Is "Going to the greek" smart?

[Contarini]

*Give me a break. What Jolly Joe is describing, and what you say you are doing, is utterly indefensible.

There’s nothing wrong with your piecing together a translation for your own use even if you have very limited Greek and are heavily dependent on concordances. Languages are not puzzles.*

…a curious response, is it not, Contarini…Jolly Joe’s reponse I take at its value, recognizing the good points he makes, and I thank him for expounding, but your post I find bemusing…you seem to be accusing me of heresy in one breath and then saying there is nothing wrong with my commission of that same heresy…I take from that that logical reasoning is not your strongest point…so which is it? Is my transgression going to land me in the underworld or is it an OK venture as long as I don’t take it beyond by own computer? Wondering how it could be both…

First of all, no one is saying anything about the underworld. You’re being silly. JollyJoe was talking about people who “threw out the expert translations.” You volunteered the information that you were doing exactly what JollyJoe was talking about. If you weren’t (i.e., if you don’t claim that your “translation” can in some way replace the standard ones), then you misled us from the beginning and should have been slower to claim that your position was being attacked.

It’s not so much a question of whether the translation stays on your own computer, but of how much weight you give it. When I read a theological text in Latin, I’ll put my translation up against just about anyone’s, because my theological Latin is pretty good. But when I read Greek or Hebrew, or even classical Latin, I know that any translation I come up with is going to be inferior to what the real experts do. And when I read a language that I have not studied to any extent and thus am solely relying on dictionaries with little or no understanding of grammar or syntax (I’ve done this with Spanish, Italian, and Dutch, since I know cognate languages quite well, and have occasionally tried to do it with classical Chinese, which as an “isolating language” is easier to treat in this way–Greek is a very bad language to try this sort of experiment on, to be honest) I would never think of putting any weight on my reading over against that of those who actually know the language. That is what JollyJoe and I are saying is absurd. Not damnable or wicked or anything grand like that (since we don’t know what your motives are), just very, very silly.

Edwin

 

[mdcpensive1]

I find that the English is just fine for most of the studies I do. However, in things like getting the deeper understanding there are times that the Greek suites the greater need. An example of this is in Luke where the angel says “hail full of grace”. The Greek explains the fullness of grace in much better terms than the straight English.

It has also been stated earlier that we can make many mistakes in interpretation when picking a meaning to fit our preconceived notions. Biblical isogesis can mislead us if we don’t keep the mind of the Church involved. I have been told there are only about 5,000 Greek words to explain the many more thousands of our English vocabulary. We must take care in what we do.

mdcpensive1

 

[IrishBrigade]

If you weren’t (i.e., if you don’t claim that your “translation” can in some way replace the standard ones), then you misled us from the beginning and should have been slower to claim that your position was being attacked…

…OK, fair enough…I didn’t get the impression that JJ was referring to one who is doing battle with acknowledged experts in the field…a nuance I perhaps should have inferred…as is obvious by now, and not worth discussing anymore, is that my translation is for my own edification, and perhaps my close friends and relatives, who will no doubt forget my work five minutes after seeing it…I thank you as well for your expounding on your response…

 

[Jolly_Joe]

What do you mean by doing battle with acknowledged experts in the field?

Are you saying you are doing such battle?

What exactly is that?

Would you be willing to share an example?

JJ

 

[IrishBrigade]

Are you saying you are doing such battle?..

…absolutely not…I see that my post was poorly worded to give that impression…my work has no, repeat, no official nor authoritative value whatsoever attached to it, nor am I the least interested in attributing same to it…as I believe I stated, friends and family only will see my work, and if I’m lucky, some will remember having seen it five minutes later…

 

[markomalley]

Let me give you two examples of where “going to the Greek” can be important.

(1) Matt 5:44 –
(Douay) But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
(KJV) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
(RSV) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(NASB) "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(NAB) But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

Which one of the above is the accurate translation?

(2) You can catch little tidbits that you might not appreciate with the English alone.

For example: Luke 1:28

(NAB) And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

When you look at the word “favored one,” you might not catch that the word “favored one” is the Greek word “charitoo” – and that this particular word is used only twice in the scriptures. Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. (for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.) (The Luke usage is a participle, while the Ephesians usage is a verb in the aorist…but the same base word)

The point being that it is a handy skill to have, although normally it isn’t and shouldn’t be necessary.

 

[mtr01]

(2) You can catch little tidbits that you might not appreciate with the English alone.

For example: Luke 1:28

(NAB) And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

When you look at the word “favored one,” you might not catch that the word “favored one” is the Greek word “charitoo” – and that this particular word is used only twice in the scriptures. Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. (for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved.) (The Luke usage is a participle, while the Ephesians usage is a verb in the aorist…but the same base word)

The conjugates of charitoo (grace) being:

Luke 1:28 - kecharitomene (perfect passive participle) - “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace”

and

Ephesians 1:6 - echaritosen (indicative active aorist) - “he graced”

The point being that it is a handy skill to have, although normally it isn’t and shouldn’t be necessary.

It can also be fun, especially in the instance you bring up above. Specifically, looking at the particulars of the word “kecharitomene” demonstrates (to me at least) why “full of grace” (Lat. gratia plena) is a vastly superior translation to “highly favored daughter” or “favored one”.

 

[porthos11]

Another verse that benefits much from understanding the Greek is John 1:1.

John 6, before and after and including verse 54, benefits much from an understanding of the Greek as well.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Let me give you two examples of where “going to the Greek” can be important.

(1) Matt 5:44 –
(Douay) But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:
(KJV) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
(RSV) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(NASB) "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(NAB) But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

Which one of the above is the accurate translation?

Well, the short answer is, they all are. They are all very accurate translations of their base text. I’m not sure exactly what you are trying to say, many a KJO or DRO person would say see, the modern translations take away from the word of God. But it really seems to be a case where the clauses were added from the longer reading in Luke 6:27-28.

The early Alexandrian, and Western Greek witnesses don’t have them and they agree with the Syriac and Coptic as well as some Patristic references. The Critical text makes a judgement call that the clauses are added in a case of harmonization between the two Gospel accounts.

So anyway, what you see in that verse is not fundamentally a translational issue, it’s a textual issue. Studying the Greek language really won’t help you decide what the correct Greek text is that’s a different study.

JJ

 

[lak611]

90% of the time when someone in an argument claims he is “going to the Greek” he means he is reading the commentary of someone else who has given, in English, his translation or interpretation of the Greek. Rarely does he mean “I am a Greek scholar as well as a scripture scholar and I am going to original sources including a lexicon of biblical Greek rather than classical Greek and looking up meanings of specific words.”

I think you are correct here. When someone says he is “going to the Greek”, in most cases he is actually just looking up the Greek words in his Strong’s Concordance.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If I were to make some generalizations from the proceeding statements I would say:

1. The absolute notion that scripture in its large plurality of language translations is infallible and self teaching is a blatantly flawed doctrine and human idea.
2. The notion that scripture can be read and properly understood or translated without the benefit of some traditional insight and social context is flawed. Quite the contrary the scholars who translate scripture into the various languages are essentially trusted to be experts on traditions as well as in linguistics to choose the proper words among alternatives. This also implies that the notion that scripture can exist independent of tradition is flawed human doctrine.
3. Some semantic ambiguity was injected or lost in going from original spoken Aramaic to Greek and back to English (or other popular world languages). Due to cultural differences there are some semantic differences and even some complete conceptual vacancies arising from differences in cultural experiences that that do not resolve precisely over the full translation circuit.

Bottom Line:
It appears to me that the Catholic Church has had it right all along. Sacred Scripture must stand hand and hand with Sacred Tradition and must be taught with Authoritative Teaching. Anyone (i.e. sola scriptura advocates) who thinks that scripture exists in pure form and that tradition is non-biblical does not understand that whatever bible translation they call scripture is full of artifacts arising indirectly through assumptions of translation made in light of tradition.

James

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Why do I ask this?

If we can’t understand scripture without ‘going Greek’ why have a translation in your native tongue…

Is any translation perfect? Nope… but at worst case, the meaning of any passage is still going to be pretty darn close to what the Greek says…

When we “Go Greek” we do two things

1. We say we can interpret scripture better than all the other translations out there. Little bit of a pride issue if you ask me…

Two can play that game - others might reply that distaste for looking at the underlying text is a form of unwillingness to let people encounter what the Apostles wrote (so far as this is ascertainable); or, it might be called a symptom of insecurity. We can all play these games if we choose; they don’t get us anywhere. ​

1. We can in inadvertently twist scripture and a passages meaning because instead of taking a full understanding of all the passages surrounding a word in Greek as well, we look at one, and then use that one word within the English context.

Often, when someone dives into the Greek, it seems that that are running from an understanding and desperately seeking a way to counter what is taught in the bible in English.

Example…
A friend of mine of whom i have many pleasant conversations with. He was defending OSAS and used a specific passage to ‘prove’ OSAS. I don’t remember the exact passage, but basically he was saying a verse absolutely had to mean a guarantee of salvation. I looked at the passage he referenced, and noticed it was laced with may, and might, and could… not wills and absolutes.
I showed him this and he looked at it in a confused manner… thought for a second, then walked off. The verse didn’t say what he thought it said.

A day or two later, he came back, as giddy as a school girl saying “Ah hah!” it does mean an absolute. This time I looked at him in confusion…

"If you look at the Greek word for “May” it seems that it is actually a promise, no ambiguity, no doubt. "

At which point I asked him if it really meant that, why didn’t it get translated that way… His response was effectively “I Don’t know, but that is what the verse means, the English is wrong…”

As an aside… i later checked what the Greek word meant… there were several definitions… one was more in line with may and might, and yes, there was one in line with absolutes…

Point is… to him, the English was pointless because it did NOT say what he thought it said… instead, he had to “go Greek” to find HIS understanding… and even then, it was doubtful…

That being said, we can go Greek to get a deeper understanding of the meaning already put forth, but if going Greek completely changes the meaning of a passage, going Greek is bad…

In Christ

“but if going Greek completely changes the meaning of a passage, going Greek is bad…”​

That I do not understand . What’s bad about it ? Studying what the text - so far as it is ascertainable - says, & what the readings are, is very valuable, because it allows one to go behind the translation. Its value is, that all sorts of features of the text which translation often cannot convey can be seen - puns, double meanings, ambiguities of all sorts.

For instance: the verb paradidomi, which in English needs to be given different meanings to fit its context: as Strong’s 3860 shows.

The basic meaning is to “hand over”:

• Tradition is something “handed over”
• betraying is “handing over”
• the Father “handed over” the Son
  A few texts:
• Mat 4:12 “cast into prison”
• Mat 10:4 betrayed.
• Mat 11:27 delivered to Me
• Mat 25:14 For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, [who] called his own servants, and delivered 3860 unto them his goods.
• John 19.30 - “gave up [His] spirit”
• Act 6:14 - “…the customs Moses delivered us”
• Act 8:3 - “…committed them to prison”
• Act 14:26 - “…recommended to the grace of God” (cf. 15.40)
• Rom 1:24 - “…God gave them up to vile affections…” (similarly in v. 28)
• Rom 4:25 - “…Who was delivered 3860 for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” “was delivered” = “God delivered [Him]” - the same use of the “reverential passive” is a recurring feature of Revelation]
  The use of paradidomi can be of great theological interest: Judas did it, & so did the Father - but not in the same sense. One is sinful - the other is an expression of God’s Love for sinners; the Passion of Jesus unites them in a single act, of two opposed characters. The irony in the use of the verb for both of them would be lost if one relied only on a translation.

“To see” & “to know” are represented by forms of the same word - blind men can do so, & so can the disciples: sometimes in very different ways.

xulon can be rendered as "wood, "“tree” & “cross”. This is of great interest for the theology of the Passion, because of Deuteronomy 21.23 & 1 Corinthians 1.20ff. & related passages.

If more people knew Greek, they might be less scandalised when a favourite text is translated in a different or fresh way. They would also, be seeing what words are used, & how & where, be better able to see how passages, & the themes in them, are connected - & often turned inside-out. Much of this can be done using the English text - but much of it can’t.

That is not the same thing as exploiting the ignorance of others to misrepresent the the meaning of the text - it’s the very opposite: it’s an attempt to appreciate all of the meaning of the text, in every one of its connections. A thorough appreciation of the text & meaning is absolutely vital for a sound & fruitful theology; not to mention the importance of these texts for the Liturgy. A thorough appreciation of the text & meaning is very far from being a luxury for the Church.