I’ve posted often enough on the issue of learning Biblical languages that I don’t feel the need to link to my own thoughts on the topic. However, I’ve been part of an interesting conversation over at Hebrew and Greek Reader. It all started with an image my friend Adam created to help himself learn the names of various body parts–in Hebrew. Our discussion over on Hebrew and Greek Reader gave rise to a second post on that blog which further outlines Daniel and Tonya’s view on the subject.

The topic is fairly sprawling, and so I’d like to limit myself in this post to interacting with Daniel and Tonya’s thoughts on why we learn Biblical languages, and how that influences the goals that one has when learning a Biblical language.

Daniel and Tonya (hereafter D&T because it’s faster to type) start out their discussion by examining the question of end use goals for Biblical Hebrew.

Most of her [Karyn Traphagen] students take Hebrew to fulfill a language requirement in preparation for ministry. Some are preparing for a PhD. And adding Tonya and I into the equation, we did and do Hebrew to better confess Scripture. What are the end-goals for these three groups? To read and exegete a text.

So far, I agree with the letter of what D&T are saying, though I suspect we might differ on exactly what constitutes “exegesis.” Nevertheless, I find the next sentence fascinating, “Using the language for communication is not in view.” A fascinating statement given the fact that I think it could be argued quite persuasively that reading and writing are forms of communication. If, indeed, they are not, and only the spoken word constitutes communication than we would need to come up with a classification for what is taking place when people email or text message–but I digress. The above statement aside, I’m still following D&T’s argument, to a point.

Where I begin to get stuck, and hopefully D&T and I can continue to interact on this whole topic, is the idea that grammatical knowledge is mutually exclusive to what might be termed a working knowledge of the language; that is, when one is able to begin thinking in a language. As it happens I agree completely with D&T that memorizing paradigms doesn’t need to be a top priority. I also agree that using the tools one has at one’s disposal is a good thing. However, if students of classical Hebrew do not learn to sight read (which I define as being able to read a passage and understand the gist of what is going on without the use of a lexicon) at least fairly simple passages, they will never use the language. Some of this is simple vocab acquisition. Lexicons are okay, but far better to know the word off the top of your head, even if you need to go look up a few of the words before having a translation you would be comfortable sharing with someone else. Even better if you know what the Hebrew word means not as an English gloss, but because of several Hebrew synonyms (ie, much like we understand the meaning of English words, if English is your first language). In my experience someone is not going to make use of the Hebrew and Greek that they may have learned in seminary or elsewhere if they need to look up every fourth word in a lexicon. Suddenly, reading a chapter of Scripture takes more than an hour. I think there are advantages to forcing someone to slow down in their reading of Scripture, but there are better, and less frustrating ways, of achieving that end.

I also agree with D&T that perhaps the goal of “thinking” in another langauge is too vague and imprecise. I do like their word though, “automaticity.” To some extent, when one looks at a text of Scripture in Hebrew, certain things should be automatic. If you see ויאמר it shouldn’t even require thought to parse it and understand it (notice, not “translate it”). If that is not automatic, you do not know Biblical Hebrew.

So, to sum up, I disagree with D&T primarily in that I believe one must have a solid knowledge of the language, beyond the simple ability to use tools, in order to truly make use of the language and in the end, in order to do exegesis. Put a different way, “automaticity” is a good goal, and even a needed intermediate goal in learning a language, though I agree that memorizing endless paradigms is tedious and that there are better ways of acquiring “automaticity.” However, I have to also say that I’d like more people to learn Hebrew not to do grammatical exegesis, but simply to read the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, without the intermediary of a translator who is, after all, a traitor.