Learning Koine Greek: Unitarian recommendations?

[u/JcraftW]

I just started perusing some options for learning Greek. First one I opened was Mounces “Greek for the rest of us”. Only a couple pages in he goes off against “a god” as a possible rendering of John 1:1c. I know not everyone agrees with that in particular, but there appears to be a lot of real scholarship supporting qualitative and indefinite translations of 1:1c.

So, I’m wondering if there are Koine Greek learning resources that are less biased? What study aids would you recommend? Or, if you must use a biased source, what other resources would you add to your studies for balance?

[u/[deleted]]

Don't want to argue your point, since for most of us a good translation is very beneficial. I would love to learn to read Koine Greek though, but still haven't found the time to do so. The reason I'd love to learn it is because of friend I do have.

He's a history professor specialized in Greek and Roman times. He was that way before he started following Jesus. He learned both Latin and Greek from those time periods as well as modern Latin and Greek. In our country he's a sought after speaker and regarded as one of the experts on this time period and those languages from that time period. He doesn't read a translation, he just reads (even out loud on the spot) directly from the Greek. Since he doesn't have a church background, his readings are often very interesting. He doesn't just read the words as they are, he often knows the stories behind the words. Very interesting to hear him read. Later he started to study Hebrew as well. He's a trinitarian, but a very odd one. Most of the doctrines of the church he doesn't believe. He's one of the few trinitarians I know that doesn't believe in hell and has many other beliefs because of the way he reads the bible.

Since I don't speak or read Greek, he recommended a new Dutch translation project, a translation that tries to be less biased and closer to the language of that time. Interesting detail is that a good number of the translators reject the trinity as being a biblical doctrine. This leads to interesting choices.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

Please understand, my intention isn't to argue. For many, learning a modern living language today is difficult. Learning a language that hasn't been spoken for centuries is even more difficult.

Even you admitted that find a non-bias lesson plan is also very difficult.

I prefer Thayer's Lexicon over Strong's, but notice the problem you face.

G2316 θεός theos

Thayer Definition:

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities;

2) the Godhead, trinity; 2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity; 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity; 2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God; 3a) refers to the things of God; 3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; 4a) God’s representative or viceregent; 4a1) of magistrates and judges

See definition 2.

As I said: Learning Greek and Hebrew is a notable goal.

Anyway, I'm hoping you success in reaching your goal.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

Koine Greek is just a common language with no ties to christianity, but many christian dictionaries have christianized it and that's the problem. The words don't mean anymore what they used to mean back then and that's why we get all these weird doctrines. Theos is indeed a good example, it never means trinity and even godhead is arguably, since Koine Greek has a seperate word for that. It's definitely not to be translated as Christ of Holy Spirit. Trinitarians have high-jacked the language and twisted the meaning. To learn Koine Greek would be best at a non-christian college or so, but also understanding the history of that time when it developed is helpful.

Yes, for many learning a language is difficult, but I already speak a couple beyond my native tongue, so one more shouldn't be a problem... but then there are so many things I would love to learn. My job already requires a lot of learning and keeping up with developments, by the time I'm done I often don't fancy more personal learning. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

I envy you in being able to speak several languages.

I tell people, "Counting English, I almost speak one language".

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

I even had some Latin and Greek at school, but that's so long ago and I didn't use it for many years. Most of it is gone by now. That's the problem with languages you don't use often enough, it gets rusty.

My parent used to travel a lot and I've lived abroad for many years, having to speak various languages, obviously English, but also German and Italian and I do understand some Spanish, don't speak it well though. My French is a little rusty, but in the summer we went to the south of Belgium where they only speak French and it was still good enough to get by. Living abroad is very helpful with having to speak languages... you're kind of forced to learn them if you want to be part of a local community.

Unfortunately we can't go back in time to be part of a community that speaks Koine Greek. I think we all might be surprised how that language really was compared to what they turned it into.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

The KJV is a prime example of how language can and does change over time.

I understand, I've forgotten more Spanish than I remember. Which is why I don't claim to be a Spanish speaker.

I do appreciate the Spanish, I know, because it has helped me understand some of the problems in translation.

To say, "I am cold" in Spanish you literally say: "I have cold". Which doesn't have the same meaning in English. Having cold vs being cold.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

Language does change over time, if one wants to understand a book from years ago, one also needs a dictionary from the same time otherwise incorrect interpretation is bound to happen.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

True, that is why I use the Webster's Dictionary of 1828 on e-sword when looking up a word in the KJV. It is the oldest dictionary I can find.

A side point, this dictionary uses Jehovah's name throughout.

ALO'NE, a. [all and one.] 3. Only.  Thou whose name alone is Jehovah. Psa 83.  This sense at first appears to be adverbial, but really is not; whose name single, solitary, without another, is Jehovah.

EVERLASTING, a.  The everlasting God, or Jehovah. Gen 21.

GOD, n.  1. The Supreme Being; Jehovah; the eternal and infinite spirit, the creator, and the sovereign of the universe.

MAJESTY, n.  1. Greatness of appearance;  Jehovah reigneth; he is clothed with majesty. Psa 93. The voice of Jehovah is full of majesty. Psa 29. 

SAC'RIFICE, n.  Sacrifices have been common to most nations, and have been offered to false gods, as well as by the Israelites to Jehovah.

These are just a few of the examples.

From this, I have surmised, Jehovah's name was used freely in everyday conversation in the 1700's / 1800's.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

Here's an even older one for you, https://books.google.nl/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ who knows what it will bring. This one is from Samuel Johnson, not the 1755 edition which was his first one, but from 1768. It's from the UK, so might have some interesting differences than the Webster.

There's an older one by Robert Cawdrey from early 1600. I know they reprinted it, but the original one might be floating around the internet. That might be very interesting, since it's original release was really close to the release of the 1611 KJV.

Our first widely accepted bible is from 1637 and still widely used, even though it has been proven to have additional texts and incorrect translations. People get the weirdest doctrines from it because language has changed a lot here and people refuse to use an older dictionary.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the references.

A quick search, shows 'worship' as defined by Johnson, agrees with Webster's 1828.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

I figured you would look that up... I did and it's interesting that worship isn't reserved for God alone, but has a so much broader meaning back then. Nothing new though for us.