FK, I am jumping in on this because I hope I can clarify this. Your question is (or rather seems) perfectly justified, as least logically speaking.
Unfortunately, logic will not lead you to the correct answer. The reason for this is that English, as is true of most other languages, is not a liturgical language.
What does that mean? It mean that it is not structurally developed enough to express certain concepts, and tense, as a liturgical language can. Perhaps it can, but in a roundabout way that leads to awkward sentences and difficult reading.
Reading the NT from cover to cover will not lead to correct interpretation because it is read out of context. The Holy Tradition, which has maintained scriptural interpretation in the context of pertinent times and cultures when the New Testament was written (not forgetting the political realities as well!), inlcuding the attitudes and perceptions, colloquialisms and so on, avoids the pitfalls of interpreting the text through the lens of modernism, relativism and other isms that are current in our cultural and temporal consciousness.
Latin was the first liturgical language after Hebrew and Greek to be used. It is, in fact, derived from Greek. It is capable of forming sentence structures and tense as it is in Greek. And even though it was carefully and meticulously engineered from Greek for a word-by-word equivalency, the emergence of the filioque clause and Latin adherence to is prima facie evidence that Latin is at best an imitation of Greek.
Latin (and English especially) is completely incapable of conveying the same concept involved in the Greek term used for the procession of the Spirit (ekpouremai), which implies an origin. The Latin word procedere can mean originating or not originating from something. This small difference has been one of the factors that resulted in the unfortunate Schism in the 11th century and still exists.
Saint Augustine, whose Greek was not very good, is known to have made a major error in translating Genesis involving the Latin word simul, leading to the idea that "he who lives in eternity, created the world at once.
Brothers (Saints) Cyril and Methodius from Thessaloniki, Greece, lived among the many newly arrived Slavic inhabitants and learned Old Slavonic language.
Using their native Greek as the structure, they filled it in with a tailor-made Church Slavonic they developed for liturgical use (they intended it for the Moravian Slavs in what is now the Czech Republic, as at the end of the 9th century all Slavic tribes still spoke the same language without much differentiation).
Thus, although the Church Slavonic is distinctly South Slavic in origin, it was perfectly understood by all Slavic tribes at that time.
Church Slavonic (CS) was, like Latin, developed straight out of Greek with the same ability the Greek language has to form complex words and meanings. That also eliminated any need to borrow foreign words as is the case with English (which consists of numerous foreign words).
CS also has the same tense structures found in Greek, and such important differentiations as plural and singular 'you.' Thus when one reads a liturgical text in one of the languages sophisticated enough to be liturgical the tense and the singular/plural and other concepts are never lost.
In CS the concept of brothers/cousins is maintained by the similar cultural reality that exists to this day, as calling first cousins 'brothers' or 'sisters' is perfectly normal and has a very (genetically) protective function since one does not marry his 'siblings' (and first cousins are "blood" siblings by definition).
Such words as "rabbi" are translated into teacher, words such as Orthodox are exact equivalent of the Greek orthodo+doxa (pravo-slaviye), the right-praise, right-glory. The word 'catholic' is translated (sobornost) so that no one confuses it with "Roman Catholic," and the word to 'proceed' in the Creed is without confusion one that includes the origin AND conveys an eternal process (ishodyashchago), based on the tense used, so no confusion can result from it.
In fact, NT Greek and CS is a word-by-word correct-tense translation equivalency. But no one speak or ever spoke Church Slavonic. It is a liturgical language, which is still very much intelligible to Southern and Eastern Slavs whose languages have retained many of the CS words and concepts.
If Latin is once removed from Greek, English is twice removed. It often requires descriptive translations that still don't capture the original concept — take Theotokos (Bogoroditsa in CS). German is in the same category as English. German was a non-literary language until Luther's time, when it was born out of biblical German Luther created.
Thus, there is no doubt that reading something in the original is the only way to fully grasp it. Japanese is one of those languages, like Chinese, which uses "characters" or pictures to form audio-visual words. Thus the Japanese words for volcano (ka-zan) is a combination of the character fire and a character for mountain (i.e. fire-mountain). Not all words are that simple. Many include 'radicals' that are part of the whole small story in one character. Thus, in a kabuki theater you can have two actors with equivalent names (Japanese alphabet has 5,000 characters and only 150 pronunciations, so there are many same-sounding characters), but different meaning attached to them through different characters.
Thus, Japanese screen writers have an additional degree of freedom, or linguistic dimension, which the alphabet-based languages don't have: they can create two people with the same name, but only when you see their names written out in Chinese Characters (or kan-ji) can you not only tell who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, but you may be able to find out a lot more about them just based on the characters chosen!
Thus, it is obvious that such literary dimension cannot be translated into any European language and that the only way to capture the meaning and the drama of the literary piece is to read it in the original.
Judaism is also very specific in that respect. Judaism, in addition to words also has numerical meanings of the words, as Hebrew numbers are simply parts of the Hebrew script. naturally, once a Hebrew words is translated into koine Greek, for example, it loses the numerical value (which is often important!), even though ancient Greek also used alphabetic letters as numbers (a custom familiar in the west which still uses Latin numbering system, i.e. III, IV, VIII, etc.), because the letters do not have the same numerical value, quantity, and order in Greek as they do in Hebrew.
So, to put is simply: yes, the only complete way to understand Christianity is to be fluent in biblical Greek.
OH GAG ME WITH A SPOON!
I'm reminded of David going out to slay Goliath. Saul put all his armor on him etc. David, being the discerning, anointed, Spirit-filled lad that he was, flushed all that JUNK. Took his few stones and went and slew the giant.
GOD IS WELL ABLE AND HAS REPEATEDLY raised up quality, vibrant, balanced, effective tribal churches with simply the spoken New Testament in their language as a guide.
THEY DIDN'T NEED:
1. the magicsterical
2. the pontifical power mongers
3. the fossilized edifice
4. the !!!!!TRADITIONS!!!!!
5. the customs
6. the rituals
7. the politics
8. the pontifical ecclesiastical armies, bureaucrats, hangers on
9. the images and idols
10. the crawling on knees on broken glass
11. the rosary
12. Mary
. . .
nor . . . drum roll . . .
. . .
13. the ligurgical language! LOL
THE LIVING SPOKEN WORD AND HOLY SPIRIT WERE SUFFICIENT!
Must have something to do with God being our ALL SUFFICIENCY! Fancy That! Just like He said!
The reason for this is that English, as is true of most other languages, is not a liturgical language. What does that mean? It means that it is not structurally developed enough to express certain concepts, and tense, as a liturgical language can. Perhaps it can, but in a roundabout way that leads to awkward sentences and difficult reading.
Well, I will certainly stipulate to the Greek having concepts and words that do not translate well to English word for word. I'll even volunteer a big one, the word "love". IIRC, the Greek has several words for different kinds of love and the English comparatively doesn't. That is well and fine, but even given this I do not think Christianity "in English" has suffered a great loss of identity because of it.
On our side, we distinguish between the different kinds of love in our Bible studies and worship services, etc. The point is that we are aware of them. I don't put that in the same category as having an honest disagreement among scholars as to what was really the "original" intent of the Greek in a given passage. I don't think that a scholar who happens to be a Protestant is automatically disqualified.
Reading the NT from cover to cover will not lead to correct interpretation because it is read out of context.
Well it certainly CAN be read out of context, as can any literary work. Correct interpretation is in the eye of the beholder between us. What I gather here is the admission that the scripture is not readable without the interpretation of the Church. --- I know I harp on this a lot, but I feel some strange inner need to highlight it every time I see it. :)
The Holy Tradition ... avoids the pitfalls of interpreting the text through the lens of modernism, relativism and other isms that are current in our cultural and temporal consciousness.
I've seen this "modernism" charge a couple of times recently, so I would have to ask you for some specificity, remembering that "Protestants" who accept homosexuality, female clergy, etc., don't count. That is, they don't count as regards the Reformed Protestants I have seen you deal with regularly on FR. I am more than willing to accept criticism on some issues such as contraception, but on things like women's coverings and silence in church, I see a legitimate difference in interpretation. Overall, I think that if I brought my wife to an Orthodox service, I don't think she would be shocked by how repressed women are, and likewise, if you brought yours to my church, I don't think she would be shocked at how "rampant" our women are. :)
In addition, I would note that the Apostolic faith has not completely escaped the trappings of modernism either. :)
Latin (and English especially) is completely incapable of conveying the same concept involved in the Greek term used for the procession of the Spirit (ekpouremai), which implies an origin. The Latin word procedure can mean originating or not originating from something. This small difference has been one of the factors that resulted in the unfortunate Schism in the 11th century and still exists.
Word for word, I have no problem in accepting this as true. However, I can't believe that using additional words of clarification cannot solve the problem. This is how many different Protestant teachers distinguish the different "loves". The difference in translation, it seems, is based on a difference in interpretation of meaning. IOW, a difference beyond intellectual academic disagreement.
In CS the concept of brothers/cousins is maintained by the similar cultural reality that exists to this day, as calling first cousins 'brothers' or 'sisters' is perfectly normal and has a very (genetically) protective function since one does not marry his 'siblings' (and first cousins are "blood" siblings by definition).
But that involves interpretation too, since different Greek words are used in the NT for "cousin" and blood brother. It's not that simple.
If Latin is once removed from Greek, English is twice removed. It often requires descriptive translations that still don't capture the original concept — take Theotokos (Bogoroditsa in CS).
OK, but yet you all have given ME a pretty good idea of Theotokos (for an outsider) in English, and for millions of even the faithful, the English idea is the best they'll ever get. If a paragraph in English is what is needed to explain a single phrase in Greek, then why not just do it? I would SCREAM for that as an English speaking Orthodoxer. :)
Thus, there is no doubt that reading something in the original is the only way to fully grasp it.
Sans a lens, sure. My whole argument is that the interpretation issue completely trumps the translation issue.
Thus, it is obvious that such literary dimension cannot be translated into any European language and that the only way to capture the meaning and the drama of the literary piece is to read it in the original.
But for "general" works of art, free interpretation is encouraged. However, in appreciating particular genius, I see what you're saying. Nonetheless, for something as important as the Bible, it still strikes me as odd that Orthodoxy has not seen it fit until now to attempt to create an English-true translation for its millions of faithful. I would expect the response to be that the need was not deemed urgent since the truth was always there on Sundays, but given your comparison to art, I get the impression that your less educated brothers and sisters in English-speaking countries have been getting gypped. :)
So, to put is simply: yes, the only complete way to understand Christianity is to be fluent in biblical Greek.
Well, I do appreciate the directness of your conclusion. :) I would say that a fluent knowledge of Greek is of EXTREMELY high value in reading the scriptures. I really wish I had it. AND, I do not think that anyone without it is necessarily shut out from true comprehension.
By my own standards, God chose Greek for the vast majority of the NT so I can't whine about that. :) (Nor do I even want to.) But, if we are to believe that His word is a revealed faith, then we must also believe that the essence of the faith survives in multiple languages. Some translations are clearly false, but I don't believe there is a de facto barrier to true understanding outside the Greek. That would be a restricted faith, as far as the word is concerned.