Rating: 
Summary: A Personal Watershed
Review: "It is indeed unfortunate that of all the New Testament writings, the words and sayings of Jesus himself are the most difficult to understand." So begins this remarkable little book.The minor premise is undisputed: Jesus was Jewish. The major premise is: the "Hebraic mindset" (-language, thought, culture, idioms) is far removed from the Greek. To understand Jesus, therefore, one must appreciate the Hebraic/Jewish background of the Greek gospels. (A growing minority of Scripture scholars consider that our present Greek gospels are translations of Hebrew or Aramaic originals and that they are best understood when read that way. Though serious scholarship underlies the work, it aims to teach the general public what it means to think of Jesus as an observant Jew versed in and devoted to the Torah. Running just over 130 pages, it leaves the reader hungry for more examples and more detailed analysis. Yet it may come as a watershed to readers who--like me--have thought too little about how the Jewish background of Jesus influenced the way he thought and taught. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, no one disputes that Hebrew was still used during the time of Jesus. The book provides a good primer on this point and its importance. The next main section concerns the implications of misunderstanding Jesus. Such misunderstandings fall into two categories. First, there are the times we think we understand Jesus perfectly but do not. For example, Bivin and Blizzard argue that by "kingdom of heaven" Jesus was not referring to a futuristic place but rather to a present reality. (The reign of God means God reigns in one's life.) Further, Jesus was not a pacifist, despite "turn the other cheek", and he did not advocate indiscriminate charity, despite "give to him who asks of you." Then there are the things Jesus says that we know we don't understand. Such as "blessed are the poor in spirit." Shouldn't one be rich in spirit? Yes, and Jesus was cautioning against self-righteousness. Christians tend to 'get' that despite the curious wording. But what about "to bind" and "to loosen" from Matthew 16? What was Jesus giving Peter the authority to do? And over whom? During the Sermon on the Mount what did Jesus mean by 'I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it?' Christians aren't required to follw the Law, are they? If that doesn't 'abolish' it, then what would? My favorite example concerns a puzzling verse from Luke's account of the Passion. Jesus tells the women of Jerusalem, "For if they do these things IN a green tree, what shall be done IN the dry?" Odd as this idiom may sound, I grew up with the sense that it meant, "Listen, ladies, don't weep for me but for yourselves. If this is how they treat me, how do you think they'll treat you?" Something like that is part of what Jesus is saying here, but there's more. The use of "green tree" (rooted in Ezekiel 20:47) is a MESSIANIC claim. Many scholars nowadays argue that Jesus never thought of himself as the Messiah--if he were, they reason, why didn't he just say so? Biven and Blizard argue persuasively that, in a Jewish way, he did exactly that, time and time and time again. This book is by no means 'the last word on the subject.' But it is an enticing intro to a subject of great consequence for all Christians who seek to understand Jesus.
Rating:
Summary: This book will change the way you look at Scripture.
Review: A wonderful book that establishes a definite link between the New Testament and the Torah. This book will change the way you look at Scripture. The authors promote the absolute necessity of understanding the Torah and Israel in understanding the teachings of Yeshua HaMoshiakh.
Rating:
Summary: This book can change how one studies the Bible completely!
Review: After reading this book I have a different understanding of many of the scriptures that made no sense before. I now do more research into a passage when studying the Bible.
Rating: 
Summary: Makes you want to doubt the Greek New Testament
Review: Although I do not believe it was the author's intent, some may get the impression that they do not believe in the inspiration of the Greek New Testament. I must commend the authors for presenting the facts that studying Greek philosophsy to understand Holy Scripture and the words of Messiah is misguided. Nevertheless, I doubt there basis for an orignal Hebrew written New Testament. I believe much of the "poor Greek" of the gospels is on account of the dialogue being spoken in Hebrew/Aramaic, only later to be transcribed in Greek. However, the authors do an excellent job that you must deal with Hebrew language and culture when reading the words of Yeshua. The authors simply offer no concrete evidence of where the so-called original Hebrew New Testament text is.
Rating: 
Summary: Great ideas, but lack of some evidence. . .
Review: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle this book or the authors in anyway. I believe the have some good points, namely that Hebrew was the commonly spoken language of first century Israel and that Y'shua (Jesus) may have spoken Hebrew as well. The authors constantly assert that the life-story and teaches of Y'shua were originally transmitted in Hebrew and that the Greek text and manuscripts that we have the of Gospels are nothing more than a translation of a translation i.e. the Greek text itself being a translation of an original Hebrew archtype (pg 15). The authors use several pieces of evidence from the style and grammatical structures of Y'shua's sayings and teachings to idioms, or common everyday expressions, of which, the authors believe, can only be understood when the Greek is translated back into Hebrew. An example of a famous Hebraic idiom is found in Matthew 6:22-23, where Y'shua states, "The light of the body is th eye: if there your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light. But if your eye be evil your whole body shall be full of darkness. . ." According to the authors, this is an Hebraic idiom which actually is referring to stinginess versus being generous with one's wealth. When read in plain English and even Greek, the authors believe this saying of Y'shua is utterly meaningless, and I have to agree with him on this point. The only problem is that the authors constantly assert that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew. Okay, has anyone ever found any Hebrew manuscripts of, say, the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? No. A Hebrew original may be implied from the Greek text, but until paleographers find a Hebrew manuscript of even a fragment of a gospel narrative then I would take this more seriously. Some of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel of John go back to the beginning the the second century, and according to most scholars, this is the earliest manuscript that is closest to the original autograph, and it is written in Greek! The gospels were written in Greek because Greek was also the common man language of the day and it would only make sense to write the gospels in a language that everybody could understand. I have to admit that I'm not expert in this field but I'm just exercising a little healthy skepticism.
Rating:
Summary: Great ideas, but lack of some evidence. . .
Review: Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle this book or the authors in anyway. I believe the have some good points, namely that Hebrew was the commonly spoken language of first century Israel and that Y'shua (Jesus) may have spoken Hebrew as well. The authors constantly assert that the life-story and teaches of Y'shua were originally transmitted in Hebrew and that the Greek text and manuscripts that we have the of Gospels are nothing more than a translation of a translation i.e. the Greek text itself being a translation of an original Hebrew archtype (pg 15). The authors use several pieces of evidence from the style and grammatical structures of Y'shua's sayings and teachings to idioms, or common everyday expressions, of which, the authors believe, can only be understood when the Greek is translated back into Hebrew. An example of a famous Hebraic idiom is found in Matthew 6:22-23, where Y'shua states, "The light of the body is th eye: if there your eye be single, your whole body shall be full of light. But if your eye be evil your whole body shall be full of darkness. . ." According to the authors, this is an Hebraic idiom which actually is referring to stinginess versus being generous with one's wealth. When read in plain English and even Greek, the authors believe this saying of Y'shua is utterly meaningless, and I have to agree with him on this point. The only problem is that the authors constantly assert that the original Gospels were written in Hebrew. Okay, has anyone ever found any Hebrew manuscripts of, say, the gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? No. A Hebrew original may be implied from the Greek text, but until paleographers find a Hebrew manuscript of even a fragment of a gospel narrative then I would take this more seriously. Some of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel of John go back to the beginning the the second century, and according to most scholars, this is the earliest manuscript that is closest to the original autograph, and it is written in Greek! The gospels were written in Greek because Greek was also the common man language of the day and it would only make sense to write the gospels in a language that everybody could understand. I have to admit that I'm not expert in this field but I'm just exercising a little healthy skepticism.
Rating:
Summary: Great teaching tool.
Review: Educational book for anyone seeking a true undestanding of the Jewish Messiah.
Rating:
Summary: Foundation Truths
Review: Great for seeing into the Foundations of the Lord's Words and the Hebrew was his spoken language.
Rating:
Summary: Paradigm Shifting
Review: I had struggled with the sometimes confusing and clunky Greek of the gospels, but didn't have enough background to recognize what the authors discuss: the underlying Hebraic linguistic and cultural assumptions of the NT. Not only will this book change the way you read the gospels, it may well end up affecting your theology, too. Once you have the context for the "difficult words," certain thorny doctrinal issues have to be faced. The authors show how doctrinal principles like pacifism/nonresistence cannot legitimately be derived from the gospels. You'll also learn what Jesus meant by his saying that he came to "fulfill" the law - and you'll be left to decide for yourself what that "jot and tittle" reference means for contemporary Christian practice. This is a very brief text, concise in its arguments. Much of the meat of the book is actually in the long appendix. I was left wanting much, much more - including a working knowledge of Hebrew. This book will challenge and inspire you. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On
Review: I immediately sent this book back. It's trash. So the authors know a little Hebrew and now they're experts about everything. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Idioms equal NOT proving certain language. Anyhow, the appendix sucks. The appendix is their interpretation of Jesus's sayings - the crux of the book, the title. It's all WRONG. Catholic saints' commentaries explain much better and much DIFFERENT than their interpretations. I don't know why the other people gave such good reviews. The blind leading the blind. Oh, well. :-(
| 
