Moore College professor George Athas writes:

A friend of mine who pastors a congregation told me of a young man in his church who was heading off to study at a theological college. This young man approached my friend for advice on making a choice: should he study Greek when he got to college, or should he study Hebrew? My friend’s response was legendary: “Well,” he said, “when you finish college and get up into your pulpit, do you want to be wearing only your shirt, or only your pants?” Since not many of us should presume to be teachers, we should do our best to make sure that our teachers are as well equipped as possible. Hebrew is just one of the tools of the trade.

And again:

Our teachers in our churches, our theologians and Christian scholars, our Bible translators and missionaries, will inspire more confidence when they’ve done the hard yards of understanding the biblical texts — the authoritative Word of God — in the original languages. It’s not a guarantee to good teaching or sound theology, but it certainly is a good step in the right direction. It’s the responsible act of going back to the sources.

May God grant us perseverance in biblical language study.

When he claims “all agree,” Strauss is “referring to Carson, Poythress, Grudem, and myself, though in most cases I believe it would include others who have written on this topic (including Grant Osborne, John Kohlenberger, Andreas Köstenberger, Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Jon Weatherly, and others).”² “P&G” is shorthand for Poythress and Grudem.

1. All agree that gender-accurate (gender-inclusive, gender-neutral) translation is a good thing, when the use of such language accurately represents the meaning of the original text. In many cases the use of an inclusive term improves the accuracy of the translation. An example of this is the translation “person” in contexts where Greek anthropos is used generically to refer to either a man or a woman. Romans 3:28 (TNIV, italics added) accurately reads, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.”
2. All agree that care should be taken not to use inclusive language when the original author intended a gender-specific sense. The (biological) gender distinctions of the original text should be respected.
3. All agree that translations should seek not to obscure cultural features, including patriarchal ones, that were part of the original meaning of the text.
4. All agree that gender-specific terms should be used with reference to historical persons when males or females are specified in illustrative material, and in parables where characters are male or female.
5. As a possible qualifier to the previous point, all agree that words should be translated according to their sense in context, not according to extraneous features associated with their referents. For example, an author may use anthropos in the sense of “human being,” even though the person referred to happens to be a male. James 5:17 is accurately translated “Elijah was a human being [anthropos] just like we are,” because anthropos in this context means “human being,” not “male human being” (the “we” is surely inclusive). Though Elijah was a male, this characteristic is extraneous to the sense of anthropm os in context (cf. Acts 10:26; John 10:33; 1 Tim 2:5).
6. All agree that there is nothing inherently immoral or evil in masculine generic terms. The goal of translation should not be to abolish male references but to determine which English words and phrases most accurately and clearly reproduce the meaning of the original text.
7. All agree that grammatical gender is different than natural or biological gender (sex). It is therefore incorrect to demand the reproduction of grammatical gender across languages with different gender systems.
8. All agree that Greek anthropos is accurately translated “person” or “human being” when the author intended to refer to either a man or a woman.
9. All agree that Greek anthropoi is accurately translated with inclusive terms like “people” or “human beings” when the author intended to include both men and women.
10. All agree that Hebrew ,îsh sometimes has an inclusive sense, and in these cases it is accurately translated with expressions such as “each one” or “each person.”
11. All agree that adelphoi is accurately translated “brothers and sisters” when the referents include both males and females
12. All agree that Hebrew banmîm is accurately translated “children” when the referents include both males and females. While most would say the same about Greek huioi, P&G affirm this only reluctantly and with qualifications.
13. All agree that Greek pateres may be translated “parents” instead of “fathers” when the referents include both males and females.
14. Do Greek pateres and Hebrew ,abmôt ever mean “ancestors”? Most commentators would say yes. P&G seem to agree with this in principle, but they reject this translation in practice and do not discuss passages where both males and females are in view (e.g., 1 Sam 12:6; Heb 3:9).
15. All agree that the translation “man” for the human race is one of the most difficult issues in gender-related translation and that there are no easy answers. Neither English “man” nor terms like “humanity” or “humankind” can capture all of the wordplays present in the Hebrew admamm. Whichever translation is used, footnotes are appropriate to explain the wordplays of the original text.
16. Similarly, all agree that the translation “son of man” for Hebrew ben admamm and Greek huios tou anthropmou is another difficult issue without easy answers. While these phrases usually mean “human being,” this translation may obscure messianic references in some contexts. Again, explanatory footnotes are sometimes necessary. A number of other agreements could be added to this list, but these are sufficient to demonstrate common presuppositions and philosophical perspectives.

Do you agree?

When we read in Romans 1:1 that Jesus was declared to be the Son of God at his resurrection, we are lead to ask in what way is Jesus (like) a son and in what way he is (like) a/the Son of God. But by asking these questions we are starting with our own pre-understanding and experience of what it means to be a son as used in our own ethnolinguistic community. Here arises the difficulty with translating “Son of God” in Muslim contexts as readers come to the text with a notion of what it means to be a son that contrasts sharply with the way the Bible speaks about sonship. God becomes analogical of man.

Linguist Rick Brown summarizes the difficulty:

In some languages and people groups, sonship terminology is used almost exclusively for direct biological relationships, i.e., it means the same as ‘offspring’ in English. In Classical Arabic, for example, the counterparts for ‘son’ and ‘father’ mean biological son and biological father. These terms were not used metaphorically for other interpersonal relationships, not even for a nephew…

The Arabic usage contrasts significantly with the situation in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Akkadian), where one could address his son, grandson, nephew, son-in-law, and neighbor’s son as bni/bri ‘my son’…

So it is not surprising that these Hebrew idioms were misunderstood by the Arabs in classical times, even by some Arab Christians, as referring to biological descent.¹

Concerning sonship language in Muslim contexts then we see that the pattern for the analogy runs from human to divine; that is, the human ethnolinguistic view of sonship supplies the content for the divine, Scriptural way of speaking. God becomes analogical of man rather than man analogical of God.

Athanasius, however, questions this human-divine direction of analogy in writing against the Arians. He asks,

Why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him ‘is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named.’²

While no language will comport exactly as Scripture does, Christians must bear in mind Athanasius’ grounding principle for analogical language: God does not make man his pattern. Unfortunately this is more easily said than applied.

Regularly reading Hebrew is a struggle for me. It can be so taxing staring at those characters! And that’s even while using my Reader’s Hebrew Bible. But let me tell you, I am always blown away how more facility with Hebrew comes with regular reading. Read one day and feel tired. Read two and feel a little bit better. Read three in a row and you’ve almost connected four. Read four or more in a row and start rolling. To go further, how about a strategy?

There’s a great summer Hebrew reading strategy posted over on the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog. He  writes that “One way of weaving a part of the Hebrew Bible into your cognitive flesh is to read through the book of Genesis in Hebrew until you understand every line of it on the fly without a dictionary or a grammar to help you.”

His strategy follows this format to tackle Genesis:

1. Study visually pericope by pericope
2. Listen pericope by pericope
3. Master the text grammatically – think in terms of grammar, syntax, and information structure.
4. Master the text semantically. Before running to commentaries, it pays to devote time to the language and structure of the text itself.

What a beast of a strategy! I can testify to the value of a multimedia approach to learning/retaining Hebrew. When I did an independent study on Exodus in seminary, I listened through the book ad nauseum until I began hearing the text in my head. This served in part to speed up the pace at which I was able to read and this made me happy. (Any little thing to lift your spirits while studying a language will keep away a defeatist attitude and keep you going.)

Yes, the strategy above is a beast, but it’s a strategy, a purposeful, intentional outline to master Hebrew. It won’t be comfortable, but it’ll sure be a blessing.

In the end, I decided on and ordered a UBS Reader’s Greek New Testament (one without textual notes as I already have a UBS GNT, but without dictionary), a Hebrew Bible Insert (a concise syntactical guide to keep with your Hebrew Bible), a Greek New Testament Insert and a volume edited by Dr. Dave Black called Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Why the last book? Well, while I’m familiar with discourse analysis, this passing comment on Dr. Black’s blog really convicted me:

5:54 PM Got the parts but now lack the proper wrenches. Can’t do the work without the right tools. It’s like trying to interpret a Greek letter without knowing anything about discourse analysis.

Who knew plumbing could be a means of sanctification!?

As you may be able to tell the books I chose reflect a investment for the long-run rather than temporary thrills. With slimming down my library I’ve had to make a lot of choices concerning books and which ones I’ll keep. My new aim is to hang onto and acquire those book which will most likely benefit those whom I am preparing to serve through work with Wycliffe as a Bible translator.

I see it this way: I am one to whom much has been given (e.g., the gospel!); therefore I must give much away. I’m not just talking about books but even more so education. I went to seminary to give it all away. I study linguistics to give it all away in the form of Bible translation. And look at this blessing of a $50 gift certificate. (Thank you, WTS Books!) I can only use that to give more away.

The podcast features recordings from mechon-mamre.org and an enclosed text translation from the English Standard Version. The readings alternate from the Tanak: Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Yesterday’s edition was Genesis 1. Today’s is Joshua 1 and tomorrow’s will be 1 Chronicles 1.

I have it set up to deliver straight to my Droid where I collect numerous podcasts and listen through them daily. I’m already listening through a daily English reading plan, so original language daily reading makes a lot of sense.

Let me know if you subscribe or have any thoughts or suggestions.

photo credit: Lawrence OP

Sing for Joy

Every Sunday morning the pretentiously titled local classical station–The Classical Station–airs several syndicated programs featuring sacred music. One of those is Sing for Joy, a production of Minnesota’s St. Olaf College. Every week the College Pastor presents choral music selected to coincide with the readings from the revised common lectionary. The result is a beautiful production that is well worth your listen, especially if you come from a non-liturgical tradition such as I. I’ve found that keeping up with the common lectionary vocally enhanced by world-class choirs is a delightful way to connect with the Church universal. Sing for Joy presents that certain bountiful depth of sacred music that is too often forgotten. My only disappointment is that the broadcasts, as far as I can tell, are not available via podcast. There is, however, a vast streaming archive available on their site of current and past episodes. You can listen wherever you are no matter the day of the week. Check it out.

Lectionary at Lunch

I discovered this second gem on iTunesU. Concordia Seminary St. Louis hosts an enviable Lectionary at Lunch group every Wednesday that is led by a professor who reads through the OT and NT lessons in Hebrew and Greek, translates them and discusses particular points of interest. The podcast of the group is available free of charge and is well worth your listen, especially if you’re interested in exegesis, translation and original language study. I can’t tell you how beneficial this is to listen to. Check it out.

photo credit: law_keven

Exodus 3:8 (RSV)

I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 2:5-10 (RSV)

Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, and her maidens walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. 6 When she opened it she saw the child; and lo, the babe was crying. She took pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.” 7 Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, “Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?” 8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Go.” So the girl went and called the child’s mother. 9 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, “Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.” So the woman took the child and nursed him. 10 And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said, “Because I drew him out of the water.”

Coming down, seeing, taking out of current affliction, bringing up into luxurious foreign land (Pharaoh’s household for the infant). Similarities notwithstanding, the lexical parallelism is largely lacking in the Hebrew; still found it interesting.

John Calvin

• By the age of twelve he was a bishop’s clerk. I was just a jerk.
• Soon after, he started college and began taking Latin from one of the greatest teachers of the language. I waited until my senior year of high school to take Latin I. I started college at eighteen.
• By age twenty he had been to two or three different universities and knew Greek. OK, so we’re about even on this point though I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to say I know Greek.
• At twenty-three his commentary on Seneca was published. Only things I’ve ever published are right here through WordPress.
• At twenty-four some thought him a heretic for being aligned with reformation-esque sentiment. He fled. Though I try to punk people out in a Reformation spirit, nobody listens and I needn’t flee.

John Gill

• By age ten he had read through the entire Greek New Testament and began teaching himself Hebrew.
• Mastered Latin classics by age eleven. At age eleven, I mastered my BB gun.
• Before his teens, local clergy would stop by and find out what little Johnny thought. Sunday School teachers told my parents what a brat I was.
• He was the first Baptist to develop a complete systematic theology and a verse-by-verse commentary on the whole Bible. I was probably the first toddler to poop on a church sidewalk.
• He was called Dr. Voluminous. Me? Not even a doctor.
• There was a saying in his day “As sure as John Gill is in the bookseller’s shop.” A saying based on me might be, “As sure as Drew is on his laptop.”

Jonathan Edwards

• At eleven he wrote a remarkable essay on spiders. By eleven, I had barely even killed one.
• Started at Yale not even thirteen years-old. Me: Marshall University, age eighteen.
• At twenty, he pastored a church in New York. At twenty, I hadn’t even been to New York, let alone a pastor.
• Around the age of twenty-three he wrote his rigorous and convicting Resolutions. I’m a slacker now twenty-four.

I Am What I Am

What do I take solace in on my birthday knowing that these Johns before me have accomplished way more than I by my age? Djing. Playing records on turntables. Nay!

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:10,

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Twenty-four down? Twenty-four down. Let’s keep moving, working harder by God’s grace that is with us.

“And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was [wayehi] evening and there was [wayehi] morning, the second day” (Genesis 1:8).

Anyways…that’s what I think of when I hear this song…not that I listen to that kind of music…Who’s Rihanna?