Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

The chapter says the apostles “ignored the Hebrew scrolls of the scribes and adopted the Greek Septuagint,” translated quickly into other languages, and “set up no schools” to train people in originals; what does this suggest about early Christian priorities for making Scripture accessible, and how might our emphasis on “original languages” function today as either a gift or a gatekeeping tool?

Another way to ask: The apostles used the Greek Septuagint, translated Scripture quickly, and didn’t set up schools to teach the original languages. What does that show about their goal to make Scripture easy to access, and when can studying original languages today help—or become gatekeeping?

Direct Answer Bercot argues early Christians prioritized broad access to Scripture over preserving a scholar-only relationship to “originals.” Today, original languages can be a gift when they serve clarity, but the transcript warns they can become gatekeeping if they imitate the theologians who “imprisoned God’s word” in inaccessible forms.

Support from Transcript:

Jewish theologians “had imprisoned God’s word in Hebrew,” which “most Jews could no longer speak, let alone the Gentiles.”
Apostles “ignored the Hebrew scrolls… and adopted the Greek Septuagint,” quoting it “nearly always.”
“The Septuagint became the Old Testament for Christians everywhere,” since Greek was widely spoken.
They “set up no schools to train men in language studies” and “never encouraged anyone to learn Hebrew or Aramaic.”
When preaching in non-Greek areas, they didn’t train Greek readers; “bilingual Christians quickly translated” into Latin and Aramaic dialects.

Discussion Follow-ups When we emphasize original languages, are we doing it to serve the church’s understanding—or to create a class of “better” Christians who control interpretation?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10