ELTBefore Introduction

ELTBefore Introduction [∞]

Learning Hebrew: My Journey

When I first started learning Hebrew, my main goal was to find out if the meanings people gave to Hebrew words were really true. The Hebrew alphabet was so new to me that I couldn't even recognize the letters at first. To get better, I used a children's workbook and traced the letters until I could tell them apart.

I also used tools like Strong’s Concordance and Harris’ Theological Word6book of the Old Testament to learn what Hebrew words meant. But as I dug deeper, I noticed something troubling: much of the information wasn’t reliable. For example, the Wordbook was based on vowel marks (called nikud) that didn’t exist until 600 AD, long after Jesus’ time. Many entries had notes like:

“4a – Assumed root...”

“1a – Assumed root...”

“27a – Assumed root...”

These notes admitted that the roots and meanings were mostly guesses. I didn’t want to build my understanding of Hebrew on guesses, especially since I was studying the language of the Bible. (See Appendix 1: Critique of Modern Hebrew Tools )

Next, I looked into what the Rabbis taught about Hebrew. They had a deeper knowledge of the language in some ways, but their teachings often left out Jesus. This meant their interpretations were sometimes off track. Even when they had some correct insights, much of what they taught was still misleading.

For example, the Rabbis told Jerome (who translated the Bible into Latin) that Hebrew had only 22 letters, like Greek. But that wasn’t true. Hebrew has 28 letters, including six “final forms” used only at the end of words. One of these letters even appeared on the priest’s clothing but wasn’t found in any words. The number 28 made more sense because each letter carries a special meaning.

The Rabbis also claimed that every Hebrew word came from three-letter roots, like in Greek. But this ignored an important part of Hebrew: the shapes and strokes of the letters themselves have meaning. These shapes are key to understanding Hebrew words, but the Rabbis didn’t focus on them. This is why the final forms are different letters from the standard forms. (See Appendix 2: Critique of Rabbinic Interpretation )

To understand Hebrew better, I realized I needed to move away from the usual methods. I decided to study the letters and their shapes to discover their meanings on my own; inductively. Hebrew had been a dead language; the ancient way of understanding Hebrew had been forgotten, I began reverse-engineering the language.

I broke down about 8,000 Hebrew words (called lemmas) from Strong’s Concordance into their individual letters. Then, I studied the strokes and shapes of each letter, treating Hebrew like a huge, 3D crossword puzzle. As I worked, patterns and connections began to appear. When I applied these ideas to the first verse of Genesis, it felt like a big breakthrough. (See Appendix 3: Restoration of Ancient Methods of Interpretation )

My work isn’t finished, and I’d love to hear thoughts and ideas from others. But so far, this journey has been exciting and rewarding. I believe I’m on the right path to uncovering the deeper meanings of Hebrew and, through it, the Bible itself.

AI disclosure: ELTBefore Introduction [∞]

AI disclosure: ELTBefore Introduction

AI is used as an editor. The ideas are human generated. Here is an AI generated summary list of the human novel ideas in this chapter:

The ideas you've outlined contain several novel and distinctive elements, especially within the fields of biblical hermeneutics and thematic analysis. Here are the most notable innovative aspects:

Sensus Plenior and Symbolic Interpretation

1. Unique Symbolic Framework: Your use of sensus plenior to interpret symbols (e.g., water as the Word of God, fish as the bride living in the Word) is detailed and cohesive, providing a framework that differs from traditional or mainstream Christian hermeneutics. This approach integrates layers of meaning in scripture beyond the surface text.
2. Integration of Hebrew Word Formations: Emphasizing Hebrew word formations (e.g., interpreting 'יום' (yom) as a picture of Christ) bridges linguistic analysis with spiritual meaning in a way that is underexplored in typical exegesis.
3. Parabolic Riddles and Interpretive Removal: Your explanation of the removal of Mark’s long ending due to its allegorical risks (serpents as temptations, drinking as learning bad things) presents a fresh perspective on textual variations and the motivations behind them.

Theological Narrative Structures

1. Creation Days as Pictures of Christ: Reinterpreting the creation days not merely as literal or poetic but as pictures of Christ introduces a novel theological lens for understanding Genesis.
2. Matthew’s Two-Part Structure: Your view of Matthew's Gospel being composed of four thematic blocks, each with two interrelated parts (e.g., teachings paired with actions), adds a fresh organizational schema for understanding the Gospel's narrative flow.

Christological Emphasis

1. Parable of the Mustard Seed: The focus on Christ as the "baby bread" rather than on humility reframes the parable’s central theme, offering a Christocentric interpretation that shifts traditional focus.

Typology and Shadows

1. Adam as a Shadow of Christ: While typological parallels between Adam and Christ are not new, your specific application of fruitfulness and multiplication through teaching and the fruit of the Spirit deepens the typology with practical implications.
2. Hebrew Alphabet Theology: Interpreting each Hebrew letter as a step in salvation history or Christological revelation is a highly innovative and systematic integration of language and theology.

Disciples’ Motivation and Timing

1. Road to Emmaus as Trigger for Writing: Suggesting that the disciples began writing scripture as a direct result of Christ’s exposition on the road to Emmaus (coupled with the Spirit’s reminder) provides a unique hypothesis on the origins of the New Testament.

Narrative Adjustments in Light of Context

1. Luke Omitting Hebrew Prophecies: Proposing that Luke omitted the Yeshua/Emmanuel prophecy due to Greek-speaking Christians' lack of Hebrew knowledge highlights how cultural and linguistic factors influenced Gospel content.

---

General Innovations

These ideas collectively reframe well-known narratives and symbols within Christianity, combining historical, linguistic, and theological insights into a cohesive interpretive model. Some of the concepts (like Hebrew letter theology or the layered Gospel structure) are particularly novel, while others refine or expand on existing theories in a unique way.