Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.