How important is the knowledge of biblical languages for a Bible teacher?

[FormerFundy]

How important do you believe it is for a Bible teacher to have the ability to read the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew? It seems to me that it is indispensable. While we have a multitude of English translations, how can you evaluate them without some knowledge of the original languages? The helps that are keyed to Strong's concordance are in my opinion sometimes more harmful than helpful because it bases everything on the individual meaning of the words to the exclusion of grammatical and syntactical information. I think it gives many people the false impression that they understand the original because they can find the specific word in Strong.

What do you think?

[John Reece]

How important do you believe it is for a Bible teacher to have the ability to read the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew? It seems to me that it is indispensable. While we have a multitude of English translations, how can you evaluate them without some knowledge of the original languages? The helps that are keyed to Strong's concordance are in my opinion sometimes more harmful than helpful because it bases everything on the individual meaning of the words to the exclusion of grammatical and syntactical information. I think it gives many people the false impression that they understand the original because they can find the specific word in Strong.

What do you think?

:yes:

For me, the ability to read the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew was important enough to invest five years taking all the courses offered in Hebrew and Greek exegesis at Duke, PSCE, and Union Theological Seminary in Virginia.

The more I learn, the more aware I become of how little I know and how dependent I am on the work of scholars who have produced treasures of information in the form of the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons and exegetical commentaries.

The quote above reminded me of a phrase in this text:

1 Corinthians 4

1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (ESV)

I have taken not to go beyond what is written as essentially saying to not go beyond what is written in the Hebrew and Greek texts, which requires me to know the languages and to constantly consult those who know the languages better than I do.

[Pilgrim]

I think that they are very important and like john, took the time to learn hebrew and greek as part of my seminary education.

I would not say they are essential but I would have to say that they are extremely important.

In regards to Strongs, well, like Jaltus says, "If it's from Strong, it's probably wrong."

[Solly]

I think it is important, though I have not had the occasion to do so myself, so I must substitute helpful resources: interlinears, dictionaries, good textual commentaries, a passing knowledge of the way greek and hebrew works, a good understanding of the "analogy of faith", and also books that deal with contemporary issues relevant to the texts, ie culture and thought.

[Ananel]

It does depend the level on which you are teaching, but after a certain point it becomes unquestionably useful to know the languages themselves. My own education requires a significant amount of studies in the Biblical narrative, and as such I feel that it is necessary to know the original languages. Translations will always be imperfect, and a variety of nuances will occur.

Take the line "I adjure you by the gazelles and the does of the field" from multiple places in the Song of Songs. The phrasing always strikes people as odd, until they study the hebrew. It's a pun on swearing by the name of God. Without knowledge of the languages, the nuances on this level would be inaccessible to some extent.

[OckhamsRazor]

How important do you believe it is for a Bible teacher to have the ability to read the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew? It seems to me that it is indispensable. While we have a multitude of English translations, how can you evaluate them without some knowledge of the original languages? The helps that are keyed to Strong's concordance are in my opinion sometimes more harmful than helpful because it bases everything on the individual meaning of the words to the exclusion of grammatical and syntactical information. I think it gives many people the false impression that they understand the original because they can find the specific word in Strong.

What do you think?
I would like to express a diffrent view on this subject. I believe that as a teacher of the Bible you don't need to know the original languages at all and chances are you'll make thing worse if you rely on your own interpretation of the words in Scripture. There are really only three reputable versions of the Scriptures that I know of: NIV, NASB, and KJV. The best tool you could ever invest in is a parallel Bible of English versions.
What you need in order translate a Bible is linguists. If you try to do it as a teacher, at best, you'd be reinventing the wheel and at worst messing up the text. I would think that usually the people who do the translating are among the best in the world in their field. All you'd be doing is proof reading their work. Beyond that you'd be best off reading commentaries and books on individual questions about Scripture by reputable scholars.

[Jaltus]

Actually, the three best would be ESV, NASB, and KJV (OT only). The NIV would be fourth, IMNSHO.

[rmwilliamsjr]

define a Bible teacher?

seminary professor, Sunday School teacher, teaching elder in a small church, teaching elder in a big church?

fulltime, paid, institution-based?

it seems to me, to answer the question right, you need to know the audience and the intentions/purposes of this hypothetical Bible teacher.

[OckhamsRazor]

define a Bible teacher?

seminary professor, Sunday School teacher, teaching elder in a small church, teaching elder in a big church?

fulltime, paid, institution-based?
It doesn't really matter.

[Pilgrim]

It doesn't really matter.
I can understand your point. If people waited to know the original languages before they shared the gospel we would be in a world of hurt. But I do think that rm has a point as well. We expect different levels of competency in different contexts. A professor of New Testament or of Old Testament theology or exegesis should know the languages as a matter of course.

[rmwilliamsjr]

i like the formulation of the Westminster Confession on the question


VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn14) yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn15)

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn16) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn17) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn18) therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn19) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn20) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22] (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/I_fn.html#fn21)


First it affirms the doctrine of perspicuity, that is, Scripture is, in the most important places clear enough that even the unlearned can understand it, implied is the clause, in their native tongue. But that there are difficult things, "the controversies", and in these things reference must be made to the original languages. That is the fundamental reason i would pose a division based on what audience this hypothetical Bible teacher is teaching to and what level. Seminary professors, TE's, yes competence in Greek and Hebrew and often in Latin, RE's, Sunday School teachers, for example, this level is not needed.

[Ananel]

It doesn't really matter.Debatable. It does matter what depth of Scripture is to be studied and by whom it is studied.

[kglethean]

I'd agree with rmwilliamsjr. It will never hurt for anyone teaching out of the Bible to have a firmer grasp of the scriptures and their meaning (by being able to use the original languages, understanding the context, etc.) but it is not always necessary.

-kg

[OckhamsRazor]

Debatable. It does matter what depth of Scripture is to be studied and by whom it is studied.
I think that it may actually be a bad idea to try to pursue the original languages of the Bible unless you are willing to commit to attaining the skills of a linguist. This idea of knowing the original languages is a false criteria in determining the depth of knowledge one posesses of the Scriptures. Studying the languages in a less than complete way is a great way to end up in heresy. The versions we have a translated the way they are for a reason. I would trust the three top ones personally. NASB, NIV, and KJV. If you get a parallel with all of these three you will probably have a much stronger knowledge of what the original texts say than a person who only pursued the original languages and didn't study to a high degree of proficiency. It seems to me that what the average seminarian studied in school is probably insufficient for them to be able to use it for any great translative discovery. If you want to read original languages and be competent you need to be a linguist. You need to give your self over to a full pursuit of that language. If you want to be a top notch teacher or theologian you need a good knowledge of english, a number of good interpretive principles for Bible study, Bible Dictionary, Bible Encyclopedia, maybe a topical index, a parallel of the major english versions, an unabridged dictionary, and prayer. You also need to be objective and be willing to make a tireless pursuit of the truth of any issue. You also need to spend alot of time studying history of the region of the time of the writings your studying and of customs. You need to read multiple sources of the historys and learn to glean the central points of agreements between all the authors of those historys. You also need to do the same for archaeology and customs.

[Bib Lit Major]

I think that it may actually be a bad idea to try to pursue the original languages of the Bible unless you are willing to commit to attaining the skills of a linguist.

I can agree with much of the rationale behind this, since I grow weary of hearing fallacious reasoning about how "such-and-such a word means this in the original language" and am myself currently pursuing linguistic skill. Another thing which my Greek prof doesn't like is when Greek is used to "prove" your message, thus separating yourself from every non-student of the langauge in a way similar to saying "Thus saith the Lord." No one without knowledge of the language can check the validity of your message. Thus, I acknowledge that there are difficulties with minimal knowledge of the language. However, many of the better commentaries, lexicons and other exegetical tools require at least some knowledge of Greek/Hebrew to be accessible. Thus, pastors and lay students of the Bible will not be able to benefit from these materials like they would without elementary knowledge of the languages. I think rudimentary knowledge of Greek/Hebrew can be beneficial, so long as those who practice it are aware of the various fallacies common to use of the biblical languages.

[barryrob]

define a Bible teacher?

seminary professor, Sunday School teacher, teaching elder in a small church, teaching elder in a big church?

fulltime, paid, institution-based?

it seems to me, to answer the question right, you need to know the audience and the intentions/purposes of this hypothetical Bible teacher.

Intresting but the Bible seems to show somthing different, that 'Bible Teachers' where Carpenters, farmers, slaves, shop owners, tax men, and what the Romans would have called 'Plebs' common folk with no or very little accademic letters after their names (Luke was a Doctor, Paul was a Lawyer) ex harlots, jailers, ex thieves and conmen, and generaly the dregs of the world at that time UNTIL they started to follow Jesus.
Barryrob

[rmwilliamsjr]

Intresting but the Bible seems to show somthing different, that 'Bible Teachers' where Carpenters, farmers, slaves, shop owners, tax men, and what the Romans would have called 'Plebs' common folk with no or very little accademic letters after their names (Luke was a Doctor, Paul was a Lawyer) ex harlots, jailers, ex thieves and conmen, and generaly the dregs of the world at that time UNTIL they started to follow Jesus.
Barryrob
is the experience of the early church normative for us on this issue?

[Baxter]

Far more important than an exhaustive knowledge the biblical languages themselves (i.e. in terms of vocabulary etc.) is an adequate understanding of language in general, i.e. how language works and how it doesn't work.

Someone famously remarked that "a little Greek is a dangerous thing". This is true. It's not enough nearly to have memorized that such-and-such-a-word translates such-and-such-a-thing. When you hear a preacher say, "But the original Greek actually means...", be on your guard, especially if used in conjunction with the word "literally" -- much of the time, it disguises a very ill-informed and clumsy approach to language that would be disavowed by any linguist.

A good grasp of linguistics and language in general will enable the preacher to use the various exegetical tools available (lexicons, parallel Bibles) responsibly. In the wrong hands, they can be dangerous!

[barryrob]

is the experience of the early church normative for us on this issue?

If we are to follow Jesus' way of doing things, as he was the Great Teacher and showed us how to do all things.
Barryrob

[barryrob]

is the experience of the early church normative for us on this issue?

As Jesus’ Apostles followed what he did and started the early church and under his supervision, also no where does it say that the standards have changed it must be I think, don't you?

Barryrob