Did St Paul Parse Verbs?

[RamistThomist]

Disclaimer: I hold to the historical-grammatical hermeneutics. I do not buy into extreme RH or extreme typology.

But I have noticed that the NT writers read Scripture differently than I do (or modern man does). They rarely go into the "cultural background" (or if they do it is in ways different from us), they don't parse verbs (except Paul's play on "know God, known by God"), and their quotations from the Old Testament often appear odd.

Peter's and Stephen's aren't analyses of the relevant Old Testament passages, like any good seminarian would do, but merely quotations and paraphrases with reapplications today.

Are we missing something?

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, Jesus and Paul and others do not seem to quote the OT exactly do they? I guess they are taking it from memory straight from teh LXX? Or are they changing it by the Holy SPirit's leading in a way that shines greater light on its main points?

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, Jesus and Paul and others do not seem to quote the OT exactly do they? I guess they are taking it from memory straight from teh LXX? Or are they changing it by the Holy SPirit's leading in a way that shines greater light on its main points?

I am not talking about changing a few phrases here and there, things that naturally get lost in translation.

True, the Holy Spirit is inspiring them, but we still have problems if the Holy Spirit is inspiring, for about 30 years, a faulty hermeneutics (at least by today's conservative standards).

 

[DMcFadden]

Good question. How much of it is due to the fact that we are the heirs of modernism and how much of it relates to the giant historical distance separating us from Paul and the biblical writers deserves critical scrutiny. To take the title of your thread, for example, no need to parse when you already speak the languages. But, obviously your question implies much more than this.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think that on occasion, Paul did "parse verbs." At least, he certainly did use grammar to make a point. In Galatians, he notes carefully the point about "seed" being singular rather than plural. That's pure exegesis, right there. At the same time, Paul and the rest of the apostles, and Jesus Himself, saw the entire OT as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That makes them read their OT in a different way entirely than the Jews did (see especially Luke 24 and John 5).

 

[Sydnorphyn]

Call for the question

Disclaimer: I hold to the historical-grammatical hermeneutics. I do not buy into extreme RH or extreme typology.

But I have noticed that the NT writers read Scripture differently than I do (or modern man does). They rarely go into the "cultural background" (or if they do it is in ways different from us), they don't parse verbs (except Paul's play on "know God, known by God"), and their quotations from the Old Testament often appear odd.

Peter's and Stephen's aren't analyses of the relevant Old Testament passages, like any good seminarian would do, but merely quotations and paraphrases with reapplications today.

Are we missing something?

What is your question?

 

[py3ak]

Mr. McFadden raises a good point. I assume almost everyone on here has heard at some point the rule that you are to interpret a parable according to its main thrust, and that not every detail necessarily has a significance.

Does anyone know where that rule came from? If E.P. Sanders can be trusted, it came from Adolf Julicher: for more on that see here.