This view has been raised more than once, most recently by @buddhist and @Jedster.
It is nonsense.
I participate in a weekly Torah class which is currently working yet again through Genesis. I typically sit there with three different translations in front of me: Alter, Fox, and the [N]JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Others in the class may be referring to the Plaut Commentary, the Jewish Study Bible, the R.E. Friedman translation and commentary, Etz Hayim, the Stone Edition Tanach, or others. Much of the time the differing commentary is informative but not particularly critical, and the differences in translation are matters of nuance. In each such case a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (BH) might allow for a greater appreciation of poetry and/or wordplay, but it is largely unnecessary to an understanding of the text.
Why is this? Because the translations and commentaries are pregnant with and convey the fruits of thousands upon thousands of hours of the best of scholarship in BH and related Semitic languages and - of near equal importance - are further informed by relevant studies of the surrounding societies of the Levant. It would take the best of us much of a lifetime to come close to such cumulative expertise.
But what of those cases where translations differ significantly?
Biblical Hebrew is very difficult linguistic archaeology. Understanding BH is a work in progress and translation differences of note typically reflect this difficulty. Furthermore, these differences are often a matter of ongoing peer-reviewed study. They are approachable, but not by spending a few years studying beginning BH with a dictionary and lexicon in hand. On the contrary, the best approach is to read these studies and reviews and, yes, that means reading them in English.
If you want to begin to understand Hebrew Scripture, try to avail yourself of the relevant scholarship instread of pretending that you can supplant it.
That said, if you're interested in a good BH text. I'll be glad to offer a recommendation.
It is nonsense.
I participate in a weekly Torah class which is currently working yet again through Genesis. I typically sit there with three different translations in front of me: Alter, Fox, and the [N]JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Others in the class may be referring to the Plaut Commentary, the Jewish Study Bible, the R.E. Friedman translation and commentary, Etz Hayim, the Stone Edition Tanach, or others. Much of the time the differing commentary is informative but not particularly critical, and the differences in translation are matters of nuance. In each such case a knowledge of Biblical Hebrew (BH) might allow for a greater appreciation of poetry and/or wordplay, but it is largely unnecessary to an understanding of the text.
Why is this? Because the translations and commentaries are pregnant with and convey the fruits of thousands upon thousands of hours of the best of scholarship in BH and related Semitic languages and - of near equal importance - are further informed by relevant studies of the surrounding societies of the Levant. It would take the best of us much of a lifetime to come close to such cumulative expertise.
But what of those cases where translations differ significantly?
Biblical Hebrew is very difficult linguistic archaeology. Understanding BH is a work in progress and translation differences of note typically reflect this difficulty. Furthermore, these differences are often a matter of ongoing peer-reviewed study. They are approachable, but not by spending a few years studying beginning BH with a dictionary and lexicon in hand. On the contrary, the best approach is to read these studies and reviews and, yes, that means reading them in English.
If you want to begin to understand Hebrew Scripture, try to avail yourself of the relevant scholarship instread of pretending that you can supplant it.
That said, if you're interested in a good BH text. I'll be glad to offer a recommendation.
