Does one need to know the original language?

[Riverwolf]

What I suggest can be done right now. Just try proving anything from a translation, and see what happens.

What do you mean?

 

[fallingblood]

Where there is no significant difference between translations, or where a difference is immaterial. But those are not the places that matter.

Actually yes, in many places that matter. Many translations agree with much of what the Bible says. The differences, in many cases, are simply minor variations. However, scholarly commentary can and does help in understanding the Bible.

In many cases, the biggest disagreement is simply on interpretations of what a verse states. It's not the wording of the verse, it is what they believe the verse means.

 

[kejos]

Many translations agree with much of what the Bible says.

How do you know? You haven't a clue. You're in the hands of a man some call Hot Ehrman. Not a nice fate, some say.

In many cases, the biggest disagreement is simply on interpretations of what a verse states.

Let's not change the subject!

Try it out, this notion of yours, and let's see how far you get.

 

[fallingblood]

It's been true from before you were born. Theologians never use anything but Gk and Heb between themselves. To do otherwise would be instant suicide.

Go on, try proving anything you like from a translation, anything that has been disputed. It won't even work here, let alone in the real world.

Duh? Of course, if it is disputed, one won't prove anything even with the original language, so your point is moot. People interpret the Bible differently. Conservative scholars will interpret the original languages to fit their idea. Liberals will do the same. Or at least in many cases that is true. Again, that point is completely moot.

Also, what you said is not true. Many theologians do in fact resort English translations. Can you show any evidence that all theologians use nothing but the Greek and Hebrew between themselves? I highly doubt it since many don't even use their own translations of both language.

One example, Bart D. Ehrman does not use the Hebrew. He resorts to English translations. He does use the Greek, but not the Hebrew.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't even get what you're asking for, Kejos. Prove what, exactly?

 

[fallingblood]

How do you know? You haven't a clue. You're in the hands of a man some call Hot Ehrman. Not a nice fate, some say.

So you try to discredit a scholar that I use in order to prove me wrong? Doesn't work like that.

It's not hard to compare multiple translations of the Bible. With the advent of the internet, it becomes much more easy, as there are many sites that will list them side by side.

Let's not change the subject!

Try it out, this notion of yours, and let's see how far you get.

I wasn't changing the subject, I was addressing something you said. If you look through these forums, you will see that there are some members here who are quite well versed in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and the like. However, the original languages hardly come up unless it is to stress a point.

Many scholars do in fact resort to the English translations to prove their points. Pick up any number of research papers, text books, or books intended for a scholarly audience, and you will see that they use the English translations as well.

 

[kejos]

Duh? Of course, if it is disputed, one won't prove anything even with the original language

Nonsense. Anyone who has been on the religious 'net for long knows that very well. Many an inane driveller has been driven out with just one Greek word.

One example, Bart D. Ehrman does not use the Hebrew.

A major handicap. Without Heb, one cannot properly understand the NT. Though I don't think that Ehrman pays much attention to nuance in the NT anyway!

 

[kejos]

I don't even get what you're asking for, Kejos. Prove what, exactly?

Prove any disputed interpretation from a translation only. Or any undisputed one, for that matter.

 

[Riverwolf]

A major handicap. Without Heb, one cannot properly understand the NT. Though I don't think that Ehrman pays much attention to nuance in the NT anyway!

The NT wasn't written in Hebrew. It was written in Aramaic and Greek. The OT was the Hebrew one.

Even then, the Greek OT (the Septuagint) was compiled before the Masoretic text, which was in Hebrew, and is the standard Jewish Tanakh used today.

 

[kejos]

The NT wasn't written in Hebrew. It was written in Aramaic and Greek.

Just Greek.

The OT was the Hebrew one.

With Aramaic.

Even then, the Greek OT (the Septuagint) was compiled before the Masoretic text, which was in Hebrew, and is the standard Jewish Tanakh used today.

The LXX. That's for demolition in another thread, surely.

 

[fallingblood]

Nonsense. Anyone who has been on the religious 'net for long knows that very well. Many an inane driveller has been driven out with just one Greek word.

So why has it never occurred here, or for that fact, in any forum I've been in. More so, in the many discussions I've had with theologians, it has never came up either. That includes ministers of various denominations, as well as college level teachers. The most that has happened is one pointing out the Greek in a case that matters, and explaining what it means. For the most part, that usually doesn't change what is being said, it just strengthens a point.

More so, that is why we have commentaries, scholarly works on the subject, books explaining why it has been translated in a certain way, books explaining why the interpretation is the way it is, etc.

A major handicap. Without Heb, one cannot properly understand the NT. Though I don't think that Ehrman pays much attention to nuance in the NT anyway!

That makes very little sense at all. How does not understanding Hebrew mean one can not understand the NT? The fact is, the majority of NT scholars focus on the Greek, and know little Hebrew. The reason being that learning the Greek, and the historical context takes a lifetime. That is why they are NT scholars. The same is true in many cases for OT scholars as well.

And discrediting Ehrman? The fact is, he has the credibility that one needs. He's shown himself many times. The majority of what he says is agreed upon by the majority of scholars. When he does differ, he is not alone, and he explains why. I would definitely trust him over you.

 

[Riverwolf]

Prove any disputed interpretation from a translation only. Or any undisputed one, for that matter.

I have immediate access only to two translations/commentaries: the NJB, and Robert Alter's translations of the Torah and Psalms. As such, when it comes to Biblical matters, I'm hardly an authority on the matter. Remember: I said earlier several times that multiple translations are important.

Besides, can you do the same with the original language?

 

[Riverwolf]

Just Greek.

With Aramaic.

Ah, thanks for the clarifications. Aramaic was likely the language of Jesus and his disciples, but the oldest surviving copies we have of NT texts are in Greek.

Doesn't nullify what I said. Having little knowledge of Hebrew isn't really a handicap when dealing with the New Testament.

 

[Magic Man]

The situation is this: homosexuals could achieve parity with heterosexuals in churches if they could prove that the Bible permits homosexuality. It so happens that there is an important test case under review right now, and the learned exposition in the thread referred to would resolve the situation beyond a peradventure. So the bishops and archbishops mentioned, who are sorely tried because of the pressure on one side from homosexuals, and on the other from Greek and Hebrew scholars, would be very grateful indeed if those scholars could be proved to be in error. It's a little surprising that action has not been taken already to provide them with this crucial information.

The information is out there. Some people don't want to change their tune, as evidenced by that other thread. It's not a lot different from evolution vs. creation. It's not that the evidence isn't there for evolution for anyone to see, but some people just don't want to see it.

 

[kejos]

Ah, thanks for the clarifications. Aramaic was likely the language of Jesus and his disciples

It is very possible, if not likely, that Jesus and the disciples conversed in Greek, the lingua franca of Galilee, the region where all of them hailed from, except Judas, who must have known Greek. Many ordinary people were multilingual, as they still are in many parts of the world, a fact that English-speakers today generally do not realise.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is very possible, if not likely, that Jesus and the disciples conversed in Greek, the lingua franca of Galilee, the region where all of them hailed from, except Judas, who must have known Greek. Many ordinary people were multilingual, as they still are in many parts of the world, a fact that English-speakers today generally do not realise.

Right, they could have spoken both languages.

And it's Americans that don't quite realize it, since we're not taught other languages until we're too old. From what I hear, in Europe, learning other languages is part of growing up.

 

[kejos]

So why has it never occurred here

I'm sure it has. It will, sooner or later.

 

[kejos]

Right, they could have spoken both languages.

And it's Americans that don't quite realize it, since we're not taught other languages until we're too old. From what I hear, in Europe, learning other languages is part of growing up.

Indeed it is.

 

[fallingblood]

It is very possible, if not likely, that Jesus and the disciples conversed in Greek, the lingua franca of Galilee, the region where all of them hailed from, except Judas, who must have known Greek. Many ordinary people were multilingual, as they still are in many parts of the world, a fact that English-speakers today generally do not realise.

It is accepted that they spoke in Aramaic as it was the common language. If they knew Greek, it wouldn't have been very little. All of the evidence points that way.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure it has. It will, sooner or later.

There are many people here who understand the original languages, and they have not done so, yet.