1st Century Greek

[steve]

kaufmannphillips,

There are few, if any, here, who can match you in scholarship, in charm of articulation, or in cleverness of illustration—nor, I think, in self-confidence. I find myself in agreement with most of your points, but not with your conclusions. I do not think that your best arguments lead to your conclusions, and, in my opinion, Matt has answered your points very ably—in most cases just as I was considering doing, or better.

I do not take this side simply because I am in Matt’s same condition of non-mastery of Greek and Hebrew (he has far more training than I have, and may exceed me by a wide margin in these studies). It is the other way around with me. I do not have your mastery of Greek because I did not pursue it, and I did not pursue it simply because I held the same opinion of the matter that Matt has so well expressed, and which I still hold.

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.

It is true. If I had considered language acquisition to be a priority above the priorities of raising my children, keeping a troubled wife sane, teaching my classes and fulfilling a busy international speaking itinerary, I would certainly have been able to study Greek at Linnfield College. In saying I did not have opportunity, I was not referring to the proximity of institutions of higher learning to my home.

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?

I presume that much of what you learned of the original languages came to you through other scholars and published resources. Of course, you would be equipped, and I would not be, to do your own original study from source documents, but I am assuming that even your ability to read these documents came after you first mastered the basics, and even the intermediate level studies, of Hebrew and Greek from other teachers. You learned much of the Greek that you know the same way I learned what little Greek I know—from lexical resources and commentaries by men more expert than myself. The difference in our learning (and it is a large chasm, of course) is not entirely one of the method of acquisition, but is largely one of degree. Your mastery of Greek may exceed mine by a factor of 100 (for all I know), but we both learned much of what we know from similar resources. My resources have not taken me as far as yours have taken you in the mastery of the language—of this there is no question. There remains a question, however, of whether such a degree of Greek mastery as is required to understand the Bible well enough to teach can or cannot be gained in the manner I have followed.

Your argument suggests that Jesus and Paul used such subtleties of syntax or such ambiguities of vocabulary as to render the lexicographers helpless to understand or explain them to a layman like myself. But doesn't this mean that, even if I were to reach their level of competency, I might make the same mistakes they are making? I would have to be rather arrogant to assume that, what the respected scholars cannot fathom about the language, I could understand, if only I knew the language as well as you know it. I have no reason to accept this thesis.

There are complexities that enter into theological discussions, so that even scholars of equal ability cannot always agree. However, I have found that, in most cases, the deficiencies seem to be, not in a theologian’s failure to understand biblical vocabulary or grammar (about which most agree most of the time), but in their ability to fit a specific biblical statement into a theological paradigm which takes adequate stock of the holistic teaching of scripture on the point debated. In other words, while little-known nuances of Greek may sometimes play a role in the confusion (and where it does, apparently, even the very highest degree of Greek mastery does not seem to solve all the problems), it more often is occasioned by a combination of poor reasoning skills, failure to take all relevant texts into adequate consideration, personal theological agendas and prejudicial readings of a text, etc. Overcoming these difficulties does not require formal training—in fact, in too many cases, formal training seems to create them.

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.

Good teachers will always inform their hearers of ambiguities that inhere in a passage (sometimes, but not always, occasioned by technicalities in the Greek). But where the vast majority of translators and commentators (who have done the work you are recommending that each of us should do) are in agreement about the rendering of a sentence in English, which is the case more often than not, I feel that a teacher has the right to represent the findings of scholarship with statements like “the Bible says.” The listener should be made aware that we are referring to the English translation of the Bible (if that is what we are doing), or else that we are paraphrasing or summarizing the general drift of what the Bible or Paul says on the subject under consideration.

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?

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.

There are students who can easily master calculus and trigonometry. I cannot. I can balance my checkbook and perform all the mathematical operations that are required in my line of work. There might be value in my gaining mastery of these more-advanced mathematical disciplines, but I doubt it. I am 60 years old now, and those skills have not yet been required in order for me to perform any of my duties. I doubt the remaining few years will prove different in this respect. If I were a scientist, that would be a different story.

Now, my field may require greater aptitude in reading and writing, so that, were I (like Jeanette) clumsy with my fingers, or (like Albert) impaired in my reading ability, a very strong case could be made for my putting out whatever effort might be required in order for me to overcome my handicaps so as to fulfill my calling.

There are people who need these skills less than you or I need them. Men and women whose life-work is more manual, mechanical or physical in nature might get along very well in life with less reading skill than mine or yours. You should not imagine, simply because you are a scholar, that all people must become scholars, any more than I should assume that everybody must learn to play a guitar or draw cartoons.

You are correct in saying that a person in our culture who could not read, write or do arithmetic at all would be severely limited in his/her employment options, but, even if they are limited to a narrow range of jobs, some may actually be quite satisfied with the employment that they have. As I get by with limited math skills, so also do many people get by with limited reading and writing abilities. No one would suggest that improved facility in these things would not enhance their lives, but they may not need to master these at a level above that which they already possess. They cannot enjoy reading Thucydides in Greek, nor even Shakespeare in English, as you can, but perhaps they have no wish to do so. They cannot be faulted for regarding many of the things that you and I enjoy as superfluous to their own happiness and productivity.

No one here has argued that it is desirable for any Christian to remain completely ignorant of the Hebrew or Greek Testaments—even if their only access to them is through an English translation. A better knowledge of the languages would be beneficial, as both Matt and I freely acknowledge, but to insist upon its necessity seems very elitist to me.

When I teach in Korean- or Spanish-speaking schools, I depend entirely upon translators, and so do most of the students, who wish to understand what I am telling them. I have often thought how fine a thing it would be for me to learn Korean, Spanish, German, Japanese, and all the other languages of the people I teach, but that is unrealistic for me. If I were to learn all those languages, I would never have to worry about my sentences being mangled by poor translators. However, in the world I actually inhabit, I am stuck with trusting competent translators who are fluent in both languages. This means that my Korean listeners may not catch my wonderful wit in a subtle comment, but it seldom means that the main points of my message, and my train of thought, are entirely lost on the crowd.

I have had non-English-speaking students tell me, years after sitting in my lectures, how some of the points I made have changed their lives in the interim. Though I am dependent upon translators even to understand the testimonies of these students, I have no reason to doubt that what they are telling me corresponds very closely to what they heard me teach through a translator. Many of these students, though never having understood a word of English themselves, could legitimately go to someone else and say “Steve said…”

[kaufmannphillips]

mattrose wrote:
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.

A time for concision (cf. Proverbs); and a time for prolixity (cf. Job).

mattrose wrote:
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.

Well, there’s nearly 100 words right there. It’s a good thing we have free speech in America; paying by the word might leave us paupers!

Not only am I “free” to question your respondents’ motives (or their presuppositions or their biases) – such matters are a relevant and reasonable field for concern. Faceless references are of minimal value, when one cannot evaluate the character of their perspectives or the contours of their reasoning.

mattrose wrote:
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.

Analogies do not prove cases; they illustrate points. The point of my scenarios was summarized as follows: “There are circumstances where, by inherent nature, the knowledge of a language is well nigh indispensable.”

My scenarios were appropriate: they were grounded in fields that are germane to interpretation of the biblical text; and they served to illustrate the summary point.

mattrose wrote:
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.

This is not, primarily, what we are talking about; but it’s interesting that this stood out for you. (More discussion of this particular point below.)

What we are talking about, primarily, is epistemology.

To begin with, we have the stock question: “What do we know; and how do we know it?” And then, we have the epigram: “What we cannot show, we do not know.”

In matters both theological and profane, people commonly think and speak and behave in ways that do not reflect careful consideration for epistemology. They treat information as “known,” when in fact it is not known, but only thought or imagined or believed.

This is the bottom line for our discussion: what does a preacher or interpreter know; and how does s/he know it ( = how can s/he show it). And then, naturally, we face the question of how s/he should comport her/himself, in view of the answers to these lines of inquiry.

mattrose wrote:
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.

The persons in adjacent offices may speak with structural authority – say, executive or administrative authority – but they cannot speak authoritatively on subject matters where they lack the skills necessary to engage primary data for themselves. (I will dub this latter sort of authority, “topical authority,” until somebody proposes a better label for it.)

It should be acknowledged that no person should be considered an authority on a topic where they are not capable of engaging the primary data. Such a person can consider and compare and contrast the insights and opinions of others; but without personal engagement of the primary data, such a person does not know whereof they speak, and cannot presume to speak authoritatively.


Now, executives and administrators very often wield structural authority in fields where they themselves are not topical authorities. The President of the United States has executive authority, but frequently is not an authority on every subject which he or she is obligated to engage. And of course, the President cannot plausibly be expected to attain competence in the languages of all peoples with whom he or she might be dealing.

We should keep in mind that the President almost never comments as a topical authority, but rather as an executive authority. That is, the President’s comments are not an authoritative declaration of how things are; rather, they are an authoritative declaration of how the US government is choosing to conceptualize things, as a matter of policy.

Depending upon the polity of their faith communities, preachers or interpreters may or may not exercise structural authority; they may or may not wield the authority to declare policies for their congregations. But regardless – if they cannot engage the primary data for the field of biblical studies, then they cannot speak as authorities on the bible.

mattrose wrote:
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.

Professor X cannot speak authoritatively about what he does not know. So also for Professors Y & Z. So also for Preachers L, M, N, O, P. This should not be offensive or resented or shocking.

Biblical interpretation does indeed require more than competence in biblical languages. But it does not require less.

mattrose wrote:
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.

Yes. If one has not adequately surveyed and accounted for the interpretive possibilities that are afforded by a passage, how durst one speak authoritatively?

But the strangeness of an idea is irrelevant. (And previously, you invoked “common sense” as a component of biblical interpretation. Both of these amount to an appeal to popular thought, which cannot be taken as determinative.)

mattrose wrote:
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.

I have no idea how many people are qualified to say “Paul said,” as a matter of biblical interpretation. And I’m not terribly concerned with the number, when it comes to this line of discussion. Necessary qualifications are necessary qualifications, regardless of whether many persons meet them, or whether few or none meet them.

A Secretary of Public Health may desire 100 surgeons to meet the needs of a certain district. But if only 20 individuals can be found who meet the necessary qualifications to perform surgery, then the problem is not the qualifications; the problem is a deficit in competent personnel. It would be hazardous for the Secretary to pass along 80 unqualified individuals, simply to satisfy a desire for more surgeons.

So also when it comes to biblical interpretation. One must not compromise the threshold for competency, simply to “validate” a desired quota of practitioners.

Qualified interpreters have an obligation to identify – so far as possible – the exhaustive range of possible interpretations. This is a necessary foundation for all labors that follow.

How they share the fruits of their labors – this is a separate question, somewhat pastoral in nature, with varying answers depending upon audience. But whether they ultimately decide to share much or little, the same groundwork should be done.

As for the question of majority rule – no; let divergent interpretations by competent persons stand without dogmatic resolution, and let folks plumb them responsibly.

mattrose wrote:
Your view almost makes biblical interpretation a science completely, when in reality it is largely an art.

Biblical interpretation can involve artistry; but all arts are dependent upon proficiency at certain skills – and many arts have practitioners who are less than competent.

And let us bear caution about artistry in interpretation: artistry will hinge readily upon the genius of the artist; but respectful interpretation must hinge upon the genius of the text.

mattrose wrote:
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.

The second man might be a better bass player, but if handed a sheet of music and asked to play it, he is a feckless player.

Likewise: Larry might be a first-rate interpreter, in general – of human behavior, of physical evidence, etc. – but if handed a transcript in an unknown language, Larry will be a feckless interpreter.

Artistry, without requisite skill, is feckless.

mattrose wrote:
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.

My position does not promise inerrancy. It identifies one fundamental threshold for competence.

Can a fundamentally competent person be wrong on occasion? Sure. Can a fundamentally incompetent person be right on occasion? Sure.


Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let us return to a medical parallel. Who should be handling pharmacological R & D for GetwellTM Corp.: a fundamentally competent, though fallible, researcher; or a fundamentally incompetent individual, who occasionally yields effective formulae by way of plagiarism or folk tradition or gut feeling?

mattrose wrote:
I think the following quote is particularly worthy of interaction

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.

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.

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.

As with many activities, when it comes to biblical interpretation there are optional skills, and there are indispensable skills.

No interpretive activity of a text whatsoever can take place without functional knowledge of the text’s language. Without that basic level of ability, there is (practically speaking) no text to interpret – only strange squiggles on a page.

Without knowledge of the pertinent languages, neither you nor Steve have taught the bible to anybody.

This may seem an audacious claim to make about two gifted men like Steve and yourself. But consider, if you will, a scenario with two other gifted men: Stevie Wonder quite simply cannot teach the oeuvre of Ansel Adams to Andrea Bocelli.

Stevie and Andrea are both artistic, and both are highly competent in their artistry. But there are certain avenues of artistry that, quite practically, remain beyond the reach of these two men. Stevie can teach “hearsay about the Adams Oeuvre.” But he cannot teach the oeuvre itself, which he does not and cannot know; and Andrea cannot learn the oeuvre, which he also does not and cannot know.

Likewise – without competence in the biblical languages, you and Steve can teach hearsay; and you can interpret hearsay; and your audiences can be delighted, to tens of thousands and more. With nary a one knowing the bible – only hearsay. And as with Stevie and Andrea, what we’d have is …erm… blind guides leading the blind.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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:
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.

What is the greater arrogance – claiming to teach a text that one cannot read, or pointing out the simple fact of the matter?


Let me return again to the epigram: “What we cannot show, we do not know.”

Now, Sheryl may be able to show that Larry and Darryl and the other Darryl have quoted such-and-such-a-verse as saying that all pigs circumcised on the eighth day are kosher. But if Sheryl cannot read the text for herself, then she does not know that the verse says any such thing. Without sufficient means and opportunity, Sheryl cannot substantiate Larry and Darryl and Darryl’s quotation. And if she cannot show the substance of the claim, Sheryl does not in point of fact know the substance of the claim.

This is very important to keep in mind, for once one makes a habit of checking the references and evidences cited by other sources, one will find that other sources cannot be trusted blithely. Too often, their own references do not substantiate their claims.

If we are not clear in our own minds about what we know and what we do not know, then we may imagine that we know things which in fact we do not. If that’s not arrogant, it’s at least deluded; and delusion leads to further error.


Why, then, does this seem to be such a sensitive issue for you? It simply is a matter of fair representation – of using an honest hin, so to speak.

Perhaps you honestly believe that you are teaching the bible. But over and over and over again, I have found that translations are not adequately indicative of the text they are rendering.

And this is not only a biblical problem. In preparing a post for this forum, not terribly long ago, I ran into the same sort of problem with a passage from Josephus – which amplifies the imperative. You rightly esteem historical context when it comes to biblical interpretation; yet, without recourse to the languages of historical sources, one’s “knowledge” of historical context can be just as compromised as one’s “knowledge” of biblical content.

And of course, most sources for historical context do not have analytical concordances or morphologically tagged software or kaleidoscopic commentary – making fundamental skills even more requisite than they are for biblical texts.


You still are young enough – you probably have the opportunity to undergird decades of sacred labor, by a few years’ patience and investment now. Whereas complacency pays little, then costs a lot.

mattrose wrote:
I do consider myself a Bible teacher, of course (what else would I call a job
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.

Generally speaking, I would not recommend bibliocentrism as a religious model, or as a devotional model, or as a pastoral model. And of course, all three of the major Abrahamic faiths have bibliocentric and non-bibliocentric forms.

But whether a person’s faith is based upon the bible, or not, the basic mechanics of biblical interpretation remain. The bible is a book – consisting not in flesh, nor in personhood, but in the elements of language. Without the ability to understand the language, one cannot interpret the book.

mattrose wrote:
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.

Competence in biblical languages is not only a fundamental skill – it is an essential skill. One can play basketball without ever dribbling or scoring a free throw. But one can never interpret the bible – or any other text – if one cannot read it (or hear it) with understanding.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
There are few, if any, here, who can match you in scholarship, in charm of articulation, or in cleverness of illustration—nor, I think, in self-confidence.

Well, even a tactical compliment can be gratifying.

steve wrote:
It is true. If I had considered language acquisition to be a priority above the priorities of raising my children, keeping a troubled wife sane, teaching my classes and fulfilling a busy international speaking itinerary, I would certainly have been able to study Greek at Linnfield College. In saying I did not have opportunity, I was not referring to the proximity of institutions of higher learning to my home.

I’m more sympathetic toward the former couple of excuses; less so, toward the latter pair. Pleading the demands of teaching, in this case, is comparable to a med student begging off from pharmaceutical coursework, because s/he is too busy prescribing medications.

steve wrote:
I presume that much of what you learned of the original languages came to you through other scholars and published resources. Of course, you would be equipped, and I would not be, to do your own original study from source documents, but I am assuming that even your ability to read these documents came after you first mastered the basics, and even the intermediate level studies, of Hebrew and Greek from other teachers. You learned much of the Greek that you know the same way I learned what little Greek I know—from lexical resources and commentaries by men more expert than myself. The difference in our learning (and it is a large chasm, of course) is not entirely one of the method of acquisition, but is largely one of degree.

Language acquisition progresses beyond what you have outlined here. At the outset, one is very dependent upon teachers and experts. But after a certain level of understanding has been attained, one learns in the same manner as one learns one’s native tongue – through immersion, incidental modelling, intuiting by way of others’ usage. It is no longer a matter of “authority sez,” but of “experience indicates”; after all, correct interpretation of language hinges upon understanding usage, which does not always conform to “authoritative” models.

steve wrote:
There remains a question, however, of whether such a degree of Greek mastery as is required to understand the Bible well enough to teach can or cannot be gained in the manner I have followed.

You will pardon the question, then: do you consider yourself competent in biblical Greek?

steve wrote:
Your argument suggests that Jesus and Paul used such subtleties of syntax or such ambiguities of vocabulary as to render the lexicographers helpless to understand or explain them to a layman like myself. But doesn't this mean that, even if I were to reach their level of competency, I might make the same mistakes they are making? I would have to be rather arrogant to assume that, what the respected scholars cannot fathom about the language, I could understand, if only I knew the language as well as you know it. I have no reason to accept this thesis.

There may be some occasions when twenty-first century lexicographers are “helpless to understand or explain” aspects of the text. I am not primarily concerned with those instances.

We should not ignore the possibility, though, that our personal studies might yield a breakthrough in understanding – one that has not been considered by previous scholarship. It is not arrogance to hope that one’s own work might add to the progress of biblical studies; rather, it would be arrogance to imagine that the potential for discovery has already been exhausted by the current state of scholarship.

But I am more concerned by occasions where scholars are not strictly “helpless to understand or explain,” but rather disinclined to do so. Due to their biases and conventions in thought, scholars may be disinclined to recognize, disinclined to pursue, and/or disinclined to share certain ways of understanding or interpreting a text. And so it behooves the careful student to work through the evidence for him/herself.

steve wrote:
There are complexities that enter into theological discussions, so that even scholars of equal ability cannot always agree. However, I have found that, in most cases, the deficiencies seem to be, not in a theologian’s failure to understand biblical vocabulary or grammar (about which most agree most of the time), but in their ability to fit a specific biblical statement into a theological paradigm which takes adequate stock of the holistic teaching of scripture on the point debated. In other words, while little-known nuances of Greek may sometimes play a role in the confusion (and where it does, apparently, even the very highest degree of Greek mastery does not seem to solve all the problems), it more often is occasioned by a combination of poor reasoning skills, failure to take all relevant texts into adequate consideration, personal theological agendas and prejudicial readings of a text, etc. Overcoming these difficulties does not require formal training—in fact, in too many cases, formal training seems to create them.

If one is not literate in a matter, then a weak argument might appear as plausible as a strong one. And if one is not competent in a field, one would seem hard put to know whether two scholars are “of equal ability” or not.

Without the ability to evaluate options for oneself, one is left to take the word of others; and when one is ill-equipped to evaluate the word of others, one is ill-poised to favor one word over another.

And when one can find scholarship – sometimes prejudicial, sometimes influenced by agendas, sometimes lacking in diligence or reasoning – on multiple sides of an issue, once again it behooves the careful student to work through the evidence for him/herself.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
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.

steve wrote:
Good teachers will always inform their hearers of ambiguities that inhere in a passage (sometimes, but not always, occasioned by technicalities in the Greek). But where the vast majority of translators and commentators (who have done the work you are recommending that each of us should do) are in agreement about the rendering of a sentence in English, which is the case more often than not, I feel that a teacher has the right to represent the findings of scholarship with statements like “the Bible says.” The listener should be made aware that we are referring to the English translation of the Bible (if that is what we are doing), or else that we are paraphrasing or summarizing the general drift of what the Bible or Paul says on the subject under consideration.

A majority of scholars may concur – reasonably, or by dint of convention – to render a verse in some certain way in English. And yet, every last one of them may understand that, in actuality, the text reads differently in its own language: it may carry different nuance; or it may afford a different range of interpretive potential; or it may be nowhere near as intelligible as the settled-upon rendering. Such matters are routine in translation, so a consensus in rendering will not necessarily amount to a reliable representation of the biblical text itself.

When a majority says thus-and-so, the English reader does not know what the biblical text says, but rather what the majority has said. And so they should say, “The majority of translators/commentators/etc. say….”

steve wrote:
There are students who can easily master calculus and trigonometry. I cannot. I can balance my checkbook and perform all the mathematical operations that are required in my line of work. There might be value in my gaining mastery of these more-advanced mathematical disciplines, but I doubt it. I am 60 years old now, and those skills have not yet been required in order for me to perform any of my duties. I doubt the remaining few years will prove different in this respect. If I were a scientist, that would be a different story.

Now, my field may require greater aptitude in reading and writing, so that, were I (like Jeanette) clumsy with my fingers, or (like Albert) impaired in my reading ability, a very strong case could be made for my putting out whatever effort might be required in order for me to overcome my handicaps so as to fulfill my calling.

There are people who need these skills less than you or I need them. Men and women whose life-work is more manual, mechanical or physical in nature might get along very well in life with less reading skill than mine or yours. You should not imagine, simply because you are a scholar, that all people must become scholars, any more than I should assume that everybody must learn to play a guitar or draw cartoons.

Not all people need to be scholars. Not all people need to be interpreters or even students of the bible. But those who do aspire to these activities, should strive for competence.

steve wrote:
You are correct in saying that a person in our culture who could not read, write or do arithmetic at all would be severely limited in his/her employment options, but, even if they are limited to a narrow range of jobs, some may actually be quite satisfied with the employment that they have. As I get by with limited math skills, so also do many people get by with limited reading and writing abilities. No one would suggest that improved facility in these things would not enhance their lives, but they may not need to master these at a level above than that which they already possess. They cannot enjoy reading Thucydides in Greek, nor even Shakespeare in English, as you can, but perhaps they have no wish to do so. They cannot be faulted for regarding many of the things that you and I enjoy as superfluous to their own happiness and productivity.

I do not consider biblical literacy to be necessary. Plenty of people can get by without biblical literacy – though it might “enhance their lives” – and there are plenty of people who we need not fault for choosing to pursue other lines of personal development.

As for reading Thucydides, Shakespeare, or the bible in translation: translations of all these works can be read profitably, for enjoyment and even for personal edification. But these translations should be engaged without assuming that they are equivalent to the original works in Greek, Klingon, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

It has been said that every translation is a commentary; and accordingly, every translation should be read as its own entity. One is reading not The Peloponnesian War, but Lattimore’s rendering of the War; one is reading not Psalms, but Alter’s treatment of Psalms; etc.


This manner of engagement may be quite enough, for some persons. In my own case, I have had some interest in Zoroastrianism. I have read various materials about the religion, in English; and I have a few different versions of Zoroastrian scriptures on my shelf. But it is quite probable that I never will expend the effort to learn Gathic and Avestan, so that I can read the scriptures themselves.

This may prove to be perfectly fine: my life is not profoundly invested in the contents of the Avesta. I can read secondary material about it, and my mind can wrangle profitably with the ideas that it encounters. It does not matter terribly much whether those ideas correspond to the Avesta itself or not – so long as I do not attempt to represent those ideas as Avestan, to myself or to others.

But if I were profoundly invested in the contents of the Avesta, or if I were determined to represent its contents to myself and others, then I would have need to pursue competence in Gathic and Avestan, conscientiously.

Likewise, persons who are profoundly invested in the contents of the bible, or who purport to represent those contents to others, should pursue linguistic competence – conscientiously.

steve wrote:
No one here has argued that it is desirable for any Christian to remain completely ignorant of the Hebrew or Greek Testaments—even if their only access to them is through an English translation. A better knowledge of the languages would be beneficial, as both Matt and I freely acknowledge, but to insist upon its necessity seems very elitist to me.

The charge of elitism plays well in an American context; our society has a strong tradition of egalitarianism. But the underside to this tradition is susceptibility to complacency, or even philistinism.

It is a trifling thing to complain of elitism, when the skills under discussion are attainable by most individuals, and when the utility of these skills is of great significance.

steve wrote:
When I teach in Korean- or Spanish-speaking schools, I depend entirely upon translators, and so do most of the students, who wish to understand what I am telling them. I have often thought how fine a thing it would be for me to learn Korean, Spanish, German, Japanese, and all the other languages of the people I teach, but that is unrealistic for me. If I were to learn all those languages, I would never have to worry about my sentences being mangled by poor translators. However, in the world I actually inhabit, I am stuck with trusting competent translators who are fluent in both languages. This means that my Korean listeners may not catch my wonderful wit in a subtle comment, but it seldom means that the main points of my message, and my train of thought, are entirely lost on the crowd.

I have had non-English-speaking students tell me, years after sitting in my lectures, how some of the points I made have changed their lives in the interim. Though I am dependent upon translators even to understand the testimonies of these students, I have no reason to doubt that what they are telling me corresponds very closely to what they heard me teach through a translator. Many of these students, though never having understood a word of English themselves, could legitimately go to someone else and say “Steve said…”

I cannot speak to the practical issues involved with translating Korean, Spanish, German, or Japanese into English. Neither can I speak to the verisimilitude yielded (or not) by your translators.

My experience is with texts in biblical languages, and the ways they have been handled by translators. And as I have said in response to Matt – over and over and over again, I have found that translations are not adequately indicative of the text they are rendering.

If the translators of your lectures achieved 95% accuracy, then you might rarely (or never) have received feedback that made you feel severely misrepresented. And your lectures, being oral, probably received less hyperanalysis than the written scriptures do.

But if translators of the biblical text were to yield a 95% rate of accuracy – with the fruits of the labors undergoing minute (and credulous) examination by broad audiences – the practical results could be grave.

Your students, “never having understood a word of English themselves,” could not “legitimately go to someone else and say ‘Steve said…’” – even if they received an accurate sense of your remarks by way of your translator. They would have no way of knowing whether they had received an accurate sense of your remarks, or not; they could hope, or believe, or trust – but they could not know.

[mattrose]

Having read your latest response.... I appreciate the dialogue. But I also don't think you've added anything new to the discussion. We could go on forever back and forth, but I feel that anyone interested in this subject who stumbled upon this thread will see both sides of the argument represented thoroughly and will be able to decide for themselves who made the better argument. As for the interchange between you and I, I obviously think I made the better argument. You assuredly think you did. I am just glad we didn't have to be HTML experts to have this friendly debate

[steve]

You will pardon the question, then: do you consider yourself competent in biblical Greek?

I guess I would have to say, "Competent to do what?" And what degree of competence counts as enough?

You can read the Greek, but you may not understand it as well as someone in the first century who spoke it as a first language. In fact, even some of the biblical writers were less competent in Greek than were others—though they grew up with the language from childhood. What degree of perfection of knowledge of Greek should we hold out for before we can access the true message of the Bible?

As I said above, misunderstanding of what the Bible says is more often due, in my opinion, to factors other than complexities of grammar and vocabulary. I know there are some verses where the interpretation hinges significantly upon the ambiguities of a specific term used, or of the tense in the Greek verb. These would represent a small minority of verses, and I do not know of any of them upon which a major doctrine rests. You may dispute me on this, but I am convinced that 95% of the words and sentences in scripture use relatively straight-forward, uncomplicated words and grammar such as ordinary, unlettered readers in the first century would understand when it was read aloud to them. If some of the words in that 95% were indeed ambiguous, I think their ambiguity does not seriously compromise the intelligibility of the sentences in which they occur. I would not be surprised if 5% of the words or sentences in the New Testament turned out to be hopelessly obscure—not only to me, but also to scholars.

You have written as if Matt and I depend entirely upon English versions of the Bible for our understanding of the text. We have both made clear that we use other lexical resources as well, and we both are, I'm sure, aware of many cases like those to which you allude, wherein traditional and biased translators have perpetuated skewed renderings of certain verses. I'm sure we all have more to learn, but I would be interested to learn of some instance in which you have found me asserting some meaning of a text which failed to gain its correct meaning due to my misapprehension of its Greek nuances. I am not saying that no such instances can be cited. I would simply benefit more from your general criticism if specific examples were presented to demonstrate that the deficiency you describe actually exists.

[darinhouston]

Your students, “never having understood a word of English themselves,” could not “legitimately go to someone else and say ‘Steve said…’” – even if they received an accurate sense of your remarks by way of your translator. They would have no way of knowing whether they had received an accurate sense of your remarks, or not; they could hope, or believe, or trust – but they could not know.

I don't see why they couldn't say that -- otherwise, it's only a step removed from my own inability to say that after having heard something Steve said in English. I speak the language, but still might misinterpret or misremember something Steve says in my native tongue. Those I relay it to second-hand can hope, believe and trust that I accurately understood it, remembered it, and accurately represent it, but they likewise can't "know." Communication is a tricky thing in any language.

[dwilkins]

I am curious about how our view of the inspiration of scripture affects the conversation on this topic. If we believe generally that scripture is inspired then we are saying that God used the people involved to pass on his message. The question is, how precisely he did so? It seems to me that if we are saying that the Greek text is absolutely precise to the level of grammatical minutiae then we are flirting with the dictation theory of inspiration. Not too many people would stipulate to this.

A similar question would be how closely Greek is able to communicate the conversation of the day. It's commonly accepted these days that the everyday conversation of the New Testament was done in Aramaic or Hebrew. The verb systems of these languages are impossible to absolutely perfectly translate into Greek. The same goes for the vocabulary, though I think you can get closer with that. If a conversation happened in one language and then was recorded in another, but the second language us incapable of precisely describing that conversation, then how can we say that the second language's record is absolutely perfect?

Doug

[Homer]

If a conversation happened in one language and then was recorded in another, but the second language us incapable of precisely describing that conversation, then how can we say that the second language's record is absolutely perfect?

There would not be a problem if the writers were inspired to relate what was meant rather than what was said.

[dwilkins]

If a conversation happened in one language and then was recorded in another, but the second language us incapable of precisely describing that conversation, then how can we say that the second language's record is absolutely perfect?

There would not be a problem if the writers were inspired to relate what was meant rather than what was said.

How is it that someone originally said something that is inspired (they were quoted verbatim in scripture that is itself inspired) but that they didn't say what they meant to say? If they did say what they meant to say in one language, it would be impossible to translate the complete depth of their thought in another language that has a different and incompatible verb system and vocabulary.

It seems to me that part of the conversation so far has been an insistence that in order to perfectly understand what someone meant you had to perfectly translate their words. If we can say that there is more than one way to perfectly say something in order to get the point across then it brings into question exactly how exactly someone needs to understand either of those optional tellings of the story.

Also, I am highly suspicious of the assertion that commoners of Judea or Galilee competently spoke Greek at the time of the New Testament. I know that this has been a point of faith because of our Greek copies of the New Testament. But, that argument turns into circular reasoning if we are saying that they spoke Greek because the Biblical text we have is Greek. Keep in mind that Josephus, a highly educated man, was clear that he wrote "Wars of the Jews" in either Aramaic or Hebrew (he said it was "our language" without specifying), but had to learn Greek in order to translate his own work. He said that he struggled with learning Greek and eventually failed, so that he hired a professional translator and personally supervised the work. If Josephus had to deliberately chose to learn Greek and admits to failing to have done so what are the chances that the locals spoke Greek well enough to compose the New Testament? What are the odds that, if they did manage to, the product is so perfectly linguistically crafted that there are no grammatical errors at all (keeping in mind that experts point out grammatical errors in the text)?

[Homer]

How is it that someone originally said something that is inspired (they were quoted verbatim in scripture that is itself inspired) but that they didn't say what they meant to say?

I am not saying that they didn't say what they meant to say, but what they meant to say may have been ambiguous. As an old preacher remarked long ago, "Its not what the bible says that's important, but what it means". Consider Genesis 3:20:

New King James Version (NKJV)

20. And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

So frogs are living, is Eve the mother of frogs? Obviously not, that is not what the verse means. You mentioned the difficulty of translating Hebrew and Greek verbs into Greek. But if Matthew, for example, chose a Greek verb in the proper tense to correctly express what Jesus meant then there is no problem.

To me the greater problem today is in not speaking as the scriptures speak (as translated). One of my pet peeves is the "you need a personal relationship with Jesus" that we hear nowadays. Sounds like He's your fishing buddy or something. Why not say He needs to be your Lord and Saviour? Seems much clearer to me. But then some folks think the Lord part is optional; I've never understood that.