1- Apathetic
2- Indifferent
3- Lazy
4- Lack of aptitude
The first three kinds of folk have the time (if they would make the time)- just as they have the time to surf the web, play video games, read comic books, go to the mall to walk for hours, and play sports. But they have been, strangely, taught that reading the bible in a translation is as valuable as reading the original. That’s bollocks, of course, but in something of a sense of denial and defensiveness they tend to repudiate the previously stated excuses and lull themselves into a false sense of pride- in ignorance!
It’s an authentically odd thing, isn’t it, when ignorance becomes a source of pride.
To the fourth group, there are actually people who have no ability or aptitude to learn languages. Fair enough. Rely on a translation- it’s the next best thing. But don’t imagine for half a second that you have some sort of advantage in understanding the biblical message. That’s just delusional. Admit it boldly, dear friends: ‘I rely on what others say the bible says’. There’s no shame in admitting the truth. What’s shameful is pretending that a lie (that translations are superior or more valuable than the originals) is the truth.

If the King James was good enough for Tyndale…
If the Vulgate was good enough for the Greek Fathers…
If the Targumim are good enough for the Rabbis
By: Chuck Grantham on April 19, 2008
at 3:40 pm
Tyndale was crazy (but a good reviser- since he realized that the translation his contemporaries used was useless); the Greek fathers probably used the Greek texts… I’m thinking the Latin Fathers used the Vulgate. But they were crazy too. I mean seriously, have you read Tertullian? What a loon!
And the Targumim weren’t good enough for the Rabbis- they were made for the common lot who could neither read nor write but could only be read to. Like so many today who imagine they are students of the bible when they are, in fact, merely students of students of students of translators.
By: Jim on April 19, 2008
at 3:43 pm
[...] from Eric Sowell on learning Greek and Hebrew. It’s rather more substantial than the latest edition of Jim’s regular rant on the topic. I would simply make two observations. (a) There seem to be a great many people out [...]
By: Short alphabet: E to F (Expelled to Flying pope) » MetaCatholic on April 19, 2008
at 3:48 pm
Jim, the Latin fathers at least up to Augustine used versions of the Old Latin. And Augustine at least was seriously misled by the translation he read. So I agree with you that theologians need to work from the original language texts.
As for ordinary Christians, I agree that they should be encouraged to learn the original languages when they can, but it is unrealistic to expect more than a tiny minority to learn them well enough to do without translations.
By: Peter Kirk on April 19, 2008
at 5:29 pm
I’ve been studying Greek for about a month and my senior pastor is already asking me how to pronounce Greek words. I think I’m probably the only one in the whole church currently studying Biblical languages.
By: Nathan Stitt on April 19, 2008
at 9:21 pm
Maybe you’ll inspire him to read the Bible for himself. Good for you Nate.
By: Jim on April 19, 2008
at 10:05 pm
Well before he asked for the help, I had asked him what Greek resources he had from seminary. He’s got his MDiv and DMin but told me he promptly forgot his Greek and only has one GNT which he can’t read. The youth pastor is a good friend of mine and I’m trying to talk him into learning Greek. I think they are both just waaaay too busy, and nobody around here really expects them to know Greek or Hebrew anyways. I feel blessed to have the time to do it, and that I am enjoying it so far.
By: Nathan Stitt on April 19, 2008
at 11:44 pm
I have a truly marvellous demonstration of the fallacy of this proposition which this comment box is too narrow to contain.
By: David Ker on April 19, 2008
at 11:46 pm
that’s sad (in some ways) if the pastor is asking a congregant about how to say a biblical Greek word….
By: Brian on April 20, 2008
at 12:50 am
My Greek is passable for what I do and Hebrew is not a priority for me at all. I’m more inclined to do Latin, but not for Biblical texts. There is more to theology than just Biblical Studies. My next language (I studied French last) will be German.
By: Frank Emanuel on April 20, 2008
at 2:01 am
Yup Tertullian was a loon. He only believed in things if they were absurdly unbelievable
(yeah, ok..)
By: steph on April 20, 2008
at 8:47 am
Okay, Jim, so what do you think of Mark D. Roberts’ “road map” analogy with regard to New Testament textual reliability? And how does that then relate to translations?
“I believe because it’s impossible”. Reminds me of most modern action movies. But that’s another discussion.
By: Chuck Grantham on April 20, 2008
at 3:33 pm
Who?
By: Jim on April 20, 2008
at 3:35 pm
http://www.markdroberts.com
A baby baptiser. One of them.
By: Chuck Grantham on April 20, 2008
at 3:48 pm
I’ve never heard of him. He’s not in the SBL nor EABS, nor SOTS so I don’t imagine I would have cause to have heard of him. What’s his notion about TC?
By: Jim on April 20, 2008
at 3:54 pm
Basically Mark D. Roberts argued against Bart Ehrman’s complaints about variants in the New Testament using a map analogy: one doesn’t need a perfect map to get where he is going; neither does God need a miraculously preserved manuscript to accomplish his goals with the New Testament.
Roberts got his Ph.D. at Harvard under Helmut Koester, so he ought to know something about NT text criticism.
The blog series where the map analogy occurs is
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm#jan2306
from Section 8 to the end.
I need to put Roberts on my blogroll. I always enjoyed his blog.
By: Chuck Grantham on April 21, 2008
at 12:32 am