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.
"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. :)"
If you became an Orthodoxer, FK, we'd see to it you learned Greek! Trust me on this one! :)
Alex and I had a long chat the other day, off this forum, about how knowing a language lets one get "inside" the mind of a culture and leads to a fuller understanding of that culture. As it happens we were both speaking about Greek, but its a pretty obvious observation no matter what the language. Its implications are, however, huge if one's religious belief is going to be based solely in writings done 2000+ years ago in a language one doesn't understand, or understand well and set in a culture which bears virtually no likeness to the one the believer lives in. Most non-Orthodox Christians live in such a world, but the majority of them, Roman Catholics and traditional Anglicans, worship liturgically and the centrality of the various liturgies in their lives provides a context for the translated words they read in scripture. The greater part of Protestantism is not liturgical and thus even that aid to understanding is missing.
Likewise, certainly, there are many ways to gain fuller understanding of any issue with research etc., including the Bible.
However, my point relates to an average "Jo" (not, not jo kus!) who picks up a Bible and starts reading it in English. unless he goes out of his way to discern the text to a greater depth, he will get a false impression.
The fallacy is not really glaringly obvious, but may even seem trivial. However, the concepts derived from such fine differences actually may lead him astray.
Consider watching a historical movie. Unless you are a history buff, or just happen to come from the are where the movie narrative takes place, you are likely to walk out of the movie theater with a skewed or confused idea what took place.
What I am talking about are subtle nuances that are not obvious. Thus, Jesus says "be therefore perfect..." but He is really saying become (future tense) therefore perfect..." Or, in the Lord's Prayer we read "forgive us as we forgive ..." instead of "forgive as we have forgiven ..." The Greek version is in perfect harmony with the verses that follow, namely that "you must forgive in order for the Father to forgive you..." The order of what must take place first is crucial in formulating the faith.
Thus, I had a Protestant on one of these threads tell me that that was a lot of hot air because we have already been forgiven!
Take for instance even the English language. vengeance used to mean a slightly different thing than it does today. reading KJV English is not conducive to clear comprehension because it is an outdated language. Concepts change, and so do words.
Thus, in order to be able to read the NT and fully understand it without going to lexicons and following someone else's interpretation, it is imperative to read it and comprehend it in Greek.
As a native Serbian speaker, I know that no translation ever lives up to the original. Unfortunately, people who speak only one language can never appreciate that because they have no reference to relate to. Just as men will never know what its like to give birth.