Is Hebrew or Greek more important?

The one thing I might add is that if you are a native English speaker, Greek might be marginally easier. Both Greek and English are Indo-European languages, the Greek alphabet is closer to the one we use, and the phonetic system is closer. I personally found Hebrew more of a challenge than greek because it was just a bit more foreign from English.

Having said that, you can absolutely do either one if you put the effort into it.

Hi Christopher,

I wouldn't consider one language more valuable than the other. That said, as one who began learning the biblical languages with Koine Greek, if I were to go back almost ten years, I would start this time with Hebrew (internalizing it as a real language from the outset!). I'd do this in part because of the general neglect of the OT at least for some Christians and churches (as you already suggested). Studying Hebrew means spending a lot of time in the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures, which provides a strong foundation for more intensive study of the Greek NT Scriptures. The NT authors generally assume that their audiences have background in the Tanakh. If you lack that, you'll miss a lot! That said, such benefits can go both ways in some respects.

A second reason would be the vast number of resources for learning biblical and modern Hebrew and the relatively close connection between biblical and modern Hebrew—although they certainly have their differences. If you really want to achieve higher levels of fluency, it's arguably easier to do so, going further and faster, with Hebrew (assuming that you avail yourself of the best resources). Developing fluency in one language will make it easier to do the same in another language. This too goes both ways, but I think Hebrew probably has some unique advantages here.

Third, I personally find it easier to keep up with my NT reading while studying Hebrew than my OT reading while studying Koine Greek, due largely to the sheer size of the OT but also the simple time investment of language learning. That said, if I had sought aural and verbal fluency from the get-go, this wouldn't have been as much of a problem. Either way, if you can build a strong foundation in Hebrew (or Greek), so that you use it day in and day out, then that'll free up more time for learning Greek (or Hebrew). Your mileage may vary!

Regardless, if you or anyone has the means, desire, and opportunity to learn one or more of the biblical languages, then, Lord willing, go for it! May God bless your studies!

You can find some other considerations and recommendations in these recent threads (from me and others):

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/151448/927046.aspx#927046

https://community.logos.com/forums/p/76863/929148.aspx#929148 

Hebrew is infinitely more important, mainly because there is so much prophecy locked into the Hebrew language that doesn't translate. There is prophecy in Greek as well, but it isn't as obscure and, because it is much more on the surface, it is generally easier to access with some basic skills in Greek. That said, Greek prophecy is only comprehensible is its subsequent relation to Hebrew prophecy, so we're back to the primacy of Hebrew.

Also, I don't agree that Greek is easier than Hebrew. I got further on my own in Greek, but after two classes of Hebrew, it was pretty much all downhill. The syntax of Hebrew is FAR, FAR more like English than Greek. Check out the LGNT and check out the numbering of the English RI to see what I mean.

As you know and others have mentioned, and as I will repeat, learning both is the way to go. The interconnectedness of the Old and New Testaments are such that learning both will open up quite a bit of exegetical insight. 

However, if I were to recommend one, I would recommend Greek. 

(1) The amount of linguistic research and material available for Koine Greek is vast compared to Hebrew, such that your study of it and you in-depth word studies will be much more insightful. 
(2) The NT writers mostly quoted from the Greek OT so that your research into the intertextuality of the NT and OT will be opened up due to your proficiency with Greek
(3) There are a lot more resources and helps for getting the Greek down. Not only books, vocab guides, parsing guides, but also online resources to help you "keep your Greek." 

As Denise has said, "nailing" down any foreign language will be a task in itself. It takes years. Considering the amount of commitment needed to get the basic grammar down and the additional years to have a feel for the more complex morphological and syntactical issues, going with Greek will be better because of all the resources available to help you along your way. 

Blessings. Hope your dive into the languages will be as rewarding for you as it has been for me! 

Let’s not forget, the LXX is the oldest available Bible.  That young hebrew whipper-snapper depends on some old syntax, vocab, and spellings to appear  more old-ish.

On the other hand, the greek language came from hebrew (per ancient jewish scholars), so it looks like a 50-50 problem.

Both are important for studying/research purposes, but not to be saved. IMHO Greek would be more important to me as even Jesus, His disciples and Paul quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testamen). But, then again, if I had the time to study Hebrew more in-depth, I definitely would.

👍😁👌

DAL said:

Jesus, His disciples and Paul quoted from the Septuagint

That the first-century disciples used the LXX especially in light of the needs of the Diaspora and Gentile mission, no doubt about this. This is certainly true of Paul and Luke in Acts, as of the rest of the NT. 

Did Jesus "quote" the LXX? That's a different question. Although a case can be made that Jesus might have been multilingual (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), it is not easy to determine for sure whether He used Greek in His teaching and preaching. Certainly one would tend to think that Aramaic is more likely and possibly Hebrew (for instance when reading the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue). Likewise, there have been endless and inconclusive debates about the rest of the words of Jesus. Was the Sermon on the Mount delivered in Greek? That seems unlikely. 

So then we can only say with assurance that the evangelists used the LXX. 

The other question is what does NT usage prove? Does it make the LXX "inspired" or reliable? When a preacher uses the NIV, I suppose that it implies that it is considered reliable enough to be used for that purpose. That the translation of the NIV is thereby believed to be inspired and as dependable as the original texts it translates goes well beyond what can be safely affirmed. 

It gets really interesting when a passage from the LXX which differs significantly in wording from the Hebrew is quoted in a NT passage that we believe to be "inspired". But of course 1 Enoch and other sources (cf. Acts 17:28) do not become "Scripture" or "true" in an "inspired" sense just because they are quoted in the NT. 

I know this is a bit off-track, but I am reacting to the idea that one can get more of Scriptures by learning Greek because they can read both the NT and LXX. The LXX is not a substitute for the Hebrew OT.

Francis said:

Denise said:

That young hebrew whipper-snapper depends on some old syntax, vocab, and spellings to appear  more old-ish.

Do you mean the MT? There are DSS that antedate the LXX.

I was careful to use the word 'Bible'. Now, some squeaky-clean historian might point out the absense of 'Bibles' until well after Jesus. Even He had to appeal to Moses or David.

Also, I'd assume the LXX is superior to the hebrew, if only to correctly support the NT (and Paul's appeal to hebrew expertise, was only to demonstrate the truly bad path he had chosen earlier).

Matt Hamrick said:

Denise said:

Francis said:

Denise said:

That young hebrew whipper-snapper depends on some old syntax, vocab, and spellings to appear  more old-ish.

Do you mean the MT? There are DSS that antedate the LXX.

I was careful to use the word 'Bible'. Now, some squeaky-clean historian might point out the absense of 'Bibles' until well after Jesus. Even He had to appeal to Moses or David.

Also, I'd assume the LXX is superior to the hebrew, if only to correctly support the NT (and Paul's appeal to hebrew expertise, was only to demonstrate the truly bad path he had chosen earlier).

The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. No translation is superior.

Translations are just as good since many people have been saved by the gospel that was presented through a translation.  Though there are nuances, you can still teach people how to be saved from a translation.  We still have the Word of God, even though is a translation.  If you claim that no translation is superior you're basically implying that people received a watered-down version of the Gospel and hence, with less power to save or no power at all.

From an academic standpoint, scholars may think that no translation is superior, but God begs to differ, because, through His providence, He has made sure we get everything that pertains to life and godliness through a translation or so called "original language."

If I tell a Spanish speaking student "Siéntate" and I tell an English speaking student "Sit down" what result will I get? They will both sit down.  It would have to be an extreme mistranslation if I tell them both to sit down, but the english speaking student all of the sudden started running...LOL...so yes, there are nuances, but we still have God's Word with us whether in English, Spanish, Hebrew or Greek.

Blessings!

DAL 

DAL said:

Matt Hamrick said:

Denise said:

Francis said:

Denise said:

That young hebrew whipper-snapper depends on some old syntax, vocab, and spellings to appear  more old-ish.

Do you mean the MT? There are DSS that antedate the LXX.

I was careful to use the word 'Bible'. Now, some squeaky-clean historian might point out the absense of 'Bibles' until well after Jesus. Even He had to appeal to Moses or David.

Also, I'd assume the LXX is superior to the hebrew, if only to correctly support the NT (and Paul's appeal to hebrew expertise, was only to demonstrate the truly bad path he had chosen earlier).

The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. No translation is superior.

Translations are just as good since many people have been saved by the gospel that was presented through a translation.  Though there are nuances, you can still teach people how to be saved from a translation.  We still have the Word of God, even though is a translation.  If you claim that no translation is superior you're basically implying that people received a watered-down version of the Gospel and hence, with less power to save or no power at all.

From an academic standpoint, scholars may think that no translation is superior, but God begs to differ, because, through His providence, He has made sure we get everything that pertains to life and godliness through a translation or so called "original language."

If I tell a Spanish speaking student "Siéntate" and I tell an English speaking student "Sit down" what result will I get? They will both sit down.  It would have to be an extreme mistranslation if I tell them both to sit down, but the english speaking student all of the sudden started running...LOL...so yes, there are nuances, but we still have God's Word with us whether in English, Spanish, Hebrew or Greek.

Blessings!

DAL 

We will always differ, I won't argue against our translations because they serve a purpose. But learning biblical languages for those nuances you say is always better. I am no Hebrew or Greek scholar and I read English translations more than Greek or Hebrew, but translations always take something from the text. It's why all English translations differ. I can say no translation is superior to the biblical language and I am not implying anything against our translations. But I will still say, the biblical language is far superior to translations.

christopher Adam said:

I won't be able to nail both languages down anytime soon and would love to focus on one language for the time being. I love the OT and I want to bring its depth to light but as a preacher Its hard to ignore the NT greek. Which language, in your experience, as been more beneficial in understanding Jesus and the Bible etc...

In my seminary there were only 2 quarters of basic Hebrew & 3 quarters of basic Greek. Each series was followed by an exegesis class. If we really wanted to go further, there was an intermediate class in each, & in Greek there was also a classical Greek class. 

That said, for me Hebrew was MUCH more labor intensive. Greek was logical enough I could use conventional study methods to learn. Hebrew made no sense to me, & in the exegesis class I ended up studying 40hr / week (our prof was a world-ranked scholar who told us we'd have an oral final on any one of the passages we'd worked up in the semester).

Although I made A's in all my language classes (thank you Lord), the Hebrew classes took a lot more work. If time is limited, I'd start with Greek. I worked full time through my seminary journey. If time isn't an issue, I'd flip a coin. You'll need both. The longer I study, the more I find that the God of the OT is the God of the NT, & God hasn't changed. There's just as much wrath coming from Jesus' lips (& scarier) as there is from any OT prophet. And the stories of God's grace started in the OT when God rescued Israel BEFORE He gave them the law. Besides, the prophecies about Jesus are all in the OT. You're gonna need both to understand the whole Scripture.

That background brings me to the point. I went thru seminary with Logos & my laptop in every class. I took notes on the laptop. I used Logos with all its language tools in every language class. Why? I knew going in at 55yo that I'd never remember all that I was learning. I planned from the outset to master the language tools in Logos instead. Right-click, left-click? I have a hope of remembering that for 20 or 30 years, long past when my initial language skills have gotten rusty. What I'm finding now, 12 years later, is that Logos has kept me in better touch with the languages than any other effort could've, given that I've been a solo pastor in small churches for the 12 years. 

Blessings on your educational journey.

Of course, it depends upon what text one is studying.  But this is what I have done, and it has served me well as a busy pastor.

Study both Hebrew and Greek in seminary.  Get proficient enough in both so that you understand what the critical commentaries are talking about when they discuss language issues.  

Put your emphasis upon Greek, as the New Testament is written in Greek.  Work with your Greek every few days, at least.  (Not so much the Hebrew, but stay proficient enough to understand the critical commentary discussions.)  Keep growing in your understanding and use of Greek.  Keep proficient enough in Hebrew to understand and use the best commentaries.

You will be blessed.

By the way, I did not find Hebrew harder than Greek, or vice versa.  

Both the NT and OT are in Greek. The LXX was usually/often quoted in the NT, including by Jesus himself. One language gives you access to both testaments, whereas Hebrew gives you access to one. A basic knowledge  of Hebrew is useful but using Greek, you can do topical and word studies throughout the entire Bible, not so with Hebrew. The LXX is an authoritative translation.

What type of ministry are you preparing for? In many countries of the world, you need another modern language, not a "dead" one to communicate the gospel. The Chinese Bible most often used and available to over a billion people was translated from the English Revised version, not the OL. Spending 40 hours a week learning Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek is going to have very little impact on your ability to win souls for the kingdom of God. 

"Ever studying but never coming to a knowledge of the Truth." Don't go there

Gao Lu said:

On the other hand, if you study Greek, you have the LXX, which means you can read it all, including the OT from a later Hebrew perspective. 

Matt Hamrick said:

The LXX is a translation of the Hebrew. No translation is superior.

A translation of the LXX into English differs from a translation of the current MT into English.  

Is the LXX a bad translation of the MT or is it a translation of an earlier Hebrew text?

Or does the LXX represent a latter text as Gao Lu suggests. 

My “feeling” is that the text under the LXX is an earlier Hebrew text. Maybe going back to before the Babylonian captivity?

BillS said:

I knew going in at 55yo

That is an encouragement to me!  You have no idea. 

Im 40, and thinking I will be through with all my schooling just in time for retirement.

Hi,

The idea that Greek is more important for exegesis can be a bit misleading. In order to parse out the Paul/James faith/works dilemma, you'll need a hebraic understanding of James, as well as the other non-Pauline epistles. Having that Hebraic background will actually lead you to conclude that James indeed supports Pauline faith/works complement. There are also Aramaic idioms (like the phrase "to divide the word") that only make sense if you have Imperial Aramaic under your belt and have read something like Targum Onkelos and compared with the Masoretic. (Here is a nugget, to "divide a word" in the Targums means to correctly interpret and explain the text.) Murky areas even in the New Testament become forefronted and clear once you are well acquainted with Hebrew and Hebraic thought. The divorce of Hebrew and the Old Testament from the New has been sadly to the detriment of New Testament scholarship, and many in recent years have noticed that and worked to bridge the gap. However mainstream christendom still has scores of years to catch up.

Edwin Mendez said:

There are also Aramaic idioms (like the phrase "to divide the word") that only make sense if you have Imperial Aramaic under your belt and have read something like Targum Onkelos and compared with the Masoretic. (Here is a nugget, to "divide a word" in the Targums means to correctly interpret and explain the text.)

Pretty sure this is bogus...as in, Rabbinic but not factual. This is one of the rabbis' clubs and Jedi mind tricks used to support their claim to be the final word in interpretation. Ol' George tried to make this argument once a few years back, but I've since encountered evidence that it isn't accurate--don't remember exactly where. I think it was in one of the meatier lexicons, but it might have been a website.

David Paul said:

]

Think that has no prophetic significance? 

No, it doesn’t! And if Hebrew or Greek were so sacred why are you transliterating? You should write things in Hebrew or Greek, not equivalent transliterations which some write one way and others another way.  The fact that scholars have to guess how to pronounce a lot of words in both languages is proof enough that no one is required to know OL.

Do you speak Hebrew or Greek? I’m probably sure you don’t, but even if you did, why preach in English if speaking Hebrew or Greek was so necessary your salvation depended on it?

Knowing Greek or Hebrew might help but is not a must know thing required by God himself for you to be pleasing to Him.

DAL

DAL said:

Knowing Greek or Hebrew might help but is not a must know thing required by God himself for you to be pleasing to Him.

Conceptually, I'd agree ... but I don't know of any denoms that do, including your own (and my former). If you list out most denom's creeds ('we believe'), most are not to be found in the text, but rather built over-top subsequent greek theologies moved into later 'systematic theologies' for additional help.

Since I have undergraduate degrees in Greek and Archaeology, I have a definite bias toward Greek.  My usual first step in NT exegesis is do my own translation of the passage and then compare that translation to my top 5 or so translation.  This process allows me to more fully comprehend the passage and  I only refer to commentaries and monograph after I have fully formulated my thoughts around the passage.

Having said that, I look forward to studying Hebrew to meet the language requirement for my MDIV program.  My bottom line is that I am glad that I studied Greek, including Classical, first but I look forward to being at a place where I can go through this process for passages in both the OT and NT.  I consider the study of both Greek and Hebrew as essential.

DAL said:

Bottom line, if you’re in ministry it won’t hurt to know at least the basics of Greek and Hebrew, but if you’re a lay person, then is not required to be well pleasing to God which has been my point all along

I probably felt the same way when I didn't know Hebrew or Greek, but having learned them to the extent I have, I don't feel comfortable agreeing with that statement any longer. It could be true, in some cases, maybe...but I have doubts. It's not that reading the Bible solely in English or some other non-autograph language is incapable of getting your head where it needs to be, but practically, it just doesn't.