Removing the Filters to Properly Interpreting Scripture:

“Why do you think there are so many issues with the Hellenistic/Western mind-set comprehending the genre of Hebrew and Judeo-Greek modes of speech? - a question from a friend. 

It seems to me that the answer to this very valid and significant question explains a lot of the very serious divergence, dis-harmony and extremely error-ridden doctrines of mainstream Christianity.

The problem and issue is so deep, so pervasive and so far-reaching that very few, if any, who have been brought up within some sect or denomination of Christianity are actually immune to falling for at least some of the false un-Biblical doctrines of Christendom.

Firstly, it is very easy to establish, for those open to such truth, the reality that the Bible, both the Tanakh (OT) and the Apostolic Writings or New Testament are written with a Hebraic Mindset, with a cultural and linguistic approach that is actually foreign to most of Western society today and in fact over the last 1900+ years.

This ‘Hebraic’ reality, or as described in the opening question from a fellow truth-seeker, this’ genre of Hebrew and Judeo-Greek mode of speech’, when approached without per-suppositional bias by someone with a Western mindset, very quickly raises some difficult questions.

Without an appreciation of the Hebraic mindset, there are many passages and narratives in the NT in particular that should be declared either contradictory, totally devoid of any sense of reality or even just the rantings of madmen. That these passages and conflicting narratives are not easily noticed by new-comers or initiates with a Western cultural heritage and background shows, both the significant lack, or suspension, of critical thinking skills, and the ability of an existing community of ‘faith’ to placate and ‘plaster over’ any potential doubts that these initiates may otherwise raise.

I think most theology students could relate their own stories of, at least some. doctrinal positions that they initially accepted (as they were promoted as truth by the ‘faith community’ – read sect/denomination/university/college, etc), but with time and some honest investigation they found to be seriously wanting.

One of the most obvious and well-documented examples of a Hebraism that needs to be appreciated in reading alternative (and otherwise contradictory) narratives in the Gospels is the Hebraic principle of ‘agency’ (see my Hebraic Mindset articles at www.circumcisedheart.info for details).

For a simple and very clear example where one of the gospel narratives of an event has used a common Hebraism, and the other narrative has not, is seen in the apparent contradiction between Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Read this passages along side each other carefully, and the problem from a Western/Hellenistic perspective should be obvious. Which gospel is correct?

Most of mainstream Christianity is still totally unaware of this Hebraism (and a great many others) and their vital role in the Gospel narratives and the whole New Testament. They are also therefore totally unaware, or in a few cases perhaps deliberately blind to the contradictory nature of the text when read without this pivotal contextual ‘mode of speech’.

Because the Western world has happily accepted the Hellenistic approach to understanding its environment, it has without much forethought, accepted the Greek and English versions of the NT as a part of this Hellenistic worldview. It has not stopped to seriously evaluate the reality that the Bible, both the Tanakh and the NT were written by Hebrews within a Hebraic culture and worldview, vastly different in many ways, including language idioms, to the Hellenistic world that it was surrounded and even controlled by.

Because the underlying pre-suppositions and contextual and cultural filters through which the text is read and interpreted are poles apart, it is sadly not surprising that the final conclusions, as to what the text of the Bible, and in particular the NT, actually say are so vastly different.

It is also a proven natural tendency of the human mind to, having accepted something as ‘truth’, regardless of how ‘untrue’ it may well prove to be, to cling to this ‘truth’ in the face of ever increasing and overwhelming evidence to the contrary! There has been plenty of research to document this common human failing, that requires considerable humility and openness to overcome. Amongst the more significant writings on this topic is the work of Thomas Kuhn who documented this serious error within the scientific community in his great book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’.

He went so far as to argue that at times, the only way for a false scientific paradigm to be replaced with a better evidence-based model, was for it’s original proponents to die out! One of his better examples is was the ‘geosynclinal theory’ which in its day was considered as certain as the theory of gravity, only to eventually be recognized as seriously incorrect. The same human failing has been shown to exist in all areas of human endeavour and perhaps even more so in the domain of religion or theology.

It seems to me though, that the more important question is, how do we remove this seriously faulty Western/Hellenistic mindset of filter from our approach to the Bible and instead try to read and comprehend the Bible as those who wrote it and first read it would have understood it?

A would like to suggest two approaches to this very serious and far-reaching problem.

Tanakh Primacy:

The first approach is an appreciation of the primacy of the Tanakh in terms of where one should start in establishing the foundational understanding upon which everything else is built.

I believe that are many intelligent students of the Bible who are most likely using sound logic and reasoning to arrive at their conclusions, and yet ending up with vastly different conclusions to others. For example, many argue that the Apostle Paul was anti-Torah (called ‘anti-nomianism’ from the Greek word ‘nomos’ meaning ‘law’), while others argue he was a Torah observant Jew and yet others, that he could not have even been Jewish!

I have also addressed this intriguing question at depth in my book ‘Defending the Apostle Paul: Weighing the Evidence’ – see Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Defending-The-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/

Assuming the proponents of these three positions have used reasonably sound logic and reasoning (as they are all no doubt intelligent and knowledgeable people), it would appear that they could only come to such radically different understandings based primarily on different premises, factual understandings and interpretative approaches.

Clearly sound reasoning alone does not guarantee valid and biblical conclusions, if the premises that are used to start the reasoning are incorrect. While it is possible to start with the wrong premises and inferences, and even some inaccurate factual information, and then still arrive at the truth, it is a lot less likely.

My experience as well, is that many are not at all aware that they have begun with false premises, false foundations, poor factual grounding and inappropriate interpretative approaches.

For example, many Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that the Law/Torah was done away with by Yeshua, and that the church has replaced Israel and is now the ‘Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16). For more on this and related issues see my book ‘Doctrinal Pitfalls of Hellensim’ - http://www.amazon.com/Doctrinal-Pitfalls-Hellenism-Studies-Greek-ebook/dp/B00DO17CK8/

Even those who believe these doctrines would surely argue that to deduce them requires not assuming them to be true before even beginning.

Strictly speaking we should also visit the evidence that God exists and that the Creator of the Universe is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see my article ‘Does God Exist’ at www.circumcisedheart.info  for more on this).

We should also visit the latest evidence on the question of the resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus (see ‘The Resurrection and Jewish Skepticism’, also at www.circumcisedheart.info ).

Many also seem to start with the assumption that the NT is a valid place to start without being aware that it is a somewhat flawed document with a significant number of mistranslations and interpolations, evident to varying degrees, in every single modern version, and even more in some older versions, such as the King James Version of 1611. I go into detail on this issue in my book ‘The New Testament: The Hebrew Behind the Greek – http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Hebrew-Behind-ebook/dp/B009XO0NQU/

Many of these errors and interpolations are well-documented, even by traditional mainstream scholars such as FF Bruce, but further identified and elucidated by others like Bart Ehrman.

We also have the problem of ‘literal’ translations vs ‘conceptual’ translations. For example, in the text of Ephesians 1:18, one Greek manuscript reads, “the eyes of your heart being enlightened”, whereas a different Greek manuscript reads, “the eyes of your understanding being enlightened”.

Which is correct or are both correct? Without an awareness of such aspects to interpretation and translation, mistakes are more than likely.

Even more significant, than these mis-translations and interpolations, is the use of a Hellenistic or Greek lens to view the text of the NT, and then the Tanakh (OT) through the NT.

As well, or perhaps, as a consequence of these failings, many also then:

• start with a single NT scripture,
•  assume it is 100% inspired and accurate,
• fail to take in into the immediate context of it’s setting;
• fail to account for its more general context in its NT Gospel or epistle, and
• then further fail to place the NT verse(s), in its broader historical and Hebraic and Torah/Tanakh context.

So what is the preferred alternative approach?

I think that the answer begins with the TanaKh or ‘Hebrew Scriptures’. The Tanakh, and among those things at its core; the 10 Words (Ten Commandments), is the lowest common denominator for both Judaism and Christianity, and the most fundamental and foundational revelation of God to the world.

Of course, the revelation of nature (see the argument for Intelligent Design), and the revelation of the resurrection of Yeshua, need to be added to this foundation, but I believe that these additions when properly understood result in a much more holistic and balanced worldview than most could possibly imagine.

I believe some foundational starting points are:

• The Tanakh is an incredibly reliable and virtually unchanged, almost inerrant and untainted book of scripture which was inspired by the Almighty;
• The 10 Words are the moral code of the universe and not just one set or subset of instructions that were intended only for the people of Israel;
• The Talmudic and Midrashic commentaries on the Tanakh while outstanding in great measure, are not without error in places, and thus should be recognised as of secondary importance to the primacy of the Tanakh;
• Similarly the New Testament, as a document that exposes the Gentile world to the faith of Israel, and which in it’s original form may have been inspired and inerrant, exists today as a flawed and seriously mistranslated and tainted document in places;
• The Septuagint (LXX) was not the only or primary translation or version of the Tanakh quoted in the New Testament, and in fact, that the Septuagint has been seriously tainted even to the point of redaction (re-editing) so as to agree with NT mis-translations;
• That much, if not most, Christian doctrine today is based on faulty translations and faulty thinking, and therefore, that Gentile followers of Yeshua need to reassess almost all their understanding of a great many issues such as salvation, sacrifice, exclusivity, deity, Law/Torah vs Spirit, and Replacement Theology. 

So if you were to take this seriously, where would I recommend you start? With what material and commentary could you approach the New Testament in particular and hope to reach helpful and accurate conclusions.

I recommend:

• the writings of David Flusser, and
• all those from the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research;
• Jewish theologians like Mark Nanos; Adele Reinhartz; Rabbi Ken Spiro, Rabbi Moshe Reiss, Moshe Avraham Kempinski, Paula Fredriksen, Pamela Eisenbaum, Amy Jill-Levine, and
• Authors like Frank Selch, Greg Deuble and Marvin R Wilson;
• The re-translation work of Uriel Ben Mordechai;
• Information on the Hebraic Mindset such as ‘Living Truth – the Hebraic Mindset’ at www.circumcisedheart.info

The 4-Step Approach to assessing Biblical Doctrine:

The second approach that I believe is highly beneficial is the approach advocated by Rabbi Blumenthal which he outlines in his article ‘Contra-Brown’:

“Scripture is a lengthy and complex document. The message of scripture cannot be found in the reading of specific isolated passages. Rather, the true message of scripture emerges from an understanding of the totality of scripture. When any given doctrine is presented as a scriptural teaching, there are four basic criteria that should be applied to determine if the doctrine is truly scriptural.

1)     We must ask ourselves if the doctrine in question is fully supported by scripture. Does scripture support all of the main points of the doctrine? Or are there significant gaps which the proponents of the doctrine must fill in? Does scripture provide comprehensive support for the doctrine in question?

2)     Another quality we must look for in our examination of the given doctrine is clarity. Is the scriptural support claimed for the doctrine clear and unambiguous? Or are there other possible interpretations of the passages marshaled on behalf of the doctrine in question.

3)     A third criteria by which we should judge a specific doctrine is the directness of the scriptural support. Are the passages quoted to sustain the theory addressing the issue in a direct and straightforward manner? Or is the scripture discussing another issue altogether.

4)     Finally we must ask if the scriptural support for the doctrine is consistent. After evaluating the doctrine for comprehensiveness, for clarity and for the direct nature of the support – we must then ask if scripture ever provides a conflicting teaching that is as comprehensive, clear and direct as are the passages cited in support of the doctrine in question.”

I have used Rabbi Blumenthal's 4 step approach to evaluate such Christian doctrines as Replacement Theology, and the Sunday ‘Sabbath (see ‘The Sabbath: A Re-evaluation’ at www.circumcisedheart.info) and found it most beneficial as it also requires a return to the Tanakh as the primary source of foundational truths.

In conclusion I would argue that the approaches outlined here, if fully embraced by an honest and open truth-seeker should lead him/her to a much more accurate and understanding of the whole message of the Bible and its importance in our daily lives.

May 2015