What is the Importance of Hebrew?

[jimmie]

I have a question about Hebrew. Why is it that most Messianic people seem compelled to study God in the Hebrew language? I know a little Hebrew and a little Greek. The little Hebrew runs a clothing store and the little Greek runs a restaurant. Really there are only two languages. English and everything else is Greek to me. On a serious note, why is it wrong to say LORD? Why must it be YHWH/YHVH? LORD does seem to be the most accurate English word for conveying the meaning of YHVH/YHWH. If the use of “LORD” is wrong because it is not an accurate translation, wouldn’t it be wrong to use the English letters “YHVH/YHWH” as a transliteration of the Hebrew letters?

I speak and read English. If I come to the same conclusions about God as those who know some Hebrew or Greek and can convey those conclusions to other English speaking people who have no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek, where am I profited to study Hebrew? I don’t think there is anything wrong with knowing Hebrew, Greek or any other language if you have the opportunity to interact with people who use the language as their native tongue.

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Can it not be inferred from this verse that God wants everyone to understand him in his own language?

I Cor. 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Shouldn’t every language be interpreted into the language of the local assembly so that the church may receive edification?

Psalms19:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

If the stars can be understood to glorify God in any language, shouldn’t God be understood in any language?

Who created languages and why did He do it? Was it not God who created languages because when everyone was of a single language they conspired together to worship God the wrong way?

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

If Hebrew is the only language that God can be understood in, why must God give those who speak Hebrew a pure language?

Sorry, for the long post. But these are some of my thoughts on Hebrew. And no one that I know personally has been able to answer them in a way that has convinced me of the need to study Hebrew. Instead some have just chosen to distance themselves from me.

[David Ben Yosef]

Mar 11, 2010 8:47:18 GMT -8 jimmie said:

LORD does seem to be the most accurate English word for conveying the meaning of YHVH/YHWH. If the use of “LORD” is wrong because it is not an accurate translation, wouldn’t it be wrong to use the English letters “YHVH/YHWH” as a transliteration of the Hebrew letters?

Shalom Jimmie,

I know your new here, so I'm only going to give you a verbal warning. Posting the tetragramation name of HaShem is against the forum rules. Please take a moment to read them, so you can avoid any future infractions. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just doing my job.

(new) Moderator note: he is referring to this rule:

9. Please note that it is not permitted on this forum to attempt to spell out the sacred personal name of Adonai or teach people "Sacred Name" theology.

I take this to mean do not spell out how the name of YHVH sounds. This was to prevent arguments about the name of God. jimmie is correct, the Tetragrammaton is used many times here (although it should not be used so much as to become common); so until I am told differently I do allow it. Spelling out the name with vowels and particularly emphasis is not permitted. Not correcting another (now ex) moderator- just how I interpret the rule since I have been asked by PM concerning this. Dan C

[jimmie]

I am a little confused. I seen ****/**** on the thread about “terms you may see on this board”. Is that what I should avoid or is it the all capital letter English translation that I should avoid? I am not part of the “Sacred Name” movement that rule #9 refers to. That was the first time I ever heard of it when I read the rule.

What I am curious about is why being able to read/speak Hebrew is so important. There are so many examples of people in the Bible who knew the language/culture of Hebrew, but it was no advantage to them as they fell away or missed the mark of God’s laws in spite of being totally immersed in the Language/Culture of the Hebrews. Th

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Does searching the scriptures have to be done in Hebrew or can they be translated to other languages? Muslims say that the Koran can only be understood in its’ original language. Translations can not convey its’ meaning. Must one know Hebrew to know God?

[tonga]

Mar 18, 2010 10:49:18 GMT -8 jimmie said:

What I am curious about is why being able to read/speak Hebrew is so important.

For me, it means I can go to any synagogue in the world and daven.
There is no language barrier, and it brings Jews closer together as a people, having a common language.

I think when reading translations of things there are a couple of issues: a translation is never as accurate as the original and
you lose the beauty of the language-the poetry, the nuances.

[davidwiseman]

Did you know that linguists estimate a minimum of 50% of information is lost in translation? That doesn't mean it's necessary to learn Hebrew and Greek, but it does mean it should be important to us. Yes, God can bring us to the conclusions He wants us to reach through any language He chooses, but we lose a lot of information in translation, and all of that information is important.

This, I think, is the most legitimate reason for emphasizing the importance of the original languages, however, I do not think it is the most common reason in the "Messianic" movement. More likely, even among those with the best intentions, it is out of a desire to validate our Jewishness. As much as I would like to say that I study Hebrew for the altruistic ideal of better understanding the TN"K, it's probably less true than saying that I study it because my Orthodox friends constantly tell me that anyone who believes in Yeshua isn't really "Jewish." We tend to feel that by learning Hebrew it helps to validate us in the face of Jewish and Christian criticism.

As to the objection to the "LORD," there are two schools of thought that I've encountered. One is that it doesn't accurately represent the meaning of Yod and Hey with a Waw and Hey (That's the way it's read in Orthodox synagogues on Yom Kippur, so I hope it's not in violation of the code of conduct, since the rabbonim have ruled it enough separation between letters that it doesn't consist of saying the Sacred Name). This Name is generally thought to be a third person imperfect form of the word "Hayah" meaning "to be." It is thought to indicate the fact that God is self-existent, apart from everything else.
The other school is out of an unfortunately overzealous avoidance of all things that are perceived as "pagan," which is a natural overreaction to finding out that some Christian practices are derived from paganism. I don't know about others, but I certainly went through this stage. I find that many people object to using English terms such as "The LORD," and eventually become more relaxed about it. Like I said, it's a natural reaction.

Personally, I avoid saying the Divine Name in casual conversation, because it strikes me as disrespectful, but I do not believe that the commands us to never say It, so when I am reading the TN"K, or reciting prayers I will pronounce the Name. The rest of the time I tend to refer to The Holy One (Blessed be He) as simply "God."

[davidwiseman]

That was my general response. In response to your specific points:
Yes, we could derive that God wants everyone t understand in their own language. We could also conclude that God wants everyone to understand, regardless of language. Hebrew is the language that He chose to reveal the TN"K in, but if someone doesn't understand Hebrew, God is not unwilling to speak to them in their own language.

It is difficult to use a discussion of "speaking in tongues" as a proof text for anything regarding language, since there is no agreement as to whether this is glossolalia or known languages that the individual speaking them has not learned.

Yes, God can be understood even through natural phenomena. This does not mean that there is nothing to be gained by learning the languages of His special revelation. If we could learn everything we need to know about God through natural revelation in the world around us, why did God choose to give us the Scriptures?

The same God who created language chose to reveal Himself to our ancestors in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. All things proceed from Him, but some things are sacred, and others are ordinary.

Giving them a "pure tongue" may be interpreted two ways. If we understand it as a pure language, this is easily resolved, since the prophecy is speaking about exiles who spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. On the other hand, it may not refer to language at all, but to the sort of things that we say, as the prophet said "I am a man of unclean lips among a people of unclean lips."

[jimmie]

David,

Sign language interpreters get better that 50% of the information across to their audiences. I would think a translator would be able to approach 100% unless he had a motive to do otherwise. If 50% of the information is lost in translation, what good would it do a nation to spend millions of dollars to steal top secret documents from other countries?

Only knowing one language may place me at a disadvantage but, I have never learned more from Strong’s work than I have Webster’s work when studying the Bible.


Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


It seems pretty plain that every one heard what was said in their own language of which15 are listed.

The only Jew that I know pass away a few years ago. He could chat several prayers and songs in Hebrew, but he had no more idea what he said than I did. Then, on the other hand, I meat a Christian who uses so much Hebrew when he speaks, I can’t follow what he is trying to say. And he wonders way English speaking people don’t respond to him when he witnesses to them. They can’t because they don’t understand what he is saying. I wonder how effective Paul would have been if he couldn’t speak Greek. I think it vital that every one be able to hear/understand the word of God in his own tongue.

I don’t want anyone to think that I am opposed to learning Hebrew. I do however think my time would be better spent in other endeavors than to learn a language that I will most likely never get to speak to someone who uses it as his native tongue.

Apr 23, 2010 9:31:27 GMT -8 davidwiseman said:

The same God who created language chose to reveal Himself to our ancestors in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. All things proceed from Him, but some things are sacred, and others are ordinary."

This is heart of the subject for me. Is scripture sacred because of the language that they were revealed to us in? Did God choose Hebrew to reveal Himself to us because it had some special attribute that others don’t? Did God choose Israel because they had some special attribute that other nations don’t?

[davidwiseman]

Going from English to ESL isn't a true translation. ESL is more like a separate dialect of English than it is a completely separate language, but there are still a lot of idioms that don't translate.
Technical language, like plans, is also different from normal communication, which tends to be very idiomatic (like the Bible). It's also different from literature. There is a lot I have learned about the nuances of the poetic language of the Bible that I've discovered since I started learning Hebrew. Yes, I can communicate the vast majority of them to you in English (there are a few which English simply lacks the vocabulary for), but not in a translation. You would have to be willing to read whole essays on half the verses in the Bible to get all of the information that doesn't directly translate.
I disagree. I certainly don't have the experience of others, but I could not get 100% of most of the information that I read in Greek and Hebrew into a translation. If you like, I can ask my Hebrew professor for his opinion (Dr. James D. Nogalski. Something of a legend in the community. www.baylor.edu/religion/index.php?id=66256 ), but I can assure you of his opinion on information loss.

Regardless of the linguistics of it, appealing to Websters is a bad idea. It is too far removed culturally and historically. And Strongs is a mediocre source at best. Gesenius or BDB is a better source.

Yes, Acts 15 is clear. I'm not arguing that. But elsewhere in Paul's works there are indications that he is speaking of glossolalia. That is the basis on which I objected to your use of I Cor.

I hope I don't sound like an arrogant jerk when I say this, but now I understand your objection to learning Hebrew. This is not pointing at you, I don't believe that we humans make rational decisions. We make decisions based on what is most aesthetically pleasing, and then back it up with reasoning later. Just like we "messianics" learn Hebrew because it makes us feel more legitimate, you don't want to learn Hebrew because your only experiences with Hebrew "speakers" were bad.

There are plenty of people who speak Hebrew from nativity. Okay, "plenty" might be a strong word. Haha. A few million. But, to be honest, I'm an ancient languages nerd. I would rather learn classical Arabic than modern Arabic any day, simply because paleolinguistics fascinates me. It's like a puzzle for which we have not all the pieces, which makes the pursuit of the answer that much more exciting.

I do believe, personally, that a language with such strong pastoral idioms was chosen purposefully. I don't believe that Hebrew was chosen because it was holy. I believe that it is holy because it was chosen. I don't believe Israel is chosen because she is holy, I believe Israel is holy because it is chosen.

[jimmie]

David,

Thanks for your time in discussing this subject with me.

From the way you use the term “Idiom”, it makes it sound to me that II Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” is a false statement. I’m I seeing yet not seeing what you are trying to tell me? There is a principle that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. When you tell me that a thought exists in Hebrew, that can’t be conveyed into another language, that is when I have a problem. The translator may have to invent a new word in the target language, but the whole of the thought can be translated. I think the King of Babylon got the full meaning from Daniel about the hand writing on the wall. There was no need for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to say, Daniel a better or more accurate translation would have been thus and thus.

Again, I am not opposed to learning Hebrew. As I hang around this site, I am sure to pick up some Anglicanized Hebrew, but I don’t expect it to make me more legitimate in the eyes of God.
While I would welcome any comments that Mr. James D. Nogalski may have on this subject, I ask you to consider David’s words:

Ps 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.

In order to understand those strong pastoral idioms in the bible, would some time spent in a pasture be valuable? The pasture is where I got my PHD (push here dummy) from. I may not be able to understand Mr. Nogalski. So ask him to keep it simple. I guess what I am trying to say is one can know the Hebrew language and still miss the “pastoral idioms”. The Bible is replete with those who spoke Hebrew but missed the point anyway.

Webster did die after Gesenius but he was born 26 years earlier. Thus not as far removed historically as Gesenius. Why do you trust Gesenius more? If you read German and Gesenius helps you understand the God of Israel then Hallelujah. (Sorry about showing off 50% my knowledge of Hebrew in one word).

Apr 23, 2010 14:28:17 GMT -8 davidwiseman said:

I don't believe that Hebrew was chosen because it was holy. I believe that it is holy because it was chosen. I don't believe Israel is chosen because she is holy, I believe Israel is holy because it is chosen.

Amen! (Rats, I done used up my entire repertoire of Hebrew words in one post.) Yes what God chooses he makes Holy.

[davidwiseman]

I don't see how saying that there are idioms in Hebrew implies that I can interpret Scripture according to own private whim, which is what Peter was talking about.

The reason we develop along the thought lines we do is because of the languages we speak. Yes, thoughts exist in other languages, including Hebrew, which cannot be precisely communicated in other languages. There are nuances and idioms that have no equivalent. I might be able to communicate them with you eventually, as I said, but it would not be in a translation. It would have to be in longer works.

Your Daniel argument only holds up if I had said that no statement in one language can translate completely into another language. That's not what I said. I said that some statements cannot be translated completely.

I also didn't say that you expected to be made more legitimate. I was stating the opinion of Messianics in general, especially those who learn Hebrew, and emphasize it.
One of the Karaite sages actually said that learning Hebrew is one of the basic duties of the believer, interestingly enough.

I think you assume that Dr. Nogalski doesn't meditate on the word. That's not true. dr. Nogalski is a very devout person.
Time in the pasture would absolutely be valuable, and learning about pastoral idioms would be necessary.
I've never said that learning Hebrew automatically means you will understand, but what I am saying is that reading the Bible in English there are certain things which you are bound to miss.

26 years is not historically significant. I trust Gesenius more because he is more closely connected linguistically. You have to understand, the more I learn about languages the more preposterous translation becomes to me. We say that "tov" in Hebrew is "good" in English, but that's not really true. "Good" and "true" have similar meanings, but they are not the same. That's not how languages work. A translation is a rough approximation of how one might communicate the sense of what was said in one language in another language. Precise synonyms don't really exist.

[jimmie]

Nuance: A slight degree of difference in meaning
Idiom: A speech form or expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or that cannot be understood from the individual meanings of it element.

An example of an English Idiom is “one who flew over the coco’s nest” for idiot. Now Idiom and Idiot have a common root that means private. However the idea of a private idiom can be preached form a roof top, whereas the thoughts of an idiot can’t be conveyed. Maybe I am handicapped by being unilingual, but to me a thought that can not be translated into another language is idiotic. Or, indeed the “idiom/thought” is elevated to being God which scriptures says we can’t understand.

I seldom try to imply or assume anything about some one else. I try to explain how their words are coming across to me. If something can’t be translated, it sounds private to me. The only thing I may have assumed about Mr. Nogalski is that he would be quite capable of speaking well over my intellect. I know myself much better than either you or Mr. Nogalski. I want you both to know were I’m coming from and be prepared to meet me on my ground and convince me were I am wrong. I am the one with the push here dummy degree. I can’t, at this time, be impressed with someone throwing around Hebrew words unless they are followed by English translations.

David said:
You have to understand, the more I learn about languages the more preposterous translation becomes to me.

I guess, I can’t understand what you say that I must. When I see that, it looks like Gnosticism.
II Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Now, since we are both missing each others nuances and idioms, I would like to change my approach somewhat, so that my concerns are better expounded. I think. In the simplest English terms that I can muster:

Is Hebrew the Comforter?

John14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Is Hebrew the source of Christ’s knowledge/power?

Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

Must I speak Hebrew in order for someone to know that I have been with Jesus?

Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Will they listen if I speak Hebrew?

Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
...
21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

[davidwiseman]

Dr. Nogalski's answer went something along the lines of saying that you can virtually always communicate the sense of a verse, but you will also almost always lose nuances, poetry, chiastic structure/emphasis, and artistry. (Chiastic structure is a dual grammatical and poetic device common in Hebrew. It can take a lot of forms, but it's basically repeating themes that go "a, b, c, c, b, a" or "a, b, c, b, a")

I think these are two different kinds of private. The "private" meaning of "idios" has more to do with "unique" than with our current use of the term "private." Unique can mean private for a whole group of people or even simply private for our planet as opposed to other planets. "Private" in modern English use tends to refer to an individual person, and I think that's more what Peter is getting at, whereas idiom is simply "unique" to a certain language.

I can appreciate that it sounds ridiculous to someone who is monolingual, but as you learn a second, third, fourth, etc. language you begin to realise that there are a lot of things that you can understand in one language, but can't completely translate into another.
I'm not talking about never being able to understand these ideas, I'm simply saying that one language is not equal to another. Languages develop out of shared experience and group consciousness. Think about language as an "inside joke." When you are first included into a new group of friends there may be a lot of these jokes that you don't get, and that they can't explain to you, because they come from shared experiences of "you had to be there" moments. As you become more and more familiar with the language of that friendship, though, you get more and more of the jokes. You may even become a part of new ones. And, at least among my friends, the old jokes are always evolving. Something gets added, something changed, something removed. Languages work the same way. I can't explain things to you any more than those friends can let you in on the inside joke. You just had to be there.
What peter is saying is not that there are no "you had to be there" moments in Scripture, but that there is nothing that you can take and say "This may mean something different for you, but for me it means xyz."

Now we've swapped horses. You're now saying "It's not necessary for me to learn Hebrew" and that's a horse of a different colour. I was simply arguing that it would be beneficial.

[jimmie]

Okay, let me try to repeat what you are trying to tell me in my terms to see if I got it.

I read some where on this site that the Hebrew term for God appears as an acrostic in the book of Ester. What you are saying is that an equivalent acrostic may not be able to be constructed in any English Bible even though the meaning of the text is accurately conveyed. This may not be a good example as we don’t know if the acrostic is intentional or not. Nor to we know if the Acrostic “SON” is intentional when we take the first letter of chapters 7,8, & 9 in the KJV. The three chapters, by the way, which just happen to show the salvation of the Jews. If I where to show that to my old Baptist preacher, he could preach on it for a month of Sundays.

Apr 26, 2010 18:22:49 GMT -8 davidwiseman said:

Now we've swapped horses. You're now saying "It's not necessary for me to learn Hebrew" and that's a horse of a different colour. I was simply arguing that it would be beneficial.

If I said that, I apologize. You may have to learn Hebrew for a degree. I have a hard time getting my concerns/ideas across to others.

[davidwiseman]

Yes, but you will miss things other than just poetic usage like acrostics. One reason chiastic structure is important is because it is often there for emphasis. The central point is being held up as the most vital point.

Actually, I spoke Hebrew before I got to college, and is it really okay to trivialize the holy tongue as if it's less important than our own opinions?

[jimmie]

Would you look in your Hebrew Bible at chapter four and see if there per-chance is a chiastic of the structure ABBAABBA that compares Cain(A) and Abel(B)? Knowing even less about poetry and literary styles than I do about Hebrew, I was researching chiastics and was directed to this one in the KJV. When you first brought it up, I thought you were talking about musical scales. Some of the time, I amaze myself as to how dumb I am. When I read Psalms and Proverbs next time, I imagine I will be able to spot a few on my own.

Apr 27, 2010 11:26:54 GMT -8 davidwiseman said:

is it really okay to trivialize the holy tongue as if it's less important than our own opinions?

What are you talking about?