Can't understand the message if I don't speak the language

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatThompson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PatThompson

Guest
I have the good fortune of working with people from around the world – different backgrounds, different life experiences, different native languages.

More than once I’ve sat 2 feet away from someone looking at the same text (about a boring old project at work, nothing philosophical), and it takes a while for the two of us to come to the same understanding.

As I see more and more how a small subset of ‘religious’ people have and do corrupt messages for their own gain, I’ve felt it more and more important to truly understand Sacred scripture as ‘purely’ as possible. Me and the text, with as little extra noise introduced as possible.

But I’m also a realist – I don’t see myself learning ancient Hebrew and Greek, never mind the finer points of charged words like “maiden”/“virgin” or “kill”/“murder”.

So my question: how can I take responsibility for my understanding of scripture as well as if it was written by someone sitting 2 feet away from me, not two thousand years ago, half way around the world, and translated again (and again) by people I wouldn’t even begin to understand?

(With all due respect, please refrain from cluttering up this thread with “Because it is written in the Bible” or “Open your heart to the word of the Bible and you will see the light”. I understand those ideas, but I’m looking for more practical, literal ideas.)
 
Yours is a good question. Help me understand it a little better. Are you wanting to know how to understand the bible as its author intended or are you trying to understand it in a more modern context? The reason I ask is that even if you learned Greek and Hebrew, you still might not arrive at the understanding intended by those who wrote it. So are you wanting to grasp the bible with your intellect or your heart? Do you want to read from a position of faith or simply reason?
 
StCsDavid, that is an excellent clarification on my question…

(A number of attempts to clarify, each not quite right and replaced, and replaced…)

Unfortunately my clarification is “somewhere in the middle”!

Ultimately I believe it is important for me to take responsibility for my actions, decisions, and how I choose to spend my life day to day, so the context is certainly ‘modern’.

I would like to base those decisions on how the “author intended” the scripture to be interpreted. I have a Jewish background, so I’m quite used to the idea of the Bible being literal, and all the problems that come from that…

On the flipside, though, I’m not willing to base my faith on all the humans over thousands of years who translated/interpreted/translated our modern English text, hence my dilema!
 
Welllll…
You don’t see yourself learning the original languages, and you don’t trust the versions in your own language…that’s quite the pickle, my friend! May I suggest learning a third language?

Personally, I think the best answer is “Join the Catholic Church”!
In that case, you would have someone teaching you with the knowledge of 2000 years of Tradition, from people who knew the people who wrote it, no less.

Your concern is certainly a valid one; we see so many examples of people interpreting Scripture on their own, and because of that splitting off from their previous church. For this reason, I see it as vital to seek out the people who have taught the same lessons from the beginning.

Peace
 
There are two points – note this is primarily aimed at the New Testament. The first is that we must put Scripture in context of the intended audience, and the second is that we must put Scripture in context of how it was meant to be communicated.

1. The first generation is the generation that witnessed Jesus and of which some wrote the books and letters that later became compiled as the New Testament. They looked to the Old Testament and conveyed how the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ.

The second generation were there present with the first generation still around. They could ask the Apostles what they meant when they wrote something. “Hey Paul, what did you mean when you wrote ‘If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him’” or “John, what does ‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed’ mean”?

The third generation could ask the second generation what was meant in those sacred writings, and the second generation would deliver to the third generation the teachings that they had received from the first generation. And the fourth would receive from the third generation. And this applies to both the written word (Sacred Scripture) and the teachings proclaimed by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition).

And so, as long as we live in that unterminated chain from one generation to the other, we receive what our forebears received just as we will deliver to our children. But, once you divorce yourself from that uninterrupted succession, you quickly veer off from true understanding.

2. All Apostolic teaching, even the written word, was always communicated to the community by oral proclamation. This was always done in a liturgical setting. It is through hearing in the Liturgy that we learn its meaning and through the exposition of the Scriptures in the homily, God talks to us to tell us what He wants us to understand from the Scriptures so that we can know Him, which we do in the Breaking of the Bread.

Luke 24:27-32:
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”

So Christ interpreted for them all the things in Scripture concerning Himself and the disciples hearts were afire as the Scriptures were opened up for them, and then they recognized Him in the Breaking of the Bread. (Hint: this is a prototype of the Liturgy)

For a much more thorough treatment of this, I highly recommend Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy by Dr. Scott Hahn
 
PatThompson said:
I have the good fortune of working with people from around the world – different backgrounds, different life experiences, different native languages.

More than once I’ve sat 2 feet away from someone looking at the same text (about a boring old project at work, nothing philosophical), and it takes a while for the two of us to come to the same understanding.

As I see more and more how a small subset of ‘religious’ people have and do corrupt messages for their own gain, I’ve felt it more and more important to truly understand Sacred scripture as ‘purely’ as possible. Me and the text, with as little extra noise introduced as possible.

But I’m also a realist – I don’t see myself learning ancient Hebrew and Greek, never mind the finer points of charged words like “maiden”/“virgin” or “kill”/“murder”.

So my question: how can I take responsibility for my understanding of scripture as well as if it was written by someone sitting 2 feet away from me, not two thousand years ago, half way around the world, and translated again (and again) by people I wouldn’t even begin to understand?

(With all due respect, please refrain from cluttering up this thread with “Because it is written in the Bible” or “Open your heart to the word of the Bible and you will see the light”. I understand those ideas, but I’m looking for more practical, literal ideas.)
Click to expand...
I’m going to assume that it is God’s mind, God’s understanding/truth that you are seeking when you read the Scripture.

As I see it, you have two choices:
  1. God will guide you personally (and every other person who truly seeks His meaning) – to the truth of what the Scriptures mean.
  2. He will establish an authority to speak for Him; to define and interpret when there are problems with interpreting what the Scriptures mean and/or when there are conflicting interpretations.
I’m sure you know where those of us who are Catholic stand on the issue.
History has shown the problem within Christianity when the first option has been adopted.

I believe at the time of Jesus, there was authority exercised within the Jewish faith when it came to interpreting the Scriptures. Is there still some sort of authoritative person/agency/group that is recognized as being the “official” interpreter of Scripture?
 
PatThompson said:
StCsDavid, that is an excellent clarification on my question…

(A number of attempts to clarify, each not quite right and replaced, and replaced…)

Unfortunately my clarification is “somewhere in the middle”!

Ultimately I believe it is important for me to take responsibility for my actions, decisions, and how I choose to spend my life day to day, so the context is certainly ‘modern’.

I would like to base those decisions on how the “author intended” the scripture to be interpreted. I have a Jewish background, so I’m quite used to the idea of the Bible being literal, and all the problems that come from that…

On the flipside, though, I’m not willing to base my faith on all the humans over thousands of years who translated/interpreted/translated our modern English text, hence my dilema!
Click to expand...
Well that is quite a fix you have yourself in, and I’m not sure there is a resolution of a scriptural basis. You see, for us Catholics, being Christian is the result of an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ. This isn’t a philosophy or a series of stories handed down thorughout the ages, but rather an encounter with a person in the here and now. God incarnated into human flesh, suffered, died, and rose from the dead and lives with us today. That’s the good news we focus upon daily.

So while scripture is the living word of God, it does not exist as our sole source of inspiration. Keep in mind that scripture was largely assembled to be proclaimed and interpreted by priests, both in the Jewish tradition before the fall of the Temple in AD 70 and by Catholic priests, today. In addition to scripture we also rely on Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Church which Christ founded and gave to humanity.

I feel for anyone who tries to base their lives exclusively on scripture as they run precisely into the issue that you have encountered. Which version of scripture is one to believe? This in large part also explains why our Protestant brethren lack unity and are fractured into 40,000 + denominations, each with it’s own interpretation of scripture. They’ve rejected the Church and Sacred Tradition and rely nearly exclusively upon scritpture.
 
Thanks everyone for their responses so far, I will have to give this thread some more thought and answer tomorrow.

One quick response to Nita, though.

I’m really not one to be speaking for Jewish faith or traditions, but no, we don’t have any person/agency/group that is recognized as being the “official” interpreter of Jewish Scripture. We do have the Talmud, “a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs, and history” (quote from Wikipedia).
 
I have studied Greek and I have translated some of the books of the Bible. I have studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin to different degrees. I say that only to say that speaking from some experience that learning the original Biblical languages does have some nice benefits, you never regret taking the time to study them, but it is not full proof nor authoritative. Every Christian denomination under the sun will use the ancient languages to defend their doctrines (flawed as they may be), and when you study a language you are at the mercy of learning it through the preception and bias of whoever wrote the grammar book. Reading too much into the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin is just the same as reading too much into an English translation, and even more dangerous because the average person who does not know those languages cannot decern or verify the claims of someone’s use of the original languages in the same manner as someone referring to the language they are familar with. I can say that the Greek means this or that and someone who does not know Greek will not be able to rebute me and will either have to not trust my judgment or go by faith that I am correct. So their are many complex issues that going to the original languages does not solve.

But, the way to find out how to understand what the original texts means is to read the interpretations of those who spoke the languages as their first language back then, and we have the Early Church Fathers and their many writings. We have the Greek Fathers, the Aramaic (Syriac) Fathers, Church Fathers who knew Hebrew such as Jerome and Origen and Tertullian (most people don’t know that he knew Greek and Aramaic). We also have writings from men who were taught by the Apostles such as the Apostolic Fathers. Reading and learning what Scripture means from the Church Fathers supercedes trying to interpret the text of ancient languages through 21st century eyes.

But the Church Fathers all had one thing in common, and that is the fact that they submitted to the teaching authority of the Church. Knowledge of ancient languages should be totally submitted to God given authority, not the other way around.
 
Thank you all for your answers. Funny, in a way, that it all comes down to faith; faith that the message has remained mostly undisturbed as it is passes from generation to generation, culture to culture, social norms to social norms.

As StCsDavid said at the start, I guess this is a question of ‘heart’ vs ‘intellect’. I’m not happy casting aside the Bible as something more poetic than literal, the problems of “anyone who tries to base their lives exclusively on scripture” seems to point at a huge problem, and ultimately, where do we draw the line? (I’m sure that’s a well worn discussion here - who are WE to decide to ignore one message from the Bible, or one message from the Church - or religious teachings, in my case…)

But if I cast aside the literal aspect as best as I understand it, then my only choice is to put my faith in men and women who have studied the men and women who have studied the men all the way back to those that were there in the beginning. I can’t believe that I never realized that THAT was the faith that was being asked of me!

Very interesting! Thank you all ever so much for your time.
 
Copland3, thank you for your insight into learning other languages, and the potential problems, too. I’d never thought of it that way, but of course we always hear “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
 
PatThompson said:
Copland3, thank you for your insight into learning other languages, and the potential problems, too. I’d never thought of it that way, but of course we always hear “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.
Click to expand...
Your welcome. I spoke on what I have experienced along the way. When I began studying the ancient languages I was expecting to reach a point where I would be able to unlock mysteries in the ancient Biblical texts by going to the languages that they were written in. Don’t get me wrong, there is a tremendous blessing gained by it, especially when you begin to think in the language which allows you to understand more fully the sense that the authors are trying to give such as play on words. But as far as discovering hidden doctrines that have not already been discovered and articulated it will not happen, not accurately anyway.

I see a whole lot of private interpretations based upon the ancient languages, and it is just as out of hand and full of confusion as the millions of interpretations people have with English translations, the only difference is that people can be fooled alot easier by so-called scholars who say “in the Greek and Hebrew it means this or that.”

That is one thing that helped me trust the Catholic Church that much more which eventually led to my conversion, and that is the Church has been teaching the same doctrines for 2000 years and is evident by the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
 
PatThompson said:
Thank you all for your answers. Funny, in a way, that it all comes down to faith; faith that the message has remained mostly undisturbed as it is passes from generation to generation, culture to culture, social norms to social norms.

As StCsDavid said at the start, I guess this is a question of ‘heart’ vs ‘intellect’. I’m not happy casting aside the Bible as something more poetic than literal, the problems of “anyone who tries to base their lives exclusively on scripture” seems to point at a huge problem, and ultimately, where do we draw the line? (I’m sure that’s a well worn discussion here - who are WE to decide to ignore one message from the Bible, or one message from the Church - or religious teachings, in my case…)

But if I cast aside the literal aspect as best as I understand it, then my only choice is to put my faith in men and women who have studied the men and women who have studied the men all the way back to those that were there in the beginning. I can’t believe that I never realized that THAT was the faith that was being asked of me!

Very interesting! Thank you all ever so much for your time.
Click to expand...
I suppose you’re being asked to put your faith in Christ and trusting that the successors of His Church are indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, you are putting your faith in man, alone, negating the Divine, which never really ends well. 🙂
 
I basically scanned over the responses and there is some good advise there to which I will add my small amount.

I have taken to using an on-line bible service called “StudyLight.org”. The reason I like it is because I can easily compare different translations using the “multitranslation” option. (use the set preferences tab to set up the site to you preferences - It is above the search button at the right side of the screen)

Two ot the translations that I use in this are the “Literal tranlations” by Young and J.P Green. I use these along with a NKJV, and a couple of others. I find it helps me to get a better “Gist” of meaning by doing these comparisons.

Hope this helps

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top