Dr. Tom Tribelhorn
Truth Driven Faith/Trust
Jewish Foundations and Framework of the Bible
See how returning the Biblical text to its Jewish foundation and framework disprove much of Biblical Criticism.
Without reservation, it is my firm conviction that one of the most critical components of Biblical exegesis and textual research should be a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish foundation and framework of the Biblical text—Bereshit through Sefer HaHitgalut (Genesis through Revelation). This conviction has not come about casually; it is based upon a Master’s degree in Jewish studies completed entirely in Israel, two doctorates in Jewish/rabbinic studies, years of research and leading study groups to the archaeological sites of Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and a lifetime of teaching Bible on the graduate and post-graduate level.
For too many generations, this critical component has been treated passively or superficially, if at all. Our seminaries, universities, and other educational institutions have produced clergy, teachers and lay leaders who know little or nothing of the Jewishness of the Biblical text, with a resultant—if unconscious— mandatory anachronistic lens in viewing scripture. When absent from the exegesis and textual research equations, we cannot open the door to the milieu of the Bible’s authors and their original readers. This milieu left unexplored has resulted in multiple unjustified negative criticisms of the Word of God.
J. A. Bengel said, “Apply yourself wholly to the text. Apply the text wholly to yourself.” This famous quote is found in many textbooks on hermeneutics. The question is, what if in applying ourselves to the text we have followed a faulty hermeneutic? Wouldn’t we then risk wholly applying something to our lives that is likely inaccurate?
“Only a carefully defined hermeneutic can keep one wedded to the text.” True. But there is more. Interpreting the Newer Testament correctly requires much care. It is how we carefully define our hermeneutic that is critical, especially when deciding which components we include and which we leave out of our definition. We cannot continue leaving out the Jewish foundation and framework of the Biblical text and expect to arrive at the text’s real meaning. This will make much more sense to you later. Let’s get started.
A rock badger native to Israel which was mistranslated as "cony" (a type of rabbit) in Psalm 104:18 in the KJV.
Hermeneutics “…may be defined as the science that teaches us the principles, laws, and methods of interpretation for the purpose of interpreting the literary productions of the past.” Exegesis is the branch of theology that, literally from the Greek, means, “to lead out” or “to lead forth” from the original Biblical language (including said language’s cultural- historical-geographical milieu) the real meaning of a Scripture text or portion of Scripture. Critical methodology overlaps hermeneutics and exegesis; it is both scientific and theological in the broadest sense, as it interacts with both.
For purposes of the study at hand, the historical-grammatical method is more appropriate than the historical-critical method for reasons outlined by Gerhard Maier. As Maier points out, the historical-critical method too often “represents a prejudgment in the sense of an a priori decision concerning the outcome”—that it places too many restrictions on the Biblical text.
Accordingly, a “critical method of Bible interpretation can produce only Bible-critical propositions” by stigmatizing the term “supernatural” as “unscholarly.” Maier’s criticism of the critics in this matter is sound. Maier also correctly rejects what he calls the “dissonance method”—purposefully approaching a text with the pre-judged objective to find contradictions. It is not reasonable, however, to imply all historical critics use “criticism” in this restricting way. Nor should every aspect of historical- criticism be ended; by doing so we would be no different than the faiths that forbid criticism entirely. For the record, Maier is not the only one to take the historical- critical method to task for the unreasonable restrictions it places on the possibilities of Biblical history.
When applied to Biblical exegesis, the historical-grammatical method assumes and endeavors to discern the Biblical author’s original intended meaning of the text. It teaches us to transpose ourselves into the time, culture, and spirit of the author. It also endeavors to discern how the original readers would have understood the text. If we neglect this principle, we are in danger of drifting “out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”
Western translations and interpretations are not being true to the historical- grammatical method when they erroneously superimpose their Westernized understanding over the original Biblical passage, ignoring the first-century Jewish foundation upon which the passage was built. It is difficult to give up a cherished interpretation or change an opinion but necessary if we want to gain the actual meaning or promise of the Biblical text. In the end, there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by following the real first-century meaning of a Biblical text wherever it leads.
An excerpt from Opening the Rabbinic Doors to the Gospels, pp.11-14
In the end, there is nothing to be lost and much to be gained by following the real first-century meaning of a Biblical text wherever it leads.
