Now I don’t doubt that with study these concepts can still be communicated. But I think here lies an important point that I feel might have been lost on the modern-day evangelical church: For this reason, the lay Christian relies on the educated clergy for correct interpretation of scripture – orthodoxy.

I think that the lack of traditionally, theologically trained pastors leading or partaking in many churches is a huge problem related to this. Whilst the lay Christian has access to Scripture, often he doesn’t have the training for correct interpretation of it. This results in unorthodox belief. The direction of a theologically sound leadership *is* I believe important to tether the lay Christian’s readings to a learned source.

I don’t think this is ideal – ideally all would receive the training to read and understand scripture at the most sophisticated of levels – but I think there is a compromise to be had between lay accessibility and theological leadership.

The larger question that I’m trying to work out in my mind through all these discussions on my blog is whether “the way God intended” is a syntactical issue, e.g. the word forms, roots, and grammatical subtleties of the original languages, or a semantic issue, the conceptual meaning of those words.

And if the answer is “both” or “syntactic”, then what are the application implications for Christians living after the first or 16th centuries? Because if God’s message can only by properly understood by understanding the grammar of Hebrew or Greek, then what are we to say about the accessibility of the scripture by the lay Christian.

(“But if we’re aware of them in the original languages, then we can try to shape an idiomatic English translation by using literary devices to create similar but different effects and subtleties in the English”) But, whilst we create similar and different effects and subtleties, I suspect it would be impossible to recreate the original in the way God intended.

An example: (I may be wrong in specifics here, but I believe my general concepts are correct – I can’t find the specific reference for this right now.)

In Hebrew, words are made of ‘root’ consonants, and infixed vowels. Words with similar root consonants explore similar concepts. The word for ‘justice’, then might be BeCaDF, and the word for ‘law’ may be BaCDif.

The example that stuck in my mind is that the word for ‘charity’ has the same roots as the word for ‘justice’. This gives an intrinsic connection between a sense of law, a sense of justice, and a sense of charity – ie. it implies that charity is not an option, but something required by law.

It is these such implications – subtleties – that I think we miss by reading in translation. And whilst we can approach it, God’s word initially – for example – intended to imply a connection between justice and charity.

Does this make sense? Or have I lost the plot?

I think I was specifically referring to Iyov’s comment that “we should pray the Psalms in Hebrew for God to accept them”, as if there is only one language that God accepts or listens to.

think that the message God chose to communicate was communicated to a specific culture, in a specific way.

Indeed, and I will be the first to argue that a proper and as-complete-as-possible understanding of the historical/cultural context of the Hebrew and Greek is necessary to make a proper functional translation. I’m definitely not making some postmodern appeal to ignore the Hebrew and Greek as irrelevant.

Certainly, I suspect there are subtleties that cannot be made in translation.

Correct. But if we’re aware of them in the original languages, then we can try to shape an idiomatic English translation by using literary devices to create similar but different effects and subtleties in the English.

I wouldn’t buy into the idea that Hebrew and Greek are holy in and of themselves. There’s nothing particularly special about them.

However, I think that the message God chose to communicate was communicated to a specific culture, in a specific way. This gives that communication a context that cannot be avoided.

As such, the fact that we are taking it out of that linguistic and historical context when reading in translation and two thousand years later is something that we should be very aware of.

Certainly, I suspect there are subtleties that cannot be made in translation.

The truth is I think I would agree with Iyov in this case – it is impossible for the translation to communicate in all ways the message of the original, especially in cases like the psalms.

I think in an ideal world, all Christians would be trained in Hebrew (and Greek) and read from Hebrew and Greek bibles. However, I still don’t think this would be enough, as the cultural contexts would not be there. These contexts, whilst maintained perhaps more successfully in a modern-day Jewish upbringing, seem under-represented as a flaw in bible-reading (or studying).

But for those of us who don’t have an understanding of Hebrew, I doubt that we cannot attempt a mostly accurate representation of the original by using a selection of translations.

One is allowed to pray in other languages, even in Judaism.