learning languages

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Ah, More on Biblical Languages and Teaching

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

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.

Learning Aramaic in Seminary

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

One thing that neither Mandy or I have blogged about much is our experience of learning Aramaic in Seminary. I had some negative things to say about our Biblical Aramaic course last spring. To be fair, looking back, I imagine I was simply overwhelmed during the first week of the semester and thus panicking. The class wasn’t as bad as the first post linked above makes it out to be, nor is the work described in it unreasonable. However, I never really went over any of the positive things about learning Biblical Aramaic at seminary, specifically at GCTS.

The first and most obvious positive to learning Biblical Aramaic at GCTS is that we are able to take a course in it at all. As Peter Bekins has pointed out (his post was actually the inspiration for this one), many seminaries do not offer Aramaic, and if they do many seminarians do not take it. That’s not the case at GCTS. To be sure, the Aramaic class was not even close to the size of the Hebrew and Greek courses, but it was fairly sizable (perhaps 30 students).

Having taken Aramaic I have a much better idea of how semitic languages work. I imagine this will be even more true once I complete Ugaritic this fall. Taking Aramaic also means that I can read the entirety of the Hebrew Bible in the original language.

Although this next positive is specific to GCTS, it still applies in my case, as well as Mandy’s. By achieving an A or A+ in Aramaic, students here are able to take two directed study courses with Dr. Stuart, if they would like. Those two courses are Targumic Aramaic and Syriac. To be completely honest, the number of dead languages taught at Gordon-Conwell was one of the main reasons Mandy and I chose to come here for our Masters’ work.

I’ve not studied Aramaic as much, or for as long, as Pete Bekins. Nevertheless, I see the beginnings of the importance to an understanding of Hebrew, and semitics generally, as well as Biblical studies, that he discusses in his post. Also like him, I would love to see Aramaic as a requirement at seminaries–of course, I’d also like to see two full years of Hebrew as a requirement, but I won’t hold my breath.

Learning Aramaic allowed me to see how some of the things that Hebrew does are carried on in a related language. I really can’t overestimate how helpful that has been to me as I continue to read the Hebrew Bible and refine my knowledge of Hebrew. Johns’ Grammar also includes some helpful charts in regards to the way in which Aramaic is related to other semitic languages, including very brief discussions of proto-semitic consonants and the Canaanite vowel shift.

Overall, I’m extremely pleased that I was able to learn Aramaic while in seminary. Likewise I’m pleased to be taking Aramaic this semester, and I plan to take both Targumic Aramaic and Syriac if I can fit them into my schedule. Of course, my desire is to eventually obtain a PhD, so I may be an odd ball. But I even know some M.Div. students who took advantage of the Aramaic offerings here at Gordon-Conwell. I highly recommend it.