This brings up some very important hermeneutical issues. IMO, we, in
our science oriented, exactingly literate culture seem to have a MUCH
more rigid methodolgy for reading, quoting, and understanding scripture
(and most every other text) than did the NT participants and authors.
Jude 9, 14, and 15 are more examples. Jude quotes from what most of us
would consider non-canonical texts with the same authority (apparently)
that most NT authors quote from recognized canon.
I don't think our approach is bad. But we ought to look carefully at
some limitations it may have which perhaps NT authors/participants did
not feel bound by.
To some, a "looser" hermeneutic would seem very dangerous. And I can
be! Perhaps leading to all sorts of heterodoxy. But on the face of it,
a looser hermeneutic seems used in the NT itself!
Is there any final clarity on this issue?
Is our bent toward exactness more "correct" even though awkward with the
text at times?
In the name of preserving the text have we "bowed" to the text, and not
to the content? (Or as another person put it "The bible is not the
fourth person of the Trinity").
Just some questions I have been working on. Your thoughts and help are
-- Brian W. Neuschwander