Does one need to know the original language?

[Zardoz]

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

Quoted for truth.

If the language in the text isn't your native tongue, the chances of misinterpretation are huge. As a son of immigrants and the husband of an immigrant, I confirm this in life.

In this case, the only recourse is to consult with commentaries that are fluent in the language.

 

[Oberon]

In this case, the only recourse is to consult with commentaries that are fluent in the language.

Except that no one is "fluent" in dead languages like Greek, Anciet Hebrew, Sanskrit, etc. There are those who can read it, and with some ancient languages the modern daughter languages are fairly close, but that is still nothing compared to being a native speaker.

 

[Zardoz]

I respectfully disagree that Hebrew was ever a 'dead language'. It was not spoken in a living culture for many years, but it was always a living language in Torah study in the Yeshiva.

 

[Oberon]

I respectfully disagree that Hebrew was ever a 'dead language'. It was not spoken in a living culture for many years, but it was always a living language in Torah study in the Yeshiva.

Modern Hebrew was reconstructed. It certainly used ancient hebrew, and certainly there were always those who could read texts in ancient hebrew, but as with Gaelic or Cornish or many other languages, the last native speakers died out, and ancient hebrew became a dead language.

 

[kejos]

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

Why should anyone read Luther, any more than Arthur Pink, or Roy Hession? The man's stance was that no mortal had more say than any other, yet people treat him as if he was some sort of pope!

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.

Anyone who lives in the USA is liable to draw incorrect conclusions, imv- upon a wide range of topics, moreover. Though in the USA, a vast quantity of past Protestant scholarship is in circulation, and there are Protestant seminaries all over the place in the USA. One has to be a tiny bit parochial, methinks, to not notice it. With all respect.

And that heritage of published Protestant Bible scholarship, much of it of excellent quality and sincerity, is absolutely enormous, much of it now out of print; partly because it is so enormous, though also because of the modern apostasy of Protestantism to liberalism, and the laughable standards of theology in American universities, even good ones. But there is nothing in all history to compare with that heritage, afaik. And very few people even know it's there, let alone read it.

Again, "in my experience..."

Well, sauce for the goose...

We could of course resort to facts.

 

[fallingblood]

Why should anyone read Luther, any more than Arthur Pink, or Roy Hession? The man's stance was that no mortal had more say than any other, yet people treat him as if he was some sort of pope!

They should read Luther as he was a major player in the protestant movement. The largest protestant church was created upon him. He had quite a bit of influence. It's the same way that one, if they really want to understand the religion, should read the early church fathers.

Anyone who lives in the USA is liable to draw incorrect conclusions, imv- upon a wide range of topics, moreover. Though in the USA, a vast quantity of past Protestant scholarship is in circulation, and there are Protestant seminaries all over the place in the USA. One has to be a tiny bit parochial, methinks, to not notice it. With all respect.

And that heritage of published Protestant Bible scholarship, much of it of excellent quality and sincerity, is absolutely enormous, much of it now out of print; partly because it is so enormous, though also because of the modern apostasy of Protestantism to liberalism, and the laughable standards of theology in American universities, even good ones. But there is nothing in all history to compare with that heritage, afaik. And very few people even know it's there, let alone read it.

A lot of what is passed on in Protestant seminaries are not spread to the congregations. The amount of people who know what is being taught in seminaries are a minority among the religion.

There may be some good Protestant scholarship, but there is also a massive amount of trash. Just looking at the supposed scholarship on the book of Revelations reveals that there is a lot of trash in Protestant scholarship.

 

[eliehass]

Modern Hebrew was reconstructed. It certainly used ancient hebrew, and certainly there were always those who could read texts in ancient hebrew, but as with Gaelic or Cornish or many other languages, the last native speakers died out, and ancient hebrew became a dead language.

No, many jews in Yeshiva don't speak modern Hebrew, but for thousands of years they have studied the Bible in its original Hebrew, meaning ancient Hebrew was never a dead language.

I am not at all fluent in modern Hebrew, but was taught ancient Hebrew at a very young age to learn the Bible

 

[it's_sam]

Regardless of missinterpretting other languages our own language is taken the wrong way almost daily. Quite simply unless you were the people writing it and living it you can't say what they were thinking in absolute truth. There will allways be gaps in what they meant and what we read no matter what it is, because we are all looking for something different when there is a discrepency from the same event.

 

[Oberon]

No, many jews in Yeshiva don't speak modern Hebrew, but for thousands of years they have studied the Bible in its original Hebrew, meaning ancient Hebrew was never a dead language.

Latin has always been taught, and there have always been those who can speak it, ever since ancient Rome (just like hebrew). This isn't what makes a language dead or not. There are no native speakers of latin. The latin that has been studied and spoken over a thousand years is a "remembered" language, but it is not a living language.

The same is true for Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew was pretty much a dead language by Jesus' day, as the spoken living language had evolved into a different dialect. Certainly, people could always read ancient Hebrew, but the language died out when the native speakers did.

 

[Copernicus]

Oberon, is right. Hebrew is a very interesting case, because the circumstances were right for it to be resurrected as a modern language. Those circumstances were the creation of a community of people with very different "living language" backgrounds. Yiddish was common to many Jews from eastern and central Europe, but not to the Jewish community as a whole. So the rise of Hebrew as a national tongue has hastened its demise, not to mention that of Ladino.

Liturgical languages such as Latin and Sanskrit are widely studied and spoken, but they no longer evolve or change the way all living languages do. There is no native speaker community to drive the evolution. Hebrew, on the other hand, has now developed such a community of speakers. It will now continue to evolve in much the same way that all other living languages do.

 

[Oberon]

Liturgical languages such as Latin and Sanskrit are widely studied and spoken, but they no longer evolve or change the way all living languages do.

Neither does ancient hebrew, any more than classical arabic. Modern Hebrew is very similar to ancient hebrew, just as modern standard arabic is to classical arabic, but they are different languages. Modern hebrew is a living, evolving language. Ancient hebrew is not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To address the OP:

It depends on what you are using the holy text for... if you intend to understand it in an academic sense, you must go through academic processes like learning the languages and studying the history and sociology of the people that produced the text.

If you want devotional usage, or existentially experience the God behind the text, it's great to know the languages but not required.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Modern hebrew is a living, evolving language. Ancient hebrew is not.

... but it's still a moving target because we have not yet exhausted the trajectories of research in the ancient Hebrew texts.

It's living -- it's just living in the past.

 

[Oberon]

... but it's still a moving target because we have not yet exhausted the trajectories of research in the ancient Hebrew texts.

It's living -- it's just living in the past.

In that way, it's living just as any dead language is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In that way, it's living just as any dead language is.

Not every dead language gets as much attention.

 

[Oberon]

If you want devotional usage, or existentially experience the God behind the text, it's great to know the languages but not required.

I agree for the most part. But what about those who believe that the text is literally and totally the word of god. In that case, the meaning of every word could matter. Would it then be necessary to know the original language?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree for the most part. But what about those who believe that the text is literally and totally the word of god. In that case, the meaning of every word could matter. Would it then be necessary to know the original language?

Technically, yes.

But we should consider that these folks are directed by their pastor / denomenation to a particular translation of the Bible that most fits their theological sensibilities. And the translation is typically a version of the Bible produced by scholars and is accurate enough to serve a devotional purpose.

In other words, the idea of the perfection of Scripture is set aside to learn what one can about who God is and how to love Him, who we are, etc.

A good pastor can combine scholarship and devotion, but it's quite rare.

As an ordained scholar, I think that God speaks to us despite our misunderstandings. A small misunderstanding is as significant as a large misunderstanding, and God works through both. A scholar may be more precise in the science of interpretation, but everyone has access to God through the power of Christ.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree for the most part. But what about those who believe that the text is literally and totally the word of god. In that case, the meaning of every word could matter. Would it then be necessary to know the original language?

Now this is why I think that the doctrine of inerrancy and infalliability lead to atheism. These Chrsitians teach that the Bible cannot be the Word of God unless it is perfect and always has been. That's more important than the delusion that there are no contradictions -- something can be perfect, afterall, with some inconsistencies.

I guess my point about devotional use of the Bible is that there are infinately fewer rules in getting the desired effect. It's not about understanding the Bible, but allowing it to enrich and inspire you.

Now a person may think that they understand the Bible when they are actually using it devotionally, and we can measure that by academic methods. They may be technically wrong but enriched by the text.

 

[fallingblood]

To address the OP:

It depends on what you are using the holy text for... if you intend to understand it in an academic sense, you must go through academic processes like learning the languages and studying the history and sociology of the people that produced the text.

If you want devotional usage, or existentially experience the God behind the text, it's great to know the languages but not required.

I would agree with this. I see how knowing the language can be of a benefit. That is why I'm learning Greek, as I'm more interested in the New Testament and early Christian history.

I'm aware that Ancient Hebrew is a difficult language to learn. Add that to the difficulty of putting it in historic context, do you think it is realistic to become an expert in both the OT/Ancient Hebrew and the NT/Greek?

 

[Oberon]

I'm aware that Ancient Hebrew is a difficult language to learn. Add that to the difficulty of putting it in historic context, do you think it is realistic to become an expert in both the OT/Ancient Hebrew and the NT/Greek?

Depends on how much time you are willing to spend on it, and how much of an expert you want to be.