Tommy Keene has another terrific post on the Bible’s original languages. This time he’s aiming to persuade you that you almost never need to refer to the original Hebrew or Greek in order to make a point. In the process, he refers to a Greek phrase; but he didn’t have to. And he shows you why he didn’t have to.
Near the end, he gives a series of steps to teach you how to argue your case from the context instead of from an obscure reference to original languages. His advice here is priceless.
My favorite lines in the article come when Keene paints the picture of a person who knows Hebrew/Greek making an argument with someone who doesn’t. The only real reason the Hebrew/Greek person would reference the Hebrew/Greek is to play a trump card that can’t be questioned. This fundamentally bases the argument on the authority of the person who knows Hebrew/Greek and not that of the text itself. By choosing to leave the Hebrew/Greek out of the argument, you are doing a more to actually make disciples. Thus he concludes:
You are not only telling them what the text means, you are showing them how to arrive at that conclusion themselves. You are making yourself redundant. Go ahead. That’s the way Jesus wanted it anyway.
I highly commend Keene’s post to you. The only thing I might add is that there is one place I have found it particularly helpful and important to reference the original languages, and that is when there is a pun or repetition that the translation has glossed over. Of course, it’s not always necessary to do this, but if observing the repetition bears interpretive weight, that is part of the context required to understand the text. And that context might not be apparent in English. (Incidentally, this is why Robert Alter has a rule for translators along the lines of “Thou shalt not employ a variety of English words when the Hebrew repeats the same word.”)
Leave a Reply