Book Review: “Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages?”
Takamitsu Muraoka. Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages? Leuven: Peeters, 2020. Paperback. 111 pp. USD $26.12.
ISBN: 978-90-429-4200-4.
Words are complex animals. Consider, for example, the word “animal” in the previous sentence. In most situations, that word conjures up images of wildlife. In this particular instance, however, it means something quite different. Words (symbols) have a dynamic relationship to meaning (referent/sense). 1 They are neither confined to a dictionary entry nor free to mean anything at all. Context reigns supreme. Few readers whose mother tongue is English would have misunderstood the meaning of the sentence, “words are complex animals,” but it almost certainly would have caused at least some confusion for someone whose knowledge of English was minimal. 2 In a similar way, the Bible is a foreign book. Its time, place, and situation are far removed from our own context. We need reliable guides to help facilitate effective biblical interpretation. 3 Takamitsu Muraoka, author of Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages? explains, “The Bible was written in ancient languages [Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek]. Their grammar and vocabulary are vastly different from those of many contemporary languages of the world. Even the average Israeli Jew and average Greek are most likely to struggle with books such as Job, which could be quite demanding, unlike their favorite newspaper” (15). The author states that the purpose of this (not overly lengthy) volume is to show that, by reading the Bible in its original languages, namely Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, it can be “interpreted and analysed better or differently than when it is read in this or that modern translation” (7). Muraoka succeeds!
Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages? is divided into four chapters of roughly equal length: (1) Hebrew, (2) Greek, (3) Aramaic, and (4) Septuagint as a bridge between the Old and the New Testament. A brief introduction and conclusion round off the volume alongside a few short biographical components. The indices include Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words and biblical texts (Old/New Testament). Regrettably, none of the Qumran documents cited are noted therein (see, for example, 30, 64, 67; cf. 48–49, 53, 86) and neither index is exhaustive.
The text is written in a non-technical style that is easily read by non-specialists. No original language letters/characters are used and all transliterations are “approximate,” i.e., non-scholarly (21). Muraoka’s allusions to different movies, such as The Railway Man, Love in the Afternoon, and All Quiet on the Western Front, are easy to appreciate. His use of anecdotes (including not a few from his own life) are often eye-opening and illustrative. For example,
A story is told of a French classicist. He went to Greece to work on an archeological site. When he wanted to take a close[er] look at an excavated stone tablet with an inscription engraved on it, he asked a hired, local Greek labourer to turn it over. The Greek kept turning the tablet over. The erudite French scholar must have wrongly used the imperative in the Present aspect (77).
A nice touch is a graphic image of a fragment of Ps. 119 from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This psalm is not only the longest in the entire Bible but also has a unique acrostic nature. Its 176 verses are neatly divided into 22 units, each of which consists of 8 verses, all beginning with the same Hebrew letter. These aspects are clearly shown and deftly explained by Muraoka (17–18). Other highlights include a through delineation of the dedication of the biblical scribes.
At the end of the book of Deuteronomy, we read a scribal note stating ‘the total number of verses of this book is 955, that of the Torah, i.e. the entire Pentateuch, 5,849, the total number of words in the Torah, 79,856, the total number of letters in the Torah 400,945.’ We are provided with comparable data on the rest of the Old Testament, showing that these scribes, on … copying one book went back to its Chapter 1, Verse 1, and manually counted everything to ensure that not a verse, not a word, not a letter has fallen out. These are … statistics which you can obtain these days in a second or two by pressing a few keys on your computer (67–68).
For some Christians, hearing references to the original languages can be intimidating. That being said, though, since so many theological discussions are, ultimately, based on ad fontes, a Latin expression which means “[back] to the sources” (lit. “to the springs,”) one needs to pay special attention to the proper use of the biblical languages (particularly in exegesis). In some respects, therefore, it is not possible to overemphasize the value of knowing the original languages. 4 Incontrovertibly, whenever we read our English translation(s) we are, in fact, recognizing, though indirectly, our dependence on scholarship. Someone had to learn the biblical languages and to make great efforts over a long period of time before English readers could make use of a translation they understood. 5 Unequivocally:
A comparison of multiple translations of the Bible in any language shows that they differ at hundreds of places, pointing to the continuing disagreement among Bible scholars and translators in their analysis and understanding of those places. To learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the original languages of the Bible, is admittedly not everybody’s cup of tea. Knowledge of them does not necessarily provide a solution to these difficulties. However, there are not a few things in the biblical text which can be missed out if it is read only in translation (back cover).
To underscore this point, the author makes clear: “There is an Italian saying: Traduttore traditore, that is ‘Translator is betrayer.’ It means that even the best of translations cannot convey 100 percent what the original intends to say. Reading the Bible in its original languages does not solve every problem of its interpretation … And yet, some aspects of the Bible … can be truly appreciated only when you read the Bible in their original language[s]” (20).
For example, Muraoka asserts on the basis of a close (syntactical/grammatical) reading of the preposition(s) involved, that Tamar actually became pregnant by Judah (see Gen. 38:18) “for his best interests” (23 – italics mine). To be specific, Muraoka contends:
Tamar probably had heard of God’s promise to Judah’s grandfather, Abraham, that his decedents would be as numerous as the stars in the sky or as the sands on the sea beach. However, she saw that Judah was most likely to die with no grandchild. She thought that she must do something about this prospect. The moment she reached that conclusion, she did not lose a single minute (24).6
Concerning the New Testament, with respect to Jesus and his disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee in a small boat as a violent squall began to blow (see Mark 4:35–41), Muraoka opines:
Jesus, dead tired … was in deep sleep in the stern. When He was awakened by His scared disciples, He instantly acted and there was a great calm. He used two imperative forms; the first in the Present aspect, ‘Remain quiet,’ and the second in the Perfect aspect of a verb meaning ‘to muzzle an animal to prevent it from going for grass when it should be working’ (Mk 4.39) … With the first imperative, He said to the wind: ‘Stop making that noise.’ The Perfect aspect of the second imperative implies that the wind had already been muzzled. In colloquial English we might say: ‘Keep your mouth shut.’ Though impossible in English, Greek has imperative forms in the third person. Jesus could have used such with the wind or lake as their grammatical subject. But the forms are actually in the second person. He who was present at the creation of the universe [John 1:3; Col 1:15–17; Heb 1:2] could communicate with the elements in Hebrew or Aramaic (76).
Elsewhere, Muraoka notes how Biblical Aramaic (which is several centuries later than Biblical Hebrew) preserves the more archaic pronunciation of the holy city. To be clear, its Hebrew pronunciation is /yrushaláyim/ while the Aramaic way of pronouncing it is Jerusalem (85–86). One final example should suffice. Jesus spoke of a Pharisee and a tax collector who, by chance, went to the temple in Jerusalem at the same time (Luke 18:9–14). Muraoka maintains:
He told the following parable about those who are confident that they are righteous and belittle others … This man [ = tax collector] went home, considered (by God) righteous … Whoever exalts himself will be brought down, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted’ (Lk 18.9, 14). As he wrote this story, Luke may have been thinking of Ps 50.19 where the Septuagint reads: ‘A sacrifice (acceptable) to God is a broken spirit. A broken and humbled heart will God not belittle.’ The Hebrew original is slightly different: ‘Sacrifices (acceptable) to God are a broken spirit. A broken, contrite heart, o God, You will not belittle.’ God did not belittle the tax collector the Pharisee belittled, but rather God thought highly of the tax collector (102 – all verse numbers removed).
It would, however, be most unfortunate to say that Christians who have access to the Bible only though translation(s) are unable to learn by themselves what God’s message of salvation is. Some people have also, regrettably, been known (at times) to give the (decidedly false!) impression that anyone unacquainted with the original languages must be some type of second-class Christian. In addition, certain scholars sometimes tend to intimate that church leaders (pastors/teachers) can say nothing which has not first been cleared through the ‘experts.’7 One common way of overemphasizing the biblical languages is by “romanticizing them,” that is, giving the impression that they have a “unique (and almost divine?) status.”8 In truth, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, are normal human languages with words, grammar, and syntax that are similar to any other language, i.e., biblical languages do not inherently contain any more significant meaning as languages (form/style) than any other ‘normal’ language (like English).9 Muraoka also emphasizes how the biblical authors did not (generally speaking) write in mysterious codes. Under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration (see 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) they used their daily language in a normal way. Likewise, he asserts, “Scribes of the Bible were all properly trained and experienced, but they are also human after all, and rare slips are understandable” (67). As such, in brief, while we should be grateful for specialists who can help us with details and ambiguities, it behooves us to remember and to diligently bear in mind that English translations are reliable for most purposes and the teaching of Scripture (as a whole) is readily accessible to all believers (see Ps. 119:97–104; John 16:13).10
To critique, I have very few quibbles with this volume. While Muraoka hopes “advanced specialists might … find a thing or two of interest” (see p. 7), they will likely be turned off by the intentional lack of technical footnotes (21). Alongside this, while the author notes certain helps he received in different stages of the manuscript, it is markedly clear that additional stylistic/grammatical editing would not be remiss. Muraoka could have also bolstered some of his assessments of the positive benefits of Bible translation(s). Lastly, more concrete next steps (perhaps an annotated compilation of various recommended resources) would have been a boon.
These (relatively minor) infelicities aside, Muraoka’s Why Read the Bible in the Original Languages? was a thoroughly engaging, pleasurable read, chock-full of treasures and tidbits in spite of (because of?) the author’s decision to categorically market the book to the non-specialist. Its primary users will likely be theological/biblical students (beginner/advanced) in seminaries, Bible colleges, Christian university colleges, and, hopefully, studious pastors/invested laypeople.
Footnotes
1: See Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Revised and Expanded Edition (Zondervan, 1995).
2: The analogy, ‘words are complex animals,’ including generous portions of the exact phrasing/wording of this paragraph, has been derived from James A. Swanson and Keith Williams, “Dictionary and Index for Hebrew and Greek Word Studies,” from the NLT Study Bible, edited by Sean A. Harrison, 2215–2226 (Tyndale, 2008).
3: We suffer from an embarrassment of riches! My top three recommendations (beginner, intermediate, advanced, respectively) are: (1) Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 4th ed. by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays (Zondervan, 2020), (2) Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. 3rd ed. by Michael J. Gorman (Baker, 2020), and (3) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 3rd ed. by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Zondervan, 2017).
4: See Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Revised and Expanded Edition (Zondervan, 2007).
5: By far, the best work on this subject is Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Baker, 2004). See too Clinton E. Arnold, How We Got the Bible: A Visual Journey (Zondervan, 2008).
6: See also Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (Thomas Nelson, 2000), 362. Cf. Paul Joüon and Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2013), §132fN.
7: As one notable scholar stresses, “There is a right way and a wrong way to use a commentary …the right way to use a commentary is as a help … Only after coming to an initial understanding of the passage should we consult commentaries. Neither should we let commentaries bully us. Many times they will be of great help, but sometimes the reader will be right and the commentaries will be wrong.” Tremper Longman III, Old Testament Commentary Survey. 5th ed. (Baker, 2013), 3. See too Kaiser and Silva. An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics.
8: Robert L. Thomas, “Modern Linguistics Versus Traditional Hermeneutics,” TMSJ 14 (2003) 30. Cf. Moisés Silva, “God, Language and Scripture,” in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, ed. M. Silva (Zondervan, 1996).
9: Swanson and Williams, “Dictionary and Index for Hebrew and Greek Word Studies,” 2215. See too David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. (Baker, 1995) alongside Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (InterVarsity, 1989).
10: For more information on translations, see Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions (Zondervan, 2007); Dave Brunn, One Bible, Many Versions: Are All Translations Created Equal? (IVP Academic, 2013); and William D. Barrick, Understanding Bible Translation: Bringing God’s Word into New Contexts (Kregel, 2019). For specific details on the KJV, see Mark Ward, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible (Lexham, 2018). Two excellent blog posts by Daniel B. Wallace on Bible translations are as follows: https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/ and https://danielbwallace.com/2012/12/28/five-more-myths-about-bible-translations-and-the-transmission-of-the-text/
