LEARNING GREEK?

I really do not see how thorough New Testament research can be done without the ability to use NT Greek as a tool.

EG,

1) Is Bilezikian correct that Paul by using the particle in 1 Cor 14:36 indicates that the position expressed in that text re women is not the apostle's own but the Corinthians? I can ON MY OWN research the Pauline usage of that particle myself because I can use Greek.

2) Is the punctuation of the RSV in Rom 9:5 correct given the manner that Paul writes his doxologies? I can ON MY OWN search for Pauline syndactic doxologies for clues as to how that text should be punctuated because I can use Greek.

3. Is Burk right that the articular infinitive in Philippians 2:6 is only a function marker which does not refer back to "form of God"? I can ON MY OWN research the usages of the articular infinitive because I can use Greek.

4. Is Dahms right in saying that the Septuagintal usage of monogenes indicates that the Johannine usage means 'begotten'? I can ON MY OWN read and examine the Septuagintal usage of that adjective because I can use Greek.

5. Is Burdick correct that the aorist verb in 1 Jo 5:18 is gnomic? I can ON MY OWN research the coincidentals which support taking an aorist as timeless in a given text and apply them to this text because I can use Greek.

Of course Greek does not solve all problems..in fact it opens portals to otherwise unknown difficulties.

Neither does the ability to read translations or commentaries in English solve all problems! But I do not hear of folks saying "Don't bother learning to read because reading does not solve all problems"!!

But I do NOT wish to have my assumptions or interpretations about the NT overturned by simple grammaticisms which reside in the language in which God chose to express Himself. I want to do whatever I can to understand His Word.

So, I want to use Greek!

 

Bill,

You gave several scenarios in which a knowledge of Greek opens things up for a better understanding of the passage and its possibilities.

You mentioned that you can use Greek. Good.

The problem (no reflection on you) is that most who claim to be able to use Greek do not have a thorough knowledge of it based on modern linguistics.

There is therfore much potential to misapply what one knows and end up in eisegesis. The late 19th century biblical theology was rife with this sort of thing. Classic seminary grammars like Dana/Mantey and even Robertson espouse ideas on verbal use that have clearly been refined and retooled for the better.

I am a physician by trade and while I've studied languages all my life i do NOT claim to have a professional knowledge of Greek grammar.

But I have learned just howmuch knowledge and training are needed to get to the level of Buist Fanning, Stanley Porter, Daniel Wallace or that ilk. This is a place that most Cannot go. And even many who could do not have the time, since their ministry is based on leading and ministering to people.

To have every pastor be an expert in Greek is simply not feasible by any stretch. And I for one am afraid of some of the bad theology that comes from eisegesis of crucial passages. Thus I think it is important for students of Greek to realize these complexities.

 

Charles:

My Greek is not good enough for me to hurry to conclusions. It takes a great deal of time for me to exegete well.

So, how can I know if I am doing a fair job at it?


I have had the fortunate experience of having many of my exegeses read by numerous professors of six to eight different universities or seminaries.

This occured in various contexts as term papers courses in Greek Exegesis, or Theology (some very lengthy-65 pp), or the ThM thesis, or the ThD dissertation --in all of these I used much Greek.

These professors who measured my Greek hold accredited docs in NT and/or in Theology.

I agree with you that a little knowledge is dangerous.

Therefore IMO one's grasp of Greek should be repeatedly measured by the sort of experiences I describe above.

Bill

 

===

Charles:

I should say that I agree that ministers will not likely become experts in Greek as Wallace etc are.

On the other hand, some seminary programs require a sufficient amount of Greek to do basic exegesis.

EG, the seminary with which I am connected [ www.otsweb.org/ ] requires six courses in Greek to get the basic ministerial degree, the MDiv.

That certainly is quite enough for one to do the basic sort of exegetical tasks which I above illustrate.

One with even that modicum of Greek can in his/her study, in preparation to teach or preach Ephesians , using exegetical processes, decide, eg, if Eadie ,in his Greek Text Commentary, is likely correct that in 4:11 "pastors" are the same office as "teachers," or whether the two substantives represent two distinct offices.

That is the sort of thing that I am saying that I can do, and IMO, all pastors, who are commanded to teach God's Word rightly, would benefit from having that skill.

As I am not a pastorhowever, I am hesitant to say what they must have.

Bill Grover

[ October 07, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Charles, modern linguistics is highly over-rated. It would contribute little to the Greek educational process. What has helped the advance of modern NT Greek exegesis since Dana & Mantey, Robertson, etc., is the discovery of many new papyri and the research done by Greek scholars in the Greek used in those MSS.

The intrusion of modern linguistic theories into hermeneutics has only clouded things and opened the door to aberrations. (Check out Evangelical Hermeneutics by Robert L. Thomas.)

In the field of Bible translation, modern linguistics has produced the very flawed dynamic equivalence method of Eugene Nida. (Check out Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation by James Price.) So let's not overestimate what modern linguistics can do for NT Greek study.

 

John,

I heartily disagree with you.

NT Greek studies have been, in past years, performed by those with more theological than linguistic training.

This has resulted in eisegesis upon more eisegesis. The classic examples are punctilar "once and for all" aorists and "word studies" - but there are more.

I tend to follow Stanley Porter, James Barr, and others who have significant linguistic training.

You inveigh against "modern linguistics". How is it overrated to bring language study to bear on the Greek language - as if the NT Greek is somehow its own language.

And as I said the whole reason for bringing it up is that I think a little knowledge and consequent eisegesis is dangerous.

 

Another factor worth tossing into the salad is the philosophical preference for either the particulars or the general. One way of thinking says that, if you get the particulars right, the general will take shape automatically. The opposite approach says that the general, overall meaning of a passage will dictate what the particulars within that passage can say.

In other words, if Paul spends twenty verses talking about X, how will you interpret that seven-word phrase that appears two-thirds of the way into the discourse and seems to speak about Y? Will you wave your lexicon around, stomp the floor, and quote Robertson because "the Greek says so," or will you let language be language and take it in a way that makes sense?

I saw a Th.D. exegete clear through a passage once and he never even referred to the topic Paul was discussing. But that dude sure knew his Greek and his ST, and he had a lot of high-sounding things to say.

If I had to choose, I'd much prefer that a preacher had an excellent grasp of literary criticism than of NT Greek.

 

Charles, I agree with Bill. Your position basically trusts the experts. I never have that much faith in the experts. As a reasonably well-educated man, I test the experts although I have not made their specialty my own. At least, I can understand their argument and judge the validity of their claims if I have knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

 

Charles, I agree with Bill. Your position basically trusts the experts. I never have that much faith in the experts. As a reasonably well-educated man, I test the experts although I have not made their specialty my own. At least, I can understand their argument and judge the validity of their claims if I have knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

I never said I didn't agree with Bill.

Studying Greek and Hebrew (and Latin, Arabic, German, and Aramaic) has helped me as well.

But it seems here that you trust the experts you want to trust. Which expert's textbook did you study?

There is simply no question that the study of biblical languages can benefit from modern linguistics. Obviously I cannot guarantee that Stanley Porter is right about verbal aspect - but his work has been at least quite elucidating. The same goes for James Barr.

One thing that is clear is that many exegetes have made assertions (like my above examples of the "abused aorist") based on fairly questionable linguistic observations. This can lead to wrong interpretation. And this is not necessarily benign.

My "two cents worth" includes 2 points.

The first is that to reliably exegete passages (on a professional level)of a now nonexistent language one needs to have a great deal of learning in that language and of linguistics in general. That doesn't mean that amateurs shouldn't try it - it just means that they should realize that 4 or 6 semesters of Greek in an M Div program, while giving them a good intro, does not qualify them as linguists.

The second is that pastors are shepherds of people, not research professors. It is neither reasonable nor practical to expect ministers to have a scholar's knowledge of biblical languages. A basic grasp yes.

 

Charles, I might agree with you if I could get a clarification here. When you say "modern linguistics" are you referring to the transformation grammar of Noam (Noam? Of course I Noam) Chomsky, the modern downplaying of etymology and the like, or do you simply mean linguistics in its normal sense, the scholarly study of language and its structure?

I do agree that Biblical languages are often taught as if they are mathematical studies, with A (aorist) + B (event in past time) = C (once for all action). Why I actually saw an aorist used in Matthew of a future event the other day (can't remember where off hand). Language in its cultural context is a living entity and should be taught that way. Too often even Biblical languages scholars have an ivory tower approach that turns me off, since I deal with the living Japanese language every day of my life.

P. S. Forgive my ignorance, but who is Stanley Potter?

 

Charles

I agree!

 

Here are two points for your consideration:

1) Yes, only a working knowledge of the Biblical languages can be attained by , eg, six courses in a language. One will not become an "expert." But IMO a pastor does not need to be an expert.

I think that this working knowledge is sufficient in many cases (that is, in reference to many exegetical problems) for the one with only those minimal skills to question opinions by scholars .

For example if one of my fav theologians, Chas Hodge in his commentary , not in his ST, writes that in Eph 4:11 pastors and teachers are one office BECAUSE, "didaskalous has no article, " the minister preparing to teach that verse who has a working knowledge of Greek can examine occasions of the construction : Article , plural substantive, kai, (same case) plural substantive" to see if this identical construction elsewhere supports Hodges opinion or not. Of course, it does not.

One does NOT need a PhD in NT Greek to evidence substantially whether Hodge is right or wrong! All one needs is a Greek NT. BUT if the minister does not have the ability to do these little researches on his own, then he is at the mercy of commentaries etc.

I am saying that IMO the pastor need not have a qualification to teach Greek or write a Greek grammar, but he shouild have the ability to do basic exegesis in his study in order to better be assured that he is teaching God's Word rightly and not another's word.

2) Knowing some Greek is not all , IMO, that is academically required of the pastor to interpret the NT at a level to understand and to teach it well . WE know, and I think I can easiliy exemplify this from Wallace's own grammars and/or other writings, that the interpretation of NT texts very often is not based on data elicited from the text itself , but on presumptions made about what the text should say.

That is, exegetics often is used not to discover meaning but to confirm opinions held even before the text is examined!

That is why, IMO, a working knowledge of Greek is only one of the academic tools which are valuable in interpreting Scripture. Another, EG, is a knowlege of Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Theology.

Just as I do not have a doc in Greek, neither is it likely that the one who does , as Wallace, also has a doc in Systematic Theology. But I maintain that both disciplines, and others too, are important. I make this point because to me it is obvious that modern Greek scholars can allow theological assumptions to influence exegesis.

Again, using Wallace as an example, if you will read his grammar and an article by one of his advanced students (Burk) , you will see that Wallace and Burk attempt to drive grammatical and lexical wedges betwen "form of God" and "equal to God" in Phil 2:6. I am saying that the doctrine resulting from such an interpretation does not cohere with other major doctrines. Thus showing a need for systematic theology..IMO.

I suggest that it is not grammatics which moves these two to do that, but is the theological presumption that the Son always has been and always will be role subordinate to the Father. So, IMO, they seek to confirm that belief by careless exegetics and lack of attention to other scholarship.

Neither of these consider the fact that Greek speaking church fathers as Asthanasius and Chrysostom do NOT see any cause to drive those wedges between 'form of God' and 'equal to God' that Burk and Wallace do. Furthermore, neither do Burk or Wallace indicate any knowledge about more recent studies on this text as the one by Hoover in the Harvard Theological Journal.

In summary, IMO, while using Greek is important, it is not all that is important in determining the meaning of the NT. We should not allow the use of only one tool when we labor in the Word.

[ October 08, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Bill,

Good points.

I agree completely on #2. Grammar is only a small part of interpretation.

On #1 I agree somewhat as well. I am always wary of emphatic statements made regarding linguistic constructions. "The presence of the article means this" or "the use of the aorist here tells us this". I think the well-trained student of Greek could look at these and understand the various possibilities. To be able to say CONCLUSIVELY what the significance of the article is in a passage may entail more than the 3rd year Greek student knows. And that sort of overconfidence is what leads to eisegesis.

 

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

Charles:

While I don't wish to go on and on with this, the example I gave about Hodge's interpretation of Eph 4:11 is something IMO which the minister with several courses in Greek could check out for himself. He does not have to be an expert.

My perception of Hodge's argument on 4:11 is that it is similar to the Granville Sharp Rule which is slightly incorrectly stated that when 'kai' connects two nouns of the same case and the first noun is articulated, but the second is anarthrous, then the two substantives refer to the same thing.

Several Christological passages are said to affirm His deity because of the rule re this very construction as 2 Pet 1:1, "The God of us and Savior."

But Hodge is incorrect , IMO, when he applies this rule to Eph 4:11 because the rule is inconsistent with plural nouns.

The consistency of this grammaticism ,using singular nouns ie, can be easily demonstrated , I think. EG, how many NT texts do you know of wherein the construction is : article ; singular, personal noun ; kai; singular personal noun (of the same case), where the second noun does not refer to the one of the first? I may be wrong but I think there very few of these if any. I urge you to correct me with examples if I am wrong re this constuction in the NT..

And, it takes no doc in Greek to do this sort of simple research.

And, as I say and illustrate on Phil 2:6, IMO, being "expert" in Greek is no guarantee at all that eisegesis is not being done. It is no guarantee because exegetical findings must cohere with major doctrines. We know mistakes are made all the time by "experts."

As for the minister , IMO, he is best protected from eisegesis, either his own or others, by having a working knowledge of Greek IF he realizes his limitations, and conversly I think that ministers who lack that skill are not shielded either against misinterpretation.

In fact, I have had some experiences which tend to convince me that the less one knows the more one imagines that his views are inerrant, and the more one knows the greater assurance he has of his own fallibility .

Bill

 

I don't believe that anyone has yet mentioned that if God is calling someone to translate the Bible, he has to start with beginning Greek and Hebrew. For that reason Greek, at a minimum, is a necessary part of Bible college and grad school/seminary training. God can impress the future translator's heart with the gift that he or she has even as they learn the basics.

There is a huge need for Bible translators all over the world. It is said that there are still 2000 languages without a Bible. Perhaps most of these are tribal, but there are still some civilized people groups with no Bible. One ministry I know of in America recently supported the final publication of a Bible for an educated people group in India. Now that glorifies God with language ability!

 

Stanley Porter is NT Professor at McMaster Divinity School. He has published on linguistics and the Greek text.

There is a danger here, I think, that parallels some things in microscopy and histology. In light microscopy, there are two important factors—magnification and resolution. Most inexperienced students are bent on achieving the highest possible magnification. However, higher magnification may result in less resolution, the ability to distinguish between two adjacent structures. Students will end up with a large fuzzy image with no detail. It is better, many times, to have a sharper defined image that is smaller. IMHO, we do a similar thing in linguistics and language study. In our quest to squeeze out the last drop of meaning, we produce a large unclear image. It is better to settle for a smaller image with more details apparent. Our language rules (grammar) are descriptive of usage, not proscriptive. It is impossible to define a set of rules to describe all usage of a modern language, much a language of 2000 years ago; we must allow for variation between writers, time, audience, location and circumstance. Methinks there are too many factors to handle and we get a large fuzzy image.

In histology, we must be careful in the preparation of tissue. It is possible to create structures in the prepared specimen that did not exist in vivo. These resulting artifacts can lead to wrong conclusions and ideas. Many times, I think, we may create language artifacts. We must be careful in our methods and know our limits. Rather than propagate the wrong idea under the guise of expertise, it is better to say, “I don’t know”

 

I don’t understand why anyone would want to achieve less than he is capable unless it is laziness. For this argument, I don’t think anyone has said that every pastor must be a Greek scholar of renown. However, each pastor ought to be as well equipped as possible. This includes taking advantage of the best educational opportunities available to him. Let’s face it; not everyone has the cognitive ability to be a scholar. There are places of ministry for people of all levels of ability and skill. Furthermore, God’s requirement is not that we achieve a high level of attainment but rather that we be faithful in the things committed unto us. Of course, there are the time constraints too. The time of one lifetime is not sufficient to become an expert in all with which we move and live.

Whereas the 6 to 8 hours of Greek in an M.Div. program does not qualify one as an accomplished Greek scholar, it does provide the basic tools for sermon preparation and further study. More importantly, it enables one to follow the arguments of the so-called experts and pass judgment on their veracity. The knowledgeable shepherd is able to keep his sheep from becoming prey to the so-called experts. The shame is that many M.Div. graduates promptly forget and fail to use the little Greek that they did learn.

One issue that we must consider is the amount of trust we can put in the experts. After all, Greek language study has changed and developed tremendously over the past 100 years. Many things taught by older generations of experts have fallen out to be wrong. Do we have any more confidence and trust in our contemporary experts that future scholars will vindicate them? What is the possibility that upcoming experts will repudiate our experts? What have we gained or settled in this debate if our academic sons refute Porter and Barr? Take it all with a grain of salt.

 

There used to be a time when you couldn't be ordained as a Baptist minister unless you were proficient in Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

Bare minimum for a preacher is proficiency in using the language tools which requires basic grammar and language skills. I question the calling of any man who is too lazy to at least have that much.

 

Bare minimum for a preacher is proficiency in using the language tools which requires basic grammar and language skills. I question the calling of any man who is too lazy to at least have that much.

I disagree with this. It's not a question of lazy - many ministers have familiesto support and lack the time and money to do formal seminary training.

Some of the best preachers I've heard have never been formally trained (although I've also heard some pretty bad ones).

The preacher with no formal Greek training does not have a scholar's knowledge of languages. Neither does the guy with an M Div. The difference is sometimes that at least the first guy admits it!