A Commonsense Look At
The Hebraic Roots Issue
By Andrew Gould
(1) Important Foreword
This publication contains material from several of my previous works
originally produced in the latter half of 1997.
The original article called “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus?”
did at times refer to a paper covering the same issue written by one Michael
Brown. At the time I was unaware of Michael Brown’s participation in the
“Revival” Movement in general and the Pensacola heresy in particular.
The article written by Brown on this subject was well thought out, logical
and wholly scriptural, displaying clear thinking, sound discernment and
common sense. Sadly these seem to have deserted him when it came to assessing
and discerning the so called “Revival” movement.
Any extracts from Brown’s two articles that remain in this present work
do so on their own merits and not from any attachment or approval of their
author’s present aberrant doctrinal views or to any of the movements in
which he is engaged.
Contents
Foreword
Introduction
The Good [Not Yet Available]
- Reasons for studying the Hebraic background to the Bible and developing
a deeper knowledge of 1st Century Jewish culture and hermeneutics.
- Examples of insights gleaned from Hebrew Studies.
The Bad
- Dangers to be avoided when pursuing Hebraic Studies.
- Examples of serious heresies that have invaded the Church by disguising
themselves as genuine Hebraic studies.
- The Downgrading of The New Testament Greek Text.
- The Setting Aside of Apostolic Doctrine.
- The Drift Into Ritualism [not yet available]
The Ugly
- Falling into the ditch on the other side of the road.
- Irrational overreactions to the Hebrew Roots and Messianic Movements
caused by a failure to distinguish what is sound and scriptural from
what is error.
- The results of such overreaction, the tendency to fall into an opposite
error which is just as dangerous.
- The door to anti-Semitism left ajar.
My first article on the subject of “Hebrew Roots” was written in 1996
for “Mainstream” the [former] newsletter of Banner Ministries.
Several additional articles followed over the space of a year or more
as the extent of the doctrinal deviations that were infiltrating the Body
through this movement became known to me. I make no claims to having
a ministry of discernment or any desire to be a “name”, but I can say
honestly that it gladdened my heart that my articles were widely circulated
and a help to some as I did feel at the time greatly burdened to write
them, so perhaps I was God’s man for that moment.
To some extent I thought that my work in that area was done, for there
seemed in my eyes no more to be said, I thought in my heart of those caught
up in the errors, “Well if they haven’t got it by now, they never will”.
However pressure to write another article or at least to update my material
came from another quarter. Surprisingly, not because of those involved
in the errors which I had been attempting to expose, but from some of
those who had agreed with my original articles and were using my materials!
Now it is of course flattering that others think one’s work worthy enough
to quote all around the world on the Internet, but unfortunately some
of this group making use of my work had bizarre and extreme viewpoints
on certain doctrinal issues, and as some of their work bore more than
a passing resemblance to that of paranoid conspiracy-mongers and White
Supremacist or Identity groups, I felt a pressing need to disassociate
myself from them publicly to avoid the misconception that I may have approved
of their stance.
While these extremeists have rightly condemned the errors present in
the Hebrew Roots movement, and that was good, unfortunately they have
backed so far off from what they perceive as error that they have fallen
into the ditch on the other side of the road, and now stand in a position
that is not only doctrinally incorrect, but is logically and factually
unsustainable.
The point of this new publication, is not because I have changed my position
on the errors present in the Hebrew Roots and Messianic Movements – those
faults I condemned as error and heresy before, I still do, in fact I will
be repeating and underscoring most of the material in my previous articles
in this present one.
However I will also be adding something that I have not published before
because I did not feel there was a need, as I do now. The paranoid, inaccurate,
unbalanced, and unscriptural extremes of certain fringe elements have
spurred me to write some balancing material to redress the wild swings
of the doctrinal pendulum before unlearned or unstable souls are carried
along with their errors.
So besides the revisiting of former materials I wish also to introduce
the reader to a balanced look, a scriptural look into the Hebraic
world of the Bible, and the real benefits of our understanding of the
Gospel that can result from a doctrinally sound inquiry into the
Jewish background to the Bible as a whole and the New Testament in particular.
You will find in that section of this publication (entitled “The Good”)
no new doctrines (Heaven Forbid!) or peculiar distortions of the Scriptures
but some little gems that I have gleaned in my own studies into these
things, that I hope will bless your soul and deepen your appreciation
of the LORD’s Word.
I am sure that you will all be aware by now of the tendency in the Body
for things to start well then go wildly astray after some days have passed.
We think of past moves of God, Methodism for instance, how the fires of
the Awakening spread through the land and many were turned to the LORD
by the preaching of Wesley. Now today Methodism is one of the most liberal
denominations in the world, accepting every kind of anti-scriptural abomination.
There are thousands of movements and denominations in the World today,
many of which are now just epitaphs to what once was wrought of God, the
present sad condition of these movements having as much resemblance to
the original work of God as the rotted corpse to the once living person.
We also know that Satan works subtly to hijack those terms with which
we define ourselves – how many of us today can say that we are “evangelical”
without having to issue a disclaimer that we are not evangelical
in the “happy-clappy, rolling around on the floor barking, laughing insanely
and believing just about anything and everything we hear” sense?
The term “evangelical” has taken on in the public eye a whole new meaning
from that intended by those faithful men of God in the last century who
sort to define themselves as faithful to the truth of the Scriptures rather
than the doctrines of men.
Unfortunately the same phenomenon has occurred in regard to the terms
“Messianic Movement” and “Hebrew Roots Movement”, both of which now have
come to characterise unscriptural excess rather than a move of God. However,
be that as it may, there are some sound individuals and ministries operating
in these areas. The key is to assess each on its own merits by the standard
of Scripture and Apostolic Doctrine and not by the label it carries.
The Influence Of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research
And “Understanding The Difficult Words of Jesus”
The sidelining of the Greek New Testament Text is most clearly and shockingly
seen in the work of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research,
which sadly has influenced all too many gullible believers and ministries.
This section is a critique of their work and influence.
It has been widely accepted in Hebrew Roots circles that Jesus spoke
Hebrew and that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew.
Most Hebrew Roots ministries have been influenced in this notion by the
output of a body called the Jerusalem School Of Synoptic Research,
and most especially due to the widespread influence of the book "Understanding
The Difficult Words Of Jesus" published by David Bivin (Director
of the JSSR) and his partner Roy Blizzard. in 1984 and reprinted in 1994
and 1995.
The impact of “Difficult Words” has been enormous (many "Hebrew
Roots" ministries basing much of their teachings on the premises
of the book), and the consequences for the Gospel text have been very
profound. Thus the length of this section, addressing some of the issues
raised by the JSSR and the veracity of its findings. This is not an exhaustive
study. I could have inserted far more contrary evidence, but have not
done so due to limitations of time and space and a concern to not overburden
the reader.
For many involved in Hebrew Roots studies, some of the topics I will
address have become "sacred cows" and whenever someone criticises
these ministries or calls on the Body to exercise some scriptural discernment
in these things they are condemned as "anti-Israel" or even
"antisemitic". I wish it to be known that there is no Restorationist/Anti-Semitic
agenda here, for I parted company with the Restorationist camp a long
time ago over the very issues of Israel and prophecy. The criterion that
I try to use in judging the matter is whether or not it is true
and whether or not it conforms to the plain teaching of Scripture.
It is my hope that you the reader will use the same basis when approaching
the issue and will lay aside any emotional baggage, or romantic ideas
that all that is Jewish is automatically glatt kosher. Rather,
rather let us view the issues involved with our God-given common sense
and rational faculties, using the Holy Scriptures as our final authority
to judge whether or not something is of God.
“Understanding The Difficult Words Of Jesus” Examined.
Major Propositions Of The Book
“Understanding the Difficult Words Of Jesus” is built upon four major
propositions by which it stands or falls these are:
The Primary spoken language of Palestine at the time was Hebrew, therefore
Jesus would have spoken mostly Hebrew, and His teachings would have been
almost exclusively delivered in Hebrew.
“It can be stated unequivocally that the original Life of Jesus
was communicated in Hebrew and that Hebrew was also very likely the spoken
language of Jesus of Nazareth. This being the case, it necessitates an
entire re-examination of the popular theories about linguistic origins
and a reorientation in the study of the New Testament."1
There was an original Hebrew life of Jesus now lost, of which our present
Greek Gospels are but a translation.
"The evidence for Aramaic or Greek origins of the Synoptic Gospels
simply will not stand up under critical analysis. There is far more substantial
evidence indicating a Hebrew origin of the Synoptic Gospels"2
"Our reasons for writing this book are not only to show that
the original gospel was communicated in the Hebrew language; but to show
that the entire New Testament can only be understood from a Hebrew perspective"3
His teachings, therefore, can only be understood with a knowledge of
Hebrew, and from a Hebraic perspective. We can discover the Hebraic perspective
only by consultation of the Rabbinic Literature.
"It cannot be overemphasised, that the key to an understanding
of the New Testament is a fluent knowledge of Hebrew and an intimate acquaintance
with Jewish history, culture, and Rabbinic Literature."4
"If any additional advances are to be made, especially in better
understanding the words of Jesus, the concentration must shift to the
study of Hebrew history and culture, and above all, the Hebrew language."5
From this original Hebrew 'Life of Jesus', (from parts of which apparently
our canonical Greek Gospel Texts are mere compilations and translations.)
the individual words of the Greek texts that we have are standard Greek
equivalents used to translate Hebrew documents into Greek, therefore we
can retranslate back into Hebrew to discover what Jesus really
said and reconstruct the Gospels back into their original form. Failure
to appreciate the Hebraic origins of the Gospels has led to mistranslation,
misinterpretation, spiritually damaging error and doctrinal confusion.
"Why are the words of Jesus that we find in the Synoptic Gospels
so difficult to understand? The answer is that the original gospel that
formed the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not
in Greek, but in the Hebrew language. In spite of this, today's modern
translations are all based upon a Greek text, derived from a still earlier
Greek text, which is itself a translation of an original Hebrew Life of
Jesus. This means that we are reading an English translation of a text
which is in itself a translation. Since the Synoptic Gospels are derived
from an original Hebrew text, we are constantly bumping into Hebrew expressions
or idioms which are often meaningless in Greek, or in translations from
the Greek."6
"[Other mistranslations] however have contributed to confusion,
error, wrong behaviour, and even spiritual bondage. In this chapter we
discuss more theological errors that are due to mistranslations in the
gospel text."7
With the tools that the JSSR has at its disposal they are able to go
even further and reconstruct the original Life of Jesus.
"Today scholars in Israel are once again attempting the type
of reconstruction (of the Hebrew "Life of Jesus") that was attempted
by the writers of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. With all the
current information now available, this task of reconstruction is not
only easier, but the finished work sometimes more accurate than that attempted
1950 years ago. "8
Do these propositions bear scrutiny?
In this section I hope to show that the propositions of Difficult
Words are not quite as certain as the confident tone of the book leads
us to believe. It is not my intention necessarily to forward the idea
that Aramaic was the chief spoken language of Israel at the time of Jesus,
though it must be said that, contrary to the impression given in Difficult
Words, scholarly opinion still seems to favour this. The general consensus
seems to be that the majority of evidence points to it. I raise the issue
merely to highlight the fact that the case is not at all as clear-cut,
decided and factual as the book states, and that as the main presumptions
of the work are built upon this foundation, the instability of it needs
to be exposed.
Was Hebrew The Primary Spoken Language Of Palestine In Jesus' Time ?
To support their assertions that Hebrew was the primary spoken language
of Jesus time Bivin & Blizzard state that the term “Hebrew”
in the New Testament and other ancient sources of the period always
means Hebrew and never Aramaic.
Does “Hebrew” always mean “Hebrew”?
It should be noted that it is only possible to give definition to the
term "Hebrew" if it is followed by the word that the term is
describing. These are the only occasions in the New Testament where the
term "Hebrew" is followed by a transliteration of a Semitic
word.
Jn:5:2: Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which
is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
"Bethesda" style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family: is
a Greek transliteration of Aramaic "Beth-Chesda"
(Lit: The House of Mercy); in Hebrew "The House of Mercy" would
be "BeTH-HaCHeseD"
Jn:19:13: When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus
forth, and sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called the
Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha”.
The Greek word translated "Pavement" is used in the Septuagint
(2 Chron.7:3; Esth. 1:6; Cant. 3:10) to translate the Hebrew words "RiTZPaH"
(pavement) and "RaTZuPH" (paved) "Gabbatha"
is the Greek transliteration of Aramaic "GaBBeTHa"
(Lit "The Raised Place").
Jn:19:17: And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called
the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
This is a Greek transliteration of Aramaic "GoLGoLTa"(The
Skull). The Hebrew word for "The Skull" is "HaGuLGoLeT".
Rev:16:16: And he gathered them together into a place called in the
Hebrew tongue Armageddon. style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:
Of the instances quoted above I have not found any reference source that
gives any but the last quote as being Hebrew. They are all regarded as
Aramaic with the "a" ending characteristic of the Aramaic definite
article, hence "The Skull", "The Raised Place",
etc.
In Difficult Words, Bivin and Blizzard go to some lengths to deny
that any of the Semitic words they have listed on page 31 (p.10 of 1994
edition) are Aramaic and not Hebrew. They state that the "a"
ending is not the Aramaic definite article but the Greek neuter ending.
However as one of the words quoted, "Pascha"- "is
indeclinable -i.e. not neuter -thereby substantiating the claim for the
Aramaic origin of that word"9 , it can be seen that
their argument is unsustainable. Unfortunately, inaccurate statement of
the facts is an all too common feature of Difficult Words. It has
also been noted in the article "Recovering the Inspired Text?",
that of every one of the words claimed by Bivin and Blizzard to be Hebrew
on page 31, it can just as credibly be argued that they are Aramaic.
Evidences of Aramaic being commonly spoken in Jerusalem
In the Acts of the Apostles we see the following:
1:19: And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch
as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say,
The field of blood. Aceldama (HaQaL-DeMa) only means "The Field
of Blood" in Aramaic, (In Hebrew it would be "SeDeH-HaDaM").
It should be noted that the passages states that they called this site
in their own language by an Aramaic place name and not a
Hebrew one.
Evidences of Aramaic being used by early believers.
The Aramaic term "Maranatha" is another indicator of
Aramaic enjoying use among the first believers.10
Use of Aramaic Targumic Renderings in the New Testament.
In numerous places where the Old Testament is cited in the Gospels and
Epistles, the text does not follow the Hebrew Masoretic or even the Septuagint
but the Aramaic Targumim. (e.g., Mark 4:12 quoting Isa.6:9,10 uses wording
of Targum Jonathan, Paul in Eph 4:8 cites a targumic rendering of Ps.68:18)
Incidents that point to Aramaic being very possibly the Primary language
of Jesus.
"Perhaps the most often quoted Aramaism in the New Testament
is the sentence in Mark 15:34 "Eloi, Eloi, Lama sabachtani"
These words are Aramaic, but it is doubtful that Jesus spoke them as
Mark records." 11
Bivin and Blizzard say that the hearers would not have mistaken "Eloi"
for Elijah because the Hebrew word for My God (Eli) is also the shortened
form of the name Elijah in Hebrew. This sentence is commonly thought to
be in Aramaic, and indeed is Aramaic for "My God, my God, wherefore
hast thou forsaken me ?" . They point out that the words "lama"
and "sabachtani" were also used in Mishnaic Hebrew and
are not exclusively Aramaic. While this may be the case, one wonders how
the author of the Gospel managed to get the Hebrew spelling correct on
the last two words but blew it on the first two. Unless he was quoting
an Aramaic utterance and not a Hebrew one, in which case the spelling
is correct.
Part of the point of this account is that the (unbelieving) hearers misunderstood
what Jesus was saying, whether from faulty hearing or from reading into
the agonised cry what they expected to hear, (bearing in mind the interest
surrounding Jesus' Messiahship). Sometimes what we expect to hear can
play tricks with what actually goes into our ears. This passage has all
the appearance of being a direct transliterated quote, so if as Bivin
states this is not what Jesus actually said, why did Mark bother
to write it in transliterated form, and not translate it into Greek? Surely
if Mark was taking the trouble to directly transliterate the very syllables
that Jesus uttered from the cross, he would actually have managed to get
it right!
Jesus was obviously alluding to Psalm 22:1 in this utterance, but there
is an interesting point here. In the Hebrew Bible Psalm 22:1 does not
read "sabachtani" but "azavtani". Now
if Jesus was speaking this utterance from the cross in Hebrew, we have
to ask why he did not use the word "azavtani". This would
have been the most natural word for him to use, even if "sabachtani"
existed in Mishnaic Hebrew. The fact that he used "sabachtani"
tends to weigh in favour of this being an Aramaic quote of Psalm 22:1,
and that Jesus did not speak this in Hebrew.
Considering the high level of Jewish biblical literacy and the centrality
of this messianic text in the consciousness of the first believers, it
is utterly absurd to propound that Mark would misquote Jesus here! Surely
we are not to assume that Mark did not know the wording of Psalm 22:1
in the Hebrew, if he knew that Jesus was quoting it in Hebrew! Furthermore,
it has been noted from the study of aircraft black box flight recorders
that in situations of extreme stress individuals often revert to their
native language12. This utterance then could well point to
Aramaic being the primary spoken language of Jesus rather than Hebrew.
Usage of the term “Hebrew” in extra-biblical writings.
Contrary to what we are told in Difficult Words :
"Philo (and probably Josephus) can use the Greek term
hebraisti ("Hebrew") to refer to Aramaic. In fact, when Philo
means Hebrew - including the Hebrew of the Tanakh - as opposed to Aramaic,
he sometimes speaks of it as chaldaisti, i.e. Chaldaic! It is clear therefore
that the first century Jewish authors could speak of either Hebrew or
Aramaic as "Hebrew" in the sense of "the language of the
Hebrews."
Evidence from the The Qumran Scrolls.
"Most of the scrolls were written in the classical biblical dialect
of Hebrew, the principal language of the Old Testament, at least three
of the scrolls are written in the more colloquial postbiblical dialect
called Mishnaic Hebrew......A large number of scrolls were written in
Aramaic....a few of these are in the Nabatean dialect, but most are in
Palestinian Aramaic. Finally, there are a few scrolls containing parts
of the Septuagint......Before Qumran....... some Jewish scholars had argued
that Hebrew was still alive in this period........They also maintained
that Mishnaic Hebrew was a spoken language not an artificial scholarly
creation from a later period.....The Dead Sea Scrolls vindicated these
scholars. In the wake of the Qumran discoveries, some researchers even
concluded that Hebrew was the sole language of Jews in the first century
AD, making it the language spoken by Jesus and the disciples. There is
a body of scholars in Jerusalem, the so-called Jerusalem School of Synoptic
Research, that assumes that Jesus spoke only Hebrew and that the earliest
form of the Gospels was in Hebrew. This research would not have been plausible
before 1947. Nevertheless, the language diversity has raised more questions
than it has answered. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to be the
library of a particular sect, it is possible that their use of Hebrew
was a group quirk not shared by outsiders. Another assessment of the situation
is that Hebrew was still used for literary composition, but not for everyday
speech, since most of the scrolls are written in the classical not the
colloquial dialect. So although the scrolls have established that three
languages were used in first century Palestine, they have not shown
who used them, or when, or how, or in what proportions. Milik thought
that the scrolls prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mishnaic Hebrew was
the normal spoken language. Joseph Fitzmeyer, by contrast, argues that
"the most commonly used language of Palestine in the first century
was Aramaic, but that many Palestinian Jews.....used Greek, at least as
a second language....But pockets of Palestinian Jews also used Hebrew,
even though its use was not widespread." 14
Does the existence of objects with Hebrew inscriptions prove that
Hebrew was the primary spoken language?
The existence of Hebrew text on coins and inscriptions does not necessarily
prove that Hebrew was the primary spoken language. In England there is
Latin on the coinage, but very few people use Latin as their primary spoken
language! In regard to inscriptions found in the Temple and on ossuaries,
it should be remembered that in any Jewish cemetery you will find gravestones
with Hebrew inscriptions, and in any synagogue Hebrew abounds - this is
where of all places you would expect to find it, and so with the
Temple in Jesus' time. It would be astonishing not to have found
Hebrew there, for it is the L'shon HaKodesh ! (The Holy Tongue).
It will be found
|
