After recently reading a testimonial post by the Bruce Lee of Biblical Hebrew[1], I decided that I would dig through my blog archives and re-post something that I wrote last year (in June to be exact). A reason for this re-post is that I have quadrupled my readership since writing that post, and I would like to interact with any new (or old) readers about this post. Another reason for this re-post, is because I am fascinated by the notion that van der Merwe is actually incorporating biblical software into his pedagogical methodology. From this testimonial, Christo seems to be getting positive results with this method, esp. since the majority of his students are continuing to use the biblical languages in their ministry. After (or before) you read my post, please look at van der Merwe article over on the Logos page.
I have been giving thought lately to the requirement of languages at seminaries. At Gordon Conwell, an M.Div student must take a year of Greek and Hebrew, an MA in Old Testament student must take a singular year of Hebrew (and that is it). This is not really unique to GCTS; many schools have a one year (two semesters) language policy. I know several seminary grads who are now veterans within ministry (10+ years), and not a single pastor that I personally know of uses both Hebrew and Greek in their ministry in a real way[1]. The Pastor of my church is a “Gospels” guy, and he does use his Greek every week. He translates a passage before he ever writes a sermon, but he is the only person I know that actively uses a language that he learned in seminary to enrich his ministry. When our colleagues find out that he uses Greek that frequently, they are usually shocked. A seminary graduate rarely uses the Biblical Languages once they leave the academic environment of the seminary, and this is the trend that seems to be on the rise.
Unfortunately I don’t see a way of correcting this trend. Keeping up with your languages or even working with the languages is the only way one is going to be able to retain their skill set. However “keeping up” with your languages takes time, and that is a precious commodity in the Pastorate. More and more pastors have taken on extra roles, which also can include being bi-vocational. In the context of a smaller church, pastors often become psychologists, worship leaders, chairs of the various administrative boards, cheerleaders at various sporting activities, lunch dates, heads of hospitality, civil servants providing religious pageantry to the masses, etc. But these are just one set of demands that are placed on those in the ministry, don’t forget the familial obligations of those in this profession. All of these obligations, self imposed or otherwise, leave little room for habitual use of the biblical languages, so eventually the grammatical chops that were acquired begin to atrophy until all that remains is a haunting paradigm chart that has been etched into your mind, but disconnected from any remembered meaning.
Seminaries could add more language requirements to their degree tracts, but I don’t see that being the answer. More stringent requirements do not address the problem of the appropriation of time within that Pastorate once their degree becomes nothing more than another piece of “art” or “memorabilia” that adorns their office walls. Higher expectations sadly do not change the future priorities of anyone, especially in the face of such a fragmented profession.
As someone who has hurled himself head long into the academic waters, this trend does sadden me. I obviously see the benefits of knowing the Biblical languages. I see how the use of biblical languages can enrich congregations. I would like all pastors to use the languages, but I am a realist and see this as a trend that will most likely not be bucked.
The above thoughts bring me back to my initial consideration of language requirements in seminaries. I DON’T think seminaries should drop their language requirements. So what could realistically help the situation? I don’t know, but maybe if language professors could integrate the use of computer aided software such as a Logos or BibleWorks into the mix, maybe then we might be able to show how pastors can easily incorporate the original languages into their devotional/preparatory time.
Now before everyone who reads this freaks out, hear me out first. Pastors are not using the languages anyways, so it’s not like this suggestion could make matters any worse, right? The ones that do use the languages, often abuse them horribly by doing awful word studies[2]. However, if a course is offered that integrates language theory (which is essential), basic conceptions of the particular language, and computer aided software; then maybe these future pastors will use this kind of knowledge in their future ministries? Who knows, maybe with frequency some of the language will “rub off” on these pastors by their constant use of these programs? I am completely aware that Logos and BibleWorks can be an awful crutch, and using them, often makes students lazy because they won’t have to remember things that students of an earlier age did remember, but is this any worse than the current state of affairs? You be the judge.
[1] I am not counting the pastor who will occasionally flip through their strong’s concordance to give their sermon the air of being well prepared, while completely raping a word by not limiting the semantic range of a word, by context, and forcing every usage as operative simultaneously in their passage.
[2] Think of all of the examples in D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies.
[1] This title was given to Christo van der Merwe by a couple of his students and fellow bibliobloggers, D&T.
Adam, as you may know, this is very much a high priority issue for me. You probably also know that Christo is my doctoral supervisor. That is likely not a coincidence!
The way we teach Hebrew in seminary needs to more closely align with the way the language will be used upon graduation. I like to say that sustainable habits must be taught in seminary. This includes embracing the digital tools available. Some people actively shun introducing the digital language tools to new students because they fear the “crutch” they may become. The problem is not with the tool, but with how the tool is used! Classes need to utilize the tools in an appropriate pedagogical manner to gain the best benefit.
By: Karyn on November 9, 2009
at 4:19 pm
Adam, I think I may have said something similar to what I’m about to say when you first posted this. Anyway, I think that it can be really valuable to show people how to use Logos, Bible Works, Accordance, et al. However, the problem is still multifaceted.
First, those are expensive programs. They are also programs that lock someone in to a particular software package. Do we really expect pastor’s to spend a significant amount of money on computer programs? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, and in fairness many already have such a program, but it is important to address. Also, which program is one going to use? I like Accordance and Bibleworks far better the Libronix, but does not mean everyone in my class has to buy a Mac?
I also get nervous about the crutch factor. I’m sorry, but I think we need to expect all Christians to read Hebrew. If all Christians knew how to read Hebrew, it wouldn’t be too much to expect pastors to do the same. I realize I’m being idealistic here, but I’m not convinced that the ability to mouse over a word and say, “Ah! that’s a Hifil Qatal 2ms of whatever.”
I guess my worry is that in 50 years we’ll look back and say, “Gosh, all those Libronix tools are really just a souped up version of Strongs. We never should have taught people to use that stuff.” I took a class in undergrad that was basically formatted around this idea, and we learned to do word studies using strong’s numbers and TWOT, etc, etc. It was flawed because no one was teaching us Hebrew, and we weren’t reading Hebrew and learning how it worked. You know I don’t think we need to teach 1st year students all the fine points of grammar, but I think we do need to teach them Hebrew, not how to click on something.
Now, having said all that, from what I have heard I think van der Merwe is on the right track. Students still need to learn Hebrew, but they don’t need to memorize the entire paradigm for first alef, third heh verbs in the niphal (or whatever other obscure bit of minutia might be in question). But I still think they need to have learned things well enough to be able to look at a section of BH prose and more or less get the gist of what its saying without having to fire up Libronix. I guess I just don’t want to set the bar too low.
By: Calvin on November 9, 2009
at 6:13 pm
Karyn, I am so glad you responded to this post, especially because you have been able to work with and observe Christo’s methodology in action. How quickly does he introduce computer aided reading? Does this begin at the beginning of the semester or the end?
I couldn’t agree with your statements more. I am so confused on why faculty at many seminaries have put their heads in the sand regarding the use of technology and the languages. As seminaries are built to serve the church, why are we content to send people out into their ministries without addressing the development of tools that they can then carry into a increasingly more fragmented profession? This is beyond me.
By: Adam Couturier on November 9, 2009
at 6:18 pm
As it happens, and prone to foolish errors also, I did my personal study without the tools though I do use some online tools for preparation of materials.
I am not a pastor and I appreciate how impossible it is for a pastor to do all the jobs she or he is called to do. This represents to me a potential abdication by the non-pastors of their own growth in the faith. Why are there not more resident theological students and Biblical students in our churches who also are licensed to teach and preach? Because they were raised on the piety of flannel boards and in my day by authoritarian and worse teachers who also were failing their pastoral responsibilities.
One aid in a solution is for Sunday Schools from the earliest level teach 5 minutes a week and more of the original tongues. It is not impossible. And it is a great reprieve for the often young and inexperienced Sunday school teachers. The teaching is not dependent on any technology except for preparing examples and blocks and props and things like that in the original tongues.
I think this could have several repercussions – a generation of students with potential ministries will have no fear of what is new to them. They will not do a crash course in Hebrew to pass a requirement and they will not chose to fail Greek rather than Hebrew (both these comments come from local pastors I know personally). Secondly, this generation will seek real content and will be able to instruct others without themselves having to be pastors professionally.
The bootstrap can be started anytime anywhere. It helps to have a sensitive native Hebrew speaker to get going but it is never too late to start. Blessed is the one who is not satisfied with a simple answer, for the finding will be in the seeking.
By: Bob MacDonald on November 9, 2009
at 6:21 pm
I have responded to Calvin’s post offline, but will soon publish my response to him on here. My research project is at a higher priority level right now; however, I am making some nice strides, so hopefully more posts will be coming soon.
Hello Bob,
Sorry I am a bit slow in responding. I have a question regarding your Sunday school solution. With only dedicating 5 mins a class, do you see any real retention? Students of languages usually have to be more active as they begin to acquire a language. With a whole week before the receive another 5 min. block, wouldn’t they forget what you taught them previously?
I would love to hear more about how you do this in your own setting.
Adam
By: Adam Couturier on November 12, 2009
at 11:24 pm
Retention is certainly an issue, but how much does a child aged 0 to 3 retain though admittedly with several hours a day of immersion in sound and visual stimuli? A few of the older children are learning curiosity – and they do not tire of the games I have invented. I have one 13 year old who is doing an hour a week extra with me – and like in the Suzuki violin class, his mother listens and hears what to reinforce for homework. He said to me 8 months ago – I wish we could do more than 5 minutes a week. Since then he has had about 8 1 hour sessions. On Tuesday we read and took apart the first 7 verses of Ruth. He did all the reading, then we looked at grammar and suffixes and then he read again. By the time we were through, besides the fact that he was tired! he sounded like he understood it as he read and it sounded like the beginning of a story. (He had only the Hebrew in front of him). Some of the 8 and 9 year olds are expressing interest in more time too.
But the true objective of Sunday School – what is it? Much of it is convenience or teaching of church or confessional structures, not to learn Hebrew. What I think this 5-minute-a-week experiment may do is remove the fear of the unknown to some extent. Then if they decide later to pursue ancient tongues, they will not be starting from 0. Anyway – you can follow the progress over the next year at the Sunday school blog. Hopefully it will be progress!
By: Bob MacDonald on November 12, 2009
at 11:49 pm
While we’re on the topic of inductive approaches, I would highly recommend the Living Biblical Hebrew/Greek materials developed by Randall Buth. You begin to hear the spoken languages before ever actually reading them. THIS is the key to language retention, introducing the necessary aural components. http://www.biblicalulpan.org if anyone’s interested!
By: Robert Brown on November 20, 2009
at 2:33 pm
Hello Robert,
Thanks for dropping by and interacting. I am familiar with Buth’s work. He presented some great thoughts at last years National Association of Hebrew Professors meeting at the annual SBL meeting. His material looks great; however, it is a bit too pricey on a student’s budget.
I couldn’t agree more about the necessity of adding an aural component to the process of language acquisition. This is part of the reason I am such a fan of Bonnie Kittel’s Hebrew Grammar.
By: Adam Couturier on November 20, 2009
at 3:51 pm