Why are original languages important?

Hello Pilgrim Friends,

I have been doing a lot of contemplation on the importance of language studies in recent weeks. I'd like to get the thoughts of users in this forum. I for one believe that the study of original languages are quite important, and I'll give my few brief reasons below. I don't want to give too much of my view quite yet, as I want to hear everyone else's original ideas first.

Do you think the study of original languages is important? For pastors? For lay people? Why or why not?

How much emphasis should be placed on them?

My brief reasoning for why they are important are as follows:

1) Neglecting the original languages will progressively (and already has) dumbed down the culture of the church.

2) Pastors are held to a higher standard (James 3:1) and must be able to teach and preach the word as accurately as possible.

3) We must be able to defend the accuracy of the Word from error and deceit

4)Understanding the nuance and deeper meaning behind the texts (with the number of resources out there, such as a good concordance and key word numbered bible, even understanding the original words is possible for the average lay person)

5) Lack of original language knowledge may lead to lack of confidence in our understanding in the word, which may lead to a lack of confidence in preaching.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mike Childs

I believe my ole Hebrew instructor - Wade Paschal - said, "Hebrew and Greek are only important if you think the Bible is important."

However, a little bit of Hebrew or Greek knowledge only makes one dangerous. There is no short cut to learning Biblical languages. It takes dedicated study of grammar and vocabulary. It takes time. But it is worth it, and it can be done.

JT (alabama24)

Do you think the study of original languages is important? For pastors? For lay people? Why or why not?

Yes… it is important, but it isn't for everybody.

Pastors are held to a higher standard (James 3:1) and must be able to teach and preach the word as accurately as possible.

Yes… but: Not everyone is gifted in those areas. I'll freely admit, "It's all 'greek' to me." I come from a different perspective than our friend George S., but I think we would agree on this: there are many pastor's & laypeople who know just enough OL to get them into trouble. It would be better, in my opinion, for Pastor's & Laypeople to stick with good resources in their native language which interact with OL material.

Also, I'd like to point out that the NT seems to interact with the Septuagint… which is, of course, a translation. If it's good enough for Peter, good enough for Paul… (you know the rest).

We must be able to defend the accuracy of the Word from error and deceit

I'm not sure why knowledge of OL is necessary for a Pastor or Layperson to do that at an "everyman" level.

Understanding the nuance and deeper meaning behind the texts (with the number of resources out there, such as a good concordance and key word numbered bible, even understanding the original words is possible for the average lay person)

It never ceases to amaze me how many sermons erroneously talk about the power of God being like "dynamite," and speak on the "3 kinds of 'love'." It is important to understand the text, yes, but I don't buy into the "deeper meaning" aspect. A "Butterfly" is neither made from butter, nor is it a fly. [;)]

Lack of original language knowledge may lead to lack of confidence in our understanding in the word, which may lead to a lack of confidence in preaching.

I think for most people, it is the opposite… an overconfidence in the preacher's knowledge of OL.

Justin Cofer

Hello Pilgrim Friends,

I have been doing a lot of contemplation on the importance of language studies in recent weeks. I'd like to get the thoughts of users in this forum. I for one believe that the study of original languages are quite important, and I'll give my few brief reasons below. I don't want to give too much of my view quite yet, as I want to hear everyone else's original ideas first.

Do you think the study of original languages is important? For pastors? For lay people? Why or why not?

How much emphasis should be placed on them?

My brief reasoning for why they are important are as follows:

1) Neglecting the original languages will progressively (and already has) dumbed down the culture of the church.

2) Pastors are held to a higher standard (James 3:1) and must be able to teach and preach the word as accurately as possible.

3) We must be able to defend the accuracy of the Word from error and deceit

4)Understanding the nuance and deeper meaning behind the texts (with the number of resources out there, such as a good concordance and key word numbered bible, even understanding the original words is possible for the average lay person)

5) Lack of original language knowledge may lead to lack of confidence in our understanding in the word, which may lead to a lack of confidence in preaching.

Thoughts?

All good reasons. I would add that it is desirable for the pastor to be able to READ the text. All too often instruction by seminaries and bible colleges is aimed at giving access to commentaries and dictionaries rather than being able to somewhat fluently read the text. There are no shortcuts if one wants to fluently read the text. My experience is that the only way one can be fluent with the language is if you don't use an interlinear and if you READ, READ and READ some more. If you have put in the sweat and tears to plow through all those paradigms and vocabulary in beginning Greek, then READ! Don't lose your Greek!

Reading the NT in Koine Greek is beneficial for me:

(1) Because it slows me down and forces me to ask questions I wouldn't ask if I was reading in English.

(2) Because all translations involve interpretation on the part of the translator to one extent or another.

(3) Because as A.T. Robertson said, the actual NT is in Koine -- all else is translation. The source language (Greek) contains more than can be fully conveyed in the target language (English).

http://ntresources.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Robertson_MinGkTestament.pdf

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474207#Comment_474207

I come from a different perspective than our friend George S., but I think we would agree on this: there are many pastor's & laypeople who know just enough OL to get them into trouble. It would be better, in my opinion, for Pastor's & Laypeople to stick with good resources in their native language which interact with OL material.

I absolutely agree.

Also, I'd like to point out that the NT seems to interact with the Septuagint… which is, of course, a translation. If it's good enough for Peter, good enough for Paul… (you know the rest).

The NT authors wrote to Greek speaking people. (Perhaps Matthew was written in Aramaic first but that's disputed and is besides the point.) The point is that the audience of the NT was almost entirely, if not entirely, comprised of Greek speaking people. The fact that the authors quote the LXX is due to their audience. Their audience in many cases couldn't read Hebrew (particularly Paul's audiences). [;)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474207#Comment_474207

Basically, I agree with alabama24 that a little bit of knowledge of OL is a dangerous thing. Genuine knowledge is very useful but generally not gained in a couple of years.

BTW I don't agree with alabama on football.

Rich DeRuiter

Hello Pilgrim Friends,

I have been doing a lot of contemplation on the importance of language studies in recent weeks. I'd like to get the thoughts of users in this forum. I for one believe that the study of original languages are quite important, and I'll give my few brief reasons below. I don't want to give too much of my view quite yet, as I want to hear everyone else's original ideas first.

Do you think the study of original languages is important? For pastors? For lay people? Why or why not?

How much emphasis should be placed on them?

As others have said, some have used a "knowledge" of the original languages to say what the Bible doesn't say. Others will make use of the original languages in a way that makes people distrust all translations. There are probably some other ways that people use original languages badly.

But people use hammers badly, and paint, and computers. The problem isn't the tool, but how it's used.

I think one's interest in the original languages of the Bible is related in some way to how important one thinks it is, and how carefully it should be read. With Logos, one doesn't have to have a thorough working knowledge of the original language to still benefit greatly from what we can find here. There is gold to be mined in the original languages that is worth the dig.

Since I speak more than one language, I know from experience how difficult translating can be, and how imperfect it often is. That has motivated me to be more careful about looking at the original text.

But none of that is an excuse for not taking the work of translators very, very seriously. Amateurs should not quickly disagree with the experts.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474214#Comment_474214

The NT authors wrote to Greek speaking people. (Perhaps Matthew was written in Aramaic first but that's disputed and is besides the point.) The point is that the audience of the NT was almost entirely, if not entirely, comprised of Greek speaking people. The fact that the authors quote the LXX is due to their audience. Their audience in many cases couldn't read Hebrew (particularly Paul's audiences).

Yep. And our audiences don't read or speak Hebrew or Greek. [;)] Paul (and other NT authors) didn't have to use the Septuagint, unless they 1) didn't have access to Hebrew manuscripts <or> 2) couldn't read & write in Hebrew. The fact that they did use it, makes me much more comfortable in my position. [:)]

Again, for clarity, I strongly agree that the "Church" (universal, not necessarily local), absolutely needs people to be strong in original language research.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474233#Comment_474233

BTW I don't agree with alabama on football.

Do you root for Purple & Gold? [:)]

(I believe it is good to root for the "local" team, so I consider myself a fan of a number of teams I have lived in proximity to.)

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474234#Comment_474234

But none of that is an excuse for not taking the work of translators very, very seriously. Amateurs should not quickly disagree with the experts.

Agreed. This is also why I choose to look at a number of translations before I speak. When doing so, however, the preacher/teacher must resist the temptation to use the translation that "says what they want it to say."

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474237#Comment_474237

I agree with Alabama's basic points.

I also think it's a bit of an over-statement to say early Christians 'spoke greek'. Certainly greek was a lingua franca, but if you read a lot of Ramsay's work in Roman 'Asia', as well as Josephus' attempts, it's much more likely the bulk of humanity had traditional languages with greek as a second at the town square.

The point of this is 'understandability' ... as one moves across the languages simplicity is paramount.

Most of our Logos resources are in english vs greek/hebrew. Most of Christianity's wild growth isn't.

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474235#Comment_474235

Yep. And our audiences don't read or speak Hebrew or Greek.

Agreed. Which is why English speaking churches are so blessed to have so many translations.

Paul (and other NT authors) didn't have to use the Septuagint, unless they 1) didn't have access to Hebrew manuscripts <or> 2) couldn't read & write in Hebrew.

I haven't researched it, but I highly doubt Paul being a Pharisee couldn't read & write Hebrew, or even be able to quote from memory various OT passages in Hebrew. But he was the apostle to the Gentiles and since they spoke Greek, he used the LXX. I am by no means arguing the translations are invalid, only that the apostle's use of the LXX does not mean that the study of the Hebrew language is irrelevant and unnecessary. I don't believe that at all.

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474251#Comment_474251

it's much more likely the bulk of humanity had traditional languages with greek as a second at the town square.

I agree.

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474234#Comment_474234

But none of that is an excuse for not taking the work of translators very, very seriously. Amateurs should not quickly disagree with the experts.

Agreed. I teach a beginning Greek class, and I have said to them that "if you come up with a translation that has no support from any experts (who have spent their lives studying the subject and can in Greek speak/think/write/translate circles around you) --- well, you're wrong." [:)]

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474253#Comment_474253

I didn't mean to imply that Paul didn't read & speak Hebrew... I think he did! My point was that he didn't have to use the Septuagint to quote Scripture (he could have used his own translation), but he did.

I think we are mostly agreeing [:)]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474256#Comment_474256

Bits from above

Ben Hein
1) Neglecting the original languages will progressively (and already has) dumbed down the culture of the church.
>> Yes

>>Those resources gets us into the Ballpark. But they just might put us on the 50 Yard line of an American Football field when we should be playing Baseball. [insert your own sports]

Michael Childs
Wade Paschal - said, "Hebrew and Greek are only important if you think the Bible is important."

alabama24
Yes… it is important, but it isn't for everybody.

MJ. Smith
Basically, I agree with alabama24 that a little bit of knowledge of OL is a dangerous thing. Genuine knowledge is very useful but generally not gained in a couple of years.

>> We need the experts that we trust. A few years back I went through the LXX and the Majority Text [in English] with a Greek scholar at the Translator level. Not verse by verse but he was there to help and that was interesting. [I reviewed his translation and, occasionally, was useful to him]

alabama24
he didn't have to use the Septuagint to quote Scripture (he could have used his own translation), but he did.

>>I always wonder what the Textual Critics of that time had to say about the difference between the LXX and the Hebrew text accepted in about 150 ad by the Jews.

[Sorry if I skipped your favorite line but could not quote every one]

Lee

My views:

A good knowledge of original languages, enough to inform exegesis directly from original languages with minimal aid, is only for a small segment of Christians, whether lay or titled/appointed. The specialists should be given all the respect and the expectations in line with their expertise.
On a macro level, the larger struggle is getting the Christian public and the unsaved to apply what we already know from the not-so-perfect translations.
Frequently, leaders and teachers who pepper their material with so-called insights from the original languages, do so without a firm grasp and commit errors that could have been avoided had they merely stuck to their translated text.

1) Neglecting the original languages will progressively (and already has) dumbed down the culture of the church.

In response : I do not think that this proposition stands. The causation is much more complicated than that, for instance, the effect of the media, factors in modern society ... The CAUSE may be the EFFECT.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474256#Comment_474256

I didn't mean to imply that Paul didn't read & speak Hebrew... I think he did! My point was that he didn't have to use the Septuagint to quote Scripture (he could have used his own translation), but he did.

I think we are mostly agreeing

Which translation was that?

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474295#Comment_474295

Which translation was that?

R4M - By the statement "he could have used his own translation," I didn't mean to imply that anyone had created their own version. My intent was to convey that if the NT authors had felt they must stay in the "original language text," they didn't have to use the LXX... But they did.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474295#Comment_474295

After years of studying Greek my professor concluded by saying "Congratulations on finishing all these courses but beware of being proud. Even though you have a basic knowledge of Greek realize that any Christian with some basic Bible study training, three good translations and the help of the Holy Spirit can arrive at the meaning of the text as well as you".

Over the years I have often thought back to these words as a sobering reminder. Original language study is good but we must be careful that it doesn't lead to pride, thinking that we are better than those who don't have the skill.

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474256#Comment_474256

I think we are mostly agreeing

Agreed. lol [:D]

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474304#Comment_474304

After years of studying Greek my professor concluded by saying "Congratulations on finishing all these courses but beware of being proud. Even though you have a basic knowledge of Greek realize that any Christian with some basic Bible study training, three good translations and the help of the Holy Spirit can arrive at the meaning of the text as well as you".

Over the years I have often thought back to these words as a sobering reminder. Original language study is good but we must be careful that it doesn't lead to pride, thinking that we are better than those who don't have the skill.

Training in Greek mostly comes in handy when the translations differ. With a little bit of training, the pastor can know if the difference is a grammatical, lexical or textual criticism issue. The pastor is also more qualified to understand the underlying arguments for why each of the translations committees differ and be able to make an informed stand on the issue.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474338#Comment_474338

I wonder if training in the languages has a different benefit ... training the discipline of the mind. Languages are unforgiving.

I say that looking back at our previous discussion on 'classical education'. In another world, I spend much time learning Japanese instruments (koto/shakuhachi), and the teachers are very unforgiving ('disdainful') on not knowing the basics. Playing well isn't the point.

Sometimes I think that's George's point. Disciplined learning.

Fred Chapman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474338#Comment_474338

I would not say I use Logos for the purpose of trying to learn original languages as much as I use the language tools as a way to better understand the intent of the original author. As one user said, it helps to slow me down a little and have original intent illuminated; while eliminating the possibilities, and maybe even tendencies to try and substitute modern culture and knowledge with the intent of the author. As Bama cited, no biblical author ever intended to convey to his readers that God's love was like dynamite.

By the way M.J. ROLL TIDE! [;)]

Justin Cofer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474342#Comment_474342

Sometimes I think that's George's point. Disciplined learning.

Definitely.

Ben Hein

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474352#Comment_474352

There have been many good points here. I think we can all agree that someone with OL knowledge, whether a small amount or a large amount, can easily abuse it by becoming proud, believing they're in their own league of Christian, or thinking they're always right and everyone else is wrong.

However, the fear of people abusing the gift and knowledge of OL understanding should not propel us away from encouraging a deep study of the OL.

One poster said that it is necessary for there to be Language "experts" in the Universal church, but not necessarily in the local church. I'm going to agree and disagree - definitely they need to exist in the universal church, but I believe they also need to exist in our local church.

For example, we are losing countless people from our flocks to men in white shirts and black ties showing up at our doorsteps saying "Jesus is not THE God, he is just A god, look, John 1:1 doesn't have the definite article". Or professors in our colleges saying "There is no literal consistency between the authors of the New Testament, none of Paul's letters can even be shown to be of the same writing style let alone writer". Pastors, elders, members, are we prepared to defend these errors from creeping into our church and leading people astray?

What about churches with pastors who have had absolutely no language studies and are running away with their own translations of the texts - probably from their own amalgam of their favorite English translations - and no one on staff or in the church can come to them and clearly point out their erroneous teachings?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474379#Comment_474379

Well Ben, not trying to disagree per se. But most of the people I run into that 'walked' did it relative to hypocracy. 'Do what I say ... not what I .... '. One can argue all day long about 'sinfulness' but placing oneself 'last' always avoids the problem.

A gentlemen came over to replace our water softener. It turned out he was a Christian but had just 'walked' from another denomination and was favoring the one we attend. I didn't try to advocate for 'our' denomination. Rather, what disappointed him, since he had grown up and enjoyed his previous denomination. Sadly his wife died this last week; I hope he'll rediscover his old haunts.

I'm carefully avoiding 'which' denomination(s). But arguments on 'words' are often about claims which have no solution. Indeed I have large databases on syntactical patterns in Paul's epistles and which segments clearly don't line up. I've often wondered why. But I don't expect a solution any time soon.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/474379#Comment_474379

One poster said that it is necessary for there to be Language "experts" in the Universal church, but not necessarily in the local church. I'm going to agree and disagree - definitely they need to exist in the universal church, but I believe they also need to exist in our local church.

For example, we are losing countless people from our flocks to men in white shirts and black ties showing up at our doorsteps saying "Jesus is not THE God, he is just A god, look, John 1:1 doesn't have the definite article". Or professors in our colleges saying "There is no literal consistency between the authors of the New Testament, none of Paul's letters can even be shown to be of the same writing style let alone writer". Pastors, elders, members, are we prepared to defend these errors from creeping into our church and leading people astray?

What about churches with pastors who have had absolutely no language studies and are running away with their own translations of the texts - probably from their own amalgam of their favorite English translations - and no one on staff or in the church can come to them and clearly point out their erroneous teachings?

The problems of local churches are not necessarily the sort of problems that can and ought to be solved at the local church level. A great deal depends on the specifics of the local church. http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/minority_report_know_your_limits_the_key_secret_of_theological_controv (available in Logos) expresses a view that I tend to agree with.

Just to clarify, in my first response to this thread I was not advocating that only experts can touch the original languages. Also, I wasn't saying that experts are infallible and inviolable. I was making the point that experts are experts, and they should be given the kind of respect and expectation befitting that status. A lot of trouble can be avoided if we let experts be experts, instead of assuming that since we have a lot of information, we are automatically in a position to judge what is right and what is not. Believe me when I say that I've been there. Humility is a virtue.