For those interested in Biblical languages

Have seen quite a few posters on here interested in Biblical languages and wanted to point to this.

 

Thanks. I will add this to my research base.

 

Never one to be controversial or comment about something of which I know little.

Isn't the Bible already in English? Perhaps a study of Greek and Hebrew would allow one to translate it into these wonderful languages.

Care would have to be taken to preserve the poetry of the archaic second person singular thees, thines and thous.

 

===

Dennis:

The purpose of acquiring a working knowledge of the original languages is to understand at an academic graduate level what the Scriptures are really saying, not to translate them yet again into English. Of course, one can gain a good understanding simply by reading the English. But one can also make assumptions from the English which are questionable in the original languages and text (original words written, which are often debatable). Assumptions still are made by those with Hebrew and Greek, but are done so on firmer foundations.

For example, the King James Version in John 1:18 reads, "... the only begotten Son... ." However there are two issues:

1) Should the reading be 'son' (huios) or 'God' (theos). ?
The latter is best supported by ancient copies in the
Greek, some of these are quite early.

2) Does the adjective here rendered 'begotten' (monogenes)
mean that or does mean something like 'unique' or 'only'
with no implication of a birthing?

Granted the basic intent of the verse, that the Son reveals God, is available to the English reader without these textual and lexical distractions .

But there are among us Bible students those who wish to be more precise in our understanding , and a knowledge of the languages allow us to do our own research as well as enabling us to use the research tools which provide insights as lexicons, grammars, journal articles, and exegetical commentaries.

I suppose one who was doing graduate work in English poetry would be expected to read English

 

Bill,

Just stoking the fire a bit. A lot of yawn time at degreeinfo.

Can the accuracy of a 10th? generation copy of the original be significantly closer to the original than an 11th? generation copy, the KJV.

The errors made in longhand 1900 years ago could be startling compared to the present day arguing over the meaning of the use of articles. I say this realizing that parallel copies have remained quite true to each other.

 

Bill, If I understand what you're saying here and in the other thread, a grasp of original languages are skills of inquiry analogous to research methodology and statistical analysis in secular doctorates.

David

 

Dennis,

The KJV has more than 10,000 errors of mistranslation. The words for "soul" and "hell" are among them. The KJV translators, at the instructions of King James, translated the Bible the way he wanted it translated. For example, in Genesis 2:7 the KJV translates the Hebrew as "soul" when it should actually be "being" or even "living being." In Second Peter 2:4 the KJV uses "hell." This is incorrect. It should be "tartaruts (tartarus)," which means a "place of restraint."

 

===

Textual criticism is a fairly exact science based not just on antiquity of the manuscripts (copies) , there are of course thousands of these to compare, but on other factors too as the family the copy falls into, the thousands of patristic citations from 95AD-500, and several early translations as the Old Latin, internal evidence too as authorial vocabulary and style, and what likely was the motive (where intentionally done) or mistake (where unintentionally done) of a scribe to emend a manuscript he was copying.

But in the case of the Fourth Gospel the recently discovered papyri , p66 and p75, perhaps second century products [Comfort, The Text of the Earliest NT Greek MSS} bring us very close to the original which was perhaps composed about 95AD. In the above given example I know of no prominent textual scholar who would dispute the reading monogenes "God" rather than "Son."

I have followed some of this evidence and have no worry about making theological blunders because of not knowing what the NT writers really wrote.

 

===

Hi David

I think your analogy is good. And BTW, I bombed out of my first course in statisics at OSU. I really am a left brained ( or hair brained?) person and not arithmatically endowed at all.

But of course many Master of Divinity programs-[ this is the standard ministerial degree 90-96 semester unit, three year masters]- require the acquisition of both Hebrew and Greek too even for those students who anticipate no doctoral work but only intend to be ministers. I think the logic is that these languages are useful in the study of the meaning of a text prior to sermon composition on that text. But as Jimmy once wrote, the majority of ministers after leaving seminary forget most of it anyway. But likely the reason they forget is being so busy with the many hats they wear, there is little time for in depth personal study. Besides, most congreants are quite happy with milk from the pulpit not meat.

 

==

Jimmy regard 'nepesh,' I can provide you several scholarly Hebrew lexicons which say it can mean soul if you like. Of course, it does not always mean that.

 

While true this is still no excuse for a preacher not using resource materials and study guides during sermon preparation to deliver the "meat" and not just "dish out milk" each Sunday. Martin Luther King, Jr. said there should be one hour's preparation for each minute of the sermon.

 

==

I wonder if he looked at dissertation work with a similar noble zeal?

 

While I doubt that we will ever know the complete truth behind his dissertation (because any "truth" surely died with him), few would dispute his being one of the preeminent preachers of the 20th century.



Tom Nixon

 

Not as good as his papa.

MLK Jr (as preacher) is to MLK Sr (as preacher) as the Peshitta is to the Greek NT: a late, pale, unoriginal knock-off, preferred by hobbyists, skipped by connoisseurs. A lamsa, not a lion.

 

Certainly at least the most preeminent preachers of practical Christianity of the 20th century.

 

Trust me with this - I just threw this gem in for conversation value. Off-topic has been much too on-topic for my liking.

 

I know it can also mean soul but, as you said, not always, which is what the KJV does. We could get into a heated discussion here about the meanings of ruach, nephesh, n'shah-mah, psuche, zoe and, pneuma.

 

I did not mean to say what I did. If you will look at the time I posted it was very late or early in the morning. I know the KJV translates it as living being, blood, breathing, desire, etc., etc., etc.. What I meant to say was that in many places where it translates it as soul it should be another word, that's all. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I just noticed I made a mistake on another thread. I should stop posting so late (early in the morning). There will always be differences of opinion on the meanings of these words. Koehler, Baumgartner, Donnegan, Genesius are not all in agreement on many words. Just look how many interpret the Greek oinos and gleukos so differently.

 

THE KJV TRANSLATES NEPESH AS "BLOOD"???

===

"AS BLOOD"????????????????????

It does ????????????????????????

Where?????????????????????????

Sorry Jimmy, you're just fun to tease