples below. I've put possible exegetical lessons for clarity - they are just to illustrate the sort of approach, I'm not asking about them per se. Or the verses [smile]
===========
Matthew 13:11
To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given
Exegesis is necessary
==
Daniel 2:30
this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than anyone else alive, but so that Your Majesty may know the interpretation
Exegesis must serve the reader's understanding
==
John 2:9
When the master of the feast tasted the water
Exegesis must be capable of being tested
==
Matthew 16:3
You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.
An exegetical proof that two passages are similar must account for why they are similar
===============================================
What I mean by a systematic approach is things like finding at the close-in level what the passages have in common or what marks them, and whether or not that can used as a test to finds complementary passages.
I should perhaps add this isn't asking about the Seven Rules of Hillel. And if it was, it would be something like "can we tell if the Rabbi derived them from the OT" This is about the NT.
Lastly, it isn't seeking 'Sola Scriptura', although I wouldn't exclude that perspective if it's on-point
===============================================
There has been a previous similar question on this, which was closed for its opinion-based format and answered at (for me) cross-purposes.
According to Scripture, how should we interpret Scripture?
===============================================