We often make distinctions about the original meanings of the New Testament Greek words. One day it dawned on me that Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek, but Aramaic. We are reading him in translation! Does that invalidate some of our interpretation? There seem to be limitations when the Greek is a translation from the original language. I hate hearing the phrase “the original Greek” from the pulpit, as if it’s the be-all and end-all. Maybe the bigger question would be, what was the ancient speaker trying to convey, and what would the listeners likely have understood? Perhaps there’s a hermeneutical principle here, one that should be emphasized more. What do you think? — V.L.
Good question—and one I’ve thought a lot about. Bottom line, the NT has come to us in Greek—so this is what we must work with. The NT books were not written in Aramaic, even though they were soon translated into Aramaic, Latin, Coptic, Ethiopic, etc.
Your thought, “Maybe the bigger question would then be, what would the speaker have been trying to convey, and what would the listeners likely have understood?” is right on target! That’s always the big question in biblical interpretation. That’s also a good reason for not reading the Bible too quickly, proof-texting, or naively assuming we understand the nuances of ancient culture.
What bothers me more is this: that preachers who refer to the original Greek or Hebrew seldom if ever have an actual working knowledge of these languages—or if they once did, they have let it lapse, failing to keep up their skills. For more, you might appreciate Peter Williams's article. There are a number of items that might be relevant at my website. Click here.
