Although somewhat late, Daniel and Tonya over at Hebrew and Greek Reader have responded to a question that John Hobbins posed a while back regarding a snafu that Rob Bell made in a video. Everyone else has already done enough to point out that Bell is wrong, and why people really should learn the Biblical languages. I want to pick up on two things that D&T state, and add some of my own thoughts.
1. If people don’t know the Biblical languages, they can’t teach the Bible – I, generally speaking, agree. However, I do want to present a caveat. Sometimes even people who don’t know the languages can have insight into a particular aspect of living life, or whatnot. Can people who don’t know Hebrew and Greek teach the Bible academically? No. Is it possible for them to dig as deeply into the text as someone who does know the languages? No. Is it possible for them to have insight into a particular passage from a faith perspective? Yes. Sometimes us younger people, even those of us who know a lot, just need to listen to those who have studied the Bible for longer, even if that study has only been in English, at least when we are talking about “applying the text” to one’s life.
2. On M.Div. degrees being theology degrees not Bible degrees – Again, I agree with D&T’s assessment here. Most people who get an M.Div. want to do theology. Those who want their theology based on the Bible still do too much theologizing for my liking. Of course, I think all theologians need to know Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic well–plus, of course, Latin (Earl, I’m looking at you). But, that is my own little dream world. What I find interesting is even at a seminary which teaches a ton of languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Akkadian, Ugaritic, and possibly one or two others), the M.Div. students still very much want to get into a text in order to learn how to preach it. Thus one of the reasons I am officially an M.A. student, no longer an M.Div. student. I’m not saying that people in a faith community shouldn’t preach from the Bible, quite the opposite. I would, however, like to see a bit more effort to understand the text on its own terms, apart from Christian theology.
Of course, ideally pastor’s would remember their Hebrew and Greek, and teach it to their congregations. When this is lacking, then others in the church ought to be willing, able, and allowed to step in and teach those languages in a church setting. It would, I believe, revolutionize the faith of those who took advantage of such an opportunity.
Calvin,
Thanks for the pingbacks!
On your point #1 – Sounds like yoir talking about reader response criticism. That’s great, provided its disclosed as such.
#2 – I wish they’d get it through their heads that their preaching will be better if they preach their own thoughts based on their own reading of the biblical text, be it in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.
Glad y’all have returned from the void.
*your
I wouldn’t say I was talking about reader response. More so the idea that sometimes, even someone who doesn’t know Hebrew and Greek, can point out something in a passage of which a person who does know Hebrew and Greek may not have thought.
I agree with you on that Calvin. There are many people out there who are very astute, active readers. We can learn much from them.
You wrote:
“I would, however, like to see a bit more effort to understand the text on its own terms, apart from Christian theology.”
I could see directing this critique at the MDiv population of GCTS (though of course there are many MDiv students to whom it does not apply). But I could just as easily make the opposite critique of the biblical studies MA crowd. All too often we spend our time dealing with the “text on its own terms” (such a slippery idea…), and then rattle off a “theology and application” section for our papers in about 10 minutes. Now, if we were at a secular institution, seeking a purely historical/literary/philological analysis, this would fine. But we’re not. We’re at a Christian institution, expecting a Christian understanding of the text, and this means doing the hard work of wrestling with the text “in its historical context” and then taking seriously how that contextual understanding informs and is informed by the text’s placement within the Christian canon and the testimony of Christian tradition.
Just to be clear,Calvin, I’m not saying you don’t do this. Seeing as how I’ve never read your stuff, I couldn’t begin to judge. I am , like you, simply expressing my pipedreams for the future of GCTS and the exegetes and scholars it produces.
Calvin,
A passage of what? Not a Hebrew or Greek text, if they can’t read it.
I’m not denying anyone’s ability to have insights. But that wasn’t the argument. The argument was about propriety in teaching, which we agree on.
@Luke – Certainly I think that we in the MA crowd tend to shoot off an application section with little thought. Personally, I think one of the main reasons this happens is that my views of how the Old Testament interacts with Christian faith are often a bit different than what some in the evangelical community would suppose, and so there are disagreements there–but I digress. Your point is well taken, though I’m curious, do you think that there are passages that simply aren’t applicable in quite the way an exegesis paper assumes?
@D&T – A passage of an English Bible, but, of course, we really agree. At this point we’re just discussing what amounts to a small niche issue.
I’m not sure I know which “way” you mean. If you mean, do I think that every passage holds four or less bullet-points for a happy life—obviously not. But then, I don’t think the profs think that either. I would affirm that each substantial unit of the text has some rhetorical and therefore ethical thrust to it (i.e. an application). Sometimes determining that thrust is difficult. Sometimes once it is found, it seems foreign to our our, because indeed it is foreign to our culture. From our brief conversations, I suspect this is what you mean.
But again, I don’t think this excuses us from the difficult task of ascertaining that rhetorical thrust and viewing it in light of the Christian faith(s). What I’m saying is, if we as professing Christians are going to take our own canon seriously, we need to wrestle with the exegetical implications of statements like Luke 24.27 and 2Tim 3.16. Thus, we cannot simply be satisfied with an obscure and foreign, yet historically sound exposition of the text. We must, to reappropriate your words, spend a bit more effort understanding the text in light of Christian theology.
*our ears
Luke, thanks for interacting with me on this.
I, generally speaking, agree with what you’re saying. In a seminary context there is nothing wrong with expecting one to give an opinion on how the text relates to modern life. I also like your term “rhetorical thrust.” I’m not personally comfortable with expecting every 3-6 verse pericope in the Hebrew Bible to contain something that is applicable to a modern person. But if one might take each 3-6 verses, in the great context in which they appear, and argue for a rhetorical thrust, I’m not opposed to it.
One might take Job 5.1-7 as an example of what I mean. I think this section loses a ton of meaning when taken alone. It really only has an application within Eliphaz’s first response to Job, which itself only has meaning when one has read the sections coming before it in Job, all of which become most clear(as if such a thing can be applied to the Book of Job!) when viewed in the greater context of the Book of Job. At GCTS specifically you have a Biblical Context, or perhaps Literary Context, section to flesh some of that out. However, one can still examine those seven verses on their own and learn a ton of information that, to use the Christian phase, “let’s one know God more,” without it being “applicable” in the way Christian’s often think of that word.
Generally speaking though, I still think that as Christians we generally rush to an application for today without first letting the text speak for itself. If anything, I think that in the Evangelical version of Christianity plenty of people spend a great deal of effort on understanding the text in light of Christian theology–I’d like to advocate for a bit more patience before getting to that phase.
My pleasure.
I agree.