1st Century Greek
Re: 1st Century Greek
The other issue I have with the 'you should/must learn Greek' crowd is that it seems to me a very individualistic sort of idea. I'm of the persuasion that God has gifted the vast array of His people in distinct ways. Though there are probably not an innumerable amount of gifts, there is certainly truth in declaring that every Christian is gifted differently (because gifts are affected by our backgrounds, personality, and mixture with other gifts).
In other words, I liken the statement that 'to study the Bible, you have to know Greek' to a statement that to sing I have to be a soprano... or to play in the NFL I have to be a quarterback.
We are a body. All of us should be people of the word. A small percentage of those people will have access to the original language in which the Bible was written. Those people play an important role for in helping the rest of us, who do not excel in that area, to improve our own study of the word. Likewise, those non-Greek experts excel in areas that the Greek experts surely don't.
The same is true for the step beyond studying, namely, teaching. Most of the commentators, that know Greek, are terrible teachers. I've listened to them! They often don't bring the text to life. They often don't find useful ways to apply Scripture. They don't illustrate truth like Jesus did. This is not their fault, they have been given different, though still valuable gifts.
God can certainly use a non-Greek expert whom He has gifted to teach to take the conclusions of Greek-experts and communicate it to a congregation. We all work together as the body of Christ. It is a temptation to think that everyone in the body of Christ should share our passions and gifts, one that should be resisted.
In other words, I liken the statement that 'to study the Bible, you have to know Greek' to a statement that to sing I have to be a soprano... or to play in the NFL I have to be a quarterback.
We are a body. All of us should be people of the word. A small percentage of those people will have access to the original language in which the Bible was written. Those people play an important role for in helping the rest of us, who do not excel in that area, to improve our own study of the word. Likewise, those non-Greek experts excel in areas that the Greek experts surely don't.
The same is true for the step beyond studying, namely, teaching. Most of the commentators, that know Greek, are terrible teachers. I've listened to them! They often don't bring the text to life. They often don't find useful ways to apply Scripture. They don't illustrate truth like Jesus did. This is not their fault, they have been given different, though still valuable gifts.
God can certainly use a non-Greek expert whom He has gifted to teach to take the conclusions of Greek-experts and communicate it to a congregation. We all work together as the body of Christ. It is a temptation to think that everyone in the body of Christ should share our passions and gifts, one that should be resisted.
Re: 1st Century Greek
I'm sure it's indeed a gift to become a "Greek expert". I'm far from that, and yet what I have learned from studying koine Greek has helped me immensely in understanding the New Testament. I can look at presentations of various positions of those who have studied from translations and have depended on "resources" and find that sometimes the Greek makes their positions untenable.
When one attends an elementary school in Canada, everyone studies French (even though the majority will never use it in conversation). Few become "experts" but everyone learns something (which hopefully will allow them to understand written French when necessary or at least get the gist of it.) Every serious Bible student ought to study Greek. Even a little bit helps. I don't agree with the premise, "A little knowledge of Greek is dangerous." There is nothing dangerous about learning a little of any language. If a Greek beginner makes a mistake, there is always someone there to correct him, and we can gain in confidence when we exegete a passage of scripture.
The majority of us do not study Greek for self-aggrandization, but only that we may better understand the New Testament and share some of our discoveries with others.
We may be heavily involved with ministry and other Christian activities, but a little bit of serious Greek study each day will eventually bear fruit.
When one attends an elementary school in Canada, everyone studies French (even though the majority will never use it in conversation). Few become "experts" but everyone learns something (which hopefully will allow them to understand written French when necessary or at least get the gist of it.) Every serious Bible student ought to study Greek. Even a little bit helps. I don't agree with the premise, "A little knowledge of Greek is dangerous." There is nothing dangerous about learning a little of any language. If a Greek beginner makes a mistake, there is always someone there to correct him, and we can gain in confidence when we exegete a passage of scripture.
The majority of us do not study Greek for self-aggrandization, but only that we may better understand the New Testament and share some of our discoveries with others.
We may be heavily involved with ministry and other Christian activities, but a little bit of serious Greek study each day will eventually bear fruit.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: 1st Century Greek
Paidion wrote:studying koine Greek has helped me immensely in understanding the New Testament.
No doubt! None of my statements should be taken as indicating that the study of Greek is bad or that those who study Greek should be held in suspicion. Indeed, I quite agree that the more Greek one knows the better when it comes to studying the Bible!
I am sure. Of course, sometimes this is not so much a result of the failure of the "resources" as, perhaps, the failure of the researcher either not reading his resources carefully or choosing sub-standard resources. On the other hand, those who know koine Greek well are subject to mistakes also.I can look at presentations of various positions of those who have studied from translations and have depended on "resources" and find that sometimes the Greek makes their positions untenable.
I would say, instead, that no serious Bible student should be opposed to the study of Greek. Or simply that 'every little bit' of Greek knowledge helps. But when you say 'every serious Bible student ought to study Greek'... I think you go too far. I know too many Christians who love God's word and no next to nothing about Greek. And yet, God's word is working in their lives because they are more like Christ for their studies. What's important is that parts of the body of Christ study Greek and lend aid to the rest.When one attends an elementary school in Canada, everyone studies French (even though the majority will never use it in conversation). Few become "experts" but everyone learns something (which hopefully will allow them to understand written French when necessary or at least get the gist of it.) Every serious Bible student ought to study Greek. Even a little bit helps.
The phrase 'a little knowledge of Greek is dangerous' is only true for the person who has a little knowledge and considers that they have a lot resulting in authoritative statements. I agree that there is nothing dangerous about learning a little of any language. It is a good thing!I don't agree with the premise, "A little knowledge of Greek is dangerous." There is nothing dangerous about learning a little of any language. If a Greek beginner makes a mistake, there is always someone there to correct him, and we can gain in confidence when we exegete a passage of scripture.
Exactly! But there's be no need to 'share' if everyone 'ought' to do it themselves. When we include that 'ought' we tend toward an arrogance (not saying you are arrogant) because we believe those we share with are lazy and ought to have done this work themselves.The majority of us do not study Greek for self-aggrandization, but only that we may better understand the New Testament and share some of our discoveries with others.
I agree with this statement as it stands. A little bit of serious Greek study each day will eventually bear fruit. But if the suggestion is that everyone 'ought' to be doing this, I disagree again. We are a body and we each have our roles. There are hundreds of things that it would be good to invest in, even if little by little. The church depends on individuals each selecting a few such things and sharing those things with the body.We may be heavily involved with ministry and other Christian activities, but a little bit of serious Greek study each day will eventually bear fruit.
Re: 1st Century Greek
2 more thoughts that I didn't want to include above b/c they are not direct responses to Paidion
1. Bible teachers who do not know Greek should be honest with their students about this. They should verbally express their appreciation for those in the body who do know Greek well and demonstrate a serious utilization of resources made by such people. Such teachers (and really all teachers) should also speak cautiously about conclusions regarding texts that have disputed translations. Room should be left for possible misunderstanding.
2. I sense, from time to time, the same problem in the 'you must know Greek' crowd as I do in the 'KJV-Only' crowd or in Muslims in general. There is a natural human desire for certainty in looking for God's Word. KJV-Onlyists, Muslims, and You-Must-Know-Greek people share in common this desire for a very neat and tidy communication from God to man. This purity is attained if God directly inspired the KJV, or if Muhammad received the Quran directly from Allah, or if I can learn the language God's Word originally came in.
But the reality is just messier than such people are willing to live with. Communication between God and man is inevitably messy. Indeed, the best ever communication between God and man began with a bloody, crying baby in the arms of a rejected teenage girl. It is not easy. Communication from God to man includes language, which already uses metaphors to get at things that aren't quite what the metaphors suggest. To stay on topic, let's talk specifically about the Greek NT. Even if we learn it at an expert level... how pure is the process? Think of these points:
1. Jesus most likely didn't talk in Greek, so the Gospels are already translations from one language to another.
2. Quotes of Jesus in the 4 gospels are not mirror images, so the authors are already putting it in their own words.
3. We don't have the original manuscripts, so we're already depending on copyists
4. We have a bunch of copies, which slightly vary in content, so we're depending on textual criticism
5. Words themselves receive their clearest meaning from their context, so we depend on literary analysis
6. Those who know Greek learned it from teachers, so we depend on the quality of our teachers
If I had all day, I could probably make this list a lot longer. My point is that the study of Scripture is an attempt at communication. It is an inevitably messy thing. I think some (not all, and not necessarily anyone in this thread) are under the impression that knowing Greek eliminates the mess. I suspect it clears up some messes and creates its fair share of other messes. Bottom line: We depend on each other. We all play a part in receiving the communication of Scripture. Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century Greek. Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century culture. Some play the part of being able to communicate truth well to others. There are many parts of the process. And many people are needed to bring all these parts to the table so that the family of God can eat and digest the meat of God's word.
1. Bible teachers who do not know Greek should be honest with their students about this. They should verbally express their appreciation for those in the body who do know Greek well and demonstrate a serious utilization of resources made by such people. Such teachers (and really all teachers) should also speak cautiously about conclusions regarding texts that have disputed translations. Room should be left for possible misunderstanding.
2. I sense, from time to time, the same problem in the 'you must know Greek' crowd as I do in the 'KJV-Only' crowd or in Muslims in general. There is a natural human desire for certainty in looking for God's Word. KJV-Onlyists, Muslims, and You-Must-Know-Greek people share in common this desire for a very neat and tidy communication from God to man. This purity is attained if God directly inspired the KJV, or if Muhammad received the Quran directly from Allah, or if I can learn the language God's Word originally came in.
But the reality is just messier than such people are willing to live with. Communication between God and man is inevitably messy. Indeed, the best ever communication between God and man began with a bloody, crying baby in the arms of a rejected teenage girl. It is not easy. Communication from God to man includes language, which already uses metaphors to get at things that aren't quite what the metaphors suggest. To stay on topic, let's talk specifically about the Greek NT. Even if we learn it at an expert level... how pure is the process? Think of these points:
1. Jesus most likely didn't talk in Greek, so the Gospels are already translations from one language to another.
2. Quotes of Jesus in the 4 gospels are not mirror images, so the authors are already putting it in their own words.
3. We don't have the original manuscripts, so we're already depending on copyists
4. We have a bunch of copies, which slightly vary in content, so we're depending on textual criticism
5. Words themselves receive their clearest meaning from their context, so we depend on literary analysis
6. Those who know Greek learned it from teachers, so we depend on the quality of our teachers
If I had all day, I could probably make this list a lot longer. My point is that the study of Scripture is an attempt at communication. It is an inevitably messy thing. I think some (not all, and not necessarily anyone in this thread) are under the impression that knowing Greek eliminates the mess. I suspect it clears up some messes and creates its fair share of other messes. Bottom line: We depend on each other. We all play a part in receiving the communication of Scripture. Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century Greek. Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century culture. Some play the part of being able to communicate truth well to others. There are many parts of the process. And many people are needed to bring all these parts to the table so that the family of God can eat and digest the meat of God's word.
Re: 1st Century Greek
Matt,
Good posts!
You wrote:
Good posts!
You wrote:
Exactly what I was thinking before reading your post. And the writers of the NT were not all equally polished in their Greek.1. Jesus most likely didn't talk in Greek, so the Gospels are already translations from one language to another.
I have come to believe this is probably more important than knowledge of Greek. There are are number of books published about cultural anthropology of the Ancient Near East (ANE) that are eye opening. I once thought that people everywhere were pretty much the same but that is not true. They were (and are) very different from us in the west in how they think, how they relate to one another, what they value, etc. They were group oriented and we are individualistic, which helps us to understand what the little Greek word translated "us" in Ephesians 1 meant to them.Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century culture.
-
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm
Re: 1st Century Greek
Does anyone here have multiple "mother tongues"? I wonder if some of our debates and disagreements aren't unique to the English speaking world. Maybe Korean Christians, for example, have a whole other set of debates based on how the Greek was translated to Korean. I don't know.
All the more reason not to sweat the small stuff and the curiosities, I say.
All the more reason not to sweat the small stuff and the curiosities, I say.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
- kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 585
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: 1st Century Greek
I am curious about your pool of respondents; there are times when an appeal to faceless authorities will warrant a closer look. Point of example: a few years back, a very respected participant on this site made an appeal to "rabbinic scholars like Saul/Paul"; however, being pressed, the participant declined to list any of these "rabbinic scholars" besides Paul, and admitted "I don't know the names of many rabbinic scholars of any stripe."kaufmannphillips wrote:
If you don't know Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, you're not studying the bible - you're studying an interpretation of the bible.
Remarkable how many people will insist that the bible is the word of G-d, and an authoritative standard for their belief and behavior - yet won't consider learning its languages to be a serious priority. They'll put time and effort into learning taekwondo, or how to rebuild a classic car, or some variety of programming code that may be obsolete in a few years. And yet people will spend decades teaching and preaching "the bible" to others, without the ability to read even its simplest sentences - much less the competence to evaluate whether some "good reference" is leading them down the garden path.
mattrose wrote:
Of course, the opinion expressed above is simply that… an opinion.
I’ve talked to numerous Hebrew and Greek scholars and asked them the question ‘How important is it to know the original languages?’ and I’ve gotten mixed answers. Some think it is essential. Some think it is important. Some think it is merely helpful. Some think it’s not that important if one knows how to use the resources.
Now, I can think of a number of reasons why unspecified "Hebrew and Greek scholars" might opine that learning biblical languages is not that important, including:


(Of course, it is not requisite for a theological model to be bibliocentric, populist, and/or rationalistic. And it is not requisite for G-d to safeguard a bible that is accessible to the average person. Over the course of human history, most persons have not had access to a bible of any sort in their own language.)


(Of course, a pragmatic outlook, based on certain expectations, might not always do justice to actual potential. And Heaven might not always be content with what seems pragmatic to some persons.)
But before we acquiesce to theological and pastoral sensibilities, let us weigh the significance of language studies on its own merits.
For some sorts of communication, in certain contexts, language barriers are relatively easy to surmount. If one is in a locale frequented by tourists, and has a phrasebook for the native language, then one might be able to negotiate the language barrier in a passable way. So long as a conversation requires no more than the exchange of a few stock phrases, there may be adequate transmission of understanding back and forth.
Again, if the mode of a conversation tends to be literal and straightforward, then a person might have fair odds of surmounting a language barrier. With inexpert skill and decent resources, one might derive an adequate understanding of street directions, recipes, genealogies, user manuals, etc., with little difficulty or misunderstanding.
But the situation becomes more daunting when one moves into communication that is subtle or stylized or abstruse. The more sophisticated the use of language, the more challenging it can be for even an expert translator to overcome a language barrier satisfactorily; and when communication utilizes the artistic potential of language, it can be difficult or even impossible for a translator to convey the full range of conceptual and expressive meaning, including nuance of vocabulary, rhetorical impact, and evocative allusion.
So, let’s consider a few scenarios where skill in a language might be requisite:



There are circumstances where, by inherent nature, the knowledge of a language is well nigh indispensable.
And so we may ask whether or not interpretation of the bible is one such circumstance. On one hand, the bible features much in the way of artfulness, politicking, and legal material. And on another hand, the bible is rather permeated with theology – a mode of thinking that frequently will engage matters in nuanced and sophisticated ways.
Thus – on the face of it – careful interpretation of the bible would warrant knowledge of the languages in which it has been written.
mattrose wrote:
Sometimes people who are experts on Hebrew or Greek make it sound like once you become an expert there are no more questions about translation. That’s a huge myth. The fact is that even if you are the world’s foremost expert on Greek, you still have to do some interpretation. Numerous scholars who know the Greek STILL disagree on what the best translation should be. Why? Well, for one, words can be used in a lot of different ways.
Which is another reason why it is important to learn the biblical languages: so the reader can recognize a variety of implications afforded by a biblical passage. Translations into another language might not carry the full range of potential across: perhaps the translator did not notice other dimensions to the passage; or perhaps the translator chose to neglect other dimensions; or perhaps linguistic mechanics did not afford the preservation of all dimensions when moving from one language to the other.
Then again - a rendering into another language may afford new implications that are not afforded by the biblical text in its actual language. Without knowledge of the biblical language, a reader might not recognize when their interpretation of a translated passage derives not from the biblical text itself, but from some extraneous dimension of their own language.
Millions upon millions of people across human history have had little or no opportunity to learn to read even their native language. And millions upon millions have had no encounter with the Jewish and/or Christian scriptures at all. So in a cosmic context, the importance of scriptural studies should not be overblown.mattrose wrote:
I, for one, don’t think that God’s intention was to reveal Scripture to a small set of people that have the time and resources to learn 1st century Greek (let alone ancient Hebrew).
But as for those who do have opportunities – it must be admitted that, if knowledge of the biblical languages were held to be a priority, much more could be done. Many societies educate their children in more than one language. Large numbers of laypersons could be taught at least one of the biblical languages – again, if such were held to be a priority.
Except there are powerful traditions of interpretation and translation, so a “variety” of translations and commentaries may bear no indication of the full potential of a text. This is only to be expected, since translators and commentators have limited space and limited time to work with, and limited interests. So one should not imagine that “the options” afforded by a text will all be available in secondary literature.mattrose wrote:
I’m pretty sure God is quite pleased with the variety of translations that have been made by scholars so that any good student can do some digging, see the options, and through prayer and research, come to some good conclusions about what God has to say in a given text.
I believe a non-Greek student could do his due diligence by using multiple resources in studying a passage and the translation issues involved. Plus, let’s face it… in most texts there isn’t much at issue. A non-expert can simply read a variety of translations, most of the time, to see if there are major differences and then research the arguments for and against the major translation choices.
A wide enough field of resources may acquaint the diligent researcher with conventional interpretations and even some minority opinions, but this still might provide an inadequate basis for thinking outside the box. And the latent springboard to a new understanding might not be indicated in secondary literature, or even available by means of English-language resources.
A lot of information simply is not produced in a form that is accessible to persons without skills in a biblical language. The scholarly apparatus in the BHS, or in the NA27, for example – these are largely useless to unskilled persons, and much of their content is not reproduced anywhere in English.
And if one cannot understand the biblical text, one scarcely will be poised to identify where alternate vowelization or plausible emendation might springboard to a better understanding. One cannot expect that these lines of exploration will be fully addressed in the resources one has available, or in any English resources at all.
Another important springboard to new understanding may be patterns within the source language itself. It may be recognized that there are categories and conventions of thought that are ingrained in language. The natural ways of couching and formulating thought can vary from one language to another, and patterns of grammar and syntax can have an effect on the shape of thoughts and the very dynamics of thinking – for much of a person’s thought is processed through language, even in the internal workings of one’s mind. And Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek all feature basic linguistic constructs that are alien to English. So familiarity with these source languages can afford (and even condition) different patterns of thinking for an interpreter.
And if it is well nigh impossible for an interpreter who lacks knowledge of a source language to reproduce the natural patterns of thought associated with that language, it also can be quite difficult for said interpreter to appreciate those natural patterns of thought, even if some attempt has been made to explain them to him or her. Those patterns of thought may not feel “natural” or “right” to him or her, as they would to a person who is familiar with them.
And so a researcher who lacks sufficient literacy may dismiss interpretations of a passage, even if these happen to surface in secondary literature, because these seem ill-fitting to his or her mental frame of reference – viz., an English/Spanish/French/etc. frame of reference. Then again, a researcher may impose an interpretation upon a passage that depends upon his or her mental frame of reference – English/Spanish/French/etc. – but does not accord with patterns of thought associated with the source language.
And, of course – without sufficient literacy, a researcher might misconstrue secondary literature in his or her own language, when technical linguistic elements are being discussed. Remarks that are made by a literate writer, assuming a literate readership, may be processed erroneously by a researcher who is trying to be diligent, but simply out of his or her depth.
And last, though definitely not least – the sort of “due diligence” that you describe requires time that is not always available. A diligent individual might have to plow through a dozen commentaries to run across an insight that could have gleaned instantly from the text in its source language. And despite their diligent inclinations, there could be a great many times when they simply lack the opportunity to comb through a wide field of resources, and their interpretive activities could suffer because of this. And so it should be acknowledged that an upfront investment in language study could yield significantly greater efficiency and/or productivity later on.
For this whole line of discussion, one may consider a child who wishes not to study mathematics in any depth, but simply to use their phone or iPad or similar device for calculating and processing information. Such a child will be woefully dependent upon their technological crutch: when it is not at hand, they will be unable to proceed; when it has a glitch that yields flawed results, or when they ignorantly misuse it, they may be unable to recognize the error or compensate for it. Such a child may waste time pulling up apps or making keystrokes, when mental calculation could yield answers in a fraction of a second. Or quite likely, they will give up when they can't keep pace, sitting in a fog when conversations wrangle over figures and percentages; such a child will be disadvantaged when politicians or salespersons attempt to "Gish gallop" through a presentation. Perhaps most importantly, such a child may not have acquired important mental processes that are part of mathematical reasoning - conceptual and tactical modes that can enhance one's thinking in other areas of life as well.
========================
If you had considered language acquisition to be a priority, Steve, you almost certainly could have obtained the opportunities that you needed. For years, you lived across the highway from a college with a religion department. Dr. Millar (PhD. Harvard, by the way) might have been willing to include you in a language course, as a non-degree-seeking auditor. If not, there are a number of institutions in the Portland area that might have offered some similar arrangement. And with the emergence of the internet, there have been still more opportunities for language acquisition. So perhaps this has not been a serious priority for you, for whatever reason(s).steve wrote:
I agree with Matt. Of course, this is another “sour grapes” assessment from another person who does not read Greek or Hebrew. I would love to learn, but I need instruction. I have found I can’t teach myself from books (tried several times). I have not had the opportunity to go to college, where I would have taken classes in Hebrew and Greek, so I am stuck using the resources Matt mentioned.
Knowing the source languages affords greater opportunity to weigh the relative strengths of competing expert opinions, beyond “he sez; he sez.” From reading reference works alone, one may be ill-poised to suss out whether one expert opinion is less compelling than another.steve wrote:
Sometimes I really would like to discuss a question on Hebrew or Greek usage with a real scholar, but 99% of the time, the consulting of reference works gets the job done. As Matt said, there are original language experts on every side of the theological controversies. I don’t think the unclearness of a passage usually is resolved by appeal to the Greek. More often, the ambiguity is in the writer himself (or in the theological presuppositions of the reader.).
And one should not imagine that every viable interpretation has been recognized by experts; even after centuries of painstaking scholarly engagement of the text, it would be naive to think that its interpretive potential has been exhausted. Much less should we imagine that every significant interpretation has been published in media that are accessible to individuals outside of the academy. There are ideas buried in professional journals and institutional theses that never will surface in a reference from Zondervan or Thomas Nelson.
========================
This is a charming line of argument that can be used to excuse a wide array of negligence. Mathematics do not come easily to young Harold; but since every person is gifted differently, we need not press him to acquire the skill of arithmetic. Jeanette is clumsy with her fingers; but since every person is gifted differently, she should not be pushed to acquire the skill of writing. Albert is dyslexic; but since every person is gifted differently, why make him struggle to acquire the skill of literacy?mattrose wrote:
The other issue I have with the ‘you should/must learn Greek’ crowd is that it seems to me a very individualistic sort of idea. I’m of the persuasion that God has gifted the vast array of His people in distinct ways. Though there are probably not an innumerable amount of gifts, there is certainly truth in declaring that every Christian is gifted differently (because gifts are affected by our backgrounds, personality, and mixture with other gifts).
In our culture, it would be unconscionable – well-nigh to abuse – to neglect an individual’s potential to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic. Even if an individual is less than “gifted” in these areas, our culture deems it important for the individual to acquire competency in these skills.
In other cultures, it would be a great disservice to an individual to neglect their education in a second language. For some minority groups, this is a matter of learning a dominant (frequently legal) language of the country they live in. And here and there across the globe, English is taught as a language of opportunity.
When it comes to studying the bible, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are not only its legal languages - they are languages of opportunity. And a facile appeal to “different gifts” does more to serve neglect than it does to serve most individuals, who – “gifted” or not – have the potential to acquire skills in these languages.
At the risk of being redundant, one could make similar lines of argumentation to plead that there is no broad need for Christians to learn how to read at all. Certainly, one can be a “person of the word” in an entirely aural/oral framework.mattrose wrote:
In other words, I liken the statement that ‘to study the Bible, you have to know Greek’ to a statement that to sing I have to be a soprano… or to play in the NFL, I have to be a quarterback.
We are a body. All of us should be people of the word. A small percentage of those people will have access to the original language in which the Bible was written. Those people play an important role for in helping the rest of us, who do not excel in that area, to improve our own study of the word. Likewise, those non-Greek experts excel in areas that Greek experts surely don’t.
But how much better equipped an individual will be, if they have the requisite skills to study the bible in a written form! Of course, it takes time and significant effort to learn how to read. But most would agree that the payoff is worth it.
If I may vamp upon your likenings: in a bibliocentric model, the rarity of literacy in biblical languages amongst the “body” is comparable to a choir where only a few members know how to read music - or perhaps, a novice arena football team where few players have access to the league's manual or the team's playbook.
Can such groups still pursue their activities? Of course. The illiterate singers can listen carefully to the lead of members who can read the music; the unknowledgeable players can pay close attention to their teammates’ directions and examples.
But at what tremendous loss! In better outworkings, the groups’ progress will be slower and less efficient than they could have been with members who were more skilled or knowledgeable. Extra time will be spent directing and correcting participants – time that readily could have been spared. And the group will be denied many potential contributions that those participants might have made, had they been equipped to do so.
In worse outworkings, the groups’ progress will be compromised by having such a large number of participants who lack fundamental skills or knowledge. Tact and/or exhaustion will keep the skilled or knowledgeable members from engaging the others on every point of error; near-inevitably, they will let some failings slide. And/or the majority of participants may become discouraged and/or chafe at their role, being perennially under the lead of the few.
Either way, the arrangement will be a precarious one for these groups, being so dependent upon such a small number of participants. On one hand, the groups will be susceptible to the peculiar character(s) of these few individuals – the ways they think, the dynamics of their emotions, their idiosyncratic interests, etc. On another hand, should something befall these few persons, the groups will be even more hampered, if they manage to sustain their activity at all.
When fundamental skills and/or knowledge are shared by more (or most) of a group, its potential expands and there is greater opportunity for all of its members to contribute and be deeply involved in the group’s activity.
There is no need for Greek experts to be congregational teachers. But there is need for congregational teachers to be competent in the languages of their bible – that is, if their teaching is really supposed to be bible-based. If not, that is quite fine: let these dynamic teachers enlighten their congregations from their mystical experiences and from their wise gleanings from life. There’s nothing wrong with that.mattrose wrote:
The same is true for the step beyond studying, namely, teaching. Most of the commentators, that know Greek, are terrible teachers. I’ve listened to them! They often don’t bring the text to life. They often don’t find useful ways to apply Scripture. They don’t illustrate truth like Jesus did. This is not their fault, they have been given different, though still valuable gifts.
God can certainly use a non-Greek expert whom He has gifted to teach to take the conclusions of Greek-experts and communicate it to a congregation. We all work together as the body of Christ. It is a temptation to think that everyone in the body of Christ should share our passions and gifts, one that should be resisted.
But if a teacher is committed to teaching the bible, then they should acquire the fundamental skills necessary to study the bible. If they do not acquire these skills, then they are not teaching the bible; they are teaching the understandings and interpretations and construals of others, which may or may not fairly correspond to what the bible indicates - and how is the teacher to know any different?
As a matter of integrity, teachers should be passionately motivated to acquire the skills that equip them to responsibly exercise their gifts.
========================
I disagree. A little knowledge of any language can be dangerous; truncated knowledge can amount to disinformation at times. And when so few members of a group know the language, there may not be anybody there to correct the wayward linguist. On the contrary, other members of the group may follow their pied piper blithely under a mountain.Paidion wrote:
Every serious Bible student ought to study Greek. Even a little bit helps. I don't agree with the premise, "A little knowledge of Greek is dangerous." There is nothing dangerous about learning a little of any language. If a Greek beginner makes a mistake, there is always someone there to correct him, and we can gain in confidence when we exegete a passage of scripture.
But of course, one must learn a little of a language on the way to obtaining a more full knowledge. While on the way, one must remain cautious, trying to be sensitive to the limitations of one's skill.
========================
Yes, everybody is liable to error. But when a researcher lacks fundamental knowledge about the matter that they are researching, they (understandably) are more liable to error.Paidion wrote:
I can look at presentations of various positions of those who have studied from translations and have depended on "resources" and find that sometimes the Greek makes their positions untenable.
mattrose wrote:
I am sure. Of course, sometimes this is not so much a result of the failure of the "resources" as, perhaps, the failure of the researcher either not reading his resources carefully or choosing sub-standard resources. On the other hand, those who know koine Greek well are subject to mistakes also.
Certainly, there remains a need to share! Many persons believe that all Christians "ought" to study their (translated) bible regularly; does that study nullify the need for Christians to share the fruits of their studies with each other?Paidion wrote:
The majority of us do not study Greek for self-aggrandization, but only that we may better understand the New Testament and share some of our discoveries with others.
mattrose wrote:
Exactly! But there's be no need to 'share' if everyone 'ought' to do it themselves. When we include that 'ought' we tend toward an arrogance (not saying you are arrogant) because we believe those we share with are lazy and ought to have done this work themselves.
When the "ought" is extended to study of biblical languages, we acknowledge that there is important value in acquiring the skill, and that it is a matter of responsibility not only for ourselves, but also for our fellow students. A fellowship of students is enriched when more participants have more to bring to the table.
Teachers who do not know Greek should avoid the habit of saying “the bible says” or “Jeremiah says” or “Paul says” when teaching. The teacher does not know what the bible or Jeremiah or Paul have said. Rather, these teachers should say “the NIV says” or “the ESV reads” or “James Moffatt renders the passage,” etc. This identifies the actual source of the information, so listeners know where their supper is coming from.mattrose wrote:
Bible teachers who do not know Greek should be honest with their students about this. They should … demonstrate a serious utilization of resources made by [people who know Greek well]. Such teachers (and really all teachers) should also speak cautiously about conclusions regarding texts that have disputed translations. Room should be left for possible misunderstanding.
As you may know, I do not consider the majority of the bible to be God’s word. No matter - competence in the source language(s) of the text is simply a matter of methodology. It would be the same if one were a serious student of Islam; with faith or with no faith, one should learn classical Arabic. If one were a serious student of Zoroastrianism, one should study Gathic, Avestan, and Pahlavi. And so on and so forth.mattrose wrote:
I sense, from time to time, the same problem in the ‘you must know Greek’ crowd as I do in the ‘KJV-Only’ crowd or in Muslims in general. There is a natural human desire for certainty in looking for God’s Word. KJV-Onlyists, Muslims, and You-Must-Know-Greek people share in common this desire for a very neat and tidy communication from God to man. This purity is attained if God directly inspired the KJV, or if Muhammad received the Quran directly from Allah, or if I can learn the language God’s word originally came in.
Casual students need not expend the effort - so long as they keep in mind the inherent limitations to their studies. Persons who merely seek a “lightning rod” for their spirituality need not expend the effort - so long as they remain aware that they are not engaging an altogether trustworthy text.
But serious students should not be satisfied with such a fundamental estrangement from their object of study. And persons who aim to base their lives upon the say-so of the bible, should expend the effort to discern what it “says-so,” which – inherently – will involve understanding how it says so.
One may disparage this as an obsession for “purity” or “certainty,” if one wishes – though a more intimate acquaintance with the text can be a good tonic for those sorts of obsession. But the situation may be compared to maintaining certain standards in food production: one may not be able to expunge every microbe or every molecule of contaminant from the production line; but one should make a serious effort to address every plausible vector of contamination, to the extent necessary to ensure the safety and quality of the product. It is not acceptable to neglect that standard for the sake of convenience.
When one knows the biblical language, one is better equipped to toss aside secondary and tertiary layers of messiness that might soil the hands and consume one's time and energy. Far better to tackle the underlying mess, than to spend most of one's time sorting the dirty laundry on top of it.mattrose wrote:
Communication between God and man is inevitably messy. ... Communication from God to man includes language, which already uses metaphors to get at things that aren't quite what the metaphors suggest. ... My point is that the study of Scripture is an attempt at communication. It is an inevitably messy thing. I think some (not all, and not necessarily anyone in this thread) are under the impression that knowing Greek eliminates the mess. I suspect it clears up some messes and creates its fair share of other messes.
As for engaging the primary layer of messiness - many hands make light work, and to obtain more light from the work, there is benefit from having all hands on deck. (How's that for a messy metaphorical?

========================
Cultural issues are terrifically important. But it should be recognized that language is an intrinsic aspect of culture. The ways people think and relate and value are often bound up in the language that they use, both internally within their own psyches, and externally in their interactions with others.mattrose wrote:
Some play the part of having a good understanding of 1st century culture.
Homer wrote:
I have come to believe this is probably more important than knowledge of Greek. There are are number of books published about cultural anthropology of the Ancient Near East (ANE) that are eye opening. I once thought that people everywhere were pretty much the same but that is not true. They were (and are) very different from us in the west in how they think, how they relate to one another, what they value, etc.
Please don't hesitate to mention that "group oriented" bit in other threads, when participants start vaunting the individual over society.Homer wrote:
They were (and are) very different from us in the west in how they think, how they relate to one another, what they value, etc. They were group oriented and we are individualistic, which helps us to understand what the little Greek word translated "us" in Ephesians 1 meant to them.

Re: 1st Century Greek
Kaufmannphillips,
Well, that was a very long post. I appreciate the time and thought you put in to the dialogue. Undoubtedly, my response will seem like avoidance if for no other reason that I don’t plan to put nearly as much effort into it as you have above. I will, however, respond to the points I consider most worthwhile.
1. You typed almost 500 words that basically seem to have been aimed toward questioning the motives of anyone in my ‘pool of respondents’ that answered my inquiry in a way that doesn’t agree with your point of view. You are, of course, free to do this! You may even be right in some cases (I woudn’t claim to know their motives, of course). I don’t see the value of continuing this line of argument b/c I could, hypothetically, document direct statements in opposition to your opinion and you could, again, simply question their motives.
2. You then typed just over 500 words to basically make a case for why Scriptural interpretation is the type of task that requires learning the original languages. You did this primarily by use of analogy. But, as I’m sure you’d admit, the quality of your case depends on the quality of your analogies. And I think that they were, at best, too far removed from the situation we are talking about. After all, what are we talking about? It seems that, primarily, we are talking about the right of someone who doesn’t know the original biblical languages to use a phrase like ‘the bible says’ this or ‘paul says’ that. Your 3 job analogies only work b/c you are only asking about one’s qualifications for those specific jobs. But surely there are numerous other positions in adjacent offices that can speak to the issues at hand with some authority for the very reason that there is a ‘french’ or ‘spanish’ expert in the next office whom they are able to communicate with. Should the President of the United States refuse to comment on the positions of other world leaders simply because he didn’t speak to them without a translator? Or is it OK that he trusted people in such important decisions.
3. Then there were about a thousand words devoted to the basic point that no matter how much due diligence a pastor does, without knowing the biblical languages, he/she should still not be confident enough to speak with any significant amount of authority on what the Bible actually says for a variety of reasons. But, of course, the point could be turned back on its own head. Even the Greek expert at University X can’t speak authoritatively if he doesn’t know as much as his/her colleague at University Y. And Y isn’t even as knowledgeable at Prof. Z. Of course, you could respond that at least XY&Z are in the right field to be commenting. But that is too simplified. Biblical interpretation has more to do with just knowledge of language. It has to do with knowing God, with knowing about ancient cultures, with being led by the Spirit, with common sense, with good theological thinking, with etc., etc., etc.
4. You seem to have the somewhat strange idea that one shouldn’t speak with any degree of authority on a passage until one has almost absolutely exhausted the possibilities of interpretation. I wonder, in reading your posts, just how many people you feel ARE qualified in the world today to say ‘God said’ this or ‘Paul said’ that? And what is there obligation? Should they list 28 known potential interpretations of a verse at hand? Only the 5 most likely? Should they speak boldly about the 1 they think best, but then humbly back off and say they really can’t be sure? Should the X number of people who know the languages well enough for your standards be polled and the majority interpretation be accepted? I’m not trying to be a jerk, these questions just follow from your approach, it seems to me. Your view almost makes biblical interpretation a science completely, when in reality it is largely an art.
5. In your next section you referred to my appeal to a diversity of gifts as a ‘charming’ argument, but one that didn’t really stand up to scrutiny b/c it was akin to excusing the average joe from reading, writing, and arithmetic. I actually like your musical analogy, but the genre too easily makes my point. For example, I knew 2 men, both of whom could play the bass guitar very well. One was an expert on music theory. The other could not even read music. But you know what, in the opinion of many, the second man was the better bassist. Why? Because music is an art form, not just a bunch of information. Your position, it seems to me, has no rebuttal to the fact that the world’s absolute best Greek expert might be dead wrong on any given passage. Worse yet, for you, he might be dead wrong while a man or woman who barely knows the original languages has the right interpretation. Why? Because there are way more factors involved in biblical interpretation than mere language studies.
It is my opinion that when message board posts get too long, they are self-defeating, so I will respond a bit more in a subsequent post below.
Well, that was a very long post. I appreciate the time and thought you put in to the dialogue. Undoubtedly, my response will seem like avoidance if for no other reason that I don’t plan to put nearly as much effort into it as you have above. I will, however, respond to the points I consider most worthwhile.
1. You typed almost 500 words that basically seem to have been aimed toward questioning the motives of anyone in my ‘pool of respondents’ that answered my inquiry in a way that doesn’t agree with your point of view. You are, of course, free to do this! You may even be right in some cases (I woudn’t claim to know their motives, of course). I don’t see the value of continuing this line of argument b/c I could, hypothetically, document direct statements in opposition to your opinion and you could, again, simply question their motives.
2. You then typed just over 500 words to basically make a case for why Scriptural interpretation is the type of task that requires learning the original languages. You did this primarily by use of analogy. But, as I’m sure you’d admit, the quality of your case depends on the quality of your analogies. And I think that they were, at best, too far removed from the situation we are talking about. After all, what are we talking about? It seems that, primarily, we are talking about the right of someone who doesn’t know the original biblical languages to use a phrase like ‘the bible says’ this or ‘paul says’ that. Your 3 job analogies only work b/c you are only asking about one’s qualifications for those specific jobs. But surely there are numerous other positions in adjacent offices that can speak to the issues at hand with some authority for the very reason that there is a ‘french’ or ‘spanish’ expert in the next office whom they are able to communicate with. Should the President of the United States refuse to comment on the positions of other world leaders simply because he didn’t speak to them without a translator? Or is it OK that he trusted people in such important decisions.
3. Then there were about a thousand words devoted to the basic point that no matter how much due diligence a pastor does, without knowing the biblical languages, he/she should still not be confident enough to speak with any significant amount of authority on what the Bible actually says for a variety of reasons. But, of course, the point could be turned back on its own head. Even the Greek expert at University X can’t speak authoritatively if he doesn’t know as much as his/her colleague at University Y. And Y isn’t even as knowledgeable at Prof. Z. Of course, you could respond that at least XY&Z are in the right field to be commenting. But that is too simplified. Biblical interpretation has more to do with just knowledge of language. It has to do with knowing God, with knowing about ancient cultures, with being led by the Spirit, with common sense, with good theological thinking, with etc., etc., etc.
4. You seem to have the somewhat strange idea that one shouldn’t speak with any degree of authority on a passage until one has almost absolutely exhausted the possibilities of interpretation. I wonder, in reading your posts, just how many people you feel ARE qualified in the world today to say ‘God said’ this or ‘Paul said’ that? And what is there obligation? Should they list 28 known potential interpretations of a verse at hand? Only the 5 most likely? Should they speak boldly about the 1 they think best, but then humbly back off and say they really can’t be sure? Should the X number of people who know the languages well enough for your standards be polled and the majority interpretation be accepted? I’m not trying to be a jerk, these questions just follow from your approach, it seems to me. Your view almost makes biblical interpretation a science completely, when in reality it is largely an art.
5. In your next section you referred to my appeal to a diversity of gifts as a ‘charming’ argument, but one that didn’t really stand up to scrutiny b/c it was akin to excusing the average joe from reading, writing, and arithmetic. I actually like your musical analogy, but the genre too easily makes my point. For example, I knew 2 men, both of whom could play the bass guitar very well. One was an expert on music theory. The other could not even read music. But you know what, in the opinion of many, the second man was the better bassist. Why? Because music is an art form, not just a bunch of information. Your position, it seems to me, has no rebuttal to the fact that the world’s absolute best Greek expert might be dead wrong on any given passage. Worse yet, for you, he might be dead wrong while a man or woman who barely knows the original languages has the right interpretation. Why? Because there are way more factors involved in biblical interpretation than mere language studies.
It is my opinion that when message board posts get too long, they are self-defeating, so I will respond a bit more in a subsequent post below.
Re: 1st Century Greek
I think the following quote is particularly worthy of interaction
Now, if you were only arguing that the more of the original languages a bible teacher knows, the better... I'd WHOLLY agree. But you insist on making it a must. The burden of proof is on you to prove that someone like Steve, or myself, has not effectively taught the Bible to in my case hundreds and in Steve's case thousands of students.
that asks me to teach from the Bible 3-5 times each week?). But I am not PRIMARILY a student of the Bible. I do not base my life upon the Bible. I am primarily a student of Jesus. I base my life around Jesus. Your whole line of argument, unsurprisingly, makes some good sense if the faith at hand is Judaism or Islam. But in Christianity the Word became Flesh... and it is that Fleshly person, Jesus Christ, that we are students of. I follow a living teacher, Jesus. I try my best to understand the historical echo of His time on earth.
Thanks for the dialogue! While I find your position faulty, I do find it a valuable counterbalance to excesses that can easily become attached to my side of the issue.
To which I would simply point out that there are a lot of important skills that would help a Bible-teacher teach better. But no one teacher can be super-skilled at all of them. There are many parts to effective teaching. Some Bible teachers excel at the original languages. Some excel at ancient culture. Some excel at knowing the whole of revelation so as to bring the individual text into its broader frame. Some excel at understanding the argumentation of a particular biblical author. Some excel at identifying key points of relevancy between the text at hand and the audience he speaks to. Some excel at communicating that application. And so on and so forth.kaufmannphillips wrote: There is no need for Greek experts to be congregational teachers. But there is need for congregational teachers to be competent in the languages of their bible – that is, if their teaching is really supposed to be bible-based. If not, that is quite fine: let these dynamic teachers enlighten their congregations from their mystical experiences and from their wise gleanings from life. There’s nothing wrong with that.
But if a teacher is committed to teaching the bible, then they should acquire the fundamental skills necessary to study the bible. If they do not acquire these skills, then they are not teaching the bible; they are teaching the understandings and interpretations and construals of others, which may or may not fairly correspond to what the bible indicates - and how is the teacher to know any different?
As a matter of integrity, teachers should be passionately motivated to acquire the skills that equip them to responsibly exercise their gifts.
Now, if you were only arguing that the more of the original languages a bible teacher knows, the better... I'd WHOLLY agree. But you insist on making it a must. The burden of proof is on you to prove that someone like Steve, or myself, has not effectively taught the Bible to in my case hundreds and in Steve's case thousands of students.
So I say that Bible teachers should be honest with their students that they aren't knowledgeable in Hebrew and/or Greek and your response is that they should avoid saying 'the Bible says' and instead say 'the NIV says'? It seems to me we're quibbling on this particular point. I work, for instance, with a rural congregation of Christians. I state quite regularly that I am not knowledgeable in Greek or Hebrew. My congregation knows this. But I have more access to good resources than most or all of them do. So I teach them what I learn. They know my limitations. Given this context, I see no reason why it should be said that I am not teaching, or able to teach, the Bible. To argue as much comes across, to be frank, as arrogance at worst and quibbling over semantics at best.Teachers who do not know Greek should avoid the habit of saying “the bible says” or “Jeremiah says” or “Paul says” when teaching. The teacher does not know what the bible or Jeremiah or Paul have said. Rather, these teachers should say “the NIV says” or “the ESV reads” or “James Moffatt renders the passage,” etc. This identifies the actual source of the information, so listeners know where their supper is coming from.
Perhaps, here, we get to some of the heart of what is at issue b/w our 2 positions. I do consider myself a Bible teacher, of course (what else would I call a jobcompetence in the source language(s) of the text is simply a matter of methodology. It would be the same if one were a serious student of Islam; with faith or with no faith, one should learn classical Arabic. If one were a serious student of Zoroastrianism, one should study Gathic, Avestan, and Pahlavi. And so on and so forth. Casual students need not expend the effort - so long as they keep in mind the inherent limitations to their studies. Persons who merely seek a “lightning rod” for their spirituality need not expend the effort - so long as they remain aware that they are not engaging an altogether trustworthy text. But serious students should not be satisfied with such a fundamental estrangement from their object of study. And persons who aim to base their lives upon the say-so of the bible, should expend the effort to discern what it “says-so,” which – inherently – will involve understanding how it says so.
that asks me to teach from the Bible 3-5 times each week?). But I am not PRIMARILY a student of the Bible. I do not base my life upon the Bible. I am primarily a student of Jesus. I base my life around Jesus. Your whole line of argument, unsurprisingly, makes some good sense if the faith at hand is Judaism or Islam. But in Christianity the Word became Flesh... and it is that Fleshly person, Jesus Christ, that we are students of. I follow a living teacher, Jesus. I try my best to understand the historical echo of His time on earth.
I take no issue with this part. I like your word choices (better equipped, far better, benefit). I could have said this myself.When one knows the biblical language, one is better equipped to toss aside secondary and tertiary layers of messiness that might soil the hands and consume one's time and energy. Far better to tackle the underlying mess, than to spend most of one's time sorting the dirty laundry on top of it.
As for engaging the primary layer of messiness - many hands make light work, and to obtain more light from the work, there is benefit from having all hands on deck.
Thanks for the dialogue! While I find your position faulty, I do find it a valuable counterbalance to excesses that can easily become attached to my side of the issue.
Re: 1st Century Greek
One more thought, since you like analogies
I was thinking today about our discussion in light of sports (since I am a sports fan)
Suppose the issue is ones right to call themselves a basketball player (rather than a Bible teacher). There are certain fundamentals that every basketball player should have in order to be a basketball player. He will need to be able to dribble. He must be able to pass the ball. He must be able to shoot. He must be able to get up and down the court. He must be able to guard another player (or, perhaps, have a basic enough concept of 'zone' defense that he knows where to stand and when to move).
There are other skills that are not fundamental, but are helpful. For instance, some players can dunk. Some players can make almost 50% of their 3 point shot attempts. Some players can hit 90% of their free throws. Some can pass the ball well behind their backs. Some can dribble the ball between their legs.
Clearly there are some skills that are fundamental for a basketball player and others that are unnecessary but beneficial. I suspect that you may be anticipating that I am going to attempt to use my analogy to claim that 'knowledge of the biblical languages' is in the latter category and not the former. But no! I do consider knowledge of the biblical language to be in the fundamental category. I've taught through the Bible for too many years, now, to be able to argue that diving into the biblical languages is not, at times, extremely important for doing biblical interpretation well.
So what am I saying?
I would basically use the basketball analogy to make the following point. Sure, biblical knowledge is one of the fundamental skills of good biblical interpretation... but that doesn't mean that every good biblical interpreter must have reached some arbitrary level of skill in that area. Every NBA player needs to know how to dribble, but truth be told Shaq (an all-time great NBA player) hardly ever dribbled at all. Free throw shooting is probably a fundamental skill too, but he struggled to make even 50% of his free throws. How can one still be considered a great basketball player if 2 or 3 fundamental skills are almost completely missing? The answer, I think, is that other skills and abilities were superior. Shaq was/is huge (though that's not so much a skill as a fact of his life, to be sure). Some players that can't play defense almost at all are excellent 3 point shooters. Some are so good at defense that they keep getting contracts even though they could hardly hit the broad sign of a barn with the ball if they tried.
Of course, I'm not saying that I'm extremely skilled in some other area of biblical interpretation. I'm saying that biblical interpretation is, to a large degree, an art and not a science. I am on the very lower end of the 'knowledge of the original languages' skill, but I might be above average in 5 or 6 other categories... enough that a couple of different congregations of Christians consider me a more than capable interpreter of the Bible.
I was thinking today about our discussion in light of sports (since I am a sports fan)
Suppose the issue is ones right to call themselves a basketball player (rather than a Bible teacher). There are certain fundamentals that every basketball player should have in order to be a basketball player. He will need to be able to dribble. He must be able to pass the ball. He must be able to shoot. He must be able to get up and down the court. He must be able to guard another player (or, perhaps, have a basic enough concept of 'zone' defense that he knows where to stand and when to move).
There are other skills that are not fundamental, but are helpful. For instance, some players can dunk. Some players can make almost 50% of their 3 point shot attempts. Some players can hit 90% of their free throws. Some can pass the ball well behind their backs. Some can dribble the ball between their legs.
Clearly there are some skills that are fundamental for a basketball player and others that are unnecessary but beneficial. I suspect that you may be anticipating that I am going to attempt to use my analogy to claim that 'knowledge of the biblical languages' is in the latter category and not the former. But no! I do consider knowledge of the biblical language to be in the fundamental category. I've taught through the Bible for too many years, now, to be able to argue that diving into the biblical languages is not, at times, extremely important for doing biblical interpretation well.
So what am I saying?
I would basically use the basketball analogy to make the following point. Sure, biblical knowledge is one of the fundamental skills of good biblical interpretation... but that doesn't mean that every good biblical interpreter must have reached some arbitrary level of skill in that area. Every NBA player needs to know how to dribble, but truth be told Shaq (an all-time great NBA player) hardly ever dribbled at all. Free throw shooting is probably a fundamental skill too, but he struggled to make even 50% of his free throws. How can one still be considered a great basketball player if 2 or 3 fundamental skills are almost completely missing? The answer, I think, is that other skills and abilities were superior. Shaq was/is huge (though that's not so much a skill as a fact of his life, to be sure). Some players that can't play defense almost at all are excellent 3 point shooters. Some are so good at defense that they keep getting contracts even though they could hardly hit the broad sign of a barn with the ball if they tried.
Of course, I'm not saying that I'm extremely skilled in some other area of biblical interpretation. I'm saying that biblical interpretation is, to a large degree, an art and not a science. I am on the very lower end of the 'knowledge of the original languages' skill, but I might be above average in 5 or 6 other categories... enough that a couple of different congregations of Christians consider me a more than capable interpreter of the Bible.