The following paragraph is has been lifted from an article that discusses another topic entirely, a topic one needs to read the article to understand. But the following paragraph captured my thoughts.

Some time ago, I asked an ultra-orthodox Rabbi and politician named Avraham Ravitz -- he headed an ultra-orthodox party and was a powerful member of the Knesset -- why he had boycotted a dairy company that had introduced a line of kid's yogurts and puddings with dinosaur mascots. He chuckled when I asked if he doubted that dinosaurs had once existed. Of course not, he assured me, and it didn't concern him a whit that they didn't appear in Genesis, as it was crazy to read Genesis literally in any case. "It's just, who wants to explain the subtleties of biblical hermeneutics to your kids over breakfast, before you've even had your coffee?" For Ravitz, the problem with science isn't what it makes you believe, it's what is makes you do, sometimes even before your morning coffee.

The point is, for the better part of 2 millenniums Christianity has been divorced from it's Jewish roots, to the point where Jews do not even recognise Christianity as a Jewish cult or some perversion of Judaism, like most "Christians" view Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses. But we will take dogmatic stands based on scripture with no understanding of the Jewish historical thought on the subject. The phrase ultra-orthodox indicates that the speaker is the Jewish inequivalent of a KJV only pastor, with regards to how far his community cuts themselves off from mainstream society.

Clearly he thinks that anyone who subscribes to a literal view of Genesis is a fool. Remember this is not some ultra-reformist Rabbi, but rather a spiritual descendant of the Pharisees! Rabbi Ravitz's view of Genesis creation may be closer to that of Paul's than most modern-day Christians. I have known for some time now that the Jewish view on abortion is neither pro-life nor pro-choice; there seems to be no concept of individual rights in Judaism. The question that is asked is what is in the best interests of the community, so an infant can be aborted if it is deemed that that is what is in the best interests of the community - think hiding with a crying baby in Nazi Germany. However the same child can not be aborted for having downs because that abortion may not be in the best interests of the community.

(Abortion is the correct word in both contexts above because it seems that a child was not considered born until it was weaned - it had to be able to survive independent of it mother for food until that point seems it was considered a foetus.)

My point is, "Is it possible to have a correct understanding of scripture apart from studying the teachings of, at the very least, the ancient Rabbis; meaning those who wrote during and prior to the first century?" I ask this question because I fear the Biblical writers can not be understood outside of the context in which they were writing and the only way to understand that context is to read the writings and thoughts of their contemporaries.