Home » Posts tagged 'language' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: language
The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist Succession Quote: Is it Legitimate?
The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll, which we commended in a recent Friday’s post, contains the following quote by Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent, Stanislaus Hosius:
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112-113).
This Hosius quote is widely reproduced in other Baptist literature contemporary with Carroll. However, many non-Baptists have attacked it as illegitimate. For example, Catholics like to claim that Hosius never said anything like this. Other sources also claim Hosius never said it. Even some sincere Baptists–who, unfortunately, clearly did not know Latin–have said he never said it.
One of the problems with the quotation is that standards for citation in past centuries were not the same as they are now. “Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113” is very hard to trace. Furthermore, when Carroll wrote the Trail of Blood, citations did not necessarily have to include “…,” bracketed letters when capitalization was changed, and so on; it was acceptable and widely practiced to slightly paraphrase quotations. What Carroll and many Baptists in his day wrote was a proper citation back then, but it should be more properly cited now–that is, if it is legitimate. Is it?The answer is Yes! The Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent Stanislaus Hosius definitely did make a statement to this effect. Baptists should have no qualms whatever with citing this leading Roman Catholic as evidence of their ancient heritage, far, far before Protestantism. Those who deny that he ever said it do not seem to have taken the time to investigate the matter properly or were ignorant of Latin. (Perhaps a good reason to learn Latin, no?) What they should do, though, is cite the quote in a manner that suits the 21st century. Here is an accurate citation of Cardinal Hosius–this is the quote to use:
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. . . . If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued, and cut off with the knife of persecution.
This translation comes from Richard Shacklock’s translation of Hosius’ Latin in a work entitled The Hatchet of Heresies: A Most Excellent Treaties of the begynnyng of heresyes in oure tyme, compiled by the Reuerend Father in God Stanislaus Hosius, etc. (Antwerp: Aeg. Diest, 1565; Ann Arbor: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2011), 44-49.You can find the original Latin Shacklock is translating in Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, In Concilio Tridentino Legati Opera Omnia Hactenus Edita, In Unum Corpus Collecta (Venice: Apud Franciscum Francisci, 1632), 203, sec. De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis. Here is a screenshot of the Latin text
If you know Latin, you can see the quotation near the top of the page.So the quotation about Baptist succession by Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is absolutely accurate, and he certainly did say it. Those who deny that he said it failed to research the matter properly.If you would like to read the quote in greater context, or see links to the places where you can get Shacklock’s translation of Hosius or Hosius’s original Latin, please read my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context” by clicking here. I supply lots and lots of context. So you can use the Cardinal Hosius quote–shout it from the housetops. Just cite it correctly so people do not have a reason to doubt its accuracy.Scripture teaches Baptist church polity and Scripture teaches an actual succession of churches from the first Baptist church, organized by Christ from those baptized by the first Baptist–John the Baptist–the greatest man who had lived other than Christ up to that time (Matthew 11:11). External historical data, such as the testimony of Cardinal Hosius to Baptist succession, support the infallible truth of Scripture, which proves that Baptist churches are the churches of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior during His earthly ministry and preserved from that time until the present day. All other religious organizations that claim the name of Christian, unfortunately, are more akin in God’s eyes to the Roman Catholic whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) than to the pure bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5). If you are reading this and have not been born again, you should immediately repent and believe the gospel, being justified by faith alone apart from works. Then immediately attend, be baptized into and serve the Triune God in a faithful independent, unaffiliated Baptist church–the kind Christ started in the first century, the kind for which He loved and died and His bride (Ephesians 5:25). If, by His grace, you love Christ, you must and will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
Machen, Liberalism, and the Language of Liberalism Now So Common
J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) is not a name, I would think, most readers would know, even though Wikipedia gives him a long biography. It’s worth reading. He’s an outlier in that he went to Germany for post graduate education and rejected liberalism for conservative theology. He was a professor for 23 years (1906-1929) of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, then led a revolt against liberal theology there, and left to start Westminster Theological Seminary. He was a Presbyterian and usually called a fundamentalist Presbyterian.
As you would know, I am Baptist, and reject Presbyterianism and Protestantism in general. I respect though what they mean for history. I am happy about a conservative Presbyterian. I like him obviously better than a liberal Baptist and even a moderate Baptist. Sometimes I like a conservative Presbyterian more than a conservative Baptist, who is pragmatic, revivalistic, and a soft continuationist. Enough of those comparisons. I’m in part writing this because of a quote I read from Machen. Here it is:
In order to maintain themselves in the evangelical churches and quiet the fears of their conservative associates, the liberals resort constantly to a double use of language.
It comes from his classic book, Christianity and Liberalism. Carl Truman, Presbyterian historian, wrote this summary of the book:
The thesis of the book is devastatingly simple: Christianity, built on the authoritative, divinely-inspired, inerrant revelation of God in Scripture, embodying a robust supernaturalism, and focused on the exclusivity of salvation in the person and work of Christ, is a different religion to that liberalism that repudiates each of these things.
Machen uses as an example, a liberal saying, “I believe Jesus is God,” but the words meaning something entirely different. He uses the words to comfort the heart of a young one who has questions. Machen says he “offends against the fundamental principle of truthfulness in language.”
I see more offense than ever against this fundamental principle of truthfulness in language. People want to play both sides. They want acceptance from liberals and still maintain an audience with the conservative, bridge that gap.
Talking to a woman in evangelism, I said that Jesus wasn’t a rorschach ink blot, that we can look into and see whatever Jesus we want to see. She said she believed in Jesus, but she also believed that He really was like that ink blot. He was intended to be whatever people needed Him to be. This was what she meant by ‘she believed in Jesus.’
Perhaps with regard to truth, men still believe a large percentage of orthodox doctrine at least on paper, but they cave on beauty and goodness. They say they follow Jesus, but they don’t like what He likes. They do something different than what He did. They love the world.
Ambiguous words become vessels for whatever meaning someone wants to give them. They give liberty to those who hold them. They can live what they want, expecting in the end to play a word game. “That is what I really meant, what you said.” No, you didn’t.
When I took ethics, we imagined casuistry, which was called Jesuit casuistry. Casuistry comes from the Latin casus, which means “case.” It started out being a means of evading a difficult case of duty. “Were you there?” I was. It is the Clintonian, it was all a matter of what “there” means. I was “there,” just not where you’re talking about.
False religion is full of imprecision and fuzziness. The hermeneutic is speculative and mystical. With this use of language, man easily worships and serves the creature rather than Creator. The creature still calls it Creator though. Machen called it “the double use of language.”
Objections to Christians Learning Greek and Hebrew (6/7)
The first five blog posts summarizing the argument in Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages explained the value of learning the Biblical languages and explained that the languages are not too difficult to learn–indeed, Biblical Greek and Hebrew are easier languages to learn than modern English. Clearly, knowing the languages is valuable and attainable. But people have objections.
1.) “Greek letters look different from English ones! Hebrew letters, even more so! Greek and Hebrew must be hard languages!”
While some people who begin to learn Greek and Hebrew do not finish what they started, there is just about nobody that cannot learn the Greek and Hebrew alphabet. If toddlers can learn the alphabet in Israel and in Greece, adults can learn the same alphabet in English-speaking countries.
2.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is dangerous: such knowledge makes the person who knows the languages proud.”
There is no reason why learning God’s Word in Greek or Hebrew would contribute to pride rather than to humility, any more than learning God’s Word in English would contribute to pride rather than to humility.
3.) “Learning Greek and Hebrew is too hard.”
This objection was already examined in the part four of this seven part series. However, even if learning the languages was very hard, it would not be as hard as being crucified. But all Christians are called to daily cross-bearing, so they are all already called to something that is much harder than learning Greek or Hebrew.
4.) “Greek and Hebrew can be abused.”
Yes, the Bible in Greek or in Hebrew can be abused, as can the Bible in English. Should we refrain from learning the English language because innumerable cults and false religions abuse the English Bible? Because many preachers who warn about the dangers of Greek and Hebrew do not even know how to properly exposit the English text, should we avoid English?
5.) “I do not have time to learn Greek and Hebrew—I am too busy preparing for ministry or too busy, already serving in the ministry.”
Over the course of a lifetime of ministry, learning Greek and Hebrew actually saves tremendous amounts of time. Exegetical conclusions that are easily and quickly determined by an examination of the original language text are hard and time consuming to someone who does not know the Biblical languages.
The objections above to learning the Biblical languages are insufficient. They do not even come close to refuting the positive case for learning Greek and Hebrew summarized in the first five sections of this blog series or in the more comprehensive work Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew, the Biblical Languages, pages 52-57 of which are summarized here.
–TDR
Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Christian Grammar
In conjunction with the Christian and classical Latin college course discussed here, I am working my way through Dr. Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020). (Learn how you can make charitable donations at Amazon.com when you buy books there by clicking here, and learn here how to save money on Internet purchases in general.)
Dr. Cooper and Zondervan were kind enough to supply me with a complementary review copy of his grammar, as well as of his Dr. Cooper’s video lectures on his grammar:
although, with CDs going the way of the dinosaurs, I had to find a way to get the material off the CDs and believe that I will find the videos of his lectures on Logos Bible Software much more user-friendly. (You can also purchase his book on Logos–I got it there as well as utilizing the physical copy he supplied to me.) There was no compulsion or pressure at all to write a positive review in exchange for a copy of his book.
Positives about Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
First, Derek Cooper knows Latin well. He is associate dean of the faculty and associate professor of global Christianity at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is also managing director of Thomas Institute. A long-term foreign language instructor, he has taught Latin, Spanish, and Biblical Greek. Dr. Cooper is the author of many books, and has offered professional Latin translations for the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, the Martin Luther Handwriting Font Book, and is the translator of Philip Melanchthon’s Commentary on Proverbs. I was looking forward to meeting Dr. Cooper as part of a faculty tour of Greece with Tuktu Tours, but that tour, unfortunately, got cancelled because of COVID. (By the way, Tuktu Tours does a great job getting extremely knowledgable scholars to lead their tours. We have done faculty tours of Egypt and Turkey with them, and they were excellent. If you want to visit Bible lands, you would do well to go with Tuktu. Lord wiling, I will get posted on the KJB1611 YouTube channel relatively soon videos from Dr. James Hoffmeier, our tour guide in Egypt and a leading evangelical Egyptologist, discussing a variety of fascinating things relating to the intersection of Israelite and Egyptian history that he kindly allowed us to record during our tour of Egypt with him.) So Cooper’s grammar is written by someone who knows what he is talking about.
Second, the grammar covers the Latin of Christendom–which is what interests me in the Latin language. It is fine to be able to read Virgil in Latin, but I am interested in Latin as the language of Christendom for most of Christian history, as the language of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate Bibles, of John Owen and Augustine of Hippo, of John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas, of the confessions of the Reformation and the polemics of Tertullian. In addition to focusing on the Latin of professing Christianity, I appreciate that he does not limit himself to Catholic Latin. A work like John Collins’ A Primer on Ecclesiastical Latin (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1985) will cover the Latin of the Vulgate, of the patristic writers or so-called “Church Fathers,” and of the Roman Catholic medieval tradition, but Reformation and post-Reformation Latin is excluded. Cooper certainly does not exclude Catholic authors, but neither does he exclude Protestants who rightly identify the Roman Catholic “Church” as the Whore of Babylon associated with the Antichrist.
Third, all of Cooper’s exercises are from actual Latin writers; he does not include made-up sentences to learn Latin. This is a great way of doing things, and it copies the method that William Mounce uses in his Basics of Biblical Greek, where all the exercises are from the New Testament, the LXX, or other Koine sources, instead of being made up.
Fourth, Cooper’s Latin text is appealing in its formatting. Zondervan has done a good job making the book look nice. The exercises, with an answer key, are included in the volume. Useful chapter summaries are included. The book is well laid out and a pleasure to read.
Fifth, Cooper’s lessons begin with an interesting historical notice illustrating the Latin to be learned in that chapter and ends with a Latin prayer. The historical information keeps students’ interest as they work through the book.
In summary, there is much to commend in Dr. Cooper’s Latin grammar.
Areas to Improve Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
There is only one major area of improvement I would suggest for Dr. Cooper’s Latin Grammar. There are not nearly enough exercises after each lesson to actually learn the Latin in the chapter. The exercises that are present are from actual Latin sources and are very interesting, but there simply are not nearly enough of them. As a comparison, in the Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata series, which I am working through in conjunction with Dr. Cooper’s grammar, chapter 12 discusses 3rd declension adjectives and 4th declension nouns. There are 23 sets of exercises (combining the exercises in the textbook and the exercises in Exercitia Latina I), each exercise generally having ten or more questions. One is in no danger of not having enough exercises–it may not be necessary to complete them all, but if you do complete them all, you will actually know the new grammatical material in the lesson of the Lingua Latina series. By way of contrast, there are only fifteen questions, total–three groups of five–to learn the material in chapter 12 of Cooper’s grammar. The exercises are interesting ones connected to extant historical Latin sources–that is great. But there simply are not nearly enough of them to actually learn the Latin.
An experienced Latin teacher could use Dr. Cooper’s Basics of Latin as a stand-alone text only if he supplied many exercises of his own to supplement those contained in the grammar. Perhaps a genius linguist could learn Latin from Cooper’s grammar on its own, but for the rest of us, it would simply not be possible. Thus, unfortunately, despite is many positive qualities, I cannot recommend Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition as a stand-alone Latin textbook, at least unless Dr. Cooper writes a supplementary workbook or in some other way provides students with a lot more exercises.
However, I do recommend, and recommend highly, utilizing Cooper’s grammar as a supplementary text to those who are actually learning Latin some other way. For example, one could (as I am doing) actually learn Latin grammar from the Lingua Latina series and then use Cooper’s grammar to review grammatical material already learned, with Cooper also serving as a transitional text from the classical Latin of the Lingua Latina series to the Latin of Christendom. For those who are actually interested in Christian Latin, the interesting historical material spanning the millennia of the use of the Latin language in Cooper’s grammar is interesting and motivating. Reading Cooper is a motivating reward for working through the material in the classical Latin textbook.
Concluding summary: my view of Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition
So, in light of all of the above, how would I view Derek Cooper’s Basics of Latin: A Grammar With Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition? As a supplementary text to Latin grammar learned through another method, I recommend Cooper highly. As a stand-alone text to learning Christian Latin, I cannot recommend it, because it does not include enough exercises.
–TDR
Note: Links to Cooper’s grammar at Amazon are affiliate links.
God’s Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?
I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism, was worth reprinting and thinking about. I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:
[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons.
The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.
The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)
May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.
–TDR
The Tetragrammaton and the Incarnation–A Hebrew Connection?
George Sayles Bishop, contributor to The Fundamentals (George S. Bishop, Chapter IV: The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves, in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005], 80-96), defender of the inspiration and preservation of Scripture and opponent of higher criticism and secular lower criticism, and someone I cite in my papers on the history of the debate over the Hebrew vowel points and on the inspiration of the vowels, commented as follows on the Hebrew language and the Tetragrammaton in particular as connected to the incarnation of the Son of God:
[T]he Bible differs on its surface from every other book.
It speaks of a Trinity in the very roots of its verbs, ever one of which is, in the Hebrew, composed of 3 letters—tri-lateral.
It teaches man’s apostasy and restoration in the singular reversal of its text. The Hebrew is written and read from right to left: from God’s right hand where He doth work, is man’s departure. Then the Greek takes him up, a prodigal son at his remotest distance from God and brings him back from left to right—from death to life again.
Incarnation is in the Tetragrammaton [JHVH/YHWH]: that is the Hebrew letters of the word Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, written vertically from up to down give us the outlines of the human figure—God made flesh. This is the difference between Elohim, God in creation; and God in covenant anticipating incarnation.
Again: the Bible puts man’s true relations in the very conjugation of the Hebrew verb. In all occidental languages the verb is conjugated from the first person to the third—“I,” “Thou,” “He.” The Hebrew, in reversal of the human thought, is conjugated from the third down and back to the first: beginning with God, then my neighbor, then myself last—“He,” “Thou,” “I.” This is the Divine order: self-obliterating and beautiful. (George S. Bishop, The Doctrines of Grace [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1977], 8)
What do you think—is his comment just speculation, or is there something to it? God is the Author of language, after all, and it is reasonable to think that He would take the highest degree of care in His own name in the language, Hebrew, in which He originally revealed Himself. On the other hand, does He ever encourage us to draw conclusions like this in the plain statements He makes about how we are to learn of Him in His revelation? Do you agree with Bishop? Why or why not?
Learn Christian Latin, Self-Directed: How I am Doing It
Latin is the language of Christendom for over 1,500 years–it is valuable for someone who wants to understand the history of Christianity, to understand the Latin Vulgate and Old Latin Bible translations, the language known by Biblical writers from Mark, early writers in Christendom, influential medieval theologians from Anslem to Aquinas, reformers from Luther to Calvin, Puritans like John Owen, and Baptist writers like John Gill. Latin also helps one to understand untranslated Latin excerpts in commentaries like Keil & Delitzch, Latin excerpts in systematic theologies, and so on.
Interestingly, only approximately 0.01% of all extant Latin, though admittedly with substantial influence, is composed of classical Roman authors Approximately 80% of extant Latin writings composed by those who professed to be Christians, while the other 20% is scientific and various other treatises by non-Christian writers (Derek Cooper, Basics of Latin: A Grammar with Readings and Exercises from the Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020], xvii).
So in light of the value of Latin, I have prayerfully decided to to learn the language at my own pace. So how is it going? I’m glad you asked. How am I going about it?
I first started with Latin 101: Learning a Classical Language by Hans-Friedrich Mueller, a course offered by “The Great Courses” organization. Having profited by numbers of classes offered by The Great Courses, I would use their class to learn classical Latin and then transition to the Latin of Christendom. The “Great Courses” class offers a textbook with exercises and also video lectures, and I wanted to have lectures with a real, knowledgable teacher. I also did not want to pay very much money, and I knew that The Great Courses regularly offers sales where their classes are listed at 70-85% off (you should never pay the full price, or even half price, for a Great Courses course; they list prices are fake to make you feel like you are getting an incredible deal at 70% off. The marketing technique is effective–but the real, 70% off price for their classes is actually reasonable for courses that are often of high quality.)
I got through the majority of the Great Courses class, completing all the exercises, with their textbook and a Latin dictionary (Simpson, D. P., Cassell’s Latin Dictionary: Latin-English & English-Latin, 5th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1968) However, as I kept plugging away, I started to get really bogged down in the exercises. I was looking up practically every word in the dictionary and taking an inordinately long amount of time to complete the exercises. I believe that the Great Courses class will probably work for some, but for me there just were not enough exercises to attain sufficient mastery of the material before going on to the next chapter. So after slogging through a majority of the book, with progress getting slower and slower, I started looking for alternatives.
I discovered the Familia Romana / Lingua Latina: Per Se Illustrata series, and have to this point been very impressed. I purchased a number of books so that I could have everything I needed to teach myself using that series, as well as a few other works that help as described below:
5.) Ørberg, Hans H., Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata: Teacher’s Materials. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2005. Amazon Smile link
I also got a few others; click here for my page on learning Christian and classical Latin for more information.
Greek Names of the Books of the New Testament
How would you write the names of the New Testament books in Greek–and how would you pronounce them? The names of the books of the New Testament in Greek are as follows:
Μαθθαῖον
Μᾶρκον
Λουκᾶν
Ἰωάννην
Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων
Ῥωμαίους
Κορινθίους ά
Κορινθίους β´
Γαλάτας
Ἐφεσίους
Φιλιππησίους
Κολοσσαεῖς
Θεσσαλονικεῖς ά
Θεσσαλονικεῖς β´
Τιμόθεον ά
Τιμόθεον β´
Τίτον
Φιλήμονα
Ἑβραίους
Ἰακώβου
Πέτρου ά
Πέτρου β´
Ἰωάννου ά
Ἰωάννου β´
Ἰωάννου γ´
Ἰούδα
Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου
If you would like to hear them pronunced, please click here to have your desire fulfilled at 2:12:30 into this video from my 1st year Greek class.
Professors of Greek might want to consider having their students learn the Greek names and refer to the books of the New Testament by their original language names instead of their English ones in class, as well as, in general, adding spoken Greek to their communication as much as possible. After all, the more senses one employs in learning a language the better he tends to learn it.
Besides, knowing the books in Greek is just ψῦχος, ἄνθρωπε; –TDR
Recent Comments