Does God require every Christian to be an ancient language professor?

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Interesting question. It seems to me that to answer it adequately you first have to know what you want to get out of the scriptures. If your concern is salvation, faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one's personal savior does not require knowledge of the minutiae of the languages in which the Bible was written. If one believes that there's more to salvation than that, then their primary concern should probably the expositions of the theologians who best represent their particular denomination. If that's the case, the explanations of the theologians will probably be the best mediator of the biblical message, although obviously the message will become more the message of the theologian than the Bible. Adequately gaining a better understanding of the Bible independent of the theologians will expose the philosophical or exegetical presuppositions and shortcomings of those theologians. The choice will have to be made between relying on a mediator or throwing them off in the interest of one's own understanding.

If one wants to really understand what the Bible was written to say, then a large commitment is necessary. Learning the languages on one's own is always a possibility with the internet these days, but there are issues. The majority of hobbyists learn just enough Greek and/or Hebrew online to be dangerous. Shoot, many people who graduate from seminaries only learn enough to be dangerous, especially in this modern Bible software climate where people think having the electronic text linked to a lexicon is all one needs. What this means is that they learn to recognize the alphabets and basic words used, and then rely on a concordance and a lexicon to interpret (all of this can be done for free online). What is lacking here is an adequate understanding of a wealth of philological and literary dynamics that influence meaning just as much as pure linguistics. Those understandings are not easily acquired, but until they are acquired one will be limited to looking at the available meanings provided by a lexicon and largely guessing which sense is intended. More often than not, theological presuppositions are the guiding factor in that guessing. Rhetorical and literary structures and context, which contribute just as much to meaning as does lexicography, will generally be presupposed based on theological biases or they will be mediated by a commentary. This, of course, confines one's reading to the semantic ranges the authors of the commentary have dictated. This makes one's understanding of the Bible subordinate to whatever scholars they happen to prefer or have available. For most hobbyists this means the free stuff that's available online, which also means the stuff that's over 100 years old. While obviously people knew their stuff back then, the literary, linguistic, and material discoveries of the intervening periods have drastically changed the way people understand the past and, subsequently, the Bible. Most hobbyists are unaware of these developments and prefer to stick to the conservative commentators on whom they cut their exegetical teeth, whether or not they have much contemporary evidentiary, methodological, or scholarly backing.

If one does take the time to actually enter formal training and attempt to develop a working knowledge of the languages and the literature, they will find it is difficult to communicate to non-scholars a lot of the information that that training provides. Not only can it be complicated to communicate linguistic, contextual, and intertextual nuances, but many non-scholars don't want to be told their understanding is flawed. When that extra information complicates or changes the meaning of the text for the reader (what else does one expect it to do?), they will find many who prefer the more basic and naive reading, and find the more complex reading to be symptomatic of some kind of elitism or antagonism. Thus the broad dichotomy between academic and devotional readings of the text. Can academic readings be devotional? Of course, but there are frequently going to be corners to cut and information to exclude in order for those readings to resonate with the non-academic audience.

Scholars have actually been struggling for a long time with how to introduce non-scholarly communities and congregation to the insights that years and years of in depth training and research can provide. Not only is it difficult to communicate it generically, and difficult to convince an audience of the value of such insights, but it turns the scholar, in the eyes of many, into a kind of arbiter of biblical meaning, which is the very problem that spawned the reformation so many years ago. So how can scholars train the lay audience to find the answers for themselves? This is the question to which we have yet to find an answer. Many believe the mysteries of the Bible are open to any and all who seek them, irrespective of their cognitive abilities. This is a quaint belief, but if it were true, we wouldn't have as many different readings of the Bible as we have readers. People generally find what they want to find in the text, and people generally believe that they've been inspired to find what they just so happened to be looking for. These are the people we struggle with trying to reach. Does God require every Christian to be trained in ancient languages? Of course not. Will a person who is trained in ancient languages have a better understanding of what the Bible says? Of course. Does that necessarily mean anything to their relationship with God? Of course not.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Interesting question. It seems to me that to answer it adequately you first have to know what you want to get out of the scriptures. If your concern is salvation, faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one's personal savior does not require knowledge of the minutiae of the languages in which the Bible was written. If one believes that there's more to salvation than that, then their primary concern should probably the expositions of the theologians who best represent their particular denomination. If that's the case, the explanations of the theologians will probably be the best mediator of the biblical message, although obviously the message will become more the message of the theologian than the Bible. Adequately gaining a better understanding of the Bible independent of the theologians will expose the philosophical or exegetical presuppositions and shortcomings of those theologians. The choice will have to be made between relying on a mediator or throwing them off in the interest of one's own understanding.

If one wants to really understand what the Bible was written to say, then a large commitment is necessary. Learning the languages on one's own is always a possibility with the internet these days, but there are issues. The majority of hobbyists learn just enough Greek and/or Hebrew online to be dangerous. Shoot, many people who graduate from seminaries only learn enough to be dangerous, especially in this modern Bible software climate where people think having the electronic text linked to a lexicon is all one needs. What this means is that they learn to recognize the alphabets and basic words used, and then rely on a concordance and a lexicon to interpret (all of this can be done for free online). What is lacking here is an adequate understanding of a wealth of philological and literary dynamics that influence meaning just as much as pure linguistics. Those understandings are not easily acquired, but until they are acquired one will be limited to looking at the available meanings provided by a lexicon and largely guessing which sense is intended. More often than not, theological presuppositions are the guiding factor in that guessing. Rhetorical and literary structures and context, which contribute just as much to meaning as does lexicography, will generally be presupposed based on theological biases or they will be mediated by a commentary. This, of course, confines one's reading to the semantic ranges the authors of the commentary have dictated. This makes one's understanding of the Bible subordinate to whatever scholars they happen to prefer or have available. For most hobbyists this means the free stuff that's available online, which also means the stuff that's over 100 years old. While obviously people knew their stuff back then, the literary, linguistic, and material discoveries of the intervening periods have drastically changed the way people understand the past and, subsequently, the Bible. Most hobbyists are unaware of these developments and prefer to stick to the conservative commentators on whom they cut their exegetical teeth, whether or not they have much contemporary evidentiary, methodological, or scholarly backing.

If one does take the time to actually enter formal training and attempt to develop a working knowledge of the languages and the literature, they will find it is difficult to communicate to non-scholars a lot of the information that that training provides. Not only can it be complicated to communicate linguistic, contextual, and intertextual nuances, but many non-scholars don't want to be told their understanding is flawed. When that extra information complicates or changes the meaning of the text for the reader (what else does one expect it to do?), they will find many who prefer the more basic and naive reading, and find the more complex reading to be symptomatic of some kind of elitism or antagonism. Thus the broad dichotomy between academic and devotional readings of the text. Can academic readings be devotional? Of course, but there are frequently going to be corners to cut and information to exclude in order for those readings to resonate with the non-academic audience.

Scholars have actually been struggling for a long time with how to introduce non-scholarly communities and congregation to the insights that years and years of in depth training and research can provide. Not only is it difficult to communicate it generically, and difficult to convince an audience of the value of such insights, but it turns the scholar, in the eyes of many, into a kind of arbiter of biblical meaning, which is the very problem that spawned the reformation so many years ago. So how can scholars train the lay audience to find the answers for themselves? This is the question to which we have yet to find an answer. Many believe the mysteries of the Bible are open to any and all who seek them, irrespective of their cognitive abilities. This is a quaint belief, but if it were true, we wouldn't have as many different readings of the Bible as we have readers. People generally find what they want to find in the text, and people generally believe that they've been inspired to find what they just so happened to be looking for. These are the people we struggle with trying to reach. Does God require every Christian to be trained in ancient languages? Of course not. Will a person who is trained in ancient languages have a better understanding of what the Bible says? Of course. Does that necessarily mean anything to their relationship with God? Of course not.

This is VERY interesting to me, Daniel. I've always wondered about this. I've always wondered how learned ministers manage to hold their integrity while knowing the "truth" of the bible or certain passage while their congregation remain in relative ignorance. I am of the opinion that there re many ministers in pulpits who o not hold the bible on the same pedestal as the people they preach to or teach, but they know it would be hard, if not vocationally suicidal to "break the news" to people who prefer the more fanciful approach to the bible.

[eddie gein]

The ancient language argument is just another cover tactic believers use when confronted with all the confusing, contradicting and downright bizarre passages contained in the bible.

Usually it starts with:

1. You are "reading it wrong. Misinterpreting the text.

This is followed by the old tried and true.

2. You are "taking it out of context." As if there is any real context to that book written by different authors over generations of time.

Then of course.....

3. The ancient Greek, Hebrew actually provides a different meaning.

And then finally

4. You can't understand because you don't have the holy spirit guiding you with his secret decoder.

In regards to the ancient Greek not translating perfectly into English? That's god's fault. He could have had the different languages line up word for word in his tower of Babel stunt.

Furthermore, if he can inspire humans to write "his word" in a "perfect" manner, it stands to reason that he could have humans translate translate "his word" in a "perfect" manner.

However, believers are quick to point out errors in translation.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The ancient language argument is just another cover tactic believers use when confronted with all the confusing, contradicting and downright bizarre passages contained in the bible.

Usually it starts with:

1. You are "reading it wrong. Misinterpreting the text.

This is followed by the old tried and true.

2. You are "taking it out of context." As if there is any real context to that book written by different authors over generations of time.

Then of course.....

3. The ancient Greek, Hebrew actually provides a different meaning.

And then finally

4. You can't understand because you don't have the holy spirit guiding you with his secret decoder.

In regards to the ancient Greek not translating perfectly into English? That's god's fault. He could have had the different languages line up word for word in his tower of Babel stunt.

Furthermore, if he can inspire humans to write "his word" in a "perfect" manner, it stands to reason that he could have humans translate translate "his word" in a "perfect" manner.

However, believers are quick to point out errors in translation.

This about sums it up.

[Ringwielder]

Originally Posted by Checkered24

If the bible was easy enough for the layman to understand with a cursory reading, there would not be thousands of denominations all with their own specific interpretations of one or more parables or sections of the bible, many boiling down to major disagreements on fundamental doctrines. There also wouldn't be libraries full of scholarly works trying to interpret what the original authors, and God, really meant within the pages of the bible.

Yes, a simple read of the bible is possible, and a lot of general, biblical "principles" can be gleamed from it. In the same cursory read, a lot of misinterpretation and heretical conclusions can also be easily made.

Agreed and thanks to the other contributors on the thread too.

Originally Posted by Ringwielder

You make my point for me... a book is a terrible way for a creator to communicate , given the different meanings and nuances that words can convey, let alone the difficulty of understanding what was meant when it was written 2000 years ago.

If God wanted us to know exactly what his will is and stake our eternal futures on us understanding exactly what his will is, then he really tipped the scales against our success in that endeavour by expecting us to decipher ancient languages exact meanings and intentions.

If there is a Creator with any sense of justice, he would have to accept any sincere interpretation of 'His words' no matter what religion we belong to. Otherwise we may as well not bother as the chance of interpreting every last word correctly would be like winning the lottery.

Absolutely, and beyond this even if it was 100% coherent this would still be a long way demonstrating it's supernatural origins - all in all it is an epistemological nightmare.

[mordant]

As others have pointed out, written revelation is a terrible vehicle for conveying critical information. To an omnipotent god, no method of transmission is more difficult than another, so it is odd that he didn't simply bake the data and the "correct" interpretation of the data, right into our brains at birth. Given that he's "not willing that any should perish", and all.

Most humans, for most of history, have not had any meaningful access to Holy Writ. It's been the province of an elite bunch of scholars and priests and the rare educated wealthy layman. Passages read aloud with commentary, likely by someone with an agenda, was about as good as it got. Most people were illiterate and uneducated. All that exclusivity started to unravel with the invention of the printing press, but even today, you need look no further than the zillions of denominations and cults to know that any supposed objective, correct version of revelation has not been successfully transmitted.