> 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!
& citations of canonical texts sometimes don't conform to any
known Hebrew or Greek text. NT authors may be quoting from memory or
even adapting wording to fit the theological point they're making.
Gundry's commentary on Matthew provides examples & detailed discussion