Learning Greek and Hebrew

[Splagchnizomai]

Originally Posted by Dave Noonan

I wasn't aware that Catholics have magisterial teaching on particular translations of scripture so I would be interested in where you see this. I'm not sure, but I think you may be confusing magisterium and magister (teaching versus teacher).

Perhaps.

I'm thinking of this ...
http://usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

Also, I've read that the Vulgate is considered to be the only translation to be free from error. Does this sound familar? Maybe Trent?

[Credo ergo sum]

In the Netherlands one can choose to learn Greek and Latin in many public schools. I chose to do both Greek and Latin.

Originally Posted by Splagchnizomai

We could carry this out and say, "Since the early Christians didn't use a Hebrew-language OT, for they used the Greek Septuagint, we shouldn't bother with learning Hebrew."

Well I agree and disagree with that statement. Yes, the Septuagint always takes precedence over the MT and so one could better learn Greek, however I don't discourage anyone to study Hebrew. Origen did just that and used it for great text criticism. Therefore, if you know Hebrew and Greek you can compare the two which is always good. I always place the LXX and the (since I can't read Hebrew) Vulgate together and compare them, it always helps me a great deal.

[Dave Noonan]

Originally Posted by Splagchnizomai

Perhaps.

I'm thinking of this ...
http://usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

Also, I've read that the Vulgate is considered to be the only translation to be free from error. Does this sound familar? Maybe Trent?

Not sure. Perhaps others will weigh in.

[Pug]

I do not think it is necessary. We can meditate again and again upon a parable like the prodigal son and get new insights without having to look at the Greek.

But if you would like to do things like see which word is used again and again in one section of the bible but not in another, translations are not always up to the task. Some concepts might be easier to track if you are tracking the Hebrew forms/roots themselves. I'm not sure if you need a perfect understanding of (biblical) Hebrew to do this, though. You might be happy enough to let a reference work or a computer do this for you. (disclosure, I know some little Hebrew, but it has mostly faded from my mind over time.)

For reading I imagine in most every instance the translator will have a better command of Hebrew than you yourself posses, unless you study a long time.

[Ecoclimber]

Having taken Latin for years while attending parochial schools, I wised I remember some it now. But there are several online internet schools and/or professors who will teach you the older languages: Koine and Attic Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew....just Google for them.

Yes, it's too bad that people were not taught Koine Greek since some of the Greek words when translated into the English, lose some of their original meaning. For instance, love is mentioned in the English Bible but what is the writer conveying in that passage. Does he mean Eros, Phileo...brotherly love or Agape....unconditional love. It is very important and can change the whole context of the passage.

Also in Koine Greek sentence structure, syntax or grammatical structure are extremely important. For instance, some Protestants use the word Believe on Christ as their source of Salvation but they take it one step further and say it is a one time event. Then you have the heretical doctrine of once saved, always saved or commonly known as OSAS. However the word for believe in the Greek is present tense meaning it is a continual action of believing throughout your life and not a one time event. This is how heretical doctrine is started. Similar to Luther adding the word 'alone' in reference to "Salvation is by faith alone" in KJB. It's not there in the original Greek manuscripts.

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by Splagchnizomai

Perhaps.

I'm thinking of this ...
http://usccb.org/bible/approved-translations/

Also, I've read that the Vulgate is considered to be the only translation to be free from error. Does this sound familar? Maybe Trent?

The Council of Trent (Sess. IV) decreed:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod, . . . ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

This was, however, not invoked as an infallible statement and contained no anathema. More importantly, it bears pointing out that this was merely an assertion that the Vulgate does not contain any theological error; the Council was not somehow trying to proclaim it as the ultimate expression of the translator's art. After all, if the "Vulgate in 1546" were the perfect expression of Holy Writ, then what would have been the need to revise it and issue the Sistine Vulgate (1590) and Clementine Vulgate (1592 with subsequent editions)?

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by Stephen Parry

One of my goals one day is to learn Greek and Hebrew, so that I can get even more out of my Bible. However, is it really necessary?

There are some superb English translations and no shortage of translations. I tend to read from three particular translations, but I do sometimes wonder if I could get even more from my faith if I were to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Just out of interest, does anyone think you can go through life without learning Greek or Hebrew and still enjoy the Bible? I do. I believe that God will make His Word clear to me if I pray to Him and ask Him to make it clear. Learning Hebrew and Greek would be nice and might help me appreciate the biblical texts more, but if I never get around to doing it, I do think that, with the many excellent English translations and my faith in God, I will still be able to appreciate His Word.

If you learn Greek and Hebrew ... and Latin, go for the trifecta ... you will be immune to the translation controversies.

• You will be able to answer Protestants who say Jesus built his Church on Peter's confession rather than on Peter because the Greek for Peter is Πέτρος while the Greek for rock is πέτρα.
• When they say the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים implies God is a trinity, you will be able to respond intelligently.
• And you will be able to explain why the aorist in ἄν τινων ἀφῆτε τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἀφέωνται αὐτοῖς: ἄν τινων κρατῆτε, κεκράτηνται does not mean that our future sins are forgiven when we accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior.
• You will understand why all those words are italicized in the KJV/NKJV.
  
• In an argument over the Immaculate Conception, you will be able to say, "Well what do you think κεχαριτωμένη means?
  
• When people express the uninformed opinion that this or that Bible version "is closer to the original Greek", you will be able to say "I'm closer".
  
• You will earn a reputation for being the answer-man. Chicks will come to you with their textual questions ;-)
  

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by AlexPetrosPio

Speak for yourself...I have enough struggles learning French or Italian...ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek would be more than enough struggles for me to deal with. So, yes, learning languages can be difficult.

If you're struggling, you're doing it wrong. Check it out: http://www.fluentin3months.com/

[Rainaldo]

Originally Posted by MarkThompson

The Council of Trent (Sess. IV) decreed:

Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod, . . . ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

This was, however, not invoked as an infallible statement and contained no anathema. More importantly, it bears pointing out that this was merely an assertion that the Vulgate does not contain any theological error; the Council was not somehow trying to proclaim it as the ultimate expression of the translator's art. After all, if the "Vulgate in 1546" were the perfect expression of Holy Writ, then what would have been the need to revise it and issue the Sistine Vulgate (1590) and Clementine Vulgate (1592 with subsequent editions)?

Pius XII interpreted Trent this way:

21. And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.

(Divino Afflante Spiritu)

As far as errors are concerned, there is no doctrinal error in Jerome's Latin translation, because if there were, we would have found it by now. Did Jerome incorrectly translate anything? In theory I guess he could have. Does the Vulgate contain slips of the pen? Possibly. Did Jerome's copies of the Greek and Hebrew from which he made his Latin translation contain slips of the pen that he didn't notice, and that got carried over into his translation? Possibly. So when someone says the Vulgate has no error, we need to be clear.