Replies

Topics of this nature pop up here periodically. My two cents is that if you are really interested in the content of the New Testament you have to learn to read the original language which is Koine - the version of Greek which was common in the area from about 300BC until 300 AD.

The other problem is that there are many versions of the same text which differ slightly in content. (A major problem exists because there are two different versions of Acts one much longer than the other.) Once you determine which version you want to read and translate you are just beginning.

The meaning of some of Paul's texts are obscure even when you do know the Greek. He could not write short declarative sentences. Consequently, there are variations in the translations into English.

The other major hurdle is how the translate Greek participles. The Greeks used them a lot and, apparently, their meaning could vary. This is another reason that translations differ.

Another major difficulty in Greek is that they thought differently than we do today. In there language they were not particularly interested if something happened in the past, in the present, or in the future. They instead were interested in whether an action happened or didn't happen. They were also interested in whether that action was over and complete or whether the effects of that action continue into the future and are acting now at the present time. For example, think of the resurrection, an action that happened in the past which has continuing meaning at the present and will continue to have meaning into the future.

My humble suggestion is to check out the local colleges and find one which teaches Biblical Greek and take the courses. Then you well have a much deeper appreciation of what the texts state.

My two cents is that if you are really interested in the content of the New Testament you have to learn to read the original language which is Koine..

Well, that's a pretty hard line to take. I would maintain that I am really interested, but . . .

If you would allow me a slight modification, then we could agree. "If you are interested in obtaining the fullest possible, and most accurate understanding of the New Testament, then you need to learn to read the original language."

As you said, it is only your opinion, and of course you're welcome to that. My counter opinion, worth exactly the nothing you have paid for it, is that the point of greatest leverage is to take advantage of the scholarship of others by reading several English translations, plus study of the Greek word by word at key points. It is certainly possible that this course would lead to misunderstanding. But in the end, the choice must be made on whether an hour spent learning the original language is worth more or less than an hour spent studying additional passages. In the best of all worlds, we could do both. But the mundane world has a habit of interfering.

And I think it is good to remember that God is the author of the world as well as the author of the Word, so time spent studying a book, even the Bible, if it means one never looks at the world He gave us is not guaranteed to be optimal, either. So in the end, it comes down to where we choose to put our time and treasure - and even those who are 'really interested' in the New Testament may find they have to make tradeoffs that don't allow the time to become expert enough in a language that their own understanding is comparable to devoted specialists.

Another problem comes from the fact that manuscripts were copied by hand over the centuries and copyists' errors inevitably crept in. Take the difference between the Protestant and Catholic versions of Luke 2.14:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (KJV)

"Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis" (Vulgate) = "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will" (or "on whom his favor rests": NAB for Catholics).

The difference between the two versions goes back to a single letter: some manuscripts read "eudokias" and others read "eudokia." The Protestant translations (and the Greek Orthodox) follow the reading "eudokia," the Catholic translations "eudokias." Both readings make sense; who is to say which is the correct reading?

By the way, the Greek word translated "men" means "human beings" (of either sex), so this is a case where a gender-neutral rendition would be accurate (although there is nothing wrong with the translation "men").