Should I learn Hebrew and Greek?

[JasonF]

Hello,

We had a teacher today who got into the Hebrew meaning of things.

I am wondering if it would be good to learn the original languages?

What i would like if you are willing is with your answer please tell me not only if you think i should, but if you personally know them and your experience with how that has affected your recommendation.

Also please provide for informational, not debate here please, purposes on whether you believe the Textus Receptus / Majority Text or the Critical Text is more accurate. I think i am using the correct terms, but it has been a long time since i studied about the manuscripts.

Though it was completely foreign to me and I was raised more in the way of believing the Critical Text, growing up with the NIV as the version used, my personal research lead to the conclusion of the Textus Receptus and Majority Text being the most accurate. However I don't want a huge debate on that issue here please, though you can make what comments you like that you feel would be useful. I do want to know which you believe is more accurate as it may have influences on your recommendation.

I do not believe all people in all languages should use the King James, but i believe it is still the most accurate English version, ,(and when recently comparing versions realized i should use a dictionary even if i used NASB, NIV, or NLT etc), because of the manuscripts it is based on for both Testaments and because of the literal translation method as opposed to dynamic equivalence, and love the transparency with words in italics and how they used thee and ye, not because it was the way they spoke at the time, as the preface shows that they didn't, but because it was the most accurate way to translate it.

I may need to brush up on manuscripts and all of that, however, while many things can be helpful, I'd like to spend my time on what will be most valuable. Is it better to read sermons and doctrinal works and commentaries, which I want to do regardless but the point is i might do more of that with the time spent on learning original language or studying manuscripts history or what not. Or maybe i should spend more time just reading the Bible.

One question or concern is would i even know enough to get the right meaning out of the original languages? I don't think we should have each person pointing at the Bible and saying all translators are wrong and this actually translates as such and such.

I have looked at various translations to see the meaning of some verses. Is this better than learning the original.

I think there is a dictionary type that was recommended that gives the meaning of the Greek words and so on is that good enough, or what should one do?

Thank you

 

[Deacon]

You bring up many good points.
I worked at a Jewish hospital for 20 years. Through association with staff and patients I decided to learn Hebrew.
It's been an on-and-off project for 25 years.

I've incorporated the answers in bolded red with your message below.

Rob

Hello,
I am wondering if it would be good to learn the original languages?
It can be helpful.
You will look at the biblical text differently after you learn it.
It's not something you can do over a year or two; make it a lifetime project.

Also please provide for informational, not debate here please, purposes on whether you believe the Textus Receptus / Majority Text or the Critical Text is more accurate. I think i am using the correct terms, but it has been a long time since i studied about the manuscripts.

Though it was completely foreign to me and I was raised more in the way of believing the Critical Text, growing up with the NIV as the version used, my personal research lead to the conclusion of the Textus Receptus and Majority Text being the most accurate. However I don't want a huge debate on that issue here please, though you can make what comments you like that you feel would be useful. I do want to know which you believe is more accurate as it may have influences on your recommendation.
I use the Critical text, I believe the eclectic method most accurately approaches the original text - that being said I have two friends who teach from the TR and I've never discussed the issue with them - nor they with me.

One question or concern is would i even know enough to get the right meaning out of the original languages? I don't think we should have each person pointing at the Bible and saying all translators are wrong and this actually translates as such and such.

I have looked at various translations to see the meaning of some verses. Is this better than learning the original.
Comparing versions is a practice that all interpreters should incorporate into their Bible study.

I think there is a dictionary type that was recommended that gives the meaning of the Greek words and so on is that good enough, or what should one do?

I use Logos Bible Software. It can be quite pricey but there are discount sales once in a while that make select products more affordable (sometimes for a little as $100 each).
Their Mobile Ed courses are taught by esteemed educators and designed to integrate with available books, dictionaries, and other important resources [GREEK COURSES link; HEBREW COURSES link]
A digital approach towards learning the biblical languages allows you to jump quickly into the grammar and develop vocabulary as you encounter the passages.
It will also allow you to use whatever textual tradition you desire as well as to compare manuscripts.

 

[JasonF]

Thank you.

A question, do the various manuscripts in general use different original language words of the same meaning in the same spot. For example there may be different words used that can be translated love, so how often or how much variance does these different words being used in the same spots in different manuscripts happen and does it affect anything?

Like in John 21:17 Peter was grieved because Jesus asked a third time if he loves him, and I know manuscripts use different words for those 3 times or something like that right, now based on it saying Peter was grieved because it was asked a third time, that suggests that the same meaning was had all three times, since he didn't take it as a new or different question?

Just curious about what different things might come up with learning original languages and how much they matter or what affect they have.

 

[Scarlett O.]

[1] I'm going to give you an answer that helps to understand that the study of languages can be VERY helpful and should be a part of our Bible study.

[2] I'm not going to stay on this thread because I do not believe that the King James Bible is the most accurate Bible as you do.

Here's an example as to why language study is important.

There are a lot of people out there that want to discredit the Bible and one of the alleged "contradictions" they use is in the story of Jonah.

The Old Testament says a "fish" swallowed Jonah, while Jesus in the New Testament says "whale" swallowed Jonah. Ergo, nonbelievers had claimed the Bible to be not valid as fish and whales are not the same creature.

BUT, if one studies the Hebrew word for "fish", one sees that this word is NOT telling the reader the scientific classification of the animal, but describes the animal ONLY by the way it moves - undulatng side-to-side or up-and-down. That could be a fish, whale, sea snake, guppy, catfish, or dolphin. The only hint is that the Bible says the animal is massive. Massive enough to swallow a person. In that context, only a whale would suffice.

Use whatever tools to study you wish. Just make sure they are useful tools and competent tools.

 

[Deacon]

Every manuscript we have was once valued Scripture for a Christian community of the past.
The Greek manuscripts are not vastly different.
We can look over the data by reviewing the apparatus of the Greek texts we use and review the manuscripts if we need to, then make our own guess (or rely on experts to make it for us).
Where there are differences that matter we should look to other portions of Scripture to clarify proper doctrine.

The few Hebrew manuscripts we have are amazingly similar.
And knowing a little Greek helps -- the Greek Septuagint opens a window into how the Hebrew Scriptures were understood in past times.

Personally, I find that the major value of being familiar with Hebrew is that I am better able to appreciate the decisions that a translator is concerned with when approaching a text
and can begin to understand why one translation differs from another.

Learning original languages is not Bible study...

...but it can be a part of your study of the Bible.​

It's a tool in the way you approach Scripture.
It can be used and miss-used.

Rob

 

[JonC]

I'd say "yes and no". It depends on your reasons and commitment.

Reading threads on this forum it becomes apparent that many who have learned a little Greek, or perhaps just rely on language tools, often find themselves at odds with those who have studied biblical languages for decades. I'd put my money on those who have a career in linguistics.

My point is that learning Greek and Hebrew will take a lot of time and study. I studied Greek at the Graduate level for two years and wouldn't venture to pretend to know the language.

But if you can invest the time then I believe it worth the effort.


A second point is that knowing Greek and Hebrew itself may not be enough, depending on your goal in learning the languages. For example, to interpretation has to take into account the culture, ideologies, politics, and worldviews of the target era. This is another discipline.

So the simple answer is "yes". It is great to learn a new language. But my answer depends on your reasons.

 

[JasonF]

I'm not going to stay on this thread because I do not believe that the King James Bible is the most accurate Bible as you do.

Well thank you for stopping by, I am not sure why not agreeing on which Bible version to use is a reason not to stay or seems to be a division point for you, I hope that is not how my message came across. I just meant that our belief about the Bible translations could possibly affect our beliefs on learning the original languages. So it seemed relevant to know what someone thinks about this area and it might help me know how to take some thoughts possibly, perhaps I should have left that part out.

Every manuscript we have was once valued Scripture for a Christian community of the past.

I really like this point, I think this is a great point.

I studied Greek at the Graduate level for two years and wouldn't venture to pretend to know the language.

This is also my concern and I agree that the people with careers devoted to it seem more likely to have the right answer, but this is also partly a concern for manuscript evidence itself, so I don't know.

Any other examples of things you pick up or are made aware of from learning the originals?

 

[JonC]

Any other examples of things you pick up or are made aware of from learning the originals?

The main thing that I have picked up is that the differences in transcripts and even English translations do not amount to doctrinal differences.

There is a lot of debate on which manuscripts are more accurate and which English translations are the most accurate, but they argue over individual verses and not doctrines in the whole.

It would be better, IMHO, if Christians would read the Bible and follow what is taught therein, regardless of translations or manuscripts.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We had a teacher today who got into the Hebrew meaning of things.

I am wondering if it would be good to learn the original languages? What i would like if you are willing is with your answer please tell me not only if you think i should, but if you personally know them and your experience with how that has affected your recommendation.

If you have the time and opportunity, it will be good to learn the original languages. I know some Greek because I studied Classical Latin and Greek at school and University as an unsaved youngster. Afterwards I wondered why on earth I'd done that as I went into business and never used Greek again for nearly 20 years when the Lord saved me. Then I felt the call to preach and I brushed up my Greek and learned the differences between Classical and Koine Greek (not all that many). It is useful, but there are many on line helps that you can access, so it's not as important as it was 30 years or so ago.
I thought I would learn Hebrew when I retired, but it hasn't happened (my excuse is that I've been too busy) but just this week I was preaching on a text in Ecclesiastes and the various translations and commentaries differed quite widely, so I felt that a lack of knowledge was a problem; but on the other hand, if experts can't agree, how is an amateur going to decide between them?.

Also please provide for informational, not debate here please, purposes on whether you believe the Textus Receptus / Majority Text or the Critical Text is more accurate. I think i am using the correct terms, but it has been a long time since i studied about the manuscripts

Having studied a certain amount of Textual Criticism for my degree, I am of the view that the Majority Text or Byzantine Text is likely to be nearest to the original. I can give you reasons for that if you want. The M.T. is much nearer to the Textus Receptus, but I think it is quite hard to defend the T.R. when it espouses a reading that is only found in a tiny number of late manuscripts. My translation of choice is the NKJV as it is close to the KJV but gives those places where the T.R. varies from the M.T. or C.T.
I hope that's helpful. Feel free to P.M. me if you would like any further info.

 

[John of Japan]

Hello,

We had a teacher today who got into the Hebrew meaning of things.

I am wondering if it would be good to learn the original languages?

What i would like if you are willing is with your answer please tell me not only if you think i should, but if you personally know them and your experience with how that has affected your recommendation.

I have been trained in Hebrew and Greek, and taught Greek in Japanese for years, and now have taught Greek in English for 9 years. If you are a full time worker for Christ, or are training to be one, I believe you should learn the original languages. It's just the right thing to do. You learn better exegesis, wisdom in evaluating translations, nuances of the Word of God in the original languages, etc. It's just a great thing to do for your ministry.

You say you had a teacher.... So are you in Bible college? Do your best, finish your degree, and go on to seminary if you have good enough grades.

Also please provide for informational, not debate here please, purposes on whether you believe the Textus Receptus / Majority Text or the Critical Text is more accurate. I think i am using the correct terms, but it has been a long time since i studied about the manuscripts.

Though it was completely foreign to me and I was raised more in the way of believing the Critical Text, growing up with the NIV as the version used, my personal research lead to the conclusion of the Textus Receptus and Majority Text being the most accurate. However I don't want a huge debate on that issue here please, though you can make what comments you like that you feel would be useful. I do want to know which you believe is more accurate as it may have influences on your recommendation.

I'm not a scholar of textual criticism, but am published in the field (an essay in a festschrift) and have read much on it. My position is Byzantine Priority, and I have many reasons for that. I'll just give a few.
1. It simply reads better in the Greek than the Alexandrian mss (manuscripts).
2. The denizens of Alexandria did not normally speak Greek as their heart language, while the Byzantines did. That's oversimplifying, of course, but it's a valid point. I am fluent in Japanese, but will never understand it as well as a native speaker, and am far more likely to make mistakes in nuance or in copying it than the native speaker is.
3.
4. Occasionally the UBS/Nestles critical text has some simply bizarre readings where the Byz./TR makes more sense. God is not the author of confusion.

I do not believe all people in all languages should use the King James, but i believe it is still the most accurate English version, ,(and when recently comparing versions realized i should use a dictionary even if i used NASB, NIV, or NLT etc), because of the manuscripts it is based on for both Testaments and because of the literal translation method as opposed to dynamic equivalence, and love the transparency with words in italics and how they used thee and ye, not because it was the way they spoke at the time, as the preface shows that they didn't, but because it was the most accurate way to translate it.

I agree.

I may need to brush up on manuscripts and all of that, however, while many things can be helpful, I'd like to spend my time on what will be most valuable. Is it better to read sermons and doctrinal works and commentaries, which I want to do regardless but the point is i might do more of that with the time spent on learning original language or studying manuscripts history or what not. Or maybe i should spend more time just reading the Bible.

Again, this depends on your future ministry. Are you going to be a full time Christian worker? Get good Bible college and seminary degrees.

One question or concern is would i even know enough to get the right meaning out of the original languages? I don't think we should have each person pointing at the Bible and saying all translators are wrong and this actually translates as such and such.

If you are young P. who has failed Greek 101 twice, you'll never learn the original languages well enough for them to be useful. If you are young A. who made straight A's, you might become a Greek scholar someday, but you'll still have to study hard to get there.

I have looked at various translations to see the meaning of some verses. Is this better than learning the original.

Nope.

I think there is a dictionary type that was recommended that gives the meaning of the Greek words and so on is that good enough, or what should one do?

Thank you

Can't tell unless I know the name of the book you're talking about.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I have long been an admirer of Andy Naselli. He has long since grown beyond the Junior assistant to D.A. Carson. He's a good lecturer and preacher. Aside from introductory remarks at the start of a 'sermon' he recited all of 1 Corinthians using the ESV and usually reciting the alternative marginal notes instead of just the regular text. Quite the feat.

This is a part of what he said in his blog from June 27, 2011. Since a dozen years have passed since what follows, it means he has had even more experience and accomplishments in this area of study.

-- I've read the Greek New Testament daily since 1998 [25 years by now --Rip]
-- I took ten semesters of Greek in college and seminary (not including many other courses that built on that foundation), finishing with Don Carson's 'Advanced Greek Grammar.'
-- I passed Greek proficiency exams at two seminaries.
-- I graded Greek proficiency exams at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
-- I passed the comprehensive exams that Don Carson wrote for my PhD in NT at Trinity, which requires the student to sight-read the Greek NT.
-- I've taught nearly twenty introductory and intermediate semester-long Greek courses on the college and seminary level.
-- I've written papers and publications that deal largely with Greek exegesis.

But my knowledge of NT Greek is merely novice-level compared to the best NT professors and Bible translators.

 

[Piper]

I'd say yes, learn Hebrew and Greek. Every single person I know who has learned them has found it beneficial.

 

[Piper]

I have been trained in Hebrew and Greek, and taught Greek in Japanese for years, and now have taught Greek in English for 9 years. If you are a full time worker for Christ, or are training to be one, I believe you should learn the original languages. It's just the right thing to do. You learn better exegesis, wisdom in evaluating translations, nuances of the Word of God in the original languages, etc. It's just a great thing to do for your ministry.

You say you had a teacher.... So are you in Bible college? Do your best, finish your degree, and go on to seminary if you have good enough grades.

I'm not a scholar of textual criticism, but am published in the field (an essay in a festschrift) and have read much on it. My position is Byzantine Priority, and I have many reasons for that. I'll just give a few.
1. It simply reads better in the Greek than the Alexandrian mss (manuscripts).
2. The denizens of Alexandria did not normally speak Greek as their heart language, while the Byzantines did. That's oversimplifying, of course, but it's a valid point. I am fluent in Japanese, but will never understand it as well as a native speaker, and am far more likely to make mistakes in nuance or in copying it than the native speaker is.
3.
4. Occasionally the UBS/Nestles critical text has some simply bizarre readings where the Byz./TR makes more sense. God is not the author of confusion.


I agree.

Again, this depends on your future ministry. Are you going to be a full time Christian worker? Get good Bible college and seminary degrees.

If you are young P. who has failed Greek 101 twice, you'll never learn the original languages well enough for them to be useful. If you are young A. who made straight A's, you might become a Greek scholar someday, but you'll still have to study hard to get there.


Nope.

Can't tell unless I know the name of the book you're talking about.

This is a reliable man.

Listen to him.

 

[JonC]

I'd say yes, learn Hebrew and Greek. Every single person I know who has learned them has found it beneficial.

I agree. I have also found it beneficial. But my caution is that it is a lengthy endeavor (I studied the languages at a graduate level, but only for two years....which is a benefit but not near enough to be able to read the text without aids).

I admire those, like @John of Japan , who knows the language. At the same time we have to be aware that there is no universal consensus on interpretation even among those proficient in Hebrew and Greek.

For studying theology it would be great to know Hebrew, Greek, and German. Learning should never stop.

That said, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed and languages are not my bag, baby. . I do well to keep up with English....especially since pronouns are now subjective.

 

[Jerome]

Also Latin and French.
Most of John Calvin's writings remain untranslated into English to this day!

 

[John of Japan]

Also Latin and French.
Most of John Calvin's writings remain untranslated into English to this day!

A lot of my Japanese stuff remains untranslated into English, too. Me and John C.

Seriously, though, the man was a giant in the original languages.

 

[John of Japan]

Here's an interesting scholarly essay on the Reformers and their knowledge of the original languages.

https://petergoeman.com/papers/The Reformers and the Original Languages.pdf

 

[JonC]

Here's an interesting scholarly essay on the Reformers and their knowledge of the original languages.

https://petergoeman.com/papers/The Reformers and the Original Languages.pdf

Often the issue is not a lack understand of the languages but theological and philosophical differences that lead men in what they do with the translated text.

For example -

When some look at the Old Testament sacrificial system they see a prescriptive example of what God would do in terms of a Sacrifice (God killing His Son as an appropriate...as the only suitable...sacrifice).

But others look at that system as descriptively foreshadowing what would happen in God's plan. God would provide a Lamb and men would slaughter that Lamb.

My point is translation is one part - a vital, but not only part - of understanding Scripture. We can agree on translation and even meanings of words while arriving at very different conclusions.

 

[Piper]

Thank you.

A question, do the various manuscripts in general use different original language words of the same meaning in the same spot. For example there may be different words used that can be translated love, so how often or how much variance does these different words being used in the same spots in different manuscripts happen and does it affect anything?

Your entire question is something that will get easier to understand as you study Greek. Words do not have inherent meaning. They have meaning in context. They almost all have a range of meanings, and that will be dependent on the context.

 

[John of Japan]

Your entire question is something that will get easier to understand as you study Greek. Words do not have inherent meaning. They have meaning in context. They almost all have a range of meanings, and that will be dependent on the context.

Actually, I don't completely agree with this. Context determines the correct meaning out of several possible meanings that a word might have. But the word has to have some kind of core meaning in order for it to have other meanings. This is especially true in languages that use Chinese characters. For example, the character for "gold" is 金 (jīn in Mandarin, kin in Japanese), and it has meant that yellow metal for 1000s of years. There are derivative meanings, mostly idioms, but the core meaning stays the same. Likewise, the English word "gold" retains its core meaning, though context tells us what the particular usage is. The Greek word χρυσός occurs in 25 verses in the NT, and every single time it has the same core meaning, though there are derivative idioms or metaphors, such as "money" or "riches" in some passages.

Linguist and ambassador Edwin Reishauer wrote,
"Characters also have an esthetic value, at least for those who know them, that are (sic) not to be found in phonetic scripts. They have an almost magical quality too. They seem to have more substance then (sic) words written phonetically and to have a life of their own, quite distinct from the words they are used to represent. Technical and scholarly words written in characters always clearly reveal their component elements and in a way are self-explanatory. Any sixth grader can have some concept of the word hyōga, because it is 'ice river,' or kōkogaku, which is 'study antiquity science.' The meaning of the corresponding English words, 'glacier' and 'archeology,' are not at all as self-evident to the American child."
Edwin O. Reishauer, The Japanese. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1977, 392.