Hebrew Roots Hermeneutics

Eoghan · #1 (**permalink**) 07-16-2009, 06:12 PM

Hebrew roots movement is making a move on several aspects of reformed hermeneutics.

Most hebrew roots movement start by introducing the Oral Law, alongside the written. Personally I feel that someone is trying toopen my Bible and stick in the Apocrypha! Despite saying it is not authorative it has no authority and should have no standing.

My second concern is much more serious. The Hebrew Roots movement has done a good job in drawing attention to the Jewish context of the New Testament (and Baruch Moaz, book review, agrees). What is extremely disconcerting is that they appear to go further. Having established the impportance of Hebrew thoughts and idioms in the NT they want to go further. Up to this point I can appreciate insights from terms such as "binding and loosing" as borrowed terms meaning making rulings.

What Dwight Prior does is to translate the Greek into Hebrew and then preach on the Hebrew. He is not alone in this and it is not obvious to the audience that this is what is being done.

Am I alone in feeling a rubicon has been crossed here?

The textus receptius is the Greek surely. I suspect there are reasons we have the New Testament in Greek beyond the fact it was the "english" of the day. The thought of "reconstructing" the original text (textus recepticus) strikes me as inspired by Higher criticism's attitude to Genesis.

Dwight et. al. use the Septuagint (LXX) to aid their reconstruction of the original Hebrew. Now I use the Septuagint to double check the Hebrew of the OT - i.e. Jesus is born of a virgin (Isaiah). Using it as a Greek-Hebrew dictionary seems a bit far fetched to me but logical to the Hebrew Roots Movement.

I mention this firstly as a warning re: the hermeneutic being used (expect to see a Hebrew New Testament).

Secondly I would welcome input. I am not a linguist and would welcome the input of those who are. There is a seductive logic here but I can't help feeling a grain of truth is wrapped in a whole load of falsehood.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #2 (**permalink**) 07-17-2009, 01:50 AM

There is a "Hebrew NT". Its a translation Hebrew speakers use wherever they speak Hebrew. It isn't a back-translation, or some sort of "recovered text" or other.

I wonder, do these guys translate original (so far as we know) Aramaic portions of the OT into Hebrew too, so it will be authoritative enough?

If we were supposed to be Jewish in order to understand the Bible (OT or NT), then the apostles wouldn't have made sure we were clear: no more ceremonies.

Why are these (or any other folks) trying to re-erect the "dividing wall broken down," and putting us all under a yoke of bondage once again, to death?

If we can benefit from insights into the Hebrew background of the NT (as you say), then great. But its about as important as being familiar with the rest of the Greco-Roman world. Just treat the Bible as one book, with one message, train your children in the whole thing, and we wouldn't have a generation of ignoramuses, wherein every new theological fad coming down the block picks people off.

Eoghan · #3 (**permalink**) 07-17-2009, 03:55 AM

My concern is that the new Hebrew NT is seen as more authoritative than the Greek. How long until the "translating back into Hebrew" starts throwing up heresies?

I can't help but feel Greek was chosen for clarity of thought AND to make a break from Hebrew? The new wine skins did they need a new language?

Richard Tallach · #4 (**permalink**) 07-23-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoghan

My concern is that the new Hebrew NT is seen as more authoritative than the Greek. How long until the "translating back into Hebrew" starts throwing up heresies?

I can't help but feel Greek was chosen for clarity of thought AND to make a break from Hebrew? The new wine skins did they need a new language?

The inspired NT autographs were in Greek. Unless people can argue clearly that parts of the Greek text show Hebrew idiom behind them and that is relevant to the exegesis of the text, the Q of Hebrew should be ignored. People can go to fanatical extremes on any issue.

Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots can obscure the clarity of the New Covenant revelation and add burdens that God doesn't put on his people, which is why Maoz and Telchin warn of the dangers. The Evil One would be happy to derail Jewish Christians and Gentiles also.