"Every Man in His Own Tongue" or "The Use of the Vernacular in Seminary Classroom and Pastor's Study" T HE PURPOSE of the Christian ministry is to bring God to man and man to God. To realize this objective the Bible must be used as a means to an end. The pastor must be a man well acquainted with God's Book. As a Christian leader he must know his Bible better than any other book. The Christian minister must be an expert in the contents of the Bible and also in knowing how to help parishioners to learn and use God's Word to mankind. The implica- tions for the theological student and pastor are twofold: 1. The pas- tor shouId be able to use the Scriptures in the languages in which they were originally given; and 2. the pastor must be well versed in that version of the Bible in which he will deal with the people whom he is called to serve or wishes to reach with the message of lifc. I. Tlze lnzyortance of the Study of the Bible in the Original Archibald T. Robertson of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was one of the greatest Greek scholars and Iinguists that America has produced. It was the conviction of this former eminent Southern Baptist theologian that if at aU possible a Christian minister should know his New Testament in the Greek. Thus he wrote: The real New Testament is the Greek New Testament. The English is simply a translation of the New Testament, not the actual New Testament. . . . But there is much that cannot be translated. It is not possible to reproduce the delicate turn of thought, the nuances of language in translation. The freshness of the strawberry cannot be preserved in any extract.' The value of the knowledge of the Greek New Testament for the minister and competent student of the Bible has been ably dem- onstrated by Kenneth IVuest in many of his books. Let any student read Wuest's The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament and he will be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt of the value and importance of a working knowledge of the original New Testament.' To quote Wuest: "The student who uses his Greek Testament has access to rnorc clearly presented truth than the student of the Eng- lish Bible, and is therefore less liable to arrive at erroneous inter- pretati~ns."~ Again he asserted: "All of which means that the ex- positor who knows and uses his Greek will be more accurate in his interpretation, and will present riches, more detailed, and deeper truth than the one who has only access to a translation."" The studv of the Scripture in the original must always be cul- tivated if a &re thorough understanding of the full meaning of Scripture is to be known. Martin Luther in his Letter to the Coun- cilnzen of All Cities in Gerntnny has correctly declared: \Ye shall not long preserve the Gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which we carry this jewel; thev are the vessel in which we hold this wine; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and as the Gwpel itself says, thev are the baskets in which we bear these loaves and fishes and fragments.: Again the jvittenberg Reformer asserted: "In proportion, then, as we prize the Gospel, let us guard the language^."^ Sound Biblical interpretation rests upon acquaintance with the original. Since scientific procedure always necessitates going to the sources; the study of the Bible in the original languages is required of those who would be authoritative interpreters of God's Word. Professor Thomas, in his inaugural lecture as Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge Cniversity, asserted: "And there can be no right interpretation of the Old Testament which is not based upon the exact knowledge of the Hebrew lang~age."~ Another Old Testa- ment scholar has declared that the majesty, dignity, and impressive- ness of the original can be felt in their fulness only by tbe diligent student of the Hebrew text.$ The eminent professor emeritus of Senlitisc languages at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Albright, wrote about translations of the Bible: "No translation which has yet appeared gives an adequate idea of the increase in our knowledge of Hebrew grammar, vocabulary and poetic stvle."' It was the contention of the Lutheran scholar Schodde that 'the mastery of the Biblical lan- pages for a pastor was not a matter of choice but of mortal duty.1° In theological education it is essential that the original lan- guages be emphasized and students be required to take New Testa- ment Greek and under all circumstances ought to be encouraged to study Hebrew. Former President M. G. Evan's warning made many pears ago should be taken seriously: "Unless in every department of human learning study of the sources be encouraged, there will not be a few to effect a higher level in human attainments for the many."" One day when Tennyson asked Jowett, the renowned trans- lator of Plato and an Anglican clergyman, to give him a rendering of a passage in Job with which he has been having difficulty, Jo~vett repfied that he did not know Hebrew. Thereupon the poet laureate of England exclaimed in surprise: "What! You a priest of religion and not able to read Four o\tT11 sacred books."'Vt was a rebuke well deserved ! Charles ilugustus Briggs, one time professor of Biblical the- ology at L'nio~~ Scminar)~, Xe\v York City, reminded his students: "Hence it is that no translation is, at best the work of uninspired inen who though holy and faithful, and guided bv the Spirit of God, are yet unable to do marc than give us their o\& interpretation of the sacred oracles."'.; Joseph Beet, a nineteenth-century British exposi- tor, warned his readers that when reading the English Bible that they must never forget that they are using a translation.14 There was a time when all Protestant theological students at- tending standard theological seminaries, whether thev mere Baptists, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, or Vennonite, were expected to study both Greek and Hebrew and take interpreta- tion courses that used the Hebrew and Greek. Early in this cen- turv, however, the conviction has become strong that thc study of th; original languages is not necessary for the arcrage pastor - but should be pursued by those students wishing to become professors or professional theological writers. A reason for the discontinuance of emphasis upon the nlastery of Greek and Hebrew for an insight into the meaning of Scripture, rests upon the rejection of the unique- ness of the Biblical revelation and of its doctrine of verbal inspira- tion. Alread! many years ago Tregelles claimed : A disbelief of the plenary inspiration of Holy Scriptures, and a neglect of the studv of Hebrex, are two evils which, ver? extcnsi~~ely, and ver!- naturally, prevail together . . . But if wc view the Scriptures as literally the IVord of Goci, if we regard it as a book not merely superintended, but suggested bv the Holv Ghost, then surely it wili be our object to know exactly what it means, and the sacred language will be studied dili- oe~ltlv for that purpose. 'j a. It will alwavs therefore be necessary that a living connection with the ~ebrel< Aramaic languages used in the Old Testament and the Koine Greek in the New Testament be kept up by the min- istry of the Christian churches. 11. The Need for the Mastery of the Vernaczrlar Version \Vhile it is greatly desirable that theological students and pas- tors be able to read the Bible in the original languages, it is all im- portant that pastors be well acquainted with the Bible in the ~~er- nacular, that they be versatile in that language in which they will serve their people. It is vital that theological students and pastors know the contents of the Scriptures in the vernacular. There is a tendency when the prirnacv of biblical study is, on the basis of the original languages, urged to underestimate or denigrate a knowledge of the Bible in the vernacular. One of the great needs of present theological training is to give the student n thorough knowlcdge of the English Bible. The disuse of the Bible in the home as well as a widespread misuse of the Bible has been rcsponsiblc for Biblical illiteracy among candidates of the Cl-ristian mi~~istry.'"ccause of the failure of man!- theological seminaries to teach the Fnglish Bible the majority of their theological graduates do not possess a grasp of the Bible in the I-ernacular which they ought to haw. In some theo- logical institutions the English Bible as the basis of interpretation is never used because of the belief that such exegetical procedure \vould be inferior or second-rate. The result of this attitude is also reflected in the practice of clergymen who later on in their ministries never pursue serious Scripture study in the rerilacular. It is a inistakc to fail to appreciate the need for stuclv of the vernacular version of the Bible by clergy. It was the convictioil of A. T. Robertson that a pastor needed a thorough grip on the Eng- lish New Testament whether he controlled the Greek text or not. In fact, the knowledge of one acts favorably upon the other. Neither replaces the other. Both the original and the vernacular arc im- portant for the pastor. On the dav of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit saw to it that the apostles were abie to speak in many different languages so that the assembled Jews and proselytes from all parts of the Roman Empire could hear the great works of God proclaimed in their native tongue. On the first Pentecost as Luke reported in ilcts those in Jerusalem said: "Then how- is it that each one of us hears them speak his own mother tongue? Parthians, Jledes, Elamites, d\~-ellers in 3lesopo- tamia, in Judea, in Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia, PamphyIia, Eg!-pt, and in the district of Libya around Cyrene, visi- tors from Rome, Jews and proselvtcs, Cretans and Arabians, we all hear them telling in our own tongue what great things God has done (2:8-1 l)."" The spread and growth of the Christian Church has been pro- inoted and aided by translations. The Septuagint, the first transla- tion of the ~ebrer; Old Testament into Greek, served the diapora Jews from 250 B.C. onward and became also the Bible of the apos- tolic church and later of the Greek Orthodox Church. Christianity was spread bj- the various translations into Syriac, which mere used both by hlonophysites and Xestorian Christians. At one time Xes- torianism stretched a11 across Asia, reaching even China as the fa- mous Nestorian hlonument has shown. The Peshitta became a mighty instrument for the dissemination of Christianity throughout llesopotamia, Persia, India, and Chinese Turkestan. The Old Latin and the Vulgatc were the agency through which Christianity was brought to Xorth Africa, Spain, Erance, and Italy. In Egypt the various Coptic dialects, such as the Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayumic, and Akhminic were responsible for the conversion of Egypt to Christianity Csc of \'er~zncul~rr 197 -. p~ -- - -- -- ~ prior to the coming of Islriln in the ser-enth century i3.D. In Eng- land the ringlo-Saxon translation heads the man!- renderings into English that appeared an the British Isles. During the days of the Protestant lieformation ven~acular translations beginning with Lu- ther's Septolnber Tcstaillent played a trenlendous role in yroniotillg the teachines of the Reformers. hlillions have been converted bi. the IYord of God in translated form. It 111ay be truly said that sin: ners on the whole haw been sa\.ed b! believing translatioi~s and saints have grown in grace bl- feeding on the same translations. Tn 1886 and 1 SS7 Dr. IVilliam Harper of the University of Chicago on the basis of carefully prepared questionnaires which i't-ere sent to theological seminaries and to pastors in active senice dis- covered that the ~najority of Biblical stutlents \\ere not in a positioil to keep up with the intricacies of Biblical criticisill presentecl on the basis of the Hebrew bccause of their inadequate possession of per- spective il~ the Bible. As a result of these findings Dr. Harper changed his approach b\- turning to a studr of the Engish h!. the broader study of whole books of the ~iblc in English instead of seloctcd passages of the Hebrew. FIe issued the so-called Inclzlctil-e Bible Stzidics which had as their objective to furnish a large grasp of thc histor)- and teachings of the Old ancl Sew Testaments." The Scriptures, it should be realized, are rilorc than a dcposi- torv of evidence. They are also a vehicle of conln~rmication, a illcans b!*drrhicl~ the pastor, the teacher, the parish worker, the la! worker directly communicate with his fellowmen. This use has been c~llled ,"the instrumental function of the Holy Scriptures." Since thc ICY- ' nacillar is the rrersion of the Bible nhich the pastor uses in his teach- ing of the ~arious age groups of the church, in the ministry of the sick, in counselling sessions, it follows that he ought to possess a kno~vledge of the Bible in that language ~vhich he is utili~ing in nlinistrl with his people. It is a psvchological law that the nlind normaliv acquires knowledge in terms of thought patterns pror iclcd b~ the &her tonguc. In this connection the question logically arises: Is it possible to do exact scholarly work on the basis of a translation. As has al- ready been stated, no translation, ho~-ever painstaking ancl scholarl!. it ma1 be, can do 1nore than give with approximate accuracy the thouiht and argunlcnt of an author. The remark of Dr. Goodspeed made by him in the preface to The Bible: Au Anzericnn Trarzstiltio~z is in the opinion of thc writer, an overstatement. "Is has trrll5- been said that any translation of a masterpiece must be a f;liliire."'g It is true that the idiom of one language cannot aclecluately i111cl ~0111- pletely be transferred to another. And yet this does not mean that creative and worth\\-hile work cannot be done on 111~ basis of 3 translation. Dr. Agar Beet, a firill believer in the importallce of the stuclv ancl use of the originaI languages in Biblical interpretation, holds that "the careful studcnt may. hou-ever, s v shnl1 see. do much to lessen the c!anger involved in using a translation of the Bible, and indeed to no small extent reap the advantage to be de- rived from the study of the original."'O Again Beet wrote: "There is no limit to the cxteilt to which a careful student of the English Bible mav lessen the distance betwcen the sacred writers and hiii~self."~~ It was Emerson, the American man of letters, who contended: "\Vl~at is bcst in anv book is translatable." John Jay Chapman, in his essay on ~enrtri;~~ has this to say about Shakespeare and his sou rccs : It is amazing how little of a foreign language you need if vou have a passion for the things written in it. We think of hike- speare as of a lighty lettered person; but he was ransacking books all the dav to find plots and languagc for his plays. He reeks with mythology, he swims in classical metaphor; and if he knew the Latin poets, only in translation he knew them with the famished intensit\- of interest which call draw meaning through the walls of a bad tcxt. Deprive Shakespeare of his sources, and he could not be a ~hakes~eare." Professor Louis Sweet maintained that "exact knowledge of an ex- act translation would constitute in a very high degree exact knowl- edge of tile original."'" In what way does a translation of a literary masterpiece differ fro111 the original from which it was made? There are three classes of facts that the student of a translation does not have, namely, meanings not known; meanings translatable neither directlv nor b\ paraphrase; and nleanings only to be expressed bjr con- cerning the Bible the reader of it will discover that the first group are nnknon-11 even to the greatest of scholars; the second are only knon-n to the greatest of scholars; the third ma\. be expressed in translation and are available for the students in dictionaries and com- mentaries and othcr Biblical helps. Of the three classes of facts, the first two are very small, while the third is the largest by far. There arc few Biblical words in existence today for which Biblical scholar- ship has not found accurate meanings. We cannot agree with the assertion of the former President of Crozer Theological Seminar\? 11-110 wrote: "The fundamental error is supposing that in studying the English Bible we are studying the Bible."2" It is a faulty evalua- tion of the facts, when the claim is made that the difference between the original and the faithful translations are so great that the mean- ing and thought of the translations make impossible the apprehen- sion of the ideas that the originals were endeavoring to convey. I17hile a translation cannot transfer that "elemental hvang of any original version it does carry over enough of the content of the original in actual structural relationships and in recognizable inean- ing of terms to establish the thoughtful reader to realize it as litera- ture."" ?fherc is cnough in the version to indicate thc inainstrcanl of Biblical thought. Students of the English Bible have had translations at their dis~osal since the sixteenth century that i~lcorporated the ripest re- sults of Biblical scholarship. Of the Authorized Version T.j7estcott wro tc : Froin the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodiecl the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labors, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never ha1.e been secured bv any edict of sorereign rulers.26 The same may also be said about the British Revised Version ( 1 8 8 1 - 1 8 5 5 ) and the American Standard of 190 1, which embody the best scholarship of their time. Since 1946 we haw in America The Revis~~cZ Stnlldnrrl Version and since 1961 Tlzc New Eriglish Bible. The pastor has ,it his disposal translations made h\- scholars who are critically oriented in their theologt ancl translations b\ scholars w-ho are conservative in their approach to the Bible. ~heo- logical approaches do effect translations and the pastor who would be faithful to the revealed T.i70rd of Gal as reflected in the original tests must be able to cvaluate them and it is advisable to use a version that does not inisrepresent the thought. Ultimatelv, a pastor wiI1 need to choose one \ ersion and use it in his pastoral 'and educational work. In tien- of the scientific accuracy as nell as literarv finish of some English versions of the Bible, the proposition that the student cannot reach the Scripture in its literary beauty, and cultural ponrer, as n-ell as in its spiritual essence and form, is nothing short of ab- surdit! . The theological student and pastor need to adopt a method of BibIical study which will enable them to master the Bible. The best method is that known as the book method. The Bible has sixty-six different books. The books of Holy Scriptures are separate volumes or treatises, each having a distinctive character of its own and an ascertainable principle of internal unity. Studv of the Bible by books is the most direct and attractive pathway to its inner and secret charm. In speaking about the advantage of the book method of study one of its staunchest advocates wrote : The biblical bmk, therefore, presents itself for study not mere- ly as a convenient and manageable literary unit; but, since it incorporates into itself and raises to a higher unit). a variety of elements, each one of which gains new significance by thc re- lationship, it possesses the charm and interest of the finished, artistic composition. Of this fact, and the consequent stimulus to the mind involved in it, unhappily few people are aware. Study of the Bible by books is thc inost direct and attractive pathway to its inner and secret charn~.~' Thc first step in the book niethod is to read one book at a sit- ting, a task that ma) be done with 37 books of the Biblc between five minutes to one hour, depending on the length of the book. It is possiblc to make a detailed study of a book, ivord by word, and still never comprehend it as a whole or feel the impact of its mes- sage. Thc basis for the exact and fruitful study of an); Biblical book nlust always bc a grasp of its course of thought as outlined in the book itself. This procedure defines and reinforces the impression produced by reading, and affords a safe starting point for investiga- tion. \I7ilbur Smith believes that the book method is tm compli- cated to be used by thc average lay Christian but admitted: "It is granted that this is a wonderful way for st~idying the Word of God. Its results arc exceedingly rich; but I think, personally, that it ,is too much to ask of young Christians, to read through one book at one sitting, to discover for themselves the great fundanlental teachings of the book, its construction, development, ancl parainount pur- pose.'''' Hon-ever, the pastor as a professional student of Scripture should have no difficulty with the steps that are inyolved in using the book methud. Proponents of the book method have ~nadc the follo~ving sug- gestions for the studv of a Biblical book: 1. Read an entire bmk thoughtfully ancl continuously with the sole objective that when through reading the reader will note the effect upon himself and list noteworthy results for himself. 2. Read thc book, and re-read it until there results to the reader the discovery of (1) the organizing idea of the book; (2) the central or dominant thought of the book; (3) thc aim of the book; (4) the theme or subject of the book. 3. Read the book for leading and subordinate characters; read the book for its geographical setting. 3. Read a book for its literary features as to style, perculiar characteristics, vocabulary, in order to classify it as to its place anlong literary productions. 5. Read the book in order to outline it. If possible, set forth its contents in one sentence. The reader should endeavor to dis- cover into how many logical parts the book may be divided. A good practice is to condense the book in fifty words. 6. Read the book from the standpoint of the author; try to determine what can be known about the author's life, the time, place where written and the circumstances under which it was composed. ,Ifter that the book should be read from the standpoint of those who were the first recipients. Endeavor to assess the effect the book had Usr of Verr~acztlnr 201 on its first readers. Endeavor to establish the political, social and religio~ls environment of the original writing. 7. Read thc book in the light of the Bible's total message; try to ascertain its relation to other Biblical books. Has tle book been quoted in other Scriptural books? What other Biblical Scriptures docs it quote or use? 8. Read the book from the viewpoint of its usefulness to the Christiai~ in arriving at formulations about God, Jesus Christ and of God's plan of redemption for man. 9. Read the book from the standpoint of its utility for giving answers to personal, social and world problems. What spiritual values does the book have? 10. Keacl the book in order to determine in what respects it is different from any other Biblical book. M7hy should the book be recommended for study to others? 11. The study of Biblical characters, chapters, verscs, topics can be effectively combined with the book method of Bible study. The book method correctly and conscientiouslp pursued will yield by far the best results. There is no better method for Bible study. It is the method that will kindle the best kind of interest in the Word of God itself. By the use of this method the Christian pastor will be able to carry out the divine injunction: "Study to shew thyself ap- proved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed rightly handling the IVord of Truth" (11 Tim. 2 : 15). FOOTNOTES i ew 1. A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (U York: George H. Doran Co., 1923), p. 17. 2. K. S. Wuest, The Practical Use of the Greek NOU Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1946), p. 156 pp. 3. Ibid., p. 69. 4. Ihid., p. 36. 5. The Works of Jlarti~l Luther (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman and Castle Press, 193 l), IV. p. 114. 6. lbid., p. 114. 7. David Winton Thomas, The Recovery of the Ancient Hebrew Langltage (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1939), p. 6. 8. As stated from the Inaugural Address of Dr. H. S. Gehman, Professor of Old Testament Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, Septem- ber 19, 1934. 9. F. W. Albright, "Return to Biblical Theology," Thc Christian Centlrry, November, 19, 1958. Pages 1328-1331. 10. George H. Schodde, Outlines of Biblical Hermene~rtics (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 191 i), p. 154. 1 I. In Bulletin of Cr~zer Theological Seminary, October, 191 1, p. 163. 12. As told in A. S. Hoyt, The Spiritual filessage of Mocler?~ English Poets (New York, 1920), p. 73. 13. C. A. Briggs, Biblical Study, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887), pp. 43-44. 14. J, A. Best, A Key to Unlock the Bible (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1907), pp. 12-13. 15. S. F. Tregelles, The Hebrew Student's filoazial as quoted by Paul I. Morentz. The Old Testament. An Appreciation (Philadelphia: Pub- lished Privately, 1936), p. 22. 16. Howard T. Kuist, The Use of the Bible in the Forming of Men (Prince- ton: 1944), p. 13. 17. Helen Barrett Montgomery, The New Testament in Modern English (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1924), p. 3 14. 18. William F. Harper, The Old Testament Student, Vol. 11. No. 8, April 1886. Editorial pp. 325. A Symposium on Bible Study in the Theo- logical Seminaries, pp. 325-334. Also Ibid. VOI. VI, No. 5, Jan. 1887. 19. In preface to the translation of the New Testament in The Bible: An American Translation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1931). 20. Beet, p. iv, qp. cit., p. 13. 21. Ibid. 22. John Jay Chapman, Learning and Other Essays (New York, 1910), PP. 697. 23. L. M. Sweet, The Study of the English Bible (New York: Association Press, 19 14), p. 48. 24. In the Bulletin of Crozer Theological Seminary, Oct. 191 1. Vol. 111, No. 4. pp. 161-162. 25. Kuist, op. cit., p. 11. 26. B. F. Westcott, A General View of the History of the English Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 121. 27. Sweet. up. cit., p. 97. 28. Wilbur M. Smith, Profitable Bible Study (Boston: W. A. Wade Com- pany, 1939), p. 27.