[B-Greek] "Why do we make pastors translate?"

Dr. Don Wilkins drdwilkins at verizon.net
Mon Dec 14 15:12:29 EST 2009


I, too, second Carl's comments. I'm about to embark on teaching Greek  
at my church, focusing on concepts as opposed to paradigm  
memorization, so I'll be asking for advice from the list as I  
encounter problems and options. I taught Greek for many years in  
academia, where of course the conditions are very different than in  
church, where the love of learning is the only incentive.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread in detail, so I apologize  
if I repeat something already said; but IMO the root of the problem  
is that pastors and others who grudgingly study Greek in seminary  
because they have to aren't given a convincing reason why they should  
bother. Part of the problem is institutional, in that we offer Bible  
majors for which the languages are optional. The worst case I can  
think of was the options I had when I began seminary. You could major  
In English Bible, or in NT or OT along with other less academic  
curricula. My pastor was an EB major, his reasoning being, "That's  
the Bible we preach in," and his perception that he would not have  
survived an NT or OT major. The clear but unarticulated message was  
that we have faithful English Bibles and don't really need the  
original languages to know what the Bible says. To suggest otherwise  
was politically incorrect, if not unthinkable.

This position has long since prevailed, I think, both in academia and  
on the streets. One of the goals of protestant Bible translation was  
to make the Bible available and comprehensible to the masses, and if  
anything, that goal has been met too well. Now, the public has the  
perception that there are numerous reliable translations, and what  
the Bible actually says can be discovered just by comparing the  
translations, a perception that is usually strengthened from the  
pulpit. One of my favorite poems from Catullus was his sarcastic  
description of a competitor's poetry, written on fine paper with  
beautiful edging, when, from C's viewpoint, it deserved rather to be  
written on toilet paper. We have many translations with gilt edging,  
fine leather binding, and even the words "Holy Bible" etched in the  
leather, when in fact these are just translations, one more or less  
faithful to the original than another.

In advertising my upcoming Greek class I am going out on a limb and  
walking a tightrope with my pastor. I've been saying that no  
translation is perfect, but beyond that I am telling people that if  
they want to do deep or serious Bible (i.e. NT) study, they have to  
learn Greek. The tightrope is to convince them of this without  
undercutting their faith in translations. I told the pastor and my  
fellow elders that I was going to do this, and I am very grateful for  
their good will and tolerance. I am in a fortunate position to make  
this claim as a principal representative for the NASB, since it is  
perceived as bordering on wooden literalism. I can honestly tell  
people that I don't have faith in the NASB as a replacement for the  
Bible in its original languages, let alone less literal translations.  
I assume that everyone on the list shares at heart the same opinion,  
i.e. that no translation is a substitute for the original, even (or  
especially) if we have to derive the original from varying  
manuscripts through textual criticism. The very fact that even the  
more literal translations disagree at many points seems to make this  
truth self-evident. So if we really believe it, then it would be  
gross negligence to put people behind the pulpit who lack the skills  
to study the text in the original language. And if the powers that be  
really believed that, then we would probably see some significant  
changes in curricula, financial constraints permitting.

Don Wilkins

On Dec 13, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 12, 2009, at 06:18PM, <wmhboyd at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps a "Gold Standard" for pastors should be to know enough  
>> Greek to protect themselves from professors.
>>
>> : )
>>
>> William (The Barbarian) Boyd
>> Greensboro, NC
>
> There's a great deal to be said for this warning, and I shall be  
> the first to say or second it. Having sat through and even
> taken minutes for University Faculty meetings, I would be the last  
> to defend any proposition that any special wisdom
> belongs to academic "scholars."
>
> What disturbs me most about the "least-common-denominator" standard  
> of competence in Greek for those whose
> vocation is interpretation of the Biblical text for others is that  
> these pastors and laymen are at the mercy of all those
> who claim to know "better" -- those who write commentaries, those  
> who offer their opinions freely on lists like B-Greek.
> The "gold standard" for competence in Greek ought, I think, to be  
> ability and confidence to make up one's own mind
> about issues of interpretation. That won't yield uniformity of  
> opinion, and it may just as well bring judgments that others
> will deem highly questionable, but I do think that readers of the  
> Greek text need to be able to resolve the issues to
> their own satisfaction and be able to use some discrimination in  
> dealing with diversity of alternative views about texts
> under consideration.
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek




More information about the B-Greek mailing list