Does one need to know the original language?

[fallingblood]

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

That's like me saying that if the world hasn't ended, sooner or later it will. If pigs haven't flown, sooner or later they will. It is a statement without evidence, or credibility.

 

[kejos]

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?

Original languages can be used to show that a translation has added or subtracted a word, or chosen a particular meaning out of context. It happens much more than most people realise. In addition, one cannot get the 'feel' and the impact of some passages in translation. This is true when translating from, say, French to English. And with Hebrew, the rich double meanings are completely lost in translation. The truth is that translations are pale imitations of the real thing, and no-one who reckons to take the Bible seriously should even think of using them for study. One simply cannot make a contribution to serious debate using only translations.

 

[Riverwolf]

Original languages can be used to show that a translation has added or subtracted a word, or chosen a particular meaning out of context. It happens much more than most people realise.

Evidence?

In addition, one cannot get the 'feel' and the impact of some passages in translation. This is true when translating from, say, French to English.

Here, we're in agreement. French poetry is best in French, not English. Likewise, the poetry of the Torah is probably stunning in Hebrew, while in English translations, it tends to be dry.

And with Hebrew, the rich double meanings are completely lost in translation.

Hence the use of commentaries, such as the ones in Robert Alter's, to point out and explain the double-meanings.

The truth is that translations are pale imitations of the real thing, and no-one who reckons to take the Bible seriously should even think of using them for study.

Well, too bad. Most people who do study the Bible seriously aren't linguists. This isn't something you can just do; you have to be naturally disposed towards language.

One simply cannot make a contribution to serious debate using only translations.

So far, you've provided no evidence for this, and all of my experience indicates the contrary.

 

[kejos]

Evidence?

If people will do as I say, and attempt to prove something from a translation, the evidence will be seen soon enough.

Hence the use of commentaries

No commentary I've ever used gets very close. They tend to leave off just as things get interesting.

Robert Alter's

Any memorable gems?

Well, too bad.

It is too bad, really. The pitiful level of understanding in what passes for churches, particularly of the OT, is truly dire. Despicable, actually.

Most people who do study the Bible seriously aren't linguists.

Computer owners have every opportunity to put that right.

This isn't something you can just do; you have to be naturally disposed towards language.

Nonsense. Any literate can do it.

So far, you've provided no evidence for this

That's because nobody has had the nerve to take me on.

Seriously, I think that many who have in the past thought fit to chance their arm with translations have had their fingers burned, and are now much less bold with their assertions and attempts to twist Scripture. Original languages have triumphed. Imv, of course.

 

[Riverwolf]

If people will do as I say, and attempt to prove something from a translation, the evidence will be seen soon enough.

That's about as good as the "pray to know the Book of Mormon is true" thing.

Besides, you were unwilling to do what I suggested, so why should I do as you suggest? Mine requires some real mental exercise, whereas yours cannot be done without multiple translations/commentaries, which I do not currently have, nor do I intend to obtain the others for now, as my studies lie elsewhere right now.

No commentary I've ever used gets very close. They tend to leave off just as things get interesting.

So you can speak the original languages and know whether or not they know what they're talking about? Why don't you write your own translation/commentary, then, if you know so much?

Any memorable gems?

As I'm not a Biblical scholar, I've only read a bit of his commentary, and it's been a while. However, one thing that really sticks in my mind is a section of his Introduction, in which he discusses the difference between a translation, and an "explanation." He lamented the fact that most translations tried to appeal to the common person by "explaining" things within the text itself rather than in footnotes. Therefore, the original text becomes pretty much completely lost.

It is too bad, really. The pitiful level of understanding in what passes for churches, particularly of the OT, is truly dire. Despicable, actually.

And yours is any better?

Computer owners have every opportunity to put that right.

Nonsense. Any literate can do it.

Go learn 5 non-Latin/Germanic languages within the next year, able to understand them as well as you can understand your native language, in that case.

It can't be done. All the studies have shown that we are only wired to learn languages easily at very young ages. After that, it becomes much more difficult. That's one of the reasons why multilingual people aren't too common in America, where other languages aren't taught until later, whereas they're quite common in other countries where learning other languages is a requirement in early school years.

That's because nobody has had the nerve to take me on.

Nobody's felt the need. Just because someone issues a challenge doesn't mean it has to be met. Especially for those of us who are not competitive by nature. And just because a challenge hasn't been met doesn't mean it's unable to be met.

Seriously, I think that many who have in the past thought fit to chance their arm with translations have had their fingers burned, and are now much less bold with their assertions and attempts to twist Scripture. Original languages have triumphed. Imv, of course.

Here I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[fallingblood]

If people will do as I say, and attempt to prove something from a translation, the evidence will be seen soon enough.

We've done that over and over again. Just look through the forums. It has been done over and over again.

Read various scholarly books, or papers. They do it over and over again.

Take some college classes, they do it over and over again.

The fact is we have evidence that people can and do prove something through translations. If that wasn't, nearly all scholarly work would be moot.

No commentary I've ever used gets very close. They tend to leave off just as things get interesting.

Maybe you don't have the right commentaries.

It is too bad, really. The pitiful level of understanding in what passes for churches, particularly of the OT, is truly dire. Despicable, actually.

What is taught in churches, and what is taught in theological institutes such as universities, as well as among scholars is not the same.

Computer owners have every opportunity to put that right.

Yeah, if you want a very rudimentary, and probably flawed look at Greek.

Nonsense. Any literate can do it.

Can you prove that? Probably not, especially when considering that it takes an immense level of study to fully learn Greek and the historical context that it is used in. That is why there are people who spend so much time studying the NT in Greek, and even they change their opinions from time to time. It is also why there is also disagreement in NT scholarship.

That's because nobody has had the nerve to take me on.

Because there is no need to. It has already been shown that you are wrong, and actually, your point is refuted throughout this forum.

Seriously, I think that many who have in the past thought fit to chance their arm with translations have had their fingers burned, and are now much less bold with their assertions and attempts to twist Scripture. Original languages have triumphed. Imv, of course.

We have various members here who know the original languages. They bring it up in various posts. What you are saying though simply does not show to be true.

 

[Levite]

This came up in another thread. Does one need to know the original language, or are current translations good enough when studying a religious text?

.... I've come to the conclusion that the English is well enough. Especially when one has scholars who can explain the interpretations and translations.

What do others think? Does one need to understand the original language, or do the translations work just well enough?

I think it depends on the purpose for which one is reading the text. If one is merely curious as to content-- say, a Christian without ulterior agenda reading the Vedas, or an atheist without ulterior agenda reading the Quran-- or if one is reading preparatory to receiving more advanced learning from someone who can read the text in the original, then yes, a good translation is perfectly acceptable.

However, I think if one is either A) reading one's own religious text for the purpose of understanding it within one's tradition, and advancing one's comprehension of how to relate to said text as a member of that tradition, or B) reading the religious texts of another tradition in order to publicly criticize that text or the religious traditions of that other faith, then no, a good translation will not do.

A good translation gives basic understanding, at best. However, deep and nuanced understanding, with comprehensions of how the text's more difficult words can be read (and this is especially key with texts that are mostly poetry, like the Tanakh, the Quran, the Vedas, and so forth), not to mention clues about interpretation that simply may be absent from the plain reading of the text, and require more complex knowledge, all require being able to read the text in the original-- and probably to do so along with traditional guides and commentaries, as well as complex academic work.

Religion is serious business. It requires thought and effort. It does not do well in the hands of the simplistic and the intellectually lazy.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it depends on the purpose for which one is reading the text. If one is merely curious as to content-- say, a Christian without ulterior agenda reading the Vedas, or an atheist without ulterior agenda reading the Quran-- or if one is reading preparatory to receiving more advanced learning from someone who can read the text in the original, then yes, a good translation is perfectly acceptable.

However, I think if one is either A) reading one's own religious text for the purpose of understanding it within one's tradition, and advancing one's comprehension of how to relate to said text as a member of that tradition, or B) reading the religious texts of another tradition in order to publicly criticize that text or the religious traditions of that other faith, then no, a good translation will not do.

A good translation gives basic understanding, at best. However, deep and nuanced understanding, with comprehensions of how the text's more difficult words can be read (and this is especially key with texts that are mostly poetry, like the Tanakh, the Quran, the Vedas, and so forth), not to mention clues about interpretation that simply may be absent from the plain reading of the text, and require more complex knowledge, all require being able to read the text in the original-- and probably to do so along with traditional guides and commentaries, as well as complex academic work.

Religion is serious business. It requires thought and effort. It does not do well in the hands of the simplistic and the intellectually lazy.

Unfortunately, even if one isn't intellectually lazy, that doesn't mean he'll be naturally disposed towards language. True, reading in the original language is ideal, but it's simply not an option for most people.

Hence the use of commentaries and secondary literature to help with understanding without the use of the original languages. (Having a teacher on top of all this would really help.) Would you say that that would be acceptable?

 

[kejos]

Besides, you were unwilling to do what I suggested, so why should I do as you suggest?

Because I asked first?

yours cannot be done without multiple translations/commentaries, which I do not currently have

You only need a point of view and a click or two on an online Bible site. Eeeeasy.

Why don't you write your own translation/commentary, then, if you know so much?

I do it all the time, as can be seen from my posts!

As I'm not a Biblical scholar, I've only read a bit of his commentary, and it's been a while. However, one thing that really sticks in my mind is a section of his Introduction, in which he discusses the difference between a translation, and an "explanation." He lamented the fact that most translations tried to appeal to the common person by "explaining" things within the text itself rather than in footnotes. Therefore, the original text becomes pretty much completely lost.

That's a very good point. As I say, no translation can do justice to the Hebrew.

And yours is any better?

Try me. You might get more than you want, mind.

 

[fallingblood]

I think it depends on the purpose for which one is reading the text. If one is merely curious as to content-- say, a Christian without ulterior agenda reading the Vedas, or an atheist without ulterior agenda reading the Quran-- or if one is reading preparatory to receiving more advanced learning from someone who can read the text in the original, then yes, a good translation is perfectly acceptable.

However, I think if one is either A) reading one's own religious text for the purpose of understanding it within one's tradition, and advancing one's comprehension of how to relate to said text as a member of that tradition, or B) reading the religious texts of another tradition in order to publicly criticize that text or the religious traditions of that other faith, then no, a good translation will not do.

A good translation gives basic understanding, at best. However, deep and nuanced understanding, with comprehensions of how the text's more difficult words can be read (and this is especially key with texts that are mostly poetry, like the Tanakh, the Quran, the Vedas, and so forth), not to mention clues about interpretation that simply may be absent from the plain reading of the text, and require more complex knowledge, all require being able to read the text in the original-- and probably to do so along with traditional guides and commentaries, as well as complex academic work.

Religion is serious business. It requires thought and effort. It does not do well in the hands of the simplistic and the intellectually lazy.

I think you've made a very good point.

I can see where the original language can greatly help. Even on this site, there have been members who have used the original language to further a point. I'm even learning Greek so I can better understand the NT.

Do you think though that a commentary, or possibly some academic text book could explain what the original languages are trying to convey?

 

[Levite]

Unfortunately, even if one isn't intellectually lazy, that doesn't mean he'll be naturally disposed towards language. True, reading in the original language is ideal, but it's simply not an option for most people.

Hence the use of commentaries and secondary literature to help with understanding without the use of the original languages. (Having a teacher on top of all this would really help.) Would you say that that would be acceptable?

Do you think though that a commentary, or possibly some academic text book could explain what the original languages are trying to convey?

I agree that some people may be indisposed naturally to acquiring other languages. But IMO, that means that they must simply be willing to accept that their knowledge of religious texts written in languages not their own are going to be limited.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing shameful in that. It only becomes problematic if such a person then decides to present themselves as being expert or possessing advanced knowledge of such a text.

As for commentaries, of course I am a big believer in their use. However, I also know that in many traditions-- Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, etc.-- the major commentaries are also written in the original language of the text, or related languages of similar origin. For example, in Judaism, the major commentaries are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, just as the texts are. And most of these commentaries are either not available in translation, or they are available in few translations, most of which are either incomplete or of lesser quality.

The other major issue with commentaries and similar secondary material is that one must read many of them, since each is written with certain unique agendas, and certain inherent biases in interpretation. Nothing is wrong with this, and it is only to be expected. But it also means that a single isolated commentary or guide can present a novice with an incomplete or slanted view of what the text is saying and how it has been interpreted.

This is one of the reasons why, traditionally, Jews have spent an enormous amount of time in Tanakh and Talmud education. And, from my admittedly limited understanding, I believe that traditionally Muslims have also spent vast amounts of time immersed in Quran study.

Nonetheless, I would certainly advocate the use of as much commentary and secondary material as possible. It can only help. And, depending upon the agenda of the reader, it may prove to be entirely sufficient.

That said, thee notion that it is unrealistic to expect people to spend considerable effort and time in studying their religion is both very modern, very Western, and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, IMO, very Protestant Christian. In my experience, most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians I have encountered have at least been keenly aware that the texts they are reading are translations, and were composed in very different languages, at very different times, by very different people. But the vast majority of Protestants I have encountered tend to be much shallower in their textual thinking, and far less willing to deal with nuance and complexity.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because I asked first?

No, I believe I asked first. I didn't notice you issuing any challenge when I gave mine.

You only need a point of view and a click or two on an online Bible site. Eeeeasy.

Only two of the ones that have been recommended to me are actually public domain. The others are still under copyright, and are therefore not immediately available to me.

I do it all the time, as can be seen from my posts!

Then direct me to your published translation/commentary on the Bible.

That's a very good point. As I say, no translation can do justice to the Hebrew.

And according to the ones who can read Hebrew, these scholarly translations do a darned good job coming close without actually matching.

Try me. You might get more than you want, mind.

Like I said: direct me to your book.

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree that some people may be indisposed naturally to acquiring other languages. But IMO, that means that they must simply be willing to accept that their knowledge of religious texts written in languages not their own are going to be limited.

I do accept that. I'll never fully understand the original Vedas, because Vedic Sanskrit is a dead language, and apparently scholars have trouble with it.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing shameful in that. It only becomes problematic if such a person then decides to present themselves as being expert or possessing advanced knowledge of such a text.

As for commentaries, of course I am a big believer in their use. However, I also know that in many traditions-- Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain, etc.-- the major commentaries are also written in the original language of the text, or related languages of similar origin. For example, in Judaism, the major commentaries are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, just as the texts are. And most of these commentaries are either not available in translation, or they are available in few translations, most of which are either incomplete or of lesser quality.

The other major issue with commentaries and similar secondary material is that one must read many of them, since each is written with certain unique agendas, and certain inherent biases in interpretation. Nothing is wrong with this, and it is only to be expected. But it also means that a single isolated commentary or guide can present a novice with an incomplete or slanted view of what the text is saying and how it has been interpreted.

Hence why I recommended several.

This is one of the reasons why, traditionally, Jews have spent an enormous amount of time in Tanakh and Talmud education. And, from my admittedly limited understanding, I believe that traditionally Muslims have also spent vast amounts of time immersed in Quran study.

I think Muslims are required to study the Qur'an daily.

Nonetheless, I would certainly advocate the use of as much commentary and secondary material as possible. It can only help. And, depending upon the agenda of the reader, it may prove to be entirely sufficient.

That said, thee notion that it is unrealistic to expect people to spend considerable effort and time in studying their religion is both very modern, very Western, and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, IMO, very Protestant Christian. In my experience, most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians I have encountered have at least been keenly aware that the texts they are reading are translations, and were composed in very different languages, at very different times, by very different people. But the vast majority of Protestants I have encountered tend to be much shallower in their textual thinking, and far less willing to deal with nuance and complexity.

Doesn't help that the NIV was designed to appear as if the texts were originally written in modern English...

 

[kejos]

I agree that some people may be indisposed naturally to acquiring other languages. But IMO, that means that they must simply be willing to accept that their knowledge of religious texts written in languages not their own are going to be limited.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing shameful in that. It only becomes problematic if such a person then decides to present themselves as being expert or possessing advanced knowledge of such a text.

It never becomes a problem, provided that those who actually know what they are talking about are permitted a voice. And here you are, Levite, able to correct kejos every time he makes a faux pas.

That said, thee notion that it is unrealistic to expect people to spend considerable effort and time in studying their religion is both very modern, very Western, and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, IMO, very Protestant Christian.

From which planet does Levite hail? Invertus Maxima? Sales of distinctly Protestant Bible study materials is at an all-time high. Bible study is the famous historic quintessence of Protestantism, which produced more written scholarship in two centuries than Catholicism produced in two millennia.

In my experience, most Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians I have encountered have at least been keenly aware that the texts they are reading are translations, and were composed in very different languages, at very different times, by very different people.

There are senior Catholics who mutter and shake their heads at the very thought of their 'laity' opening Bibles. Catholicism has been forced to open the things in the West because of comparisons with Protestants. And as for Eastern Orthodox in their 'homelands', who have not had that same proximity, superstition and ignorance still reign pretty well supreme as they did in Catholic countries.

But the vast majority of Protestants I have encountered tend to be much shallower in their textual thinking, and far less willing to deal with nuance and complexity.

So are the Protestants you meet convinced that God personally handed down the King James Bible? In some parts of the USA that idea probably still has currency.

The fact is that just about all others beside Protestants, evangelicals in particular, have been forced into studying their religious texts in order to try to justify their beliefs and rebut evangelicalism. Though without much success, I suggest.

 

[fallingblood]

It never becomes a problem, provided that those who actually know what they are talking about are permitted a voice.

Who decides whether or not someone knows what they are talking about? I've spoken with many ignorant people on various subjects. They believed they knew what they were talking about, but anyone knowledgeable in the subject would say otherwise.

Sales of distinctly Protestant Bible study materials is at an all-time high. Bible study is the famous historic quintessence of Protestantism, which produced more written scholarship in two centuries than Catholicism produced in two millennia.

The Bible is not solely what Christianity is made up of. And even then, much of the study material is lacking. More so, if one really looks into it, it is also quite contradictory at times. Not very scholarly to say the least.

Do you have evidence of your claim of the plethora of supposed study material though? I would be interested to actually see evidence that Protestantism has produced more that Catholicism in the time that you stated.

The fact is that just about all others beside Protestants, evangelicals in particular, have been forced into studying their religious texts in order to try to justify their beliefs and rebut evangelicalism. Though without much success, I suggest.

Why would evangelicals be forced to rebut evangelicalism? Wouldn't that be counter-productive? More so, I don't think it would be to hard to rebut evangelicalism, and it has been done many times.

 

[eliehass]

AS someone who understands Hebrew, and has read both the Hebrew Bible and many English translations, I feel like there is no comparison between the original language and translations.

In the original language there is a lot of subtle meaning in things like word choice, word placement, and things like that. A very basic example: there may be multiple Hebrew words that translate to the same one English word, but have varying levels of nuance in Hebrew

 

[dogsgod]

If you don't speak the original language, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Levite]

From which planet does Levite hail? Invertus Maxima? Sales of distinctly Protestant Bible study materials is at an all-time high. Bible study is the famous historic quintessence of Protestantism, which produced more written scholarship in two centuries than Catholicism produced in two millennia.

Yes, I have certainly read Luther on the subject, and I know what it's supposed to be. Unfortunately, with the exception of a couple of minister friends of mine, I have personally never met any Protestants who have read Luther, or who study the Bible with any particular depth or critical incisiveness. But again, this is why I said "in my experience." If it just so happens that the many Protestants I have encountered do not include the legions I have never met who study carefully and read thoroughly, no one will be more pleased to have drawn an incorrect conclusion than I.

There are senior Catholics who mutter and shake their heads at the very thought of their 'laity' opening Bibles. Catholicism has been forced to open the things in the West because of comparisons with Protestants. And as for Eastern Orthodox in their 'homelands', who have not had that same proximity, superstition and ignorance still reign pretty well supreme as they did in Catholic countries.

Again, "in my experience..."

The fact is that just about all others beside Protestants, evangelicals in particular, have been forced into studying their religious texts in order to try to justify their beliefs and rebut evangelicalism. Though without much success, I suggest.

I sincerely hope that you are correct and I am not.

 

[Oberon]

If you don't speak the original language, you don't know what you are talking about.

Glad you said that.

 

[Oberon]

This came up in another thread. Does one need to know the original language, or are current translations good enough when studying a religious text?

That depends on what your needs are. For example, I know from experience that most christians do not need to read greek or hebrew to understand what they need to from the bible. Some however (those who are believe the bible is the literal and infallible word of God) come across problems because the meaning of every word and construction counts.

Certainly, there is always a difference between reading a translation and being capable of understanding the original text, particularly when there is an enormous cultural (and/or temporal) divide, such as with most religious texts. I can read a couple of modern languages, and the translations of texts in these languages always offer less, compared to the original, than translations of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.