>Brian Neuschwander wrote:
>> 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
> George Murphy
Sometimes they are quoting OT passages with changes of wording that are
appropriate in the light of the larger context of the passage (many
chapters wide context) -- showing that they understood the implications as
well as the words of the individual passages.