When I teach or preach from the New
Testament, I usually read and translate directly from my Greek text. I don't do this to show off or to impress
people; most who hear me don't even realize I'm doing so, other than those who
ask the occasional question as to what translation I use. (I usually tell them I use the BLT. If that doesn't satisfy I explain that BLT
stands for Bill's Literal Translation).
Of course some actually notice and make the comment mentioned above.
I have been reading and studying my Greek
Testament regularly for nearly 40 years.
One requirement for my Master's Degree in New Testament, besides
grammatical and exegetical studies was to read through the entire Greek New
Testament at least once (though most of it was read more than that). I was hooked and since then I have read it
through at least once a year. I actually
feel more at home in it than in my English New Testament. I have also read and continue to read in my Hebrew
Old Testament (with difficulty) as well as in the Septuagint. I have never formally taught Greek other than
a one hour credit class at the College of Biblical Studies - Houston,
entitled: "The Greek New Testament
for English Readers." I have occasionally
tutored or mentored a few persons in the study as well.
Though the author of the article concedes that
"there is nothing wrong with wanting to know some things about the
language that God gave us for the New Testament," he warns us that
"there are also dangers involved."
While after my first reading I found myself in essential agreement with
the article and even hit "like" on the post, I felt a bit
uncomfortable and felt that even though the author asserts that he is "not
trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek," he was doing just
that. I also felt that it could become an
excuse for those who are teachers and preachers, for neglecting the original
languages.
I agree with most of what the article
states. I feel along with this writer
that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I agree with his three
points - to a point. I'd like to add my
thoughts to the points made there which I see as actually two.
Point 1:
"Usage Trumps Etymology:
Avoiding the Root Fallacy" and Point 3: "Context is King: Avoiding the Overload Fallacy" seem to be
saying much the same thing. "... a word's meaning is not determined by its
etymology, but by its usage."
"Most words don't have a 'literal meaning' at all - rather, they
have a range of possible meanings (the technical term is 'semantic
range.'" "Context usually narrows
the possible meanings to one (an exception would be ... puns)."
Point 2:
"Scholars are Necessary:
Avoiding the Cult of the Amateur" seems clear except that it is used
simply to reinforce Points 1 and 3.
The article appears to assume that word study
is a major aspect in doing Greek exegesis.
Actually the sort of studies described requires little knowledge of the
original languages, just some skill in the use of a concordance, which is
available to the English reader.
One does not have to be skilled in the
original languages to be a gifted Bible teacher. I myself studied and taught the Bible with a
reasonable amount of proficiency for many years before my formal
education. Many of those from whom I
learned had no proficiency in the languages; some didn't even have that good a
command of our native English!
But I contend that a familiarity with the
language in which our Bible was originally written is an asset which the use of
helps can only partially provide. I
write this at the desk in my study with volumes of helps - concordances, lexicons
and commentaries on the shelves behind me.
As far as the use of words, I agree that
usage trumps etymology and that context is king. But knowledge of the "original" or
"root" meanings of words brings a color to the book that simple
context definitions cannot. As in any
language, words have many meanings, even in the same context. Much of language is metaphorical and the
careful reader or listener understands that words do have more than one
meaning and that though a word may have a single specific meaning in a
particular context, it often carries with it its other meanings. Puns, double entendres, sarcasm and subtle nuances
are much more common than a literalistic reader might suppose.
Some examples:
·
Jesus
is in the garden of Gethsemane with His disciples on the night before His
betrayal. He is burdened down and leaves
them to go off alone to pray. He tells
them: meinate hode kai gregoreite (Mark 14:34). Most translations, even modern ones translate
this something like "stay here and watch," which is probably what was
meant. But gregoreo has the "original" meaning of "stay
awake." To translate it simply as
"watch" would be accurate, but the reader would miss the irony of the
fact that they fell asleep.
·
Paul
exhorts his readers many times, peripateite
(Ephesians 4:1, 17; 5:1, 15, etc.). Some
modern versions (though not all) translate this word simply as "live,"
referring to Christian behavior or conduct.
But the "root" meaning of pateo
is "walk" and the prefix peri
has the meaning of "around." The Christian is not exhorted to passively
"live" but to have an active life - a life in motion.
And while word meanings do change over time,
some retain their meanings over centuries, even millennia. When Paul tells his readers that the Holy
Spirit is our arrabon (2 Corinthians
1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13, 14), he is using a word that already in his day was
2,000 years old; it was actually an ancient Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) word. Its first biblical usage is in the Hebrew Old
Testament, Genesis 38:17, 18, 20 in the spicy story of Tamar and Judah. Judah contracts for sex with his widowed daughter-in-law
Tamar who has disguised herself as a prostitute. He promises her "a kid from the
flock" for her favors (the going rate?) and gives her his seal, cord and
staff as an arrabon. The word in Paul is translated variously as
"earnest," "pledge," "down payment," but I
suspect that his astute readers may have recalled the earlier context. (The word is still found today in modern
Greek and is used of an engagement ring.)
And then there are synonyms. No two words have precisely the same
meaning. While synonyms have an overlap
in meaning and in many contexts seem to be used simply for variety, there are
many instances where their differences in meaning are quite clear.
· The
words allos and heteros can simply be translated interchangeably in many contexts
as "other" or "another."
In 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul uses allos
six times and heteros twice with no
clear difference. Most English
translations translate both words consistently as "another." But in his letter to the Galatians, while he
uses both words in one context, their subtle differences in meaning are clear. "I am amazed that so quickly you have
moved away from the One who called you in the grace of Christ to another (heteros) gospel - which is not another (allos) ..." Most modern translations translate heteros here as "a different
..." (Galatians 1:6, 7) bringing out the difference in meaning.
·
The
author of the article states, "Turns out that agape and philos (I
believe that he meant to say philia)
aren't really different kinds of love after all ..." Apparently this is something that he learned
from "scholars" in his "first couple of weeks of
class." However, while the words
are synonyms and in many instances may simply be translated as
"love," a careful study of all the New Testament usages will
demonstrate that there are clear differences. See: I LOVE YOU LORD and WHAT IS LOVE?
And of course, language studies are much more
than studies of word meanings. Grammar
is an important part. Greek verb tenses
differ from our English tenses. For
instance, while in English we have a simple past tense, Greek has two, the aorist and the imperfect, which give much
more color to the action. To
oversimplify (always dangerous) the aorist presents a snapshot: "he ran," while the imperfect
presents a motion picture: "he was
running." English often has to use
"helper words" to get the same color.
One example:
in John 11:35 we read edakrusen ho
lesous. Normally this is translated
"Jesus wept." But the verb dakruo here is not the normal word for
weeping but is related to the word dakruon,
"tear." It is also in the
aorist tense. This, the shortest verse
in the Bible, is thus packed with meaning.
It could be translated "Jesus burst into tears!" The Greek reader could catch this. Also see:
GRAMMAR AND THE GREAT COMMISSION.
I
agree with Point 2 on the value of
scholarship. However, scholars quite
often disagree with one another. If we
simply compare Bible translations we will frequently find conflicts. We all - scholars or lay persons or those in
between - fail to distinguish degrees of certainty and can be dogmatic where we
have little or no right to be. This is
where some knowledge of the original languages can be of great help - not to
arrive at new interpretations but to check on existing ones. In regard to the experts, we should
"trust but verify!"
So, while I would encourage the English
reader that we have some excellent translations
and excellent commentaries that can be trusted, I would also
encourage the student - especially if you teach - to dig a little deeper using
a good concordance and lexicon. Get the
feel for the Bible. Remember it's a lifetime process.
And do watch out. A little learning can be a dangerous thing!