Is it worth studying Greek?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296416#Comment_296416

Normal 0 21 false false false ES-CR X-NONE X-NONE

I was wondering, is it worth studying Greek? Is Greek really important for understanding the Gospel? Say, "faith", its meaning, its roots in Hebrew (first appears in Exodus 17.12, meaning "steady"), does it have anything to do with the concepts of faith in Greek? Isn’t it more important to study the Gospel in Hebrew context and then, if material, study it in Greek?

Now, what tools do we have in Logos to maintain this point of view? I mean, to studying Gospel in his context in Hebrew. Thanks for your contribution.

Of course it isn't important to understand Greek. When someone tells you that Jesus really didn't rebuke the Syrophoenician woman by calling her a "cute little puppy dog" you should actually believe them. Why would you think that he was calling her a dog? And when some come the the High Priest in Jn 7, why would you not believe that these were "underrowers"? There is absolutely no reason to learn Greek.

Eric Weiss

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

ES-CR
X-NONE
X-NONE

I
was wondering, is it worth studying Greek?
Is Greek really important for understanding the Gospel? Say, "faith", its meaning, its roots in Hebrew (first appears in Exodus 17.12, meaning "steady"), does it have anything to do with the concepts of faith in
Greek? Isn’t it more important to
study the Gospel in Hebrew
context and then, if material, study it in Greek?

Now, what tools do we have in Logos to maintain this point of view? I mean, to studying Gospel in his context in Hebrew. Thanks for your contribution.

I don't think it's either/or. While there is definitely a Hebrew culture and context, almost all the NT quotations from the OT are from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the so-called "Septuagint." And in the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, some Greek words ended up taking on Hebraic meanings and some Hebrew words ended up taking on some Greek meanings. As far as I know there is no proof that any of the NT, including the Gospels, was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic; hints, inferences, etc., perhaps, but no proof as in actual mss. prior to the extant Greek mss. Perhaps Matthew or others originally wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic, which was then translated into Greek, but it's the Greek text that survived and propagated.

So, what does one gain by studying Greek? One big benefit is seeing what the author is emphasizing, as well as being confronted with many phrases whose impact cannot be adequately expressed in good English. Also, with English translations seeming to be quite different at times, the only way to understand the "why" of these differences, as well as discern which of the choices is perhaps the best or better one(s), is to become familiar with NT Greek so one can read and understand the original as its original writers and readers did.

As for importing Hebrew word meanings into the Greek New Testament by in a sense back-translating from the Greek to the Hebrew, a problem I see is that the Hebrew of the Old Testament spanned at least 1,000 years, ending nearly half a century before the writing of the New Testament. Hebrew usage and word meanings changed over the time of the writing of the Old Testament (I have to go by what others say about this, as I really don't work much at all with the Hebrew OT - yet, at least), and by the time of the New Testament they had been shaped by having been translated into Greek centuries before the New Testament, as I noted above. For most NT studies and attempts to understand it, I would think one would be better off knowing the contemporary meaning of the Greek words for the original readers of the NT documents than trying to import a millenium-old Hebrew meaning without first ascertaining to what extent the meaning of the Hebrew word that possibly lay behind the Greek NT text still held by A.D. 30. But that doesn't mean one should ignore learning Hebrew or studying how the Hebrew text influenced the translation and understanding of the LXX and vice-versa.

Just some thoughts.

DMB

Roger, I think George is just relaxing. Especially the puppy dog part. The real question were the dogs in Philippians.

But you do have a good question (presuming of course greek IS important; it was the lingua franka of Christianity for more than 4 centuries).

But more importantly the interface between hebrew, aramaic and greek provides the answer to bunches of Christian theologies (the one you mention is a good one).

Trying to find a resource on that interface is not easy; pieces of it are strowed around here and there ... 'faith', 'justification', 'repent', even 'sin' ... shift gears between the languages.

MJD

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

ES-CR
X-NONE
X-NONE

I
was wondering, is it worth studying Greek?
Is Greek really important for understanding the Gospel? Say, "faith", its meaning, its roots in Hebrew (first appears in Exodus 17.12, meaning "steady"), does it have anything to do with the concepts of faith in
Greek? Isn’t it more important to
study the Gospel in Hebrew
context and then, if material, study it in Greek?

Now, what tools do we have in Logos to maintain this point of view? I mean, to studying Gospel in his context in Hebrew. Thanks for your contribution.

I think George has some good Interlinear suggestions.[Y]

Robert Peters

I started my engineering school at the age of 30 and when I was finish I started seminary and get a head start on geek I spent 2 years on greek. Then Logos started to come out with some great videos. like learning biblical hebrew and greek with logos. These are helpful, but it is the memorization of tenses and moods that as we go through the text we see the power by wich God is speaking to us!

Dave Hooton

Say, "faith", its meaning, its roots in Hebrew (first appears in Exodus 17.12, meaning "steady"), does it have anything to do with the concepts of faith in
Greek?

Not sure where that assertion comes from e.g. the Greek word στηρίζω used in the LXX at Ex 17:12

2. There is no fixed Hbr. original for στηρίζω and compounds or the derived nouns. With שִׂים פָּנִים in the sense of turning to we find נתן פָּנִים in the same sense in Ex. 14:8; 15:7. For “to support” the Mas. esp. uses שׁען, wich is transl. ἐπιστηρίζω in Ez. 29:7 Σ; Ju. 16:26; 2 Βασ‌. 1:6; אמן is also the original in Ex. 17:12. סמךְ is a common equivalent of στηρίζω. This is also used in the sense “to support” in Is. 59:16; Ps. 3:5; 37:17 etc., intr. “to hurl oneself on as an aggressor,”

. Vol. 7: Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (655). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

The NT Greek word for faith is πίστις and there is a lengthy discussion in the above TDNT on the Old Testament Concept of faith in the article on that word.

The nub of the discussion is which Greek word(s) best represented the Hebrew word(s) encapsulating that concept.

I doubt that a study of NT Greek alone will help versus a good study along the lines I have indicated with resources like LXX and Greek (Interlinear) bibles together with LXX, Hebrew and Greek lexicons + Theological dictionaries like TDNT.

nicky crane

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296433#Comment_296433

God in his grace has made his Word translatable,so even those who can't read can understand the stories enough for them to affect their lives. Those of us who can read can hear his voice through his Word in our own languages. No way do we need to learn Greek and Hebrew before we can begin to understand the Bible! Having said that,I normally read the NT only in Greek, and get stuck into dictionaries and commentaries when I realise I still don't understand. Hebrew takes a big investment of time and energy. Having invested that, I'm eternally grateful, as it opens up a whole new dimension of understanding of the OT. Even with Greek and Hebrew God's Word goes deeper than our understanding.

If you have the time and energy to learn Greek, it will help you. My semi-literate neighbours who don't understand even the translations of the Bible into their own language still understand enough for God's Word to impact their lives. So decide prayerfully what your priorities are and act on them!

Mike Childs

Greek is not important at all - unless you think the New Testament is important. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, the study of Greek is about as important as you think the New Testament is.

If you don't have the opportunity to study Greek, that's understandable. If you have the opportunity, and do not study Greek, don't tell me you think the New Testament is important.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296509#Comment_296509

If you don't have the opportunity to study Greek, that's understandable. If you have the opportunity, and do not study Greek, don't tell me you think the New Testament is important.

I thing it's not a matter of opportunity. I'm thinking in this sense:
"The New Testament frequently cites the Old, from centuries before. Now
whenever people base on an ancient text, for a comprehension of their
drift it matters little what that text means or, to put it more humbly,
what we suppose it to mean; the key lies in what it means to them, which
may be quite different." Is more, I guess, a stuff of priorities or hierarchy or stress in the importance of studying the Greek.

However, thanks all for your contributions, but still waiting for the sencond part of my question. What resources we have in Logos to understand or amplify this point of view. (At Scholar's level which is the Logos version that I have).

I really thanks any help.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296537#Comment_296537

However, thanks all for your contributions, but still waiting for the sencond part of my question. What resources we have in Logos to understand or amplify this point of view. (At Scholar's level which is the Logos version that I have).

How about D.A. Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies? "it is methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a Hebrew word into its Greek equivalent without further ado." (pg 63) (You'll have to buy it...it's a good book)

Understanding the New Testament isn't reached by doing word studies. Words have meaning in context, and you can't understand context unless you understand the language. Plus, the New Testament isn't just a restatement of the Old Testament, but it represents the fulfillment of the Old Testament and brings structure and clarity to the types and shadows found in the Old Testament. The words of Christ and the teachings about Christ in the New Testament are recorded in Greek.

Granted, a solid understanding of the New Testament is grounded in an understanding of the Old Testament, but there's a reason we have a New Testament. It reveals stuff not found in the OT.

I'll turn the question around...can you show me a resource that holds Hebrew to be more important than Greek for understanding the NT?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296551#Comment_296551

Now Todd ... Westcott argued just that ... that Paul could only be understood by knowing his aramaic meaning (commentary on Galatians). Taking the literal greek (even in context) was likely to be misleading.

That's one reason why I'm spending quite a bit of dinero backtracking into the targums and Talmud (recognizing they're tough to date).

A good example is in listening to a Navajo preacher teaching in english. If you didn't know navajo, what you'd hear would be completely different than if you knew navajo.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296556#Comment_296556

Now Todd ... Westcott argued just that ... that Paul could only be understood by knowing his aramaic meaning (commentary on Galatians). Taking the literal greek (even in context) was likely to be misleading.

I think you're arguing against something I (or Don Carson) wasn't saying. The point is, if you didn't know Greek, you wouldn't know Paul. You will still need to add background to your knowledge of Greek.

I'll expand Carson's quote:

"To
what extent is the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament shaped by the
Semitic languages which, presumably, underlie large parts of it
(especially the Gospels and parts of Acts)? To what extent are the
normal semantic ranges of New Testament Greek words altered by the
impact of the writer? Or by his reading of the Hebrew Old Testament,
where applicable? Or by the indirect influence of the Hebrew Old
Testament on the Septuagint, which has in turn influenced the New
Testament?

Many
similar questions could be raised; but this chapter, already too long,
must be drawn to a close. The need for substantial discussion has been
diminished by the recent work of Silva, who ably points out the weaknesses in Edwin Hatch’s method,
which sought to establish the meanings of Greek words by simple
recourse to their Hebrew equivalents—a method sadly given a new lease on
life by Nigel Turner. This is not
to say that the Septuagint had no influence on New Testament writers.
Far from it: the influence was profound. But it is to say that it is
methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a Hebrew word into
its Greek equivalent without further ado. The case must be argued. For
instance, one must ask the prior question about the degree to which the
Septuagint (let alone the New Testament) invested Greek words with
Hebrew meanings. Although it is true that words only partially overlap
between languages, nevertheless “all languages can talk about the same
meaning, and for that matter about all meanings.”
It is just that receptor languages may have to use entirely different
constructions, or resort to periphrasis, or exercise care in selecting
words that have just the right semantic overlap with the words of the donor language. Thus all along in the study of words in the Septuagint, it is necessary both to examine the intention of the original Hebrew and
to study Hellenistic literature and papyri to be reasonably
knowledgeable about the semantic range of Greek words current in the
days of the translators of the Septuagint. These considerations are circumvented when a scholar moves directly from
the semantic range of a Hebrew word in the Old Testament to that of a
Greek word in the New Testament. "

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296556#Comment_296556

I
was wondering, is it worth studying Greek?
Is Greek really important for understanding the Gospel?

Roger,

If you find value in the study of Hebrew, I'm surprised you would not see the same for Greek.

Nicky, Michael & Denise have all made important points to consider:

Nicky's: The Gospel message can be shared effectively without either party knowing Greek or Hebrew.
Michael's: You can tell what a person's priorities are by what they spend their time doing. Greek is the language the NT was written in.
Denise's: Greek is also a dominant language of Ecclesiastical history. (To that point I , Matthew aka Super.Tramp,will add; Latin, German, and Dutch have also been important languages in Church history.)

It should now be obvious you do not have enough years in life to master Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, German, Dutch or all facts pertaining to Bible backgrounds and doctrine. If we wait until we know all this, we will never share the Gospel with anyone. If we never study beyond how to share the simple Gospel message, we will never mature spiritually or be able to disciple others. Being an effective Christian involves "on-the-job-training."

I knew a fellow who studied Greek & Hebrew 3 hours a day for 40+ years. He would tell you he had not mastered either language. I know people who are "professional students." They rack up years of school and multiple graduate degrees while avoiding actually doing their discipline. I know young people who work without benefit of any training, and it usually shows.

If God gives you the time, the means, and the desire to study Greek, He may have a special purpose for you that involves knowing the language better than others. Someone needs to do that type of deep scholarship. Philip Schaff and A.T. Robertson helped the church with their years of diligent study.

I prefer "delight-directed studies" (a term I learned from Greg Harris) and am frequently amazed at how God uses what I have learned. Greek is important, but not to the exclusion of other Bible study. It is complimentary. Now if only I could get a handle on Hebrew............

DominicM

Yes, but while you do learn it

God gave us people like George and others.. [:D] who are happy to help if you put what you think it translates to, they are happy to assist if you are digressing from the real meaning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296561#Comment_296561

God gave us people like George and others.. who are happy to help if you put what you think it translates to, they are happy to assist if you are digressing from the real meaning

My point exactly. While each of us should strive to grow in knowledge we must of necessity lean on others who have dedicated more time to study.

When Logos put Thayer's Lexicon in Pre-Pub we heard a few opinions warning of Thayer's irrelevance. If Thayer merits an "irrelevance" warning label, George Somsel merits a "sarcasm" warning label.[^o)] A few new readers may mistake George's posts for face value.

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296567#Comment_296567

If Thayer merits a "irrelevance" warning label, George Somsel merits a "sarcasm" warning label. A few new readers may mistake George's posts for face value.

You mean he loves interlinears [:O] seroiusly though, I think as a community we are blessed to have such people sharing their valuable time, helping us grow in wisdom.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296551#Comment_296551

Understanding the New Testament isn't
reached by doing word studies. Words have meaning in context, and you
can't understand context unless you understand the language.

Exactly! Now, what context we are talking about?

"My proposition, then—far from novel but too readily neglected—is
that, when dealing with the Old Testament in the New, we ought to read
it as it was read by the Jews of that era. The references without
exception come from their midst, are founded on their interpretation. If
this often clashes with the pristine sense (or what we take to be such)
it cannot be helped. We must still stick to it. Unless we do, we may
miss parts—from relatively minor to very major—of the New Testament
message conveyed by means of the reference." Appeasement or Resistance and Other Essays on NT Judaism, David Daube

Remember Todd, Paul "saw" and taught the Gospel from his rabbis perslpective, previous encounter with Jesus of course! And also he had no Gospel to teach, he saw it in OT, that's waht we call "by revelation" of the Scriptures.

I'll turn the question around...can you show me a resource that holds Hebrew to be more important than Greek for understanding the NT?

In this case, I think the order cannot be changed without changing the theme. [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296567#Comment_296567

If Thayer merits an "irrelevance" warning label, George Somsel merits a "sarcasm" warning label.

Moi? [:O]

Hi Roger,

Both Hebrew & Greek are important. Each is nuanced--and because they're different languages, they're nuanced differently--even though as you suggest there's some flavoring of the Greek from the Hebrew (or Aramaic) thought behind the text. Nevertheless, when the authors selected particular Greek words to reach their Greek audiences, they were also tapping into pre-existing Greek nuancing that you only get from a Greek study... John's "The Word" comes to mind... more a Greek concept than a Hebrew, though he does link it to Hebrew's Wisdom.

Having tried to teach Bible both before & after my seminary language studies (I'm a 2nd "career" pastor, retired from the 1st), I can tell you truthfully that having access to both Greek & Hebrew enrich my understanding far beyond what either alone will provide.

I have platinum plus, numerous lexicons available in both languages, & I consult them all. Favorites include BDAG, HALOT, & BHS, & the analyitical lexicons in both languages.

Blessings on your studies.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296583#Comment_296583

If Thayer merits an "irrelevance" warning label, George Somsel merits a "sarcasm" warning label.

Moi?

Now kids, don't make me come back there... LOL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296582#Comment_296582

Remember Todd, Paul "saw" and taught the Gospel from his rabbis perslpective, previous encounter with Jesus of course! And also he had no Gospel to teach, he saw it in OT, that's waht we call "by revelation" of the Scriptures

But WHY did God bother to reveal it to Paul unless God wanted to save each one of us the trouble of digging it out of the Old Testament? Also, Hebrews 1:1-2 (whether or not Paul was the author) makes it clear we have the message now. God can not be discovered unless He reveals Himself. God wants to be discovered and has revealed himself. I am comforted to know these verses: Matthew 7:7 and Proverbs 25:2 . The one thing that jumps out at me is we have to pursue Him.

Our worldview will influence how we receive the Bible. Is God Creator AND Sustainer of all things? If He is Sustainer, then to what degree? Does the Bible contain the words of God or is it the Word of God? Again, to what degree?

Two examples of why deeper study is needed are
Judges 11:30-39 Did Jeptha really offer his daughter as a blood sacrifice on an altar?
Titus 1:12 Did the Apostle Paul personally believe all Cretans are liars? Or was Paul just amazed at Epimenides' pronouncement

A surface reading of each text would suggest "Yes." Deeper study would suggest "No." Is it possible the deepest study will show it really is "Yes?" At some point we must accept on faith that God is able and does in fact preserve His message unto us. If culture, passage of time, linguistic evolution or heretics can corrupt it, we must hold the whole Bible suspect. After all, claiming the Bible is inspired in it's original autograph doesn't help us since we don't have ANY of the original manuscripts. Not even Hebrew. Faith has to be a factor. Even Bart Ehrman would agree with that.

The Apostle Paul had much more than a rabbinical education. He understood Roman politics, Hebrew religion, Greek philosophy and rhetoric. If you are going to retrace Paul's steps in arriving at the message, you will need to take advantage of the Perseus collections and more. Hebrew alone will not suffice.

Pauline Studies Collection (10 vols.) Patemoster
Pauline Studies Library (35 vols.) Logos/T&T/IVP
SPCK Pauline Studies Collection (3 vols.)
Fortress Press Paul Collection (17 vols.)

Once again, you won't live long enough to replicate Paul's knowledge. Grab some background commentaries and learn from dozens of scholars who had life-long investments in a single focus. "Standing on the shoulders of giants..."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296559#Comment_296559

If you find value in the study of Hebrew, I'm surprised you would not see the same for Greek.

In essence, I agree with you, Surper Tramp. But let me rephrase my question, in the sense that, if the study of Greek should not be taken by the hand of the Hebrew context, instead of wasting time in the study of its syntax and language itself. If you study Shakespeare, you're not going to study in German, far less, not going to study that language as such, or its structure, or syntax.

Its importance (of Greek) as a vehicle for spreading the Gospel, no discussion. How important is English? How important is it French? Take an example. What does "Easter"? What does "Christmas"? What has come to mean?

How do words lose their meaning and force? When you cut their root, that is, its context.

Christmas = gifts, Easter = vacation.

At the end, we don't teach the Gospel, but we try to adapt, or hooked to the cultural force. Now who has the power, the truck or trailer?

Thanks for your time Super Tramp.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296612#Comment_296612

Once again, you won't live long enough to replicate Paul's knowledge. Grab some background commentaries and learn from dozens of scholars who had life-long investments in a single focus. "Standing on the shoulders of giants..."

Hi Matthew,

Agreed we won't live long enough to replicate... agreed grab some commentaries & learn... standing on the shoulders...

Nevertheless, without attempting the work, can we really gain the undertanding we want? Or even appreciate fully what Paul said?

If what we're really about is "faith seeking understanding," then I think both approaches are valid & helpful & complimentary.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296615#Comment_296615

Agreed we won't live long enough to replicate... agreed grab some commentaries & learn... standing on the shoulders...

Nevertheless, without attempting the work, can we really gain the undertanding we want? Or even appreciate fully what Paul said?

If what we're really about is "faith seeking understanding," then I think both approaches are valid & helpful & complimentary.

I agree 100%. It all comes back to the purpose you have in studying. I am not even saying everyone should have the same purpose. God may want one person to focus on archeology related to the Bible, others may be called to counseling, still others to health care.The Bible is rich in meaning. If we ever think we grasp it all we have become victims of self-delusion.

I am tickled pink to have the study tools in Logos. I will never master Greek and barely grasp Hebrew in my lifetime. I'm grateful to George S. and others for their hard study in the original languages and do not fault anyone else for going after Hebrew on the deepest level. But for most of us, Logos will suffice very well for our life callings.

Mike Tourangeau

Normal
0

21

false
false
false

ES-CR
X-NONE
X-NONE

I
was wondering, is it worth studying Greek?
Is Greek really important for understanding the Gospel? Say, "faith", its meaning, its roots in Hebrew (first appears in Exodus 17.12, meaning "steady"), does it have anything to do with the concepts of faith in
Greek? Isn’t it more important to
study the Gospel in Hebrew
context and then, if material, study it in Greek?

Now, what tools do we have in Logos to maintain this point of view? I mean, to studying Gospel in his context in Hebrew. Thanks for your contribution.

Roger, I am one who has decided it would be good for me to have a working knowledge of Greek. As a church planter/father/ ETC I find it very difficult to get time to study, but I REALLY love it.... it is a hobby for me really.

Should you decide to go ahead with it, I recommend "Basics of Biblical Greek" by Mounce. If you follow his system it will be helpful.

I have found it helps me see the force and nuance of the author's construction, some things just seem to "stick out" that do not to me in the english (probably because my familiarity with the english). With an "interlinear" you do not see the constructions of the sentence (at least in the ones I have seen). It usually follows the English, here you might miss the emphasis in the thought.

Do you have to use Greek. No..... would you enjoy it, get confidence from your conclusions from the text? Probably. In the end its your call...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296610#Comment_296610

Hi Bill, I even trying to learn English! Let me tell you, I've worked hard to understand and answer in English. (En realidad solo hablo español.), but in the front lines!

Check this:

"Now Joshua was old and advanced in years, and the LORDיהוה said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to possess." (Jos 13:1) There is a risk to die without complete our assignment. But Paul did complete his!. "I have finished the race" (2Tim 4.7) I hope to say the same.

I have the Scholar's, trying to find resources to support this good fight.

Thanks for your suggestions.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296639#Comment_296639

Hi Bill, I even trying to learn English! Let me tell you, I've worked hard to understand and answer in English. (En realidad solo hablo español.), but in the front lines! You write very well in English

In essence, I agree with you, Surper Tramp. But let me rephrase my question, in the sense that, if the study of Greek should not be taken by the hand of the Hebrew context, instead of wasting time in the study of its syntax and language itself. If you study Shakespeare, you're not going to study in German, far less, not going to study that language as such, or its structure, or syntax.

Yes, I think the Greek should be understood in light of any Hebrew it is based upon. But a majority of the New Testament is original content not found in the Old Testament. Sometimes the New is in contrast to the Old rather than a continuation of it. I also believe we can learn from the Septuagint, the Church Fathers, and even the newfangled stuff like discourse analysis. I do not give any external sources equal weight to scripture.

Logos offers many ancillary works to aid in our understanding:

The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon
The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research
The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (4 vols.)
Judaism and Christianity Collection (7 vols.)
Josephus and the New Testament
Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers
Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture ~ not currently available directly from Logos.com
Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels (8 vols.)
Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results
Greek New Testament Discourse Bundle (7 vols.)
Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach Using Discourse Analysis

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296644#Comment_296644

I managed to do three semesters of Greek, but I could only do one semester of Hebrew. It's not really meant for most students to master the language, but it really makes sense to be steeped in learning more of the language as we go on. I wish I could have had another couple of semesters of Hebrew so that I could get around the text at least as well as I can with Greek.

FWIW, I've come to the conclusion that there are more than a few Hebraic thoughts in the NT, but the terms are mostly given in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic since the Septuagint was the most available copy of the Old Testament and more people were able to read Greek.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296644#Comment_296644

Yes, I think the Greek should be understood in light of any Hebrew it is based upon.

I would be extremely careful in attempting to relate the Greek of the NT to Hebrew. There are some who contend that a/the gospel(s) was/were written in Aramaic. Some attempt to find an Aramaic background to the words of Jesus. I do not accept this thought. The NT was written in Greek for a Greek-speaking church. There may be some Semiticism in Paul and perhaps in certain portions of the gospels such as the words of Jesus during the crucifixion, but I would be hesitant to go beyond those limits. The understanding of the NT cannot be based upon a backtranslation of the Greek of the NT into Aramaic before its meaning can be discerned.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296662#Comment_296662

Yes, I think the Greek should be understood in light of any Hebrew it is based upon.

I would be extremely careful in attempting to relate the Greek of the NT to Hebrew. There are some who contend that a/the gospel(s) was/were written in Aramaic. Some attempt to find an Aramaic background to the words of Jesus. I do not accept this thought.

I don't either, George. I think there is a very minor portion of the Greek New Testament that involves Hebrew, namely, the quotes from the Old Testament. I am not even sure Jesus read from the Law and the Prophets in Hebrew in the synagogue.

As for gleaning the original context, not even the Talmud agrees with itself what the original interpretation was. The humorous thread on bathroom regulations shows that. (Remember? Do we use the round stone or the edged stone first? [:$] ) If those closest to the original can not agree, how can a bunch of modern Gentiles figure it out?

Lost in Translation....

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296662#Comment_296662

What's troubling about your point George (and I agree) is that Matthew quoted Jesus mainly from the LXX but for his own quotes, mainly used the hebrew.

If one can't find the original language of the speakers, what validity (beyond claims) is there in 'autographs'.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296678#Comment_296678

What's troubling about your point George (and I agree) is that Matthew quoted Jesus mainly from the LXX but for his own quotes, mainly used the hebrew.

If one can't find the original language of the speakers, what validity (beyond claims) is there in 'autographs'.

Did he really quote from the LXX or did the gospeleers simply quote from the LXX since that's what the Churches used?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296678#Comment_296678

What's troubling about your point George (and I agree) is that Matthew quoted Jesus mainly from the LXX but for his own quotes, mainly used the hebrew.

[:D] Would you be positing that God is more concerned with reaching the lost than sticking to one "official" language? [:D]

There has to be a reason the other three Gospels were not using any Hebrew. Could it be Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience? Could it be the Vatican knew what they were doing when they allowed mass to be said in the vernacular? Could it be Wycliffe Bible Translators are on to something big translating directly from the original into the target language? Could it be people do not have to learn 1611 English or Koine Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew to read God's Word? Finally, could it be nobody has to get circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law to become a Christian? Whoa!!!

Alex Trabec told me to put it in the form of a question.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296620#Comment_296620

life callings

Now there's the REAL reason to choose one way or the other... not gifted for languages? don't worry about it... grab the commentaries... gifted? God's invitation...

Many blessings to you!

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296623#Comment_296623

I have found it helps me see the force and nuance of the author's construction, some things just seem to "stick out" that do not to me in the english (probably because my familiarity with the english). With an "interlinear" you do not see the constructions of the sentence (at least in the ones I have seen).

Thankful for visual filter highlighting that can be done using interlinear resource tagging, which can be helpful to see force and nuance of the author's construction. Ephesians 1:3-14 is one long Greek sentence that has two present active indicative verbal uses in Eph 1:7 and Eph 1:14

Fascinating to ponder middle voice usage in Eph 1:4, 10, 11 along with singular and plural usage.

Likewise Thankful for interlinear resource tagging so can display Louw-Nida numbers for pop-up with contextual range of Greek word meaning.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296644#Comment_296644

Yes, I think the Greek should be understood in light of any Hebrew it is based upon. But a majority of the New Testament is original content not found in the Old Testament. Sometimes the New is in contrast to the Old rather than a continuation of it. I also believe we can learn from the Septuagint, the Church Fathers, and even the newfangled stuff like discourse analysis. I do not give any external sources equal weight to scripture.

[Y]

Fred H.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296874#Comment_296874

“Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matthew 13:10–13, ESV)

Only by the mercy and grace of God do any of us know truth. The Pharisees knew Hebrew and missed their messiah. By grace through faith I am a child of God and I don’t know Greek. My mom then became a child of God and she doesn’t know Greek. My mom’s mom then became a child of God and she didn’t know Greek.

By God’s grace, in the Holy Spirit’s power and for His glory I preach the Word of God for the truth that it is. Greek tools have helped me understand the text better. Standing on the shoulders of others has helped. But the fact remains; The Word of God is the Word of God and the job of illumination of the truth belongs to the Holy Spirit. He who has an ear let him hear.

Now, just to be clear I’m grateful and thank God for those that He has called to really understand scripture in the original languages, the original contexts and have a heart and a passion to do the study and research. I’m thankful for those who can defend truth and the Bible. This is important and helpful to the body. But, I humbly submit to you that while we all need (and desire) to serve Christ as one body we still individually follow Jesus. What Jesus leads me to do is different (same Spirit, different calling) than what He leads you to do.

I say all of this to encourage anyone out there who God is leading to any ministry. Don’t let the world’s system dictate what path you take. Follow Jesus. One does not need a doctorate to preach the Word of God. To preach the Word one needs to follow Jesus. Follow Him in His leading to brothers that will sharpen you, provide accountability, encourage you, pray for you and provide Godly wisdom as you pursue after Christ in your calling. And be sure of this; God is in control and in that pursuit God may or may not send you to seminary, and He may or may not have you study Greek and/or Hebrew; but by grace and through faith He will give you everything you need to serve Him for His glory.

Grace, peace, joy and love to you all, Fred

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296914#Comment_296914

What Jesus leads me to do is different (same Spirit, different calling) than what He leads you to do.

Yes Fred. I totally agree. I assume that all here participate with that in mind. I guess. Regards.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297040#Comment_297040

I haven't weighed in on this discussion yet, but here goes.

Yes, it's worth studying Greek.

As you know Roger, translating from one language to another is always an imprecise art. Something is always lost in the translation. I know this is true because I speak Spanish as a second language. Going from English to Spanish or vice versa can be a challenge.

In the same way that English is not Spanish, Hebrew is not Greek (or should I turn those two around?). So, in order to catch some of the nuances of the New Testament, knowing Greek is a very useful tool. It is also useful for refuting those who use Greek badly -- and there's plenty of that in both English and Spanish speaking countries.

You suggested above that New Testament Greek should be understood based on Hebrew usage. I find that odd. I'm not sure I can refute the idea, but I've never heard it before. What I do know is that there is no certainty that many of the New Testament writers even knew Hebrew. The first language of most in Palestine was Aramaic, and for many their second language was Greek. Paul, who had a higher education than most, knew Hebrew, and it's possible others did too. But when they spoke Greek they used Greek idioms with an occasional semiticism, not the other way around.

The opening of most of Paul's letters is a good example of the mixing of semitic and Greek cultures when his salutations included the phrase "Grace and Peace to you." The common greeting in Greek culture was chara (joy!), Paul seizes that greeting and changes it to charis (grace). The common greeting among those of Jewish culture was shalom (or salam), Paul just translates that to the Greek word "Peace." Knowing a little Greek helps us see remember that those first churches were a mix of cultures: gentile & Jewish Christians.

A final reason to study Greek is that Greek has a very different grammatical structure than Hebrew. In some ways Greek is closer to Spanish than Hebrew is (verbs especially), and Hebrew has nothing close to the case endings required and used in subtle ways in Greek. Understanding the grammar of how the New Testament writers, inspired by the Spirit wrote, helps in hearing the full range of what the Spirit was saying, when He said it. Just think of all the ways that Spanish subjuntivo never quite translates well into English.

Knowing some Greek, as knowing some Hebrew, is a tool to help us understand the Scriptures better. The Spirit has led many people into great things who did not know these languages. But He has also led many who do. Since I'm not one to lean on my own understanding, I want to know what the text says, what it meant to those to whom it was first written, and what it means for us today. Knowing a bit of Greek (or Hebrew) helps with that first step and a little with the second. It's just a tool, but it's a very helpful tool for the pastor who has it in his 'tool box.'

Que Dios le bendiga

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296752#Comment_296752

Why there are 100 occurrences of the term "ἐκκλησία" in the LXX, and there is no occurrences of the term "church" in the OT? What reason can translators argue to omit this term in the OT? And, what Jesus had in mind when spoke about to build his "ἐκκλησία"?
Now, admitting that Jesus spoke in Greek, how to connect this with the fact that Jesus came to fulfill what was said in the OT? Ok. Let's say that he came to found an Assembly, a Nation, more in general, a People. The question remains, why the translators didn't use the term "church" in OT?

But before you answer, imagine that we are in the apostolic period or that we are the first Greek to English translators.

Some thoughts. Keep thinking. [*-)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297046#Comment_297046

Quote of the day:

knowing Greek is a very useful tool. It is also useful for refuting those who use Greek badly --

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297116#Comment_297116

Why there are 100 occurrences of the term "ἐκκλησία" in the LXX, and there is no occurrences of the term "church" in the OT? What reason can translators argue to omit this term in the OT? And, what Jesus had in mind when spoke about to build his "ἐκκλησία"?

Ekklesia is the Greek word that translates what in Hebrew is translated "assembly."

At the time of the New Testament ekklesia had come to take on a more specific and Christian meaning to distinguish the Christian assembly (church) from the Jewish one (synagog - gathering). Probably the reason the term wasn't translated "church" (or iglesia in Spanish - even closer to the original) is that the OT is translated primarily from the Hebrew, and the meaning is captured, more or less, by the Greek word ekklesia.

I do think it is theologically significant that ecclesia is an OT (LXX) term. But it's not proper to discuss theology on these forums.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297046#Comment_297046

You suggested above that New Testament Greek should be understood based on Hebrew usage.

Gracias Richard. Es un respiro escribir en Español. He tomado como ejemplo la traducción del término "ἐκκλησία", del hebreo "קָּהָל" (Deut 9.10) y he planteado la pregunta de por qué los traductores no usaron los términos "Iglesia" o "Church" en el AT en nuestras traducciones. La idea es plantear el problema de estudiar Griego sin comprender el trasfondo cultural. (Pude tomar cualquier otro término). Este trasfondo puede ser una profecía, un mandamiento, un poema, un giro idiomático, una parábola (mashal), un refrán, etc. etc. La lengua receptora puede aportar claridad, ampliando, explicando, pero jamás podrá volverse la fuente misma de lo que trata de explicar. Muchas palabras han pasado de ser traducidas a ser distorcionadas. (En español, Judás, de Judá; Santiago, de Jacob, etc)

Imagínese Richard, un pueblo y una lengua que abunda en profecías y profetas donde los nombres adquieren significado profético (Pedro, Piedra), y que en el proceso de traducción, deformemos esos nombres, ¿no es cierto que eventualmente se perderá el significado de lo que traducimos? En Español me gusta la versión "Dios habla hoy", porque tratan de mantener intacta la transliteración de los nombres hebreos, cuyo significado a veces es esencial para entender lo muchos juegos de palabras que se dan en ese idioma. (por desgracia, siempre usan la forma "Santiago", extraña deformación del Jacob).

Por supuesto que una comprensión básica de la estructura del Griego será necesaria. Y muchos querrán profundizar más, y no veo problema en ello. Lo que sí me parece primordial, es que en toda traducción se mantenga la concección con el contexto y enseñanzas hebreas.

Permítame un último ejemplo. Lo lógico para el cristianismo, es estudiar las Escrituras en su lengua original y la lengua materna, tal y como lo han hecho desde siempre los judíos en su dispersión: Los Judíos Rusos, estudian la Torah en Ruso y Hebreo; los Franceses, en Francés y Hebreo; los Alemanes, en Alemán y Hebreo, etc., etc. Y esto es cierto aun en el estudio del NT. El estudio del griego siempre será accesorio y nunca vital. Pero Richard, el colmo es, como si no fuera suficiente estudiar Hebreo y Griego, ¡algunos quieren que estudiemos la Escrituras en Latín también! No creo que el Señor nos quiera devovler a Babel!

Bendiciones, paz y gozo en el Señor. Amén.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297124#Comment_297124

Gracias Richard. Es un respiro escribir en Español. He tomado como ejemplo la traducción del término "ἐκκλησία", del hebreo "קָּהָל" (Deut 9.10) y he planteado la pregunta de por qué los traductores no usaron los términos "Iglesia" o "Church" en el AT en nuestras traducciones. La idea es plantear el problema de estudiar Griego sin comprender el trasfondo cultural. (Pude tomar cualquier otro término). Este trasfondo puede ser una profecía, un mandamiento, un poema, un giro idiomático, una parábola (mashal), un refrán, etc. etc. La lengua receptora puede aportar claridad, ampliando, explicando, pero jamás podrá volverse la fuente misma de lo que trata de explicar. Muchas palabras han pasado de ser traducidas a ser distorcionadas. (En español, Judás, de Judá; Santiago, de Jacob, etc) . . .

[Perdona mi Español. No tengo mucha oportunidad usarlo en estos dias.]

Ya entiendo su punto. Si, hay varios terminos y temas que depende del AT por su entendido. El que estudia el NT sin estudiar el AT, se emprobece de todas las riquezas que estan allí.

Pero, ni es tampoco posible entender el NT sin entender el idioma Griego. Por ejemplo, la palabra <<ἀγάπη>> casi no se usa en el LXX del AT. En el NT es una palabra de mucha importancia. El concepto de dones espirituales no se encuentra en el AT. Los oficios de la iglesia son muy distintas de los del templo y culto religioso del AT (aunque tienen ciertos paralelos en las sinagogas - no mencionados en el AT). Para entender que es un diácono en la iglesia Cristiana, el AT no se ayuda.

Es decir, hay continuidad y discontinuidad entre los testamentos.

Finalmente, siendo que el NT es escrito in el Griego, tenemos que tomar en serio el concepto de leerlo en el Griego. Y si hay solo un razón por estudiar el Griego este razón sera suficiente, en mi humilde opinión.

EDIT: clarificación de algunas ideas y correcciónes en mi uso de la lengua.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/296537#Comment_296537

"The New Testament frequently cites the Old, from centuries before. Now whenever people base on an ancient text, for a comprehension of their drift it matters little what that text means or, to put it more humbly, what we suppose it to mean; the key lies in what it means to them, which may be quite different." Is more, I guess, a stuff of priorities or hierarchy or stress in the importance of studying the Greek.

I would agree that Hebrew is important, as well as Greek. However, you can't get to the Hebrew mindset behind the Greek unless you first understand the Greek in which the New Testament was written. It was afterall written in Greek by people fluent enough in Greek to write it. Their culture had been influenced by the Greek language for 200 years. It is not just a matter of the Hebrew concepts behind the Greek words - which is important - but the Greek grammar used to express it. If you don't know what the Greek says, you sure aren't going to know what's behind it.

In addition, the Greek LXX is one of the most important tools to understand how the Jews understood the Old Testament. The LXX is far more important than most realize. It was the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles.

Apparently God must have thought Greek important since the New Testament is written in it.

Again, many never the privilege to study Greek. But to have the privilege and waste it means that the Bible is NOT important to you. I stand by that conviction.

Sarel Slabbert

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297287#Comment_297287

I studied both Hebrew and Greek and I do not think that every Christian must be able to read these languages, but they do offer certain advantages. If you have the opportunity to study Greek and Hebrew, do it. That said, with the current tools available, these languages are a lot more accessible than before.

The biggest advantage of studying Biblical Languages is that you learn to appreciate the intricacies of translating the Bible. Trying your hand at translating a piece of Greek and Hebrew really help you to understand how difficult it can be to translate certain passages. After even a rudimentary introduction to these languages you quickly develop a renewed appreciation for the different translation available. There really is a need for comparing and using different translation when studying the Bible. So although these languages is perhaps not necessary, it really helps a lot.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297306#Comment_297306

I studied both Hebrew and Greek and I do not think that every Christian must be able to read these languages

I would agree — as far as the statement goes. I would say, however, that anyone attempting to function as a minister/priest in a Christian church should be required to learn the languages. For a seminary to fail to require this or to fail to ascertain that a student has achieved a working knowledge of the languages is neglect of duty. It is perfectly acceptable for those who hold no official position in the churches to not understand them, but those who hold office in the church should know what they're talking about.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297312#Comment_297312

I would agree — as far as the statement goes. I would say, however, that anyone attempting to function as a minister/priest in a Christian church should be required to learn the languages. For a seminary to fail to require this or to fail to ascertain that a student has achieved a working knowledge of the languages is neglect of duty. It is perfectly acceptable for those who hold no official position in the churches to not understand them, but those who hold office in the church should know what they're talking about.

Your paragraph is a well-written statement and very easy to agree with. You set the standard for leaders at a nice place. But reality bites. Very few schools require church leaders to "master" Greek or even learn the Hebrew alphabet. Most denominations are having trouble filling positions with graduates who don't know the original languages. To pair a congregation with a minister they can afford who has had the time and funds to go through an education that included Greek & Hebrew... well, it is very difficult for both parties. I hope Logos facilitates a change in this situation.

[:#] I have my opinion on whether it is better to have an unqualified leader or no leader at all. But some churches will "settle" for less than ideal pastors. They have done this practice with deacons or elders for many decades. I think it has something to do with their level of respect for the duties of their pastor. With Logos Bible software coming on the scene in my lifetime, maybe it will help every Christian become a Bible student. I tried to learn Biblical Hebrew at Bible College, then at the University of Oklahoma, and again through extension. I'm still a neophyte but Dr. Heisler's videos did help me see how Logos can help. (I never had that much difficulty with Japanese, Russian, Spanish or German.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/297335#Comment_297335

I have my opinion on whether it is better to have an unqualified leader or no leader at all. But some churches will "settle" for less than ideal pastors. They have done this practice with deacons or elders for many decades. I think it has something to do with their level of respect for the duties of their pastor. With Logos Bible software coming on the scene in my lifetime, maybe it will help every Christian become a Bible student.

Part of the problem is that emphasis gets placed on absolute doctrinal correctness rather than the ability to read and understand the original texts. What are the most popular works published by Logos? I think you will find that they are theology (systematic) and sermons. The emphasis is upon conforming to the status quo in doctrine rather than being able to interpret the scriptures. Yet, supposedly Protestant churches are founded on fidelity to the scriptures while this tendency puts the lie to that notion.