Changes

It is generally understood that Jewish interpretation is important for understand the New Testament. It is also important for solving apparent problems in the New Testament wnich non Jewish understandings fail to solve. This is because non Jewish biblical study, whether of "lower criticism" - the determining of the best Greek and Hebrew texts, or the "higher criticism" - involving origins and authenticity, are  undertaken with determination to understand what the Bible is saying, that is, the meaning of what is being said. Modern western biblical study is  not concerned with how it is being said, how it looks, and what has been added to the meaning by how it is being presented. In fact, to the western world, these latter matters are not only lesser in importance, but they are actually obstacles to be put away in the desire to get to the meanings. Eastern Christian biblical interpretation, like the Jewish way of interpetation is not so quick to dismiss these "incidentals" and therefore can capture the Jewish flavor and teachings in the first century "Jewish Gospels" and in the teaching of Jesus Christ.  

It is generally understood that Jewish interpretation is important for understand the New Testament. It is also important for solving apparent problems in the New Testament wnich non Jewish understandings fail to solve. This is because non Jewish biblical study, whether of "lower criticism" - the determining of the best Greek and Hebrew texts, or the "higher criticism" - involving origins and authenticity, are  undertaken with determination to understand what the Bible is saying, that is, the meaning of what is being said. Modern western biblical study is  not concerned with how it is being said, how it looks, and what has been added to the meaning by how it is being presented. In fact, to the western world, these latter matters are not only lesser in importance, but they are actually obstacles to be put away in the desire to get to the meanings. Eastern Christian biblical interpretation, like the Jewish way of interpretation is not so quick to dismiss these "incidentals" and therefore can capture the Jewish flavor and teachings in the first century "Jewish Gospels" and in the teaching of Jesus Christ.  

A case in point and an example:

A case in point and an example:

To the modern world, that the Sudducees ought to believe that there is a resurrection because God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, does not seem to follow logically, But Jesus seems to think that that does follow, and that it follows covincingly. If God, the Living God (El Hay, Elohim Hayim) should allow His name to be attached, in Scripture, and on tongue, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that is reason enough to see that they must, of necessity (''Life begets life''), themselves be among the living. And if they be among the living, then the dead shall once again rise.

To the modern world, that the Sudducees ought to believe that there is a resurrection because God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, does not seem to follow logically, But Jesus seems to think that that does follow, and that it follows covincingly. If God, the Living God (El Hay, Elohim Hayim) should allow His name to be attached, in Scripture, and on tongue, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then that is reason enough to see that they must, of necessity (''Life begets life''), themselves be among the living. And if they be among the living, then the dead shall once again rise.

It is not that, for instance, the "10, 5,3, 2, 1, proofs" given above be convincing for this day and age as it was for the Jewish commentators straddling the first century, but rather that we of this generation, need to see our way of interpreting the New Testament, according to the scientific, and conceptual catagories of the 20th and th 21st centuries, are inadequate for the job. It will help us also to receive Gods voice and nudgings in ways other than the strict logics of our mind, and more in accord with the rich modalities of life all around us.  

It is not that, for instance, the "10, 5,3, 2, 1, proofs" given above be convincing for this day and age as it was for the Jewish commentators straddling the first century, but rather that we of this generation, need to see our way of interpreting the New Testament, according to the scientific, and conceptual categories of the 20th and th 21st centuries, are inadequate for the job. It will help us also to receive Gods voice and nudgings in ways other than the strict logics of our mind, and more in accord with the rich modalities of life all around us.  

It may be that a modern way of understanding the Sadducees, though it may be superficially ludicrous but essentially deep and penetrating to how all men are, can be expressed thusly:

It may be that a modern way of understanding the Sadducees, though it may be superficially ludicrous but essentially deep and penetrating to how all men are, can be expressed thusly: