comment on old post for Nosborne

I really am interested in Nosborne posts

Your two questions are very valid and
reasonable to ask!!!!!!!!!!!

You state Aramaic to be damned difficult
to learn and I would say the same for Greek and Hebrew!

I am getting along with Greek but Hebrew is a toughie!

Also it should take at LEAST 20 years of study before you become very acquainted with those languages.....

then again we have the cultural issues to deal with

I live in Taiwan and I do not believe I will ever grasp Chinese that well....
My kids will of course since they are going up in the cultural around them
this is one of the biggest reasons why there are so many different opinions floating around

In fact I even sent an email to apply for Jewish studies somewhere recently...... (big grin)

Have you ever read anything by an author
named Santala?

 

Does anyone have any idea what this guy is talking about?

Wes

 

In this case, yes. IIRC, there was a discussion awhile ago about Biblical languages, and Nosborne pointed out that Aramaic was one of the more difficult.

I know less than nothing about Biblical languages, so Nosborne's point may or may not be valid, but I do remember the thread.


Bruce

 

Actually, in semminaries and Near Eastern Languages Programs, Aramaic is taught as a one or two semester add-on after one has two years of Hebrew under their belt. It's not that hard to master if one has mastered Hebrew. Once upon a time, I did that, but its been many moons...

 

oops!

Next time I will cut and paste some of the
original post....

My point is that he asked why Christians
do not study Hebrew and Greek when
they study the bible.

I remarked that these two languages are not
easy for many westerners today

and also I still think that unless one really
studies them for many years they are not
very adept at really using them
notice the "very adept"

sorry bout that

 

Yes, I can attest, not as a "supreme expert" but as one who has done two degrees, one in Greek and the other largely in Hebrew that they are both difficult.

I would suggest to anyone interested in studying it to give it at least two years of good study to learn the basics. Then, about 8 years, I hear, before one can have a genuinely new insight into something based on prior knowledge of the language. But I disagree that 20 years is needed.

20 years sounds extremely pessimistic to me. It almost sounds like an "excuse" to just abandon the whole idea. Honestly, if someone is interested in the Bible, they need to study these languages. Floating a 20 year figure above the Bible for the new student should not be done because it would unrealistically deter him or her from a genuinely rich pursuit.

 

I agree that two years is the minimum time to acquire some command of Bible Hebrew.
I also believe that Jews have an advantage; we make ritual use of the language to a considerable extent so that the script, pronounciation, and structure become familiar. Christians, however, make no use of the language beyond study and translation and tend to forget what they learn.
I have no idea about Greek.
I am merely whining about Aramaic.

Nosborne, JD

 

20 years?

I was waiting until Nosborne made a comment

(big grin)

Where did my estimate of 20 years come from?
EM Blaikock (?)
I think he is a Professor in Australia or New Zealand

Sure after 8 years I am sure that you can do something interesting with it. 2 years only gives you enough understanding to be "dangerous" (grin)

But once again I still think that Nosborne's posts here and before still hit the nail on the head!

the point is that evangelical use of greek and hebrew are for translational and exegetical purposes
which are worthy in themselves
but then again -- look at all the arguments that are still not resolved

not convinced yet? (big grin)
try 1 Cor 14:33-36 or 1 Cor 11 (kephale)
1 Tim (authentein - authority passage "supposedly" prohibiting women from teaching
"warning warning!! do not let Bill see this!
bwa ha ha ha ha used by virtual permission
of levicoff

on the other hand even tho Jews are capable of culturally understanding the language -- there is a lot of room for arguments too.....

but I think his point is that many christians
grow up trusting the so-called authoritative lexicons
and dictionaries ( I forgot how to put a shocking
smilie here) this is what created "fun" for me
in seminary by challenging them..... (big grin)
and not really trying to tangle with the languages

thank you Nosborne

 

Re: 20 years?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am wondering if you've looked at Grudem's two 70+ page essays on kephale in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Of 2000+ extant occasions of that noun's usage available to us in both secular and religious ancient literature ,it can be clearly demonstrated that ONLY ONE, (Herodotus 4:91), could provide support for the egalitarian stance on this. One could spend much time with more discussion here, but to what avail? Few are convinced by lexical studies and exegetics in general as they use that science rather only for "proofs" of their preconceptions (not me of course). Besides,I'm more interested in weeding out the Wesleyan Arminian heresies than fussing with those who insist on debilitating Scriptural prohibitations re women by using the inconsistencies and deceptiveness of personal experience (I will however respond to any misguided individuals who care to banter by email) Or I will suggest they read John R. Rices (hee, hee) profound classic "Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers"




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

For asiatrek:

I would like to know why one should discount the long term value of studying the biblical languages because particular arguments have "not been resolved." This presumes, it seems to me, that the only purpose in studying them would be to "resolve" particular contentious issues. Honestly, the reason for studying the biblical languages is so that one can read the Bible. It seems very simple to me. So it depends on how much one values the Bible. Knowledge of the languages takes great sacrifice, but there is a great reward.

 

Another reason for studying Bible Hebrew is that in the process one begins to see the text in context. Torah is as much a legal source as it is a history and it is more of both than it is a book of speculative theology.
An example: Torah tells us that we must give a written bill of divorce. What makes this interesting to me is that Torah does not tell us anything more about the process of divorce, nor the rights of the parties, nor the circumstances necessary to justify the granting of a divorce. THESE THINGS WERE UNDERSTOOD in the ancient world. Ancient laws of the region were thus "incorporated" into Torah implicitly.
The Bible must never be interpreted without some idea of its historical, legal, and cultural context. The first step toward understanding any culture is to gain some idea of its language.

My, my, how pretentious and pompous I can be when I try!

Nosborne, JD

 

Nosborne

I admire your usage and grasp of Hebrew and agree with what you say.

 

You agree that I am pretentious and pompous? Then we SHALL be friends!

Nosborne, JD
(Whose grasp of Hebrew is modest but extant.)

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nosborne:

I hope we shall be friends, but, my comment concerned your usage of a Biblical language in worship.

Practically all laity in Christendom have not the drive, despite their claims of love for the Bible, to engage in any study of the language that God (forgive my evangelically based assertion) chose to reveal Himself through nor do they much value serious Biblical study in general. Also, many Christian pastors either cannot or do not study the Scripture in the origninal languages. Of course such endeavor does not provide all answers. But it reveals more of what the real questions are and adds a new dimension and better tools to research!

Glad to have another friend here!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Is it realistic to expect more?

The Bible has been subjected to more intense and minute study than any other book(s) written by man. Literally every verse has been subjected to the scrutiny of generations of scholars.

So might it make more sense for an individual who wants to understand the book to consult the commentaries and studies that have already been written, rather than by trying to reproduce the same work themselves?

That suggests that unless one is intending to become a Biblical textual scholar in one's own right, spending years of intensive work gaining an elementary understanding of two very difficult foreign languages might be time better spent doing something else.

So might a Christian layman, and even the average parish minister, be better advised to consult the secondary literature?

 

I think this is a great question, Bill.

My opinion is surely going to lean in the direction of "everyone should study," which I will admit up front is kind of biased because I have spent a lot of personal time in the languages.

You suggestion is good for a culture that values time more than money. I'm going to answer two different sides of this question. One, what is the value of linguistic study given the plethora of information from commentaries?

1.) My answer: Often, with no grasp of the languages at all, we don't know what commentaries are superior and which are inferior. Or, we don't have an intellectual rubric to evaluate which commentaries or historical works are going to be "helpful" for the question we are asking. For that, with or without language work, it just takes time and resources. This is especially true since all commentaries, no matter what historical period or publisher, are ideological and have some kind of agenda. That is, they were meant to sell. So, without something to check it with, this is going also going to be hard. If you (pardon my bluntness) "ask your pastor" then you are going to get the commentaries that say what you hear on your holy day already. Why do self study then? I think, for self study, "any ol commentary" won't do. Anyone who has time and desire to pour into self-directed study should research them carefully and hopefully get an intro to both languages. Just take one course in each.

Two, isn't there a more time efficient way to do this? In short, I agree that the languages don't make things crystal clear. In fact, I think one can find an abundance of tools for how to do inductive Bible study that will be, often times, more helpful than the languages. I personally hand out "Playing by the Rules" by Robert Stein. Often times, different language scholars I know have the wrong questions they are posing when consulting the texts. Without a broad understanding of the methods of literary play/convention that undergird and surround the texts, questions may come from any which direction and answers come out the wrong way.

I personally wish every pastor would at least look into practical hermeneutics/Bible study methods. Often times, the information they give us either from the languages (which they don't know) or the historical context pales in comparison to the obvious literary aspects of the texts they are staring at.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, it is realistic:

Good commentaries and serious studies, that is, Secondary Literature, regularly use exegetical insights elicited from the original languages. I did NOT suggest that laymen or pastors write NEW commentaries (don't know where that notion came from. I did not write it!!) or create NEW studies!! ! If you took that as my meaning then I was not clear! But, one cannot understand or evaluate good secondary literature without some grasp of the basics of the originals. May I illustrate using standard reference commentaries ?

re: John 1:1

(1) 'The article before Theos (I transliterate) would destroy the distinction of personality..." Lange, 57

(2) John has the verb "en" in the durative imperfect, Lange, 27.

(3) "the simple grammatical rule that predicate nouns are generally anarthrous", Brown 2;5

(4) "The three clauses of which it consists are set side by side: kai...kai...kai,' Westcott, 4

(5) "since pros is used more frequently in the New Testament than in the classics..."Hengstenberg, 18

(6) many commentators deny that pros with the accusative differs from para with the dative", Morris, 75

(7) "those who infer from the imperfect tense of the verb", Calvin, 596

I could demonstrate this further with scores of examples.


So what am I suggesting? That ideally serious students of the New Testament avail themselves of one of the DL intro to Biblical languages courses available so that they can comprehend good secondary literature or at the very least that they develop the determination to locate and put up with the rigor of an exposition of Scripture from the pulpit or in an adult Bible study which confronts and attempts to resolve some of these exegetical issues. Without such minimal effort and experience one will be confounded by the many difficulties serious study occasions. Curious that whereas "mathetes" means a learner, it is taken today to be the equivalent of simply a believer.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

oh well here we go again

I can see that my post was not fully understood

normal -- email and posts are notorious for that

I totally and enthusiastically agree with
the comments about studying greek and hebrew
else why would I praise Nosborne's posts??????

But there are thousands of examples of people who only study from say Thompson-chain bible
or something other popular concordance

check out "allnlwn" oops my spelling is getting rusty
in the greek then in the english versions
quite a lot of difference in meaning in my opinion
"one another"

come on Bill .... I am very disappointed in your remarks about my having or not having read Grudem's article... sheeeeesh
do you really think I am that sloppy in my own research???????
(big grin)

Thus (just joking) should I listen to Grudem pontificating on this point?
oh yea 2 70 page papers prove it right?
and look what you guys did to Walston
and Sanders papers..... sheeeeesh

Now I will have fun in my recourse
Hey Bill have you read alot of the academic
stuff from the other camp? (big grin)

I am wondering if you can even name the org
that supports the so-called "heretical experiential side"
ha ha ha

In my post where all I got was a
um OK? big grin

I will ponder that one more longer
It could be that I am too much of a rambler
so I going to need to change if I want to
pursue my DTh (I sure be careful in my
terminology -- after reading some of the posts
about people using Phd )

Language study is very beneficial
Is this clear enough?
But presuppositions are stronger
(by the way I try to correct all of my spelling
errors before sending my post ----
I have noticed some spelling checkers
are not functioning very well sometimes....
(big grin)
also I am getting too lazy
how do you stick in those smileys anyway?

p.s. Bill I do not have your email address
and besides I have been down that road
many a time since '86 with a lot of people

besides we are both busy with our programs
if and when I have more free time then
I will gladly "engage" you in some serious
chess playing -- but just remember this
do not underestimate your opposition ha ha ha


Ya know talking about programs
Mine is Theological Education
I have yet to see anyone from DTS or
other so-called evangelical sem's dialoguing
or writing in this field....
of course they may consider it Christian Ed
or Religious Ed and so figure that it is not
so necessary.... But it is some important
since this forum is about accredited stuff
ATS made the grant and created the
long discussion talks.

 

Asiatrek;

bye

 

Why bye

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Asiatrek


You have emailed me and asked to have an explanation: why bye?

Of course this only means that I personally am not any more prone to responding to your posts . It has nothing to do with you being welcomed on this board. I've no control over, ( nor would I delimit you from doing so if I did) , you using this forum. But I do feel all here have the choice of responding or not to the posts of others. So, why would I wish to personally say "bye'?

Your posts are difficult for me to respond to for several reasons:

(1) You exceedingly ramble. The structure of a paragraph should be
a) topic sentence
b)support, explain, illustrate
c)support " "
d)support " "
e) transition
You on the other hand rush through a posting hitting a thousand topics and nailing down nothing. But this is not something that I absolutly cannot live with as in a few days I will begin my 34Th year of teaching JH kids how to compose paragraphs and papers.
I do not find your form unforgivable as you live in Taiwan and perhaps that's how they write there, and, as you know, St Paul gets much sidetracked too!

(2) Your posts frequently mention me. This is a little embarrassing and I don't know why you do that.

(3) Our moderators are kind enough to abide with a little religious discussion, but this is not the best forum to do that.

(4) I'm very confused re your academic status as you've indicated interest in CES, EG, yet say you are presently enrolled in a doctorate somewhere. CLEARLY STATE WHERE YOU NOW ARE A DOC STUDENT.

(5) You take my statements out of specific contexts. EG, I said in academe RA degrees are more respected than non accred degrees. You countered that in Taiwan people you work with do not value your RA degrees. These are distinct contexts, right?

(6) You misrepresent Christian higher ed eg, DMin require pastoral experience,...not always! Seminaries do not award docs in Christian Ed,..of course they do!!

(7) you regularly tout your ability to confound your seminary profs as the "lonewolf." You say you have overwhelming lexical skills and can correct the errors of the accepted lexica. FINE, SO DEMONSTRATE YOUR SKILL ON 'MONOGENES.'

(8) you do not effectively respond to particular counters. You said the issue of the meaning of "kephale" is not decided. I asked if you had read Grudem's two articles in JETS on that noun. You respond with "sure I have..Grudem pontificates." Well, then. SPECIFICALLY EXPLAIN , HOW DOES GRUDEM PONTIFICATE?

(9) As you say, we both are busy with our programs!


Of course, should you wish to respond then I will do you the courtesy of meeting you on "off topic." Please no more emails. Thanks,


******************************************