Why are the scriptures not considered more important in our church services?

[robrecht]

Thanks. A parent recommended me to the history teacher at the local public school and she asked me to come in and speak to her history classes that are currently studying ancient Greece. I'm working on the PowerPoint slides right now, in preparation for this Wednesday. Won't speak much about the Bible, of course, as it is a public school, but I do enjoy teaching kids, who are typically much more receptive to learning than adults, 'though every once in a while an adult cannot help but be converted as well.

Had a really great time speaking with the kids who've been learning about Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks so far this year. Spoke about the development of the Ugaritic alphabet from Akkadian Semitic, and proto-Sinaitic from Egyptian hieroglyphics. Reviewed the most important archeological finds and looked at the text of Genesis 1 in Phoenician and then in Aramaic and Masoretic scripts and in the Septuagint translation. Also got to translate some of the Greek from the Rosetta Stone. The kids are surprisingly interested in learning everything, but the highlight of the classes was looking at the Hebrew and Greek etymologies of each of the kids' names. It's amazing how kids respond when they hear about the meaning of their names as they are written about in the Book of Life. A good time was had by all!!!

[robrecht]

While not valuing spontaneous translation during worship to the degree that you describe, my church tradition does require its pastors to be studied in Greek and Hebrew. Prospective pastors are required to construct a sermon which interacts meaningfully with assigned Bible texts in both languages, for instance, as well as providing documentation of acceptable courses of study in both.

I put 'spontaneous' in quotes because I do believe one should prepare beforehand as rigorously as one can, and while some may want to prepare a written translation, I do not believe that one should not just read but actively engage the text and the community at the same time if one is able. I know some people memorize the text that they read so that they can maintain eye contact with the audience during the 'reading'. This takes the idea a little further and might suggest memorizing the text to be read in the original language to the extent that it is completely internalized. Anyway, for what it's worth, I would be interested in seeing this idea enfleshed to see if and how it might work in actual practice.

[RBerman]

OK. The idea in the OP (not mine, by the way, but I like it) is that the lector would be qualified to directly and 'spontaneously' translate the original scriptures using his or her own reason and understanding of the languages of the scriptures. The person from whom I originally heard this idea, and those to whom he was speaking, were all extremely capable in the original languages and every bit as capable as members of the translation committees that translate scriptures for publication. Obviously, this does not sound very realistic for most churches as they exist today, but the idea is that the churches should value the scriptures enough to make this so. As I understand it, this is presumed to have been the common synagogue practice at the time of Jesus or at least subsequently when the Hebrew scriptures were read initially in Hebrew and then translated spontaneously into Aramaic. Eventually, some of these Aramaic translations were standardized into targumim, ie, textual translations of the Hebrew which were still rather free in character, reflecting an oral, dynamic equivalent practice. The idea is that if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us as well.

While not valuing spontaneous translation during worship to the degree that you describe, my church tradition does require its pastors to be studied in Greek and Hebrew. Prospective pastors are required to construct a sermon which interacts meaningfully with assigned Bible texts in both languages, for instance, as well as providing documentation of acceptable courses of study in both.

[robrecht]

My point is only that in the churches I have been involved in the original languages would not speak to the congregation directly or spontaneously. I do not see any down side to reading of scripture in original languages as part of a liturgical service. However I do not believe that there is any sort of infusion of Biblical messages except through reason and understanding of the language used. What I understood to be part of what the OP was suggesting with "in order to allow the word of God to speak to the congregation as directly and as spontaneously as possible." If that was not the intent then my response was not germane.

OK. The idea in the OP (not mine, by the way, but I like it) is that the lector would be qualified to directly and 'spontaneously' translate the original scriptures using his or her own reason and understanding of the languages of the scriptures. The person from whom I originally heard this idea, and those to whom he was speaking, were all extremely capable in the original languages and every bit as capable as members of the translation committees that translate scriptures for publication. Obviously, this does not sound very realistic for most churches as they exist today, but the idea is that the churches should value the scriptures enough to make this so. As I understand it, this is presumed to have been the common synagogue practice at the time of Jesus or at least subsequently when the Hebrew scriptures were read initially in Hebrew and then translated spontaneously into Aramaic. Eventually, some of these Aramaic translations were standardized into targumim, ie, textual translations of the Hebrew which were still rather free in character, reflecting an oral, dynamic equivalent practice. The idea is that if it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us as well.

[Jedidiah]

I'm curious about your distinction between value and ritual. Can you elaborate a little?

My point is only that in the churches I have been involved in the original languages would not speak to the congregation directly or spontaneously. I do not see any down side to reading of scripture in original languages as part of a liturgical service. However I do not believe that there is any sort of infusion of Biblical messages except through reason and understanding of the language used. What I understood to be part of what the OP was suggesting with "in order to allow the word of God to speak to the congregation as directly and as spontaneously as possible." If that was not the intent then my response was not germane.

[One Bad Pig]

What is the attitude of the Orthodox toward the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures? For example, are they only important for scholarly research? Is there a formal doctrine of the inspiration of the LXX or is it just a matter of the traditional acceptance of the miraculous translation described in the letter of Aristeas?

I don't know of a formal doctrine, but the LXX is traditionally accepted as an inspired translation. As far back as Justin Martyr in the mid-2nd century, Christians were accusing Jews of deleting or altering passages from the Hebrew scriptures which were being used by Christians to show that Jesus was the Messiah. It now seems that the Hebrew scriptures were not quite as fixed before the Masoretes took such pains to keep the text pure, and there were regional differences between copies of the Hebrew scriptures in the first century which could explain the differences. In any event, the LXX is what is used and translated into other languages, though some scholars might consult the Hebrew in cases of ambiguity.

[robrecht]

IMO the Scriptures should be read to be understood. If no one (or almost no one) understands the original languages, then what profit is it to read something in it? It would be great if more people understood the original languages, but people generally do not have the time or inclination to do so.

In bilingual Orthodox churches, the scriptures tend to be read in both languages, so everyone there can understand the scriptures being read. The Old Testament is generally only read during vespers services (and the OT of the Orthodox church is the LXX).

Of course. The whole point of the dynamic equivalence translation is indeed for the congregation to understand the scriptures in their own language. As I mentioned above, it is not necessary for the original languages to be read, for there to be a dynamic equivalence translation, but I do think that is a good practice when people in the congregation can understand the original languages, and I do think that should be encouraged for those who are so inclined.

What is the attitude of the Orthodox toward the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures? For example, are they only important for scholarly research? Is there a formal doctrine of the inspiration of the LXX or is it just a matter of the traditional acceptance of the miraculous translation described in the letter of Aristeas?

[One Bad Pig]

I've recently come across the views of a guy who thinks the scriptures should always be read in their original languages in church services and then the lector should make his or her own translation (prepared or spontaneously) for the given congregation at the given time in order to allow the word of God to speak to the congregation as directly and as spontaneously as possible. I really like this view! It combines the importance of the literal original text with the high value, however fleeting and transitory, of dynamic equivalence translations. This would also require, and encourage, our lectors to be well trained in the original languages and sensitive to the activity of the Spirit in local communities. Most would consider this highly unrealistic, of course, but I really like this idea.

Have others come across this idea or practice? Origin? Thoughts?

IMO the Scriptures should be read to be understood. If no one (or almost no one) understands the original languages, then what profit is it to read something in it? It would be great if more people understood the original languages, but people generally do not have the time or inclination to do so.

I know that in some Orthodox churches, the scriptures are still read in Greek, and I like that, of course, but I'm not sure if this is commonly followed by dynamic equivalent translations or if any importance is given to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures.

In bilingual Orthodox churches, the scriptures tend to be read in both languages, so everyone there can understand the scriptures being read. The Old Testament is generally only read during vespers services (and the OT of the Orthodox church is the LXX).

[robrecht]

At that point, foreign language acquisition comes down to a matter of elbow grease, recognizing that the ability to quickly learn new material diminishes with age. Anyone can still learn if enough time is put into it. The question is if that's how you want to spend your time together. Sometimes it's a matter of having the right teacher.

I am not suggesting that worship services be spent as instructional lectures in foreign languages! But I would like to see lectors trained in the original languages and capable of translating texts competently for the benefit of the larger community. This should also be augmented by a community and pastors who value the original texts enough to ensure that lectors are indeed trained well. If you think of the amount of time and money we spend in our culture on entertainment, we should be able to dedicate at least as much time and energy to our understanding of the holy scriptures.

[RBerman]

The Protestant Reformation has already dealt with those who would try to reserve the knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures to the most educated elite clerics. I'm a little more trusting of the ability of individuals and communities to pursue the truth liberally.

At that point, foreign language acquisition comes down to a matter of elbow grease, recognizing that the ability to quickly learn new material diminishes with age. Anyone can still learn if enough time is put into it. The question is if that's how you want to spend your time together. Sometimes it's a matter of having the right teacher.

[robrecht]

A little knowledge is OK as long as people know how little they have, and have a good path to get more. In my experience, amateur linguists are prone to all sorts of errors, and a room full of equally amateur linguists are no better off. We know what happens when the blind follow the blind.

The Protestant Reformation has already dealt with those who would try to reserve the knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures to the most educated elite clerics. I'm a little more trusting of the ability of individuals and communities to pursue the truth liberally.

[RBerman]

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to keep this thread related to the use in liturgy of the original texts of scripture and the dynamic translation thereof. I'm still trying to track down the origin of this idea and would like this thread to stay focused at least for a while. Thanks!

OK. I agree with his point that we ought to read the Scriptures in corporate worship. As to how much at one time, and whether the goal is to read through the entire Bible before starting anew, we can save that for another thread.

[RBerman]

Still, a little knowledge is better than none in my experience, especially in a community of people where each member has some knowledge. And sometimes, a lot of knowledge can be even more dangerous. Would that this were indeed the case.

A little knowledge is OK as long as people know how little they have, and have a good path to get more. In my experience, amateur linguists are prone to all sorts of errors, and a room full of equally amateur linguists are no better off. We know what happens when the blind follow the blind.

[robrecht]

... 2) Is it important that the whole Bible be read through as part of the worship service? ...

... I'm not quite in agreement with you on the second point. ...

If you guys don't mind, I'd like to keep this thread related to the use in liturgy of the original texts of scripture and the dynamic translation thereof. I'm still trying to track down the origin of this idea and would like this thread to stay focused at least for a while. Thanks!

[Just Some Dude]

1) Should the church as a whole be exposed to the Bible as a whole? Yes. We should not focus only on the NT, and certainly not only on our favorite passages.

2) Is it important that the whole Bible be read through as part of the worship service? That might have been important in previous centuries when Bibles were hard to come by and thus people could only be exposed to the Bible at church. Today it's less pressing, and I'd go so far as to say that someone who expects church services to fill their "Bible exposure quota" will have a pretty impoverished spiritual life, compared to someone who's regularly studying the Bible at home as he should. Still, it's good for the people of God to hear to Word of God together. And also to hear it explained.

I'm not quite in agreement with you on the second point. So many people today are so Biblically illiterate that hearing the Holy Writings read aloud in church may be one of the few opportunities where they actually learn what is in it. You can accuse people who don't read the Bible outside of church of being spiritually lazy (and I agree), but that doesn't mean that we should take a snobbish attitude towards such people and not expose them to the scriptures. Who knows, maybe actually hearing the scriptures read in church will stir them to repentance/being more spiritual. In fact, I'm more than certain that such a practice would stir a great number of people to be more active in reading the scriptures, whether or not they were intentionally lazy about reading, apathetic about reading, or weren't reading because they were still bound by bad habits.

Also, you must consider the illiterate in society. Illiteracy is on the rise here in the U.S., and certain demographics (especially in the town where I live) are more illiterate than literate. In such cases, reading the Holy Writing aloud in church (and a good portions of multiple passages each service) should be mandatory for the spiritual health of the congregation. Simply because the congregation isn't able to go home and read the scriptures, from lack of ability to do so.

I put the first point in quotes because I wholeheartedly agree. At least of the denominations I've grown up in (and that dominate my area), the OT is almost completely ignored. Which is highly unhealthy for the spiritual condition of the church in the area. (One big gripe of mine still being the use of hymns and modern songs instead of the Psalms in public/private worship, but that's another topic altogether, something too easy to over-focus on, and only one small portion of what happens when the OT is ignored).