There are a number of assertions about the Greek language that have been promulgated through pulpits and Internet discussions that are not true.
Here, recently on this forum @Major asserted that 'tois' (them) Mark 16:17 refers back to 'the eleven' in verse 14 instead of the participle ('that believe') that follows tois. So basically, 'them' is supposed to refer to the eleven, rather than than 'them that believe.' One can just ask a Greek professor, seminary graduate, or a sharp first year Greek student and they will likely verify that 'tois' goes with the participle that follows and does not have to match back earlier in the passage.
I see a lot of this stuff-- insisting a passage means something quite different from the way multiple committees of scholars translated it in multiple translations, because of some supposedly going on in Greek grammar. Greek is treated as a secret decoder ring that supposedly decodes scripture and shows it means something totally different from what it says in translation.
Another rather ridiculous and extreme argument I have seen on this forum is the idea that because the box Judas carried money in is etymologically related to flutes, that musical instruments are supposed to be evil. There was a poster with an anti-instrumental bias who posted some very convoluted complicated arguments along these lines, that, if you researched them, were rather bogus.
Often, 'Greek myths' from the pulpit have to do with the definition of Greek words. For example, someone preached that 'Agape is the God kind of love.' But in the Septuagint, the Greek translation used in the first century, Amnon had 'agape' for Tamar before he raped her. In the New Testament, Paul accuses Demas of leaving him because he had agape for this present world. Some preachers have made much of Jesus asked Peter if he agape'd him, and Peter responding that he phileo'ed him-- as if Peter were only willing to say he had brotherly love for Jesus, but not up to the level of agape. This seems unlikely. Peter was using a more specific term.
The word 'dunamis' in Greek apparently had nothing to do with explosive force, even though dynamite was named after it much, much later.
Much has been made of the 'rhema/logos' distinction that cannot be substantiated by how the words are used in Greek. Some of this can be debunked with looking at usage in a Strong's concordance.
Another bizarre interpretation I came across is the idea that 'tongue' in the singular in I Corinthians 14 is supposed to be some bad pagan thing, while the plural is supposed to be good. I don't think there is any evidence of the definition of that word changing by making it plural. And the interpretation did not fit the context, since in verse 28, Paul would have someone interpret a tongue in the singular. A pagan utterance would not edify the assembly. A man named Zhiodates published this idea in a book along with other strange interpretations. Some respected American preachers like John MacArthur and Justin Peters have parroted this nonsense.
I was on a listserve with a retired Greek professor and chair with credentials that included working at a Harvard center. His advise was usually you get a better sense of the text by reading translations. He lamented that some seminary professors teaching Greek did not really know it that well, though he could think of exceptions who were real scholars in the field.
Of course, knowing Greek is valuable, and there are people who get good exegetical insights from doing so. I would advise people to be suspicious of sermons and posts that try to derive esoteric doctrines out of supposed aspects of the Greek that translators and commentators did not pick up on.
Does anyone else have some good examples of 'Greek myths' -- myths about the Greek language--that are promoted through pulpits and Internet discussion forums?
Here, recently on this forum @Major asserted that 'tois' (them) Mark 16:17 refers back to 'the eleven' in verse 14 instead of the participle ('that believe') that follows tois. So basically, 'them' is supposed to refer to the eleven, rather than than 'them that believe.' One can just ask a Greek professor, seminary graduate, or a sharp first year Greek student and they will likely verify that 'tois' goes with the participle that follows and does not have to match back earlier in the passage.
I see a lot of this stuff-- insisting a passage means something quite different from the way multiple committees of scholars translated it in multiple translations, because of some supposedly going on in Greek grammar. Greek is treated as a secret decoder ring that supposedly decodes scripture and shows it means something totally different from what it says in translation.
Another rather ridiculous and extreme argument I have seen on this forum is the idea that because the box Judas carried money in is etymologically related to flutes, that musical instruments are supposed to be evil. There was a poster with an anti-instrumental bias who posted some very convoluted complicated arguments along these lines, that, if you researched them, were rather bogus.
Often, 'Greek myths' from the pulpit have to do with the definition of Greek words. For example, someone preached that 'Agape is the God kind of love.' But in the Septuagint, the Greek translation used in the first century, Amnon had 'agape' for Tamar before he raped her. In the New Testament, Paul accuses Demas of leaving him because he had agape for this present world. Some preachers have made much of Jesus asked Peter if he agape'd him, and Peter responding that he phileo'ed him-- as if Peter were only willing to say he had brotherly love for Jesus, but not up to the level of agape. This seems unlikely. Peter was using a more specific term.
The word 'dunamis' in Greek apparently had nothing to do with explosive force, even though dynamite was named after it much, much later.
Much has been made of the 'rhema/logos' distinction that cannot be substantiated by how the words are used in Greek. Some of this can be debunked with looking at usage in a Strong's concordance.
Another bizarre interpretation I came across is the idea that 'tongue' in the singular in I Corinthians 14 is supposed to be some bad pagan thing, while the plural is supposed to be good. I don't think there is any evidence of the definition of that word changing by making it plural. And the interpretation did not fit the context, since in verse 28, Paul would have someone interpret a tongue in the singular. A pagan utterance would not edify the assembly. A man named Zhiodates published this idea in a book along with other strange interpretations. Some respected American preachers like John MacArthur and Justin Peters have parroted this nonsense.
I was on a listserve with a retired Greek professor and chair with credentials that included working at a Harvard center. His advise was usually you get a better sense of the text by reading translations. He lamented that some seminary professors teaching Greek did not really know it that well, though he could think of exceptions who were real scholars in the field.
Of course, knowing Greek is valuable, and there are people who get good exegetical insights from doing so. I would advise people to be suspicious of sermons and posts that try to derive esoteric doctrines out of supposed aspects of the Greek that translators and commentators did not pick up on.
Does anyone else have some good examples of 'Greek myths' -- myths about the Greek language--that are promoted through pulpits and Internet discussion forums?