Biblical languages and educating pastors

Obviously I meant Vulgate.

 

Jimmy and I may have finally discovered the true(est) definition of contemplating one's navel: Quoting oneself in one's own posts. It's clearly contagious.

 

Fuzzy thinking ensues!

 

Absolutely! There are lots of good pastors out there who don't know the languages or who even though they have studied them aren't expert enough in Greek or Hebrew to do a lot of original work. Fortunately, there are enough scholars around to keep the rest of us in check.

However, I still think that some exposure to biblical languages should be a part of an educated pastor's training. And I say that as a linguistically challenged individual. I dreaded Greek. I didn't look forward to Hebrew. But I jumped in and did it because it was required of me. And I'm glad I did.

It didn't turn me into a language scholar. I still read the Bible in English. But the language background continues to be helpful in the use of tools. And I know enough to realize when someone else doesn't know what he's talking about (and that is very helpful in this vocation).

Also, when you learn the language you learn something of the mind-set that goes with it. And that is of unquantifiable help.

I took the language classes pass/no pass and that took a lot of pressure off me. I was able to relax (more or less) and that kept me from freaking out. Had I taken the letter grades I would have gotten a "B" in a fairly rigorous language program. I don't think I would have done as well if I were going for the grade.

Not all seminaries require the same level of language proficiency. Those which emphasize textual studies are going to expect more. Some have programs that are simply designed to teach people how to use study tools. And there are those which don't emphasize textual study at all and thus don't see it as being extremely important. Someone has already mentioned Starr King, the Unitarian-Universalist seminary. They haven't had a language requirement as long as I can remember.

I don't know that you would consider the Evangelical Covenant Church to be a major denomination. But our education requirements are high. We do, though, have ordained people with little or no language background. It isn't normative but it could and does happen. If someone came along with an ATS MDiv I don't know that anyone would ever bother asking whether he or she took Greek. We don't have any kind of denominational language test.

Even if someone isn't really a language person, and they know that it will be a struggle, it still makes good sense to have at least some background in Hebrew and Greek.

It has been relatively recently that seminaries started to include Greek in their MDiv programs. Prior to the 60's, and 70's in some places, it was assumed that a student would do all the Greek prep work PRIOR to seminary. For some that is still the preferred course. And there is something to be said for learning it before seminary. For one thing you can find a system that is to your liking -- online, self-paced workbook, intensive, college -- you choose! And generally speaking learning it through an alternative method is going to be cheaper. AND it frees up room for more electives -- maybe Akkadian or Ugaritic.

 

No one could possibly be considered a Jewish scholar without demonstrating significant skill in bible and prayerbook Hebrew. Aramaic and mishnaic Hebrew is required of all rabbis and modern Hebrew is considered almost as essential.

Consider this: Virtually every Jewish child whose family is even faintly observant must demonstrate publicly that he or she can read and interpret Hebrew. If THEY can do it, surely YOU can!

Virtually every Jewish congregation conducts a significant part of its services in Hebrew. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, right? Certainly, he prayed in Hebrew and referenced Hebrew writings at the very least. I suggest that Christianity was FOUNDED in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Greek).

I won't go as far as the Orthodox and maintain that God actually SPEAKS Hebrew. (grin)

Any Christian minister or scholar who wants to use the Jewish bible as a source of proof texts would be well advised to work from the Hebrew!

 

Oh, and a REALLY hard core Jewish scholar needs a working knowlege of Arabic as well!

 

Shukran, Nosborne, for sage advice

Rambam thank you ma'am. We're all Saadia but wiser now.

 

OUCH! (hee hee)

 

Can't help it; reading Gersonides at the moment.

 

Regarding Starr King, here are two emails from them:

 

The emails from Starr King were very interesting and helpful, Jimmy. Thanks! (Sure hope you got the author's permission to post them here, with attribution... but I digress.)

And thanks to everyone who has posted in this thread so far. Great posts! It's terribly interesting to me and I'm learning a lot.

Earlier, here, I suggested that quality writings about the texts -- and from so many differing viewpoints -- are in so much greater abundance today than in Martin Luther's time; and that thoughtful review of them, supplemented by comparisons (and interpretations therefrom) of the subject passages in multiple biblical translations by a minister before preaching about a given passage, might (and the operative word, here, is "might") adequately mitigate any gaps in said pastor's education which might exist as a consequence of him/her not having included biblical languages in his/her pastroral preparation.

In that same posting I quoted Martin Luther from his "To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools" in 1524. To quote Luther further from that same piece, he addressed the above assertion thusly:

"...but many of the fathers [you say] were saved and even became teachers without the languages. That is true. But how do you account for the fact that they so often erred in the Scriptures? How often does not St. Augustine err in the Psalms and in his other expositions, and Hilary too--in fact, all those who have undertaken to expound Scripture without a knowledge of the languages? Even though what they said about a subject at times was perfectly true, they were never quite sure whether it really was present there in the passage where by their interpretation they thought to find it. Let me give you an example It is rightly said that Christ is the Son of God; but how ridiculous it must have sounded to the ears of their adversaries when they attempted to prove this by citing from Psalm 110 "Tecum principium in die viftutis tuae," though in the Hebrew there is not a word about the Deity in this passage! When men attempt to defend the faith with such uncertain arguments and mistaken proof texts, are not Christians put to shame and made a laughingstock in the eyes of adversaries who know the language? The adversaries only become more stiff-necked in their error and have an excellent pretext for regarding our faith as a mere human delusion.

"When our faith is thus held up to ridicule, where does the fault lie? It lies in our ignorance of the languages; and there is no other way out than to learn the languages. Was not St. Jerome compelled to translate the Psalter anew from the Hebrew because, when we quoted our Psalter in disputes with the Jews, they sneered at us, pointing out that our texts did not read that way in the original Hebrew? Now the expositions of all the early fathers who dealt with Scripture apart from a knowledge of the languages (even when their teaching is not in error) are such that they often employ uncertain, indefensible, and inappropriate expressions. They grope their way like a blind man along the wall, frequently missing the sense of the text and twisting it to suit their fancy, as in the case of the verse mentioned above, "Tecum principium," etc. Even St. Augustine himself is obliged to confess, as he does in his Christian Instruction, that a Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin. Otherwise, it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling; indeed, there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.

"There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it, a prophet. A simple preacher (it is true) has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture, and working with it on your own, and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations. A saintly life and right doctrine are not enough. Hence languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian church, as are the prophets or interpreters; although it is not necessary that every Christian or every preacher be such a prophet, as St. Paul points out in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4."

It's a compelling argument, to be sure... and one that's getting to me and may well, in the end, bring me to the same belief as others have espoused here (and to which, perhaps, I should be paying closer attention): That biblical languages are essential and that's that. 'Nuff said.

Still, I'm troubled. What we're saying, here, is that one may not adequately do one's job as a preacher; that one cannot possibly understand the texts well enough to preach to anyone about them unless one has, oneself, read and interpreted them in their original Hebrew or Greek and come to one's own conclusions regarding same; and, moreover, that one cannot rely on and, therefore, simply repeat the works or interpretations of anyone who came before him/her, no matter how scholarly or reliable said works or interpretations might be.

Were this any other field of endeavor, would we not view this approach as facially ridiculous? Were we to apply this same standard to the sciences, for example, and deprive scientific researchers the luxury of learning, relying upon and, most importantly, building upon and transcending the scientific works of others before them, I dare say we would still believe the earth to be flat and at the center of the solar system; and our "physicians" would still be applying leaches for nearly all medical ailments.

It's not like the Hebrew and Greek texts were only fairly recently discovered buried in someone's back yard in Schenectady. Two millennia (and five centuries since Luther's time) have transpired, for goodness sake. Has that not been long enough for that span of time's most brilliant theological minds (which, arguably, have been about as good as it gets) to finally commit to paper a body of biblical interpretation of the original texts so sufficiently rich and varied that we, now, may safely quote from it (without having to go back and repeat their work... and probably nowhere near as well as they did it in the first place) as we concentrate our energies on our works and acts of spirit and mission?

With the likes of Martin Luther standing watch to point out to us that even St. Augustine had gotten it wrong, and why, are we not asking our young pastors to spend too much time trying to reinvent a wheel that is as well-invented and finely-tuned as it ever needs to be, at this point; and which is better used now as whatever tool it has finally become, as it is, in the pursuit of greater works now and in the future for which said pastors will have more time by not asking them to do what others before them have done better and about which they can read as simply as picking-up a book?

How much of the biblical languages requirement for pastors (MDiv candidates) who do not intend to teach other pastors in seminaries and who, instead, simply wish to preach the word to the common man in a parish setting is just tradition from which we cannot seem to free ourselves?

Instead of requiring of him/her that he/she learn biblical Hebrew and/or Greek, are we saying that, given the advanced state of the accumulated body of interpretive understanding of the original texts that exists today, a young pastor (who wishes only to preach in a parish setting) seeking his/her MDiv would not get just as much useful information out of exegetical studies wherein he/she simply reads and discusses the varied interpretations of the original languages of the great theologians who came before him/her rather than also performing them himself/herself?

Given the shortness of their lives, the fire in their bellies that I would like to believe most young pastors have to finally get out there once and for all and just do it, and the need of the world for the witness they bring forth, why do we ask this thing of them when the studies of virtually no other field of endeavor would dare to do the functional equivalent? Why can they not build upon the good works of others before them, especially when those in charge of their denominational distinctives are there to guide them toward reliance upon the specific interpretations that are most in accord with their particular take on things?

I don't mean to be heretical (though I sometimes just can't help myself). I am simply having trouble getting my mind wrapped around this notion. We don't ask scientists to go back and repeat the experiments of those who came before them and upon which we want them to build their work and to advance the state of things. We don't ask lawyers or legislators to struggle with issues that have already been decided by the highest courts and, therefore, form the foundation of future litigating or lawmaking so that the state of things may be advanced from there. Why, then, are we requiring the functional equivalent of young pastors who seek the MDiv? Has not the glorious tradition of faith as we know it taken precedence over simple logic? Would not the words of a pastor who quotes or paraphrases the biblical textual interpretations of others who came before him/her and upon whose work (s)he has come to trust and rely; and whose own works were refined and refined again by their readings of the many equally capable who came before them (and so on and so on), be sufficient?

 

If the issue of the past was a shortage of exegetical resources, today we might say that the reason for having at least a cursory understanding of biblical languages is the over abundance of opinion. It takes a better trained scholar and practitioner to sort through everything and assess its value. If nothing else, exposure to the languages hones our crap detectors.

 

Biblical Requirements at Starr King

A couple of observations:

- Unitarian Universalist Association is not a Christian Denomination, it is an Association of independent churches and fellowships.

- In fact it is possible to graduate with an M.Div from Starr King and never take any courses related to the Bible. I've known folks who've done and were quite proud of it.

- Starr King is accredited by the ATS and is not regionally accredited. Each of nine GTU affiliated seminaries must engage in the accreditation process separately. The GTU accreditation pertains only to the GTU's own MA, Th.D, and Ph.D programs.

- Starr King issues no letter grades and never records failing grades.

- There are many fine folks at Starr King and it is certainly the premiere "student centered" seminary in Berkeley. Students at the other schools find the courses there unsubstantial - even though Starr King rates EVERY course it offers as being at the doctoral level (indicated by course numbers in the 4000's).

 

Re: Biblical Requirements at Starr King

I'm sure William Ellery Channing and Hosea Ballou are turning over in their graves!

 

Re: Re: Biblical Requirements at Starr King

No doubt. Especially Ballou I would think. During his time the Universalists were the 4 largest protestant demonination in the US.

Of course Channing (a Unitarian with a low Christology) and Ballou (a Universalist) disagreed strongly, with Channing criticizing Ballou openly in sermons. Ballou's view of absolute or ultra universal salvation rubbed the Unitarians (who felt they should have something personal to say on the matter) the wrong way.

There are UU's who are Christian. My best guess they number only 5% or about 7,800 adults. A figure statistically insignificant at best.

 

Re: Re: Re: Biblical Requirements at Starr King

Of course Channing disagreed with many within his own ranks, not just the Universalists.

Christian UU's being around 5% "statistically insignificant," you say but actually, the entire UUA is statistically insignificant!

 

Kill a Pissant for Jesus!

Well, I see that our attention span for this particular subject has just about run out -- perhaps as it should be. I am still doing my own bit of research elsewhere to figure out, once and for all where I stand on all this. I greatly appreciate the feedback here, though. Very helpful. Thank you all.


A semi-interesting aside:

While channel surfing after midnight recently, I stumbled onto someone (on KRON4 in the Bay area) whom I'm guessing others in this thread already know about; and whom I found most interesting, generally -- and by that I mean interesting in the same way that some might find watching a car crash to be "interesting."

If ever there were someone who gives biblical languages a bad name, it seems to me it would be DR. GENE SCOTT. What a whackjob! Sorry if that offends people, but I see this nut as the poster child for the argument that one's ability to refer to and interpret the original Hebrew or Greek still won't necessarily make one credible -- or sane!

I don't even know where to begin. Has anyone actually watched this guy -- lately, I mean -- try to make a coherent point? I tried... twice, actually (i.e., two completely different broadcasts) just to make sure I gave it at least some kind of fair chance. It was nothing short of excruciating, I tell you! Having barely recovered from the first one, ninety-minutes into the second I was completely ready to open a vein. Why did we need to get prisoners naked and humiliate them and all the other illegal crap we did at Abu Ghraib? All we needed to do to get them to scream for mercy in 120 minutes or less was show 'em just one video tape of a Dr. Gene Scott sermon! Or, perhaps better yet, show 'em his latest bimbo wife trying to sing a gospel song and sounding like a camel with a thorn in its hoof. Er... oh, wait... that really would have been against the Geneva Convention, wouldn't it? Aye carumba!

I admit that maybe I was having trouble, in part, because the entire time I was watching I knew what a puny little con artist putz this guy is in all other aspects of his life. It never ceases to amaze me how someone like this can get rich, powerful, famous, have fans (ne, followers), and all the rest. I just don't get it. Never have. Never will. This guy's so bad, he makes most televangelists look kinda' okay -- er... well... with the possible exception of Benny Hinn... who should be in prison, in my opinion... but that's a rant for another day.

Watching Scott do his whole biblical languages schtick (ad nauseum, I might add), I naturally thought of this thread -- and I just couldn't help sharing. Oy.

Get on the telephone!

 

Re: Kill a Pissant for Jesus!

Gene Scott is a West Coast institution. When I was in seminary (20+ years ago) we used to gather around the community television to watch him "preach" while puffing on his cigar. It was cheap entertainment.

Even though the guy has a PhD in history from Stanford he is totally void of coherence. He just tries to make his case by overwhelming you with random bits of historical and linguistical information. And it's because there are people like him out there that ordinary seminary students need to have some biblical language background. Got to hone those crap detectors.

 

Used to watch Scott more than 20 year's ago when he preaced from a rooftop and told everyone to go to hell.

He is a very strange dude!

 

Re: Re: Kill a Pissant for Jesus!

Ahhhh, yes. I believe you used the "crap detector" argument earlier in the thread (or was it in a private message.... can't remember, and too lazy to scroll through all the posts and see). My point is, though: Boy-oh-boy does Gene Scott ever make the crap detector point, eh! Crystal clear. Thanks for the reminder.

As I used to say to my ex-wife (sadly, a lot): Dammit, I hate it when you're right.

It's more than that, though. Some of the independent research I've done since starting this thread -- along with stuff all you folks here have written -- is pointing me more and more in that direction. Imagine, I'm starting to see it your way, fellas! Who woulda' thunk it.

Still on the quest....

And watch out for Gene Scott! (What a whackjob!)