From: Don Wilkins (dwilkins@ucr.campus.mci.net)
Date: Thu Dec 10 1998 - 16:11:14 EST
At 08:01 AM 12/10/98 -0600, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
...
>But there's the rub: "acquire sufficient competence in reading the
>language." What sort or degree of competence in reading the language must
>one have in order for one to profit from reading the NT in Greek?
>
>I don't think there's a simple answer to that question, for the reason that
>people come in all types and varieties and aptitudes and bents. It's the
>"bents" that are particularly problematic and we are probably all of us
>"bent" one way or another: we are both beneficiaries and victims of our own
>distinctive vantage point on the world and everything in it, and our
>vantage points are both enablers and disablers of our competence at
>reading. That is a long way of saying what others have already said: "a
>little Greek is a dangerous thing/person"--make that "CAN BE a dangerous
>thing/person." Learning Greek won't turn one into a New Testament scholar,
>nor will learning Greek turn a bad NT scholar into a good NT scholar. But
>to the extent that one is a good NT scholar and a good student of the NT,
>learning Greek will make one a better NT scholar and a better student of
>the NT. The flip side is worth noting, however: to the extent that one is a
>myopic or defective NT scholar or student of the NT, learning Greek will
>not necessarily make that person less myopic or cure the defects of that
>person's scholarship. (Let me make clear that I use the word "scholar" here
>not for a professional researcher and purveyor of knowledge but for anyone
>who is a profoundly committed student.
>
>Carl W. Conrad
This is a wonderful thread, and I think it takes over and surpasses the one
I started on the languages enrollment problem. I'd like to add some thoughts
again as a professional translator/scholar. I heartily second comments about
the need to know Greek well in order to really know that the NT is saying.
One post suggested that, in the first place, people for the most part will
not learn Greek, and in the second place, translations are very good and one
can get along well enough by comparing them under a critical eye. The last
point is really not true; this method ranks only slightly higher than the
method of people's consulting Webster's in a home Bible study to figure out
what a NT word means. That approach has "FUTILITY" written all over it. The
method of comparing translations is only slightly or imperceptively better,
because when no one knows what the original is saying, there is no standard
by which to measure or interpret the translations. Those doing Bible study
who are determined *not* to learn Greek for this or that reason are
generally better off sticking to a translation that has a reputation for
accuracy. That doesn't mean it will never fail them, it just means that it
has a higher probability of meeting their needs. Since I work on the NASB,
which has the reputation of being the most accurate translation, people
might expect me to say that they do not need to learn the biblical languages
if they have an NASB. My own standard for accuracy is back-translation, i.e.
if I were to take a sentence from an English Bible and translate it back
into the original language with no knowledge of the verbatim form of the
original text, how close would it be to the latter? This is not an
infallible test, but it is helpful in comparing translations. For the NASB,
a verbatim back-translation will probably be the result in many cases, and
this will also happen in varying degrees for other translations. But even
so, there are many times when this will not happen, and in a large number of
cases it will be because English is not flexible enough to carry over the
meaning of the original (which is, BTW, the formal meaning of
'translation'). At other times the reverse is true, in effect: the Greek
takes the form of a very general, almost vague expression, and an English
translation that is readable is also too specific. This frequently happens
in the translation of participles, for example. It is even more true for
translation from Hebrew/Aramaic. Incidentally, someone referred to aspect
studies. I would strongly encourage those who are "aspect junkies" (my own
rather crude nickname) to learn enough Hebrew to see the importance of
aspect there, and then compare the relative importance of aspect for Greek.
So I agree with others that one needs to be competent in reading the
original languages to know what the Bible really says. In a perfect world,
every family that studies the Bible would have at least one designated
language expert competent to explain to the others what the original is
really saying (I've suggested to my wife that she might like to learn Greek,
but she tells me that I'm the designated Greeker for our family). I also
heartily second Carl's thoughts. The key to the problem there is pride. When
one discovers something interesting in the original and gets excited about
it, the downside is that it is difficult to retreat from that discovery if
it proves to be wrong, because one's pride is wounded. As a translator I
have to deal with that problem constantly, and there is almost nothing which
gets my stomach churning more quickly than when I read a post that has come
to the NASB website regarding a possible error in the translation. I *hate*
the possibility that an error has been made, but I have to consider it
objectively and correct it if it really is an error. Pride will mislead both
little Greeks and big Greeks.
Don Wilkins
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:10 EDT