Greek/Hebrew Requirement

[UZThD]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[QB] Bill,

- but to have the language skill necessary to critique many of the English Bible translations takes years of specialized study. The average M Div does not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to do this.

===

Howdy Charles

I'm sure there is some truth in what you say. On the other hand, I have only taken about 15 sem hours of Greek myself , yet I am not shy about critiquing some translations and/or commentaries on some texts which I think are not correct and provide reasons from the Greek for my opining.

Bill Grover

 

[UZThD]

Originally posted by UZThD:

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[QB] Bill,

- but to have the language skill necessary to critique many of the English Bible translations takes years of specialized study. The average M Div does not have anywhere near the expertise necessary to do this.

===

Howdy Charles

I'm sure there is some truth in what you say. On the other hand, I have only taken about 15 sem hours of Greek myself , yet I am not shy about critiquing some translations and/or commentaries on some texts which I think are not correct and provide reasons from the Greek for my opining.

Bill Grover

===

Well, maybe I'm unclear about what I feel, wrongly or not, that I, and therefore another with not a lot of Greek, should be able to do.

Here are examples:

1) Lexically:

Some translations render John's use of the adjective monegenes to mean a begetting of the Son. That is mostly the basis for the doctrine of eternal generation wherein the Father is the Source of the Son's essence.

Dahms in the ETS Journal says that generation makes the Son eternally subordinate and Dahms says in the Journal of NT Studies that the usages of monogenes in the LXX proves that a begetting is the the meaning.

I disagree with the KJV and Dahms in this regard and have examined the contexts of the seven Septuagintal usages in the Greek for myself [also Luke and Hebrews] which examination leads me to think , and I could give my rationale, that the KJV much errs here!

Again, 'kephale' head, in some translations is rendered in the sense of "authority over" and in some more in line with the sense of "source of." This issue relates to hierarchicalism vs egalitarianism.

I think much evidence is available to indicate that the former is better way of rendering it.

2) Grammatically:

It has been argued by Bilizekian ( as I recall , my books are at my other home) that the particle eta in 1 Cor 14:36 ( I think) means that the prohibition there against women was the view of the Corinthians, not Paul. Therefore, the argument proceeds that Paul is saying that women should be preachers etc.

But one with a little Greek can examine every like usage of eta to determine the liklier meaning. I've done that, and it is not hard.

Again the translations are unclear as to whether in Eph 4:11 pastors are the precise equivalent of teachers. Commentaries disagree.

The construction is : article, substantive, kai, substantive. It has been argued that as the second noun is anarthrous the two offices are the same.

One with a little Greek can research like constructions to see if that is right or not! I admit that it took me several hours to do that.

So, I think these examples indicate what I am saying. Translations and commentaries at times are wrong. We know this because they disagree with each other.

The Bible student with Greek can go from these sorts of disagreements and look at the Greek text for him/herself. I think that should be done by one who thinks he/she is to teach God's people!

The inefficient argument has been made by some that as scholars disagree, that proves the Greek does not help.

But with a little personal research on such issues by the Bible student, he/she can see on which side the majority of the evidence for contrary opinions in commentaries and opposing translations falls.

What the languages do is reveal the problems with some interpretations/translations , then the student can somewhat on his/her own deal more confidently with these problems. Without the languages the student may not even realize the problems that exist!

And I think such effort is good and is worthy of one who has assumed the responsibility to teach the Scriptures to his/her congreants. There simply , IMO, are too many Biblically illiterate pastors. Sorry to be harsh.

Today, as I understand it, to teach in some states learning disabled children requires a masters degree plus grad credits in a subject area. I did this for 35 years. Why should the bar be as high or higher for secular teachers of kids than for those who teach adults God's Word?

My teaching was regularly evaluated by my administrator. The kids must learn the data. They must improve their skills. If they didn't my job was at stake. In one semester my school students learned more about history than many Christians learn about Scripture and its doctrines in a lifetime of church going. Why is that?

Where is the learning of the congreants? Who is evaluating that when most Christians understand practically nothing about hermeneutics and the tenets of the faith?

Are pastors just content with never raising the general knowledge of the church? Is no need seen for that?

I know that I speak somewhat from inexperience as I am not a pastor. But listen, who will deny that God does not require that Christians should learn much and who will deny that in many situations Christians are learning instead a little? And, it is the pastor who is the churc's primary educator.

Now I know that the pastor must wear many hats. But IMO the pastor who is not in his study 25 hours a week using the best exegetical tools , which BTW require the languages, to prepare his sermons and lessons may (note 'MAY') not be doing what he should to teach his/her people! The pastor should IMO allow his teaching ministry to flow out of a considerable resevoir ( I know that's the wrong spelling, dictionary at the other house, sorry) of knowledge acquired by in depth study over the years.

Someone remarked that seminary hardly trains one to critique translations etc, but the point is, seminary just gives the tools. It is usage of these which develops more scholarliness. Too bad some pastors stop learning when they graduate!

I apologize to those hard working pastors who labor in visitation and counseling and meetings. I could not do that. You are better than I, and I mean it, for I am too little a people person and too much a student.

But I speak as a Bible student to teachers of the Bible.

Thanks,

Bill Grover

[ March 10, 2005, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bill,

"Someone remarked that seminary hardly trains one to critique translations etc, but the point is, seminary just gives the tools. It is usage of these which develops more scholarliness. Too bad some pastors stop learning when they graduate!"

Well put. I agree with this statement. I think, in all practicality, many pastors do not have the time or academic ability to become language-competent in a scholarly manner. A pastor may know the Greek tenses. He probably has a standard issue seminary grammar text around to jog his memory about what the perfect tense conveys. But does he understand what Stanley Porter has written about the the perfect tense? Does he comprehend Buist Fanning's position? Is he aware of Moulton's hypothesis about the aorist gradually replacing the perfect?

He, as a average pastor, really doesn't need to know this. In fact I'd argue that in order to have a scholarly knowledge of the language he would have to neglect some of his pastoral duties. Practical? Not always.

My point is that this: The notion that the average pastor should have such a knowledge of Greek (let alone Hebrew) that he can CRITIQUE the English translations of the bible or the many commentaries written is not a practical one. Most basic students of biblical language don't have a grasp of how complex linguistics can be. And this limits their abilities to fully comprehend things.

A reasonable goal is to have pastors familiar with the languages - familiar enough to understand the basics of grammar and to interact with commentaries.

 

[PatsFan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[/QB]A reasonable goal is to have pastors familiar with the languages - familiar enough to understand the basics of grammar and to interact with commentaries. [/QB]

I agree. A liberal friend of mine who attends a liberal seminary in the Boston area recently borrowed one of my lexicons. Her New Testament exegesis class esentially consisted of her professor teaching the class the Greek alphabet and how to use commentaries. She is taking no Biblical languages for her MDiv at Andover Newton Theological School. IMO 3 or 4 classes in each language is necessary to really get the most out of scholarly commentaries.

 

[greek geek]

At my seminary, for a ThM you are required to have 15 hours of Greek and 12 of Hebrew. And for those who are working on a different Masters degree they offer another class that teaches the very basics of the languages and then they teach them how to use language helps so they won't misuse their limited knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

In my opinion that is a great way to handle the languages. Those who are going to be pastors and teachers take the ThM and get great language classes...yet, the others who will work in other areas of the church are not left hanging on languages.

 

[UZThD]

Geek

I like Dallas. Had several profs at Western with ThDs from there ,and my informal dissertation reader has his PhD from DTS.

Bill G

 

[El_Guero]

Charles,

I would go a step further and state: Most Americans can never master a second language. Most cannot master the primary language.

I think that introductory languages should be part of a student's degree plan somewhere.

I meet people almost weekly that have spent many more "years" studying Spanish than I have, and they cannot use Spanish. This is even sadder amongst pastors that cannot use the years of language training they received (Greek and Hebrew).

When I told my professors that I wanted to "RETAIN" my languages (Greek and Hebrew) they looked at me as if I had requested a miracle ...

 

[Charles Meadows]

El Guero,

I agree. It's tough to say because it comes across as arrogant or something - but it's true! To have ACDADEMIC mastery of a language is something that most people are not capable of. And that's OK.

I think pastors should be familiar with the languages but yet realize that 2 or 3 courses don't make them masters.

The danger is in using the language incorrectly in exegesis! Better to say, "I don't know than to confidently assert something wrong!"

 

[El_Guero]

Charles,

It is a danger that so many pastors are not doing so well in. I cringe whenever a pastor says the Greek word here is: "logos".