Who has a language degree …

Carson is right on in this respect. So I agree with him 90%. I just don't think context is the all in all. There is still value in historical linguistics.

There are times I just don't know how to translate a word until I look it up in my Liddel and Scott to get that last nuance. I realize that words change in meaning over the years, and the etymology is sometimes misleading due to the current usage of the word. However, what some authors enamored of modern linguistics forget is that most books available in Greek at the time of Christ were in classical Greek, with the notable exception of the LXX. Koine was largely for letters and bills. (Someone will correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm sure. )

A similar situation existed in Japan until after WW2, believe it or not. A brilliant scholar named Nathan Brown, a colleague of William Carey, came to Japan and put out a colloquial NT in about 1870, the first ever Japanese NT, but it was simply not accepted by the Japanese. You just didn't write in anything but classical Japanese. The first completely colloquial Bible didn't appear until 1955.

 

John,

Yes I agree. And I am a great fan of historical linguistics. I love my copies of Robertson, BDF, Jannaris, Smyth, Moulton/Turner etc.

I do think context is the most important issue in translation but I agree that word study is also valuable.

My biggest concern relates to how linguistics "was done" by many exegetes in the "biblical theology" movement. Many of these people found "definite meanings" where it really was not the case. They extolled Koine Greek as a language above all others, uniquely designed to carry every nuance of meaning - as if it were not simply another language.

I object for several reasons:

1. Many of assertions made about the tenses and their significance were wrong.

2. It lead to overconfidence in our abilities to discern certain meanings based solely on morphology.

3. These above 2 points led (somewhat) to the notion that a few years of Greek could take one to the point that he/she could authoritatively interpret the GNT, seeing nuances that were not available in the English.

It is always better to admit to small areas of uncertainty than to take a stand on something which is not certain.

 

Well, you finally ran me down, Charles. Your 3 points look proper to me.

I bow (Japanese style) to your knowledge. I have to admit to ignorance of the 19th century Biblical theology movement. I'll keep in mind what you've said, and tuck it away for study--in the near future, I hope. We can always learn more.

 

John,

Hmm....

I apologize if that came across as haughty or stuffy. That was not my intent. I am just as much a student as anyone else and do not claim mastery of any of this!

My reference to "biblical theology" is a bit tangential perhaps. "Biblical theology" properly defines a "movement" in the past century or so to divorce the Bible and its study from modern historical or critical examination as another piece of ancient writing. As James Muilenburg put it the Bible must be "understood in its own categories." This fostered a desire to examine more closely the original languages. Since the Bible was seen as a unique theological work there was the tendency to see theological meaning to certain words or constructions. The use of the aorist tense was seen as signifying a "once and for all action". The use of certain verbs was seen as always "carrying the implication of ____". This has found its way (in a rather large degree I think) into Kittel's TDNT.

I think as concervative Christians we like absolutes! This manner of exegesis allows use to use many absolutes in our translation of the GNT. Unfortunately I think that many of those absolutes discerned by some of the older grammarians are not necessarily absolutes, as modern synchronic language analysis has taught us.

I believe the absolute divinity of Christ and the absolute inspiration of the scriptures! But I want to reject any man-made absolute that is really just masquerading as an absolute!

 

Some unsolicited observations from the peanut gallery: interpretive nuances by unregenerated theologians cause a large part of the religious confusion of our day--2000 years ago as well.

God said what He meant, meant what He said--a child can understand--so can the child's mother.

The Pope is probably an expert in Bible language--that does not make his theology correct--biblically--the things of God are spiritually discerned. Jesus told Nicodemus, a master of religion, that he must be born again. See John 3:5 and context.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No need to apologize--I didn't think of you as being haughty or stuffy.

Gotta hit the sack. It's late here in Japan.

Oyasumi nasai. (Good night!)

 

which leads to the principle that understanding language itself is MORE important than understanding A language or a number of languages.

many exegetical fallacies came abt as a result of not understanding how language functions while having a mastery of paradigms for conjugations n declensions.

i'd recommend anyone going into Biblical languages to take a course in general linguistics, if that's not incorporated into the Gk n Heb courses themselves.

 

I certainly agree that Greek can supplement the English.

But I guess I'm playing the "devil's advocate" so to speak...

when I share Sunday that the "wages of sin is death", they will see the word "wage" and know it is not a lump-sum payment at the end of life (we think this phrase is about hell and it isn't) but the "fish-ration", the daily food given to soldiers.

A wage is somthing given for something done. Your citation of the words meaning is certainly right regarding "opsonia" - wages. But if you state that this tells you that this is NOT a once and for all reward you have overstepped the boundaries of context.

The "wages" of sin is (present tense, today) death, wrath of God now, not just in the future.

Again. A wage is something given for something done. A person performs an action and expects (future) that something will be given. The association of an action and its deserved wage is indeed well accomodated by the present tense.

To say that by the TENSE you can determine that this does not speak of heavenly reward is errant. Since the "gift" of God is eternal life..." it can well be argued that this refers to final judgment.

I would argue that you have made inappropriately DEFINITE conclusions based solely on MORPHOLOGY. We must not teach the average churchman to misuse Greek - he would be better off not even knowing it in that case!!!

 

thjplgvp,

Koine was spoken over a period of many years, from the time of Alexander until several hundred years after Christ. It was spoken by many people, having many different native languages.

My point is that biblical Greek is just a language - like our English! Consider how much of our everyday talk is idiom, jargon, figure of speech etc.

My point is that we should not try to set up fixed equivalencies, insisting that word x ALWAYS carries a particular nuance or that the use of Y tense allows one to say that this action was once and for all or is PAST and finished. In this way language is flexible and colloquial.

 

I aint got one...

My wife is from England and she speaks proper English; she makes fun of how us Yanks talk all the time...