Of Gnosticism, Translations, and Original Languages

Messy writers need lots of prefaces (or disclaimers if you prefer):

Prefatory comment 1: As a general rule, I don't like to drag arguments over the blogosphere. This entry, however, was stimulated by some discussions at other places, and those discussions helped to clarify and coalesce my thoughts. Although this is in some ways a response, I am not specifically pointing out anyone, more a general sentiment I've perceived in many different places and times. I'm not judging anyone I've interacted with lately. How can one judge, after all, just from reading a few words on a screen?

Prefatory comment 2: I really dislike when differing views are haphazardly slapped with the label of a particular heresy that has little to do with the situation and grossly exaggerates the difference. (Sean the Marcionite isn't really a Marcionite.) But again, to some extent I am doing that here. Please view this as more of an analogy than an accusation. To anyone who thinks this post applies, no, I really don't think you are a gnostic.

Prefatory comment 3: This post is aimed mostly at "lay" students of the Bible, not seminary students who should be working their behinds off in language classes. It is intended to keep the former from being intimidated and silenced by people with Bibles printed in fancy typefaces. It should not be interpreted, however, as a decisive judgment on the issue raised here, which is rather broader.

Prefatory comment 4: In my teenage years I went to a very dynamic, exciting youth group, and we had very dynamic, exciting preachers. In one of the first meetings I attended, I remember a girl from another church who got excited and testified after a rather intense worship time. "I just love God's word. I want to know God's word," she emotionally repeated. "Even more," the pastor responded, "know the One behind it." That incident has stuck with me throughout all my journeys in faith and knowledge. The Bible is a means, not an end. We use it to gain a relationship with God; we are not to (primarily) have a relationship with a book. As I perceive it, this is at the heart of a very fundamental difference between most Pentecostals and many evangelicals. The latter see Bible study as an end in itself, a worthy terminal point, whereas the former do not. (And feel free to flame away about this one, but first please note the italicized weasel words.)

Now on to the main feature:

What does gnosticism have to do with Bible translations and the original languages? Are there really New Age Bible versions out to destroy your soul? Not really, though there are some atrocious ones out there (Old Living and Amplified, I'm looking at you. And the NIV is hyped wayyyy above its actual quality, which is rather mediocre.) No, I'm talking about gnosticism as a belief in secret knowledge necessary for salvation or higher spiritual life that is hidden from novice Christians and known only to special initiates to a select group.

The analogy I'm making is to people who know biblical Hebrew and Greek. Some of them, anyway. No, they're not really like historical gnostics in any real sense, but some of them do feel that their knowledge of the languages gives them access to secrets hidden from other believers. The sentiment is communicated--sometimes quite openly--that unless you know the languages, you can't get to the "real" Bible. It's only after you learn all the rules and tenses and about little party zipples that you can understand what the Bible "really" says. There is a related belief popular in some circles, fed by the inferiority complex common among people who know only English and no other languages, that Greek and Hebrew are somehow extra special languages that almost mystically pack each word with incredible amounts a meaning. (My evidence that this belief exists: the travesty that is the Amplified Bible.) Again, it is only the initiates who have invested many years in study who can know the true riches of the Word of God.

I do not at all wish to portray knowledge of the originals as unimportant, and I do encourage everyone who has the opportunity to learn the languages to do so. It is better to read and study in the original than in translation, and certain things are clearer. However, I disagree with the sentiment that knowing Greek and Hebrew somehow opens up a new plane of knowledge so far above what is available to the person who has to make do with a translation. I disagree primarily for two reasons:

1. The best translations, which were done by some of the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in the world, really aren't that bad, and
2. Few theological matters of import are settled by skills only available to experts in the languages.

First, the quality of the translations: I am amazed when people disparage translations and claim that you can only really know the Scriptures by reading them in the original. In a sense that's true (but remember, Jesus didn't go around preaching in Greek, so you don't exactly have the original anyway), but when zealously overstressed, the implication is that the translations do not do a good job of communicating the original meaning. This is another way of saying the translations are bad. That's not a wise move. The better translations were done by some of the best Bible scholars in the world, not seminary grads with a few semesters of languages under their belts. Yet, it is often the latter judging the former. Let's face facts: those of us who have had Greek and Hebrew are a very small minority of the Christian church, and most of us who have are not worthy of untying Bruce Metzger's shoes when it comes to proficiency. Most of the time we are better off trusting his work such as is seen in the NRSV, which he oversaw, than our own feeble efforts. Yes, there are things we can see more clearly in the Greek and Hebrew; yes, there are problems with the NRSV as there are with all good translations; no, you can't do truly serious study without them BUT: all these things are known by the great men and women who do the translation work. We should be quick to trust and slow to disparage their work. In most cases I certainly trust them more than my own feeble efforts and more than many of the experts floating around in the church and on teh internets.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, no major point of doctrine and few minor ones are settled by a detailed exegesis of a particular passage in the original language. In fact, it's virtually axiomatic that small details--the parsing of a particular little party zipple, the translation of an obscure or difficult verse--should not be allowed to control doctrine. It is the clear and consistent portions that control, and the more difficult passages are subordinated to them. Most scholars who are fluent in the languages follow this principle; most of their theological conclusions will be based on other than some of the more minute details of Greek and Hebrew. For the most part, original language exercises in particular and, um, biblical studies in general are concerned primarily with the finer details, whereas systematic theology takes a bigger picture approach. (Again, flame away if you must, but this theologian is going to roll his eyes at you if you suggest the correct position on doctrine X is such-and-such because the verb in verse such-and-such is an aorist rather than a continuous tense or vice versa.) Actually, most people in the pews of typical theologically conservative churches would benefit more from going through a decent introductory theology course rather than trying to mess around with Greek or Hebrew.

But that's just my 2 cents or slightly less than a rupee, and of course I'm biased.

So, in summation, Greek and Hebrew are absolutely wonderful to learn (have I thrown in enough weasel words yet?) BUT if you are not able to learn them, don't despair, and don't allow smug language gnostics to make you feel that you are forever barred from their special circle of initiates or from studying the Bible confidently. The Word of God that comes to us through Scripture is not bound, and the Holy Spirit does not need an interpreter to lead us into truth.