Why read the Scriptures aloud?
John Wycliffe and his colleagues argued for Bible translation based on the scriptural command to preach. Later, the Reformers argued for translation based on the importance of reading. For the last hundred years or so, the Great Commission and the command to teach have been a major passage for Bible translation.
In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul exhorts Timothy to be devoted to reading, preaching, and teaching. Based on these three, which we could call collectively the ministry of the word, rests the scriptural imperative for translation.
Yet, is there really a need to read the Scritpures aloud? Is the aural quality of a translation really that important?
Here is my case for the importance of reading the Scriptures aloud in corporate worship:
https://aaronandsusanshryock.com/10-reasons-to-read-the-bible-aloud-in-church/
5 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
I have recently finished my thesis. I used a relatively nascent, text critical method "Unit Delimitation Method" on Psalm 1. When I prepared my proposed AT for Psalm 1, I read it aloud several time. It helped a lot. I can recall one of the suggestions in a local version of text book by Katy Barnwell, we were suggested to read our drafts aloud. Since then it has been my practice. It always help to make the flow better plus how does it sound to your ears.
I think there are many answers with the different cultural and linguistic contexts within the spectrum between the pre-church and the post-church. What scriptural text did Paul talk about in Timothy? What media of scripture and technology were not available and available today and in the future? Not all languages(e.g. Chinese Union Version-one character can be read with 10+ dialects/languages) have to be read aloud and could be read aloud in order to be understood? I think it doesn't hurt to read aloud the scripture. My concern is about how much of the practices in Scriptural engagement and the tradition of the first-century Christian community are relevant to our contemporarily scriptural engagement and the Christian life? Is the scripture for believers and/or not yet believers? Scripture being read in different Catholic and Christian for centuries, then what? so what? How would Jesus and Paul expect the means of Scripture being used today with zoom, internet, and "Proclaimer" in the context of translated scripture, literacy, and language issues? I think those issues were not their calling and mission, but ours. Read the scripture aloud or not and the rationales behind it? Is this a pragmatic question or a theological question?
It's a question of obedience to God and the exhortations of Scripture. It's a theological question when you begin to ask about the relationship between reading, teaching, and preaching. Or you reflect on how the Spirit works through the spoken word in translation in our hearts. It's a pragmatic issue when you ask when in the meeting to read, what passages of Scripture to read, who might read before the congregation, and similar questions. How much of what we read in the NT is relevant, the first-century Christian community that you refer to? I think it is clear that we are to read the Scriptures as part of corporate worship. It is for the edification of the listeners and, thus, should be in a language they understand.
I can think of various arguments for. The original texts were written to be read aloud to an audience. Our concept of what is normal is based on late renaissance scholars revelling in the new medium of the printed book.
Today, despite universal education (at least in my country) 25% of the population are to a large degree illiterate and many more only read with difficulty, leaving only a minority who actually enjoy reading. If in doubt, read the style guidelines of a popular newspaper. Any translation strategy which does not give due emphasis to these facts is flawed.
Obviously a version which attracts the educated minority and even a few committed seekers is far better than nothing, but it is - on its own - not "job done". So yes, we can expect public reading to be good in many situations. And is there also a need for the reader to tweak the text for the audience? "Sounds dead posh, guv, but wot the * does it mean?" Or whatever. And, if tweaked, will what comes out still be scripture? Some may think not.
Aaron, I agree a written document has its place but what did Moses do with the written document he was commanded to produce? Or Joshua, Nehemiah, Ezra? Just what the president of Israel does at the Western Wall every seven years today - read it aloud to the people.
Bronze age technology and economics didn't enable the average person to have a copy even if they were to some degree literate. Instead they memorised it and if you ever work in a non literate culture, you will find people memorise things fast, accurately and in minute detail.
The average Joe wasn't commanded to write a scroll - but he was commanded to teach it to his family. A small group would only need to hear it once to recite it off pat between them after their first try.
May I suggest you visit a third world village where you may find that your interpretation of the command needs a rethink. You could be in a place where everybody having a book they can read is a couple of generations away. Meantime, what?