Biblical Language Learning

benelchi said:

There is if you want to read the book of Daniel, or other smaller portions of Aramaic text in the OT.

Click to expand...

Only a few chapters in Daniel are written in Aramaic. But, yes, Aramaic would be important for this.

There is if you want to be able to read the Targums, the Peshitta, Syriac, and be able to understand the textual variants listed in critical texts of the BHS/BHQ or NA28/UBS5.

Click to expand...

True. But I don't really venture down the path of text criticism. I'll leave this to the scholars.

Hidden In Him said:

I'm more the student of Greek. However, I would consider accepting your invitation if there is a revelation in it. Is there a revelation from God you wish to teach, or is this more of a mental exercise. If it's more the latter then please take no offense, but I wouldn't be interested.

Click to expand...

It simply demonstrates how nearly impossible it is for someone who can't read the language to understand a simple sentence of only four words that hasn't already been translated into English, even when they have all of the Strong's numbers to help them identify the lexical form.

In answer to your question of would being able to read be beneficial? Of course. Reading quotes in Moulton-Milligan or any other work like that is certainly easier if you can read the original. But considering the time investment involved, as you say, unless a person is called to it, my argument is that a student's time is better served focusing on vocabulary, seeing as how many texts are already available in a parsed forms and the Biblical uses are the most relevant anyway. And reading lexicons does not absolutely require the ability to read Greek. They're written in English.

Click to expand...

Again, how does one use these tools, without understanding the language, to gain a better understanding than they could have gained simply by reading several good English translations?

You mentioned this:


How are you certain they're completely reliable? I own a host of Biblical commentaries, including Word Biblical, Anchor, NICNT and others. You believe they are always correct in their interpretations? They usually differ from one another, sometimes quite wildly.

Click to expand...

No, I do not believe they are always correct. But good commentaries do lay out the basis for their interpretation, and you have a far better chance of understanding the weight to give to each commentator's position by looking at their arguments than you do by looking at the words of a text in a language you do not understand! I always recommend using several good commentaries written by people who really do read the biblical languages (many are written by people who do not) because the weaknesses of one commentator's position are often exposed when reading a the arguments of other commentators.

benelchi said:

It simply demonstrates how nearly impossible it is for someone who can't read the language to understand a simple sentence of only four words that hasn't already been translated into English, even when they have all of the Strong's numbers to help them identify the lexical form.

Click to expand...

Ok, I could fully agree with you. Only again, we're talking about Biblical texts that already have been translated into English. I don't mean to be nit-picky or downplay the importance of learning to read if at all possible. Just saying your exercise sort of jumps out of context, since if it is from a Hebrew or Greek text then it will already have translation somewhere.

Anyway, go ahead and prove your point. I'm guessing it does not read the obvious "Come enter my house [and] eat bread."

benelchi said:

Again, how does one use these tools, without understanding the language, to gain a better understanding than they could have gained simply by reading several good English translations?

Click to expand...

Maybe we're misunderstanding one another. I'm not advocating someone not read English translations. I'm simply saying that if someone wants to dig deeper into meanings, most Biblical reference works are written in English, and provide translations of the various uses of Greek and Hebrew words into English.

benelchi said:

No, I do not believe they are always correct. But good commentaries do lay out the basis for their interpretation, and you have a far better chance of understanding the weight to give to each commentators position by looking at their arguments than you do by looking at the words of a text in a language you do not understand! I always recommend using several good commentaries written by people who really do read the biblical languages (many are written by people who do not) because the weaknesses of one commentators position are often exposed when reading a the arguments of other commentators.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Only I would add that even with the best of scholarship they admittedly still come up almost universally uncertain with regard to a number of passages.

Hidden In Him said:

Anyway, go ahead and prove your point. I'm guessing it does not read the obvious "Come enter my house [and] eat bread."

Click to expand...

P.S. My apologies for inclusion of the word "bread" where it isn't even present. That was pure inference (tired at the moment).

Hidden In Him said:

Ok, I could fully agree with you. Only again, we're talking about Biblical texts that already have been translated into English. I don't mean to be nit-picky or downplay the importance of learning to read if at all possible. Just saying your exercise sort of jumps out of context, since if it is from a Hebrew or Greek text then it will already have translation somewhere.

Anyway, go ahead and prove your point. I'm guessing it does not read the obvious "Come enter my house [and] eat bread."

Click to expand...

The text says: "Come to my house and you will be eaten." Misinterpretation can (literally) be quite dangerous!

Note: You included the conjunction "and" in square brackets, and this indicates that it was not present in the text of the original languages but added for clarity. However, in this case it is in the original text; "and" in Hebrew is always a prefix attached to a word. In this case the word אתה (you) is ואתה (and you).

Maybe we're misunderstanding one another. I'm not advocating someone not read English translations. I'm simply saying that if someone wants to dig deeper into meanings, most Biblical reference works are written in English, and provide translations of the various uses of Greek and Hebrew words into English.

Click to expand...

Gaining a familiarity with Greek or Hebrew words can help one gain a better understanding of the general sense of the word that would make it easier to exclude many some fallacious interpretations, but it doesn't help much for understanding a words use in a specific verse. For that you need either a grasp of the language itself or the help of someone who does understand the language.

Here is a rather tragic example:

I know a group of missionaries from prominent evangelical missionary organizations involved in bible translations that have looked at the following phrase from Ge. 16:12 "ידו בכל ויד כל בו" and noted that in the lexicon that the preposition "ב" can be used for "in, with, against." While all English translations, and reputable translations in almost every other language recognize the idiom here "ידו ב" as strongly indicating "against" they have decided that "with" is a better translation and that this passage has been misunderstood. They see it as an affirmation that Ishmael will be united "with" his brothers; and their translation of the bible reflects this new theology. The problem with this theory is that biblical Hebrew makes a distinction between the instrumental use of "with" (ב) and the relational use of "with" (עם). If I say "I write with a pencil" in Hebrew, I would use "ב", but if I say "I walk with my wife" I would use "עם". Typically, the incremental "with" can be replaced by the phrase "by means of" i.e. "I write by means of a pencil". Because these "translators" cannot read the biblical languages, they have chosen a word from the lexicon does not reflect the meaning of the original text.

I agree with this. Only I would add that even with the best of scholarship they admittedly still come up almost universally uncertain with regard to a number of passages.

Click to expand...

Agreed, there are some passages that are extremely difficult. However, if translators who know the original languages (and cognate languages) and are aware of all of the variant texts are still struggling to understand the text, is someone with no knowledge of the language with lexicon in hand really going to be able to do better?

benelchi said:

The text says: "Come to my house and you will be eaten." Misinterpretation can (literally) be quite dangerous!

Click to expand...

Ha Ha! That's great! I was hoping to get a good laugh out of it.

benelchi said:

Note: You included the conjunction "and" in square brackets, and this indicates that it was not present in the text of the original languages but added for clarity. However, in this case it is in the original text; "and" in Hebrew is always a prefix attached to a word. In this case the word אתה (you) is ואתה (and you).

Click to expand...

Thanks. My original guess was without brackets, but in the end it was admittedly guessing anyway.

benelchi said:

Gaining a familiarity with Greek or Hebrew words can help one gain a better understanding of the general sense of the word that would make it easier to exclude many some fallacious interpretations, but it doesn't help much for understanding a words use in a specific verse. For that you need either a grasp of the language itself or the help of someone who does understand the language.

Click to expand...

I am aware of this when it comes to things like idioms. But are you saying this is consistently the case and particularly in reference to Greek? It often appears to be fairly cut and dried to me.

benelchi said:

Because these "translators" cannot read the biblical languages, they have chosen a word from the lexicon that does not reflect the meaning of the original text.

Click to expand...

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. If you have questions yourself about specific verses or passages, do you have someone yourself that you go to, or do you read? If so, do you read both Hebrew and Greek, or mostly Hebrew?

benelchi said:

Agreed, there are some passages that are extremely difficult. However, if translators who know the original languages (and cognate languages) and are aware of all of the variant texts are still struggling to understand the text, is someone with no knowledge of the language with lexicon in hand really going to be able to do better?

Click to expand...

Point granted. I think my assertion was that, in spite of present scholarship, there is still something sorely lacking, so limiting our understanding to only those "qualified" would in essence be to settle for less than perfect. But I agree that you don't simply throw caution to the wind. Proper rules of translation should always be adhered to.

Again something comes to mind. I've seen numerous translations where words in the Greek are simply omitted, and for no apparent reason except they don't draw a connection by translating a conjunction out. But I suppose that's another discussion for another time.

Hidden In Him said:

I am aware of this when it comes to things like idioms. But are you saying this is consistently the case and particularly in reference to Greek? It often appears to be fairly cut and dried to me.

Click to expand...

It is often pretty easy to look at a parsed text and understand how the translator arrived at an English translation even when one does not fully understand the text. Typically people fill in the missing informational gap with the understanding already provided in the English translation. The problem is that sometimes the translation isn't quite so easy to understand when a parsed text is compared to an English translation, and in those instances some seem to believe that they can correct the translators "mistake."

Working from an Greek or Hebrew text to arrive at an English translation is much more difficult because one must understand verb tense, mood, person, number, noun declensions, particles, etc..., and understand how context and grammatical structure can affect meaning. For those who do not know the language well, it is wise to assume that when something looks wrong, it is far more likely a lack of understanding on my part than it is a mistake on the translators part. Without a very deep understanding of the language, one should not consider introducing new ideas in the text that are not already apparent in a good English translation or in a reputable commentary.

That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. If you have questions yourself about specific verses or passages, do you have someone yourself that you go to, or do you read? If so, do you read both Hebrew and Greek, or mostly Hebrew?

Click to expand...

I studied Greek (1 year), Hebrew (5 years), and Aramaic (1 year) in the university. I am far more competent in Hebrew because of the time I have spent studying it and my regular use of it. Next, would be Aramaic, and last Greek. While I read from all three languages pretty regularly, I recognize my shortcomings in both Greek and Aramaic, and always consult those I know who are much stronger with these languages, or commentaries written by those who know these languages well. Even when I am reading Hebrew, I still approach any text that appears different to me with a lot of caution, and look at the opinion of other scholars before jumping to conclusions.

Point granted. I think my assertion was that, in spite of present scholarship, there is still something sorely lacking, so limiting our understanding to only those "qualified" would in essence be to settle for less than perfect. But I agree that you don't simply throw caution to the wind. Proper rules of translation should always be adhered to.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Again something comes to mind. I've seen numerous translations where words in the Greek are simply omitted, and for no apparent reason except they don't draw a connection by translating a conjunction out. But I suppose that's another discussion for another time.

Click to expand...

Words are often omitted in translation, and words are often inserted into English (or French, German, etc..) translations that are not in the original. Such choices are expected.

In Greek for example the definite article "the" is used far more often than it is in English, and is very often omitted in translation. For example, in Greek the article is often used with proper names i.e. "the David" i.e. καὶ ἐνέδυσεν Σαουλ τὸν Δαυιδ (1 Sam. 17:38) "and saul clothed THE David." In English the definite article is not included. In Hebrew the particle את serves as a grammatical marker indicating a direct definite object; it is never translated in English. Conjunctions are used quite differently in Hebrew and Greek, and frequently omitted (or changed) in English. An interesting example from Hosea 1:6 is "כי־נשׂא אשׂא להם" lit. "for to carry, I will carry to them." In Hebrew the infinitive followed by a conjugated form is a way to added emphasis, and "to carry someone" is an idiom for "forgive." English renderings accurately communicate this as "that I should at all forgive them." Words like "at all, surely, certainly, etc.." are added to the text to demonstrate the emphatic because an infinitive followed by a conjugated verb in English does not indicate emphasis. Emphatics like this are quite common in Hebrew and English translations almost always add words that indicate emphasis in English.

ByTheSpirit said:

So I want to learn Koine Greek then Hebrew and Aramaic. That would be AWESOME!

Those of you who know them well, how long did it take to really be able to comprehend?

Are there any resources out there for a poor guy like me to utilize? I have been watching videos on YouTube about the alphabet and phonetics. I do know some Greek but I am not able to read a Greek NT as of yet with full comprehension.

Just want some information to advance my own learning.

Click to expand...

If your just interested in learning something about the original language you might try a resource like this one:

For the original Greek you might try this one:

They also have one for Biblical Hebrew:
I'm seriously thinking about taking the courses myself.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hidden In Him said:

I think my assertion was that, in spite of present scholarship, there is still something sorely lacking, so limiting our understanding to only those "qualified" would in essence be to settle for less than perfect. But I agree that you don't simply throw caution to the wind. Proper rules of translation should always be adhered to.

Click to expand...

The more Spirit-sanctified knowledge of the Word of God, including in its source languages, the better.

However, the whole point of the Reformation was getting the Word of God into the hands of the common people, and not leaving it to the so called experts.

@benelchi

My apologies. I'm tied up doing something atm, but I'm very much enjoying this thread. Give me some time. I plan on getting caught up here eventually. I'm finding your posts educational.

I taught myself to read Koine Greek. As to the question of whether or not to learn Madern Greek first, I'd say no, because the differences are enough that it would only confuse things. Some of the letters make different sounds in Koine and in Modern Greek (for example, Delta and Beta are respectively, D and B in Koine, but they are pronounced Th and V in Modern Greek). Also the grammar for koine is a bit more complicated than Modern Greek. More verb tenses, 4 grasmmatical cases in Koine vs 3 cases in Modern Greek. Also, some words are completely different.

I also strongly recommend getting the Hebrew-Greek key word study Bible since it will enable you to study words in the original without having to know Greek or Hebrew (so you can jump right into original-language word studies without having to wait till you master the languages).

Hope this helps

benelchi said:

In Greek for example the definite article "the" is used far more often than it is in English, and is very often omitted in translation. For example, in Greek the article is often used with proper names i.e. "the David" i.e. καὶ ἐνέδυσεν Σαουλ τὸν Δαυιδ (1 Sam. 17:38) "and saul clothed THE David." In English the definite article is not included.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post. The overuse of the definite article in Greek is just gruesome. Hard to wrap my mind around how they "read" it sometimes, but I suppose it's a matter of what one is accustomed to.

About that by the way, I was referencing something in James 1:9. "But let the lowly brother boast in his exaltedness, and the rich one in his lowliness, because as the flower of the grass he will pass away." The conjunction "but" here is clearly in the text (Καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τω), and was obviously used with the intention of showing contrast since it is not part of a series of repeated uses in an extended paragraph that would negate out all but the original use (i.e. the original δὲ in the paragraph). Yet translators NEVER seem to translate this word out. I've always had a tendency to assume it's because they simply can't draw a connection between what he is saying in v.5-8 and then v.9-12.

Anyway, about your approaching with caution and seeking out help when you need to, do you keep in touch with professors at your seminary, or maybe other students of language you went to school with? Seems like people like that would be tremendous assets to have.

faroukfarouk said:

The more Spirit-sanctified knowledge of the Word of God, including in its source languages, the better.

However, the whole point of the Reformation was getting the Word of God into the hands of the common people, and not leaving it to the so called experts.

Click to expand...

I agree. The trick is also getting the common man up to speed on the proper rules of translation, especially those who end up being uncommonly influential leaders.

Hidden In Him said:

I agree. The trick is also getting the common man up to speed on the proper rules of translation, especially those who end up being uncommonly influential leaders.

Click to expand...

It's good when the spiritual leadership revolves around the local church, and not around money-media-politics (where in the end the Bible is inevitably displaced).

Hidden In Him said:

Anyway, about your approaching with caution and seeking out help when you need to, do you keep in touch with professors at your seminary, or maybe other students of language you went to school with? Seems like people like that would be tremendous assets to have.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have connections with people that work in a variety of biblical and cognate languages; some of whom I have worked with on translation teams.

benelchi said:

Yes, I have connections with people that work in a variety of biblical and cognate languages; some of whom I have worked with on translation teams.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you this. Without having a knee jerk reaction and jumping to what I know would probably be your automatic response, are there any short cuts to having to memorize 3,000 miles of declensions so I could continue on in actual ministry in other areas with out having to rededicate all that time and energy elsewhere? Or is there no possible means of going straight to material on how to recognize distinctions in the Greek, as opposed to having to dedicate myself for the next five years+ to the study of Greek so as not to make some grave mistake in translation and interpretation?

Hidden In Him said:

Let me ask you this. Without having a knee jerk reaction and jumping to what I know would probably be your automatic response, are there any short cuts to having to memorize 3,000 miles of declensions so I could continue on in actual ministry in other areas with out having to rededicate all that time and energy elsewhere? Or is there no possible means of going straight to material on how to recognize distinctions in the Greek, as opposed to having to dedicate myself for the next five years+ to the study of Greek so as not to make some grave mistake in translation and interpretation?

Click to expand...

Hidden In Him said:

Let me ask you this. Without having a knee jerk reaction and jumping to what I know would probably be your automatic response, are there any short cuts to having to memorize 3,000 miles of declensions so I could continue on in actual ministry in other areas with out having to rededicate all that time and energy elsewhere? Or is there no possible means of going straight to material on how to recognize distinctions in the Greek, as opposed to having to dedicate myself for the next five years+ to the study of Greek so as not to make some grave mistake in translation and interpretation?

Click to expand...

I thought it might be helpful to give a concrete example of how an original language word study can and cannot be used by those unfamiliar with the language. Let's look at the Hebrew root זמן. It can mean "to invite, to order [request something], to meet [someone], etc...

The English word "order" can mean: "to order [request something], to place things in sequence, to command someone, etc...

Hebrew and English words frequently overlap (as in this case) but there are often parts of each definition that do not correspond. In this case, the English word "order" cannot mean "invite" or "meet" and the Hebrew root זמן cannot mean "place in sequence" or "command someone."

A word study could help identify the semantic range of the Hebrew word, and allow one to exclude suggested alternative meanings that are derived only from the English word order. A word study will be unlikely to aid someone who didn't know the language from choosing whether "request something," "invite someone/something," "meet someone/something" is intended in a specific passage.

The following are all legitimate uses of זמן:

Determining between:

would be very difficult for those who do not know the language, but determining that it did not mean.


would be relatively easy.

Determining between:
"I invited him to my home" and "I met with him in my home"
would be very difficult for those who do not know the language, but determining that it did not mean.
"I commanded him come to my home"
would be relatively easy

Click to expand...

Though it isn't the case of that in Hebrew, there is the case of the meaning also being "I command ... come to my home" in Sergius Paulus' statement for Barnabas and Saul, also known as Paul, in Acts of the Apostles 13.

faroukfarouk said:

Reading God's Word in another modern language can also provide insights; up here in Canada we are bilingual; my wife and I read the Bible in French regularly.

Click to expand...

I'm Australian mate!

I heard one Australian comedian joke on a Canadian comedy hour (or similar) that he was jealous of your Canadian bilinguilism. His joke was "I'm jealous! I'm Australian! I'm barely lingual!"