How important are the languages?

[Ur_fellow_pilgrim]

I am a big fan of studying the languages and in most if not all cases would recommend someone training for ministry to study them. I have only been practicing them for about 3 years now (more Hebrew than Greek) but I have found it really beneficial and given me insight that I had missed with only the English.

Undoubtedly though there are some who think that the languages are not very important and question whether they need to be studied at all. I was wondering if you guys had any specific passages where an understanding of the original language has been crucial for correctly interpreting the text or where there are strong disagreements on how something should be translated.

I am aware of a few but I figured I would open it up to everyone.

 

[iainduguid]

I'll kick us off: without languages it is hard to know which English translation is right. For example, Proverbs 29:18a:

Where there is no vision, the people perish (KJV).

Where there is no prophetic vision, the people cast off restraint (ESV).

Here the greater precision of the ESV in translating hazon, which specifically means a prophetic vision, guards against all those sermons on the need for a "vision for evangelism" or whatever. I'm also not quite sure where the "perish" comes from in the KJV here; I've yet to find any other translation, in any language, that renders it this way. (Note: this is not an anti-KJV post; there are times when the KJV is a better translation too. But without the languages, how can you know which is to be preferred?).

It's interesting to compare Machen's address at the founding of Westminster Seminary with Lloyd-Jones address at the founding of London Theological Seminary. The former asserts the impossibility of ministry without the languages; the latter points out that quite a few famous preachers, such as Bunyan, had neither Greek nor Hebrew. Of course, they are both right. As my grandfather was told at Aberdeen University in the 1920's, "If ye canna preach the gospel in plain English, laddie, ye winna preach it in Greek or Hebrew". But there are undoubtedly great advantages in knowing the languages in helping us not to misunderstand the text and to see additional details that we can't easily see in our English translations.

 

[cthorn14]

I'm also not quite sure where the "perish" comes from in the KJV here; I've yet to find any other translation, in any language, that renders it this way. (Note: this is not an anti-KJV post; there are times when the KJV is a better translation too. But without the languages, how can you know which is to be preferred?).

It would seem there was an older English tradition of supplying "perish" there. Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishops' Bible all have it.

The KJV margin has "is made naked" as an alternative for "perish", which would seem more literal. Perhaps there was a desire for continuity with previous translations.

 

[iainduguid]

It would seem there was an older English tradition of supplying "perish" there. Coverdale, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishops' Bible all have it.

The KJV margin has "is made naked" as an alternative for "perish", which would seem more literal. Perhaps there was a desire for continuity with previous translations.

Perhaps. The KJV is often more dependent on what went before than many people realize. But the point is simply how do you evaluate the translation differences (e.g. "which would seem more literal") with confidence if you know nothing of the languages?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Languages are so important!

 

[cthorn14]

But the point is simply how do you evaluate the translation differences (e.g. "which would seem more literal") with confidence if you know nothing of the languages?

It would seem to me that one can make reasonable judgements about translations without being able to independently verify every detail. For example, I could examine the context, look at commentaries, review translations, and make use of computational models without being advanced in the languages. Not that any of these are a substitute for the expertise of diligent pastors and teachers such as yourself. But I don't think it is all or nothing.

 

[iainduguid]

It would seem to me that one can make reasonable judgements about translations without being able to independently verify every detail. For example, I could examine the context, look at commentaries, review translations, and make use of computational models without being advanced in the languages. Not that any of these are a substitute for the expertise of diligent pastors and teachers such as yourself. But I don't think it is all or nothing.

Indeed. You are in good company with Lloyd-Jones there. There are many faithful pastors around the world who have very little book learning but know and love the Bible. I wouldn't want to say they aren't properly equipped for ministry. But if we are going to rightly handle the Word of truth, I think we should each strive to learn as much as we can, recognizing that different people will have different abilities and opportunities. In Presbyterian circles, we value an educated ministry for precisely that reason. Here in the States there is normally little reason for a pastor not to have at least a modicum of Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Solparvus]

An English translation is enough to know the way of salvation and our duty to God, but the minister is an authorized ambassador for Christ. I think the nature of the office requires him to be/become sharp in every way that he can.

Apologetically the languages are invaluable. John Wesley said (par.), "If I don't know the Biblical languages, I'm at the mercy of everyone who pretends that he does." In that he is right.

It's one thing to declare to a JW the technical reasons why John 1:1 says that Christ is God when in fact you know Greek only as well as they do; it's another to know it because you regularly read Greek and understand from experience just how Greek articles work.

Deep familiarity with the languages also stops you from treating Greek and Hebrew like math formulas ("this verb is in aorist participle third person dative, therefore..."), and more like what they were: living language in which people thought, spoke, reasoned, and understood the world around them.

The languages serve as quality control too. In some ways the languages brighten the truth that you read in English, at other times they restrict your range of possible interpretations.

You make use of language tools rather than be slaves to them.

If anything, learning the languages to a masterly level is a mental bulk-up, and that will pay off in any realm of study.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

John Wesley said (par.), "If I don't know the Biblical languages, I'm at the mercy of everyone who pretends that he does." In that he is right.

With the availability of websites like Biblehub (which I like) and apps like Literal Word (which I also like), you will absolutely find yourself in situations where people are bringing the original languages to you and often times poorly handled.

 

[Ur_fellow_pilgrim]

An English translation is enough to know the way of salvation and our duty to God, but the minister is an authorized ambassador for Christ. I think the nature of the office requires him to be/become sharp in every way that he can.

Apologetically the languages are invaluable. John Wesley said (par.), "If I don't know the Biblical languages, I'm at the mercy of everyone who pretends that he does." In that he is right.

It's one thing to declare to a JW the technical reasons why John 1:1 says that Christ is God when in fact you know Greek only as well as they do; it's another to know it because you regularly read Greek and understand from experience just how Greek articles work.

Deep familiarity with the languages also stops you from treating Greek and Hebrew like math formulas ("this verb is in aorist participle third person dative, therefore..."), and more like what they were: living language in which people thought, spoke, reasoned, and understood the world around them.

The languages serve as quality control too. In some ways the languages brighten the truth that you read in English, at other times they restrict your range of possible interpretations.

You make use of language tools rather than be slaves to them.

If anything, learning the languages to a masterly level is a mental bulk-up, and that will pay off in any realm of study.

I like how you pointed out that the languages often restrict your range of possible interpretations there have been at least two instances where I had begun to think over a passage for a sermon and then as I began to translate the main point/ application seemed to be different from what had come across in my English. This restricted me but in the best way possible and helped me be more faithful.

 

[Ur_fellow_pilgrim]

It would seem to me that one can make reasonable judgements about translations without being able to independently verify every detail. For example, I could examine the context, look at commentaries, review translations, and make use of computational models without being advanced in the languages. Not that any of these are a substitute for the expertise of diligent pastors and teachers such as yourself. But I don't think it is all or nothing.

Yes I think it is wise to say that it isn’t all or nothing and we are very blessed to have so many translations to compare. While we do have a lot of really good commentaries they often make claims on the greek/hebrew that the reader needs to be able to evaluate or we have to take them at their word

 

[Solparvus]

With the availability of websites like Biblehub (which I like) and apps like Literal Word (which I also like), you will absolutely find yourself in situations where people are bringing the original languages to you and often times poorly handled.

Indeed they can be "enough to be dangerous." I remember James White getting on to someone for trying to prove a point about Greek from Strong's Concordance. I talked with my Greek instructor about it, and he explained to me that Strong's Concordance is not meant to act like a lexicon. Completely different tool. That's one example.

It's also why I think it's good also to learn a living language if one hasn't already. It would give a true sense of how languages work and how they are used and understood. The things we do with Greek and Hebrew we'd be slower to do with Spanish or German. I'm not against parsing exercises, for example, but grammatical formulation is only one part of interpretation, and you largely cease to think about them when you began to use the language in real time.

I like how you pointed out that the languages often restrict your range of possible interpretations there have been at least two instances where I had begun to think over a passage for a sermon and then as I began to translate the main point/ application seemed to be different from what had come across in my English. This restricted me but in the best way possible and helped me be more faithful.

I remember people talking about the utterly vast meanings of Greek and Hebrew words as to give them a more explosive power than they really possess, or thinking that you could load the entire semantic range of a word into its use. Again, it's very unlike a real language, because when people use a word they usually only have one meaning in mind. The question is, what meaning do they have in mind? That takes much more than a Strong's Concordance gloss.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

I am a big fan of studying the languages and in most if not all cases would recommend someone training for ministry to study them. I have only been practicing them for about 3 years now (more Hebrew than Greek) but I have found it really beneficial and given me insight that I had missed with only the English.

Undoubtedly though there are some who think that the languages are not very important and question whether they need to be studied at all. I was wondering if you guys had any specific passages where an understanding of the original language has been crucial for correctly interpreting the text or where there are strong disagreements on how something should be translated.

I am aware of a few but I figured I would open it up to everyone.

Putting aside the issue of whether it is essential for ministers to know the language, wouldn't you want to know them?

The best part of my day is reading a chapter of the New Testament in Greek. Very enjoyable. Of course, at the beginning, before one gets good at Greek, it's more of a chore. But, like a fine wine, it gets better with time.

 

[SomberSoul]

I remember most Owen's argument for the interpretation of Hebrews 2:16, particularly around ἐπιλαμβάνεται and the genitive for "angels" and "seed."

He makes the case that ἐπιλαμβάνεται should not be translated according according to the figurative sense "give help" but as an intensification of the primary sense of "take hold of." This combined with the genitives of "angels" and "seed" which imply a substantive article ("that of the" angels and "that of the" seed), such that the verse is a reference to not taking the nature of angels to himself but taking the nature of the seed of Abraham to himself.

The text becomes very clear after that explanation and even more directly closes the loop on the angels and the incarnate Christ discussion of Hebrews 1-2.