Something About the Language of the Bible

A reader asks about languages underneath or behind the biblical text, wanting to know if it is “set in stone” and thus “not open to interpretation.” Let's see if we can't give this a go . . .

Well, what would you think if I mentioned the “Declaration of Independence” in a letter?! What if I then tried to convince you that my letter, which mentions the – THE! – “Declaration of Independence” was written earlier than 1776?! Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow and question my claim?! Of course, you would! You'd know that something strange is afoot, since THE “Declaration of Independence” did not predate 1776 and was written in that very year from certain colonialists to King George of Britain.

How does that affect our question?

Well, it's not that Greek is “dead” – they do still speak “Greek” in Greece! But, THAT particular era of Greek language is now obsolete. There are different “eras” of languages. Why, even in our own English tongue, we've heard of different dialects, and there is “Old English,” where “f” looks like “s” and vice-versa. It's not that English, as a language, is now dead, but rather, it is that the language has EVOLVED. (I think the correct literary term is “etymologized.” Used to be the case that “ass” referred to a donkey, but now . . . well, you know where that sentence is headed.) Ah, you get the idea . . . Times and things change . . .

But, what doesn't change are the ancient things . . . Here's what I mean . . .

No matter how hard we may wish it to be the case or wish for it not to be the case, the “f” in the Old English looks like “s” and the “s” in the Old English looks like “f.” The evidence just simply forces us to accept this, and good luck hiding it from the masses – everybody knows about it now! The museums are loaded with evidences of it. Now, we may wish that such a phenomenon never existed . . . We may try to explain it away . . . But the fact remains, it happened . . . and it's not changing. It will now always have been the case that the “s” in Old English used to look like “f” and vice-versa.

So why is this important for us as Bible readers?

It is important because the Bible's linguistics don't change, and as Bible readers, we need to be committed to an unchanging, stable “word” that has come down to us from Almighty God. If the language were fluid, changing in its meaning every-other-day, we'd have a hard time putting any confidence in it. Why, if the “word of God” came to us via text message or video call, we'd have loads of questions about the authenticity of it . . . We'd question, “Has it been tampered with? Hacked? Is it fake?!” But these sorts of problems don't confront the historian that is interested in reading the Bible. (After all, it's tough to change handwritten manuscripts or carved clay tablets or other pieces of physical/archaeological – not electronic! – data.) The Bible's language is clear enough. It says what is says, and there isn't some major debate to be had about it.

Back to our initial illustration . . . If we read of a reference to THE “Declaration of Independence,” we KNOW that the reference had to originate AFTER 1776, when THE Declaration was penned. So it is with our Bibles. Whatever words are in them, we need to look BEFORE the day that the Bible was written/collected (around A.D. 100, let's say) to see how the words were used then. We can pair up the Greek words of the New Testament with other (earlier!) works in Greek to see how the words meant . . . but what we CANNOT do is start reading modern understandings of words back onto the Greek New Testament. LATER DEFINITIONS FOR WORDS ARE USELESS AND OUT OF PLACE HERE. So, once the Greek New Testament was written, the lexical/dictionary meanings of the words are “set in stone.” We HAVE to find EARLIER definitions to see how the words were being used when the Greek New Testament was written.

In a few centuries, English may have evolved so much that “milk” no longer means what it means. (It's difficult to imagine, isn't it?!) But, that's not out of reach for us . . . It's happened before and continues to . . . They weren't speaking English in Jesus and Paul's day, now, were they?! But, let's imagine that “milk” as a word, in 1,000 years, no longer refers to a liquid from a cow that is to be drunk . . . Reading the word “milk” in 3023 will need to be understood differently from how the word “milk” is understood in 2023, wouldn't you say?! Now, whatever happens, here's what we can't do . . . We can't, as a human people, come to understand the word “milk” in 3023 as a slang term for “whats up?!” and then read THAT much more modern definition back onto 2023 . . . That'd be a mistake! The word wasn't being used that way before!

So it is with the Bible . . . Whatever the words in the Greek New Testament mean (around A.D. 100), they'll need to be defined by sources BEFORE the Greek New Testament. It's not that Greek (as a whole language is now dead), but rather, it is the case that the Greek New Testament – unlike several literary works! – is NOT changing. It is “set in stone.” We're not on the 54th revision of “the Bible.” There is ONE Bible; the manuscripts reflect IT. So, the words are “set in stone” and not changing in meaning. Sure, we're still translating from Greek to English or Spanish or Russian or whatever, but the meaning of the original words (in the Greek) stays the same.

Here's what I'm saying . . . God's word is stable. That point is claimed by the text, itself, in a number of places (cf. Isa. 55:11; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). I'm also saying that attempts to “change” the word of God are useless – there are ancient manuscripts all over the world that show how the Bible read; the vast amount of texts/manuscripts show that the Bible read one, single, way and isn't subject to fudgery or tampering. (Today, you might be able to change millions of electronic readings by changing the word document that is the original source, but that's more difficult to do with 6,000+ Greek manuscripts that are written by hand, don't you think?! Trying to edit the Bible is useless today, too, since a “tampering” would be exposed by all of the thousands of other legitimate copies . . . Like with our money, we compare that which is authentic to the counterfeit . . . and which do you think is exposed by the comparison?!) I'm also saying that an attempt to change or “fudge” the word of God is wrong, even if it were attempted (cf. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5,6).

We have all that we need to be confident in a stable word from God . . . Sure, the content and meaning of the words together still needs interpretation, but the meanings of the words, themselves, aren't a problem and shouldn't be a source of doubt.

Maybe, the Greek language, since it was so vast and thorough was one of those factors that God saw as ideal, making it the right and ripe time for Jesus to come, born of a woman made under the law (cf. Gal. 4:4). Maybe, the word of God is clear enough and what we need to do, then, is not question it and have all of the correct lexical definitions in our minds . . . Maybe, it's clear enough and it is our major task simply to submit to it?

Yes, I'm sure that's it . . .