Why Do (Some) Seminaries Still Require the Biblical Languages?

... but why use the Annihilationist, Stott, to lament the low state of preaching?

It would seem that Stott is a prime example, no matter how well he writes or how eloquent he sounds?

I actually think that there are a lot of good preachers in Independent Baptist circles. And for all my laments about the thinking and direction of many younger fundamentalists, I don't have much complaints about their preaching. I am quite pleased with the kind of preaching coming from these young men.

This is condesending drivel. "I, even I, only remain, one prophet of the Lord." There are fine, well trained pastors all across our land. Check out sermon audio sometime for a sampling. Yes, there are poor preachers out there. I would guess about the same percentage as there are poor seminary profs.

A bit strong there, Donn!
He said "infrequently heard" not "I alone." I'll concede that there's a bit of hyperbole there, though. I only wish it were condescending drivel.

Well, you went right to the issue without beating around the bush. I cannot say that I disagree. I also believe that the annihilationism is a major issue, one that touches both the inerrancy of scripture (because the Bible either declares a punishment of everlasting flame or it doesn't) and the sovereignty of God (as a main reason why Clark Pinnock and many others adopted this position is the belief that it is more cruel a punishment than man deserves and makes God too cruel. Originally the issue was that it would be unfair to the elect, but Pinnock took the position that it would be unjust for God to give man the free will to accept and reject Him, and then give an eternal punishment to those who exercise that free will to reject Him. In Pinnock's view - which has been adopted by many in some form - man is far too valuable and precious for God to subject to an eternal punishment and still be righteous and just. It is basically the same argument that leads people to pluralism and universalism.)

So, does adhering to annihiliationism make one a heretic? If not, is annihilationism a Biblical separation issue? I see little difference between annihilationism and, say, evolution. (For instance, neither issue appears to directly touch the gospel message itself i.e. the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ, His substitutonary atonement and resurrection, the gospel's exclusivity) why does an "evangelical evolutionist" like Francis Collins engender far more evangelical and fundamental opposition than Stott and they many other annihiliationists?

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/09/have-anglicans.html

Then again ... this is probably not the appropriate forum for this discussion, which deals with the worthy topic of exegesis in preaching.

Not a Stott fan (anymore) and never was a Wright fan, but Stott wrote a very helpful book about preaching and, apparently, being mixed up about eternal judgment (no small matter!) doesn't render him all mixed up about preaching. Perhaps the same is true for Wright, though I have not read him on that subject.

I didn't know that you had to recite Hebrew or Greek to save anyone's soul...for that matter, I didn't know I could save anyone's soul. That must be hidden in the Hebrew or Greek somewhere!
8~)

Based on what's been said so far, should I step down as a Sunday School teacher because I do not know Hebrew or Greek....or Latin? If a pastor cannot effectively preach without knowing the languages, how can a teacher stand in front of a class and teach effectively? I have to think this was taken a bit too far. I can understand how the languages would would be incredibly beneficial, but I would stop short of saying

Yes, but we aren't discussing Stott's article, we are discussing Decker's article. And Decker uses a seriously flawed preacher to make a point about the scarcity of good preaching. In my opinion, someone who denies a clear teaching of the Bible (and, more specifically of the Lord Jesus himself) is an example of bad preaching, not one to bolster the argument about the lack of good preaching.

It just seems like he is an ODD fellow to quote in order to make that point.

Don,

Formal agreement on a point does equate to complete agreement on all issues. That is why I can quote and refer people to N.T. Wright in post #8 with a clear conscience. The alternative is using a "fundamentalist disclaimer" at every turn in the discussion where we mention a person or idea.

The rest of the world -- certainly not the academic world in which Decker lives and moves -- does not operate that way, and I think it would be ridiculous to expect that of a community which is designed to produce "sharper iron."

I think Paul -- who was known to quote colorful characters on occasion (i.e., Acts 17:28) -- would also consider it superfluous (1 Cor. 14:20).

Well, guys, I am obviously not getting my point across.

FIRST, I am not against quoting Stott or anyone else for that matter if the occasion warrants it.

BUT Decker is making this point:

Yeah, sure, we can agree with that concern if we are talking the broader Christian world. It's almost a given.

But then FOR SUPPORT he uses a quote that agrees with his point from a guy who is a prime example of "And the word of the Lord was rare in those days" (1 Sam 3.1). The word of the Lord from Stott is rare because he denies the word of the Lord.

Surely there are plenty of other "famous preachers" that could be used to make that point. Try Piper, MacArthur, Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, any of the Togetherness boys, and I am sure you can find a quote from them somewhere that is similar to what Stott said.

It is just too ironical that he chooses Stott, a man who denies a significant doctrine as support for his point.

~~~

So, now, after having said the same thing for three posts in a row now... I'll quit.

a better question might be why (presumably) some seminaries no longer require biblical languages. seminaries are for training top-level scholars, writers, teachers and preachers. why would anyone think that this level of training would be complete without biblical languages and the historical framework to contextualize them? a church can function entirely on sunday school teachers, but sunday school teachers don't need to go to seminary. christendom needs seminary graduates, but many churches can and do function quite well without them.

I get it, Don. In your view, the very point he's trying to make about poor preaching due to lack of attention to the Word is exemplified by Stott, so he shouldn't be quoted in supported of the point.
I can see the reasoning there. It's not "This guy has problems so we shouldn't quote him" but "This guy has the very problem we're using him to argue against so we shouldn't quote him in that way." I don't think I disagree, though it's probably not as important to me as it seems to be to you. As Shaffer pointed out, the book is something of a classic, though it isn't really that old. But if I were looking for sources to bolster my case or simply acknowledge, yes, given his departure from orthodoxy on that point--and how that probably impacts his preaching--I think I'd look for someone else. I'm not sure I'd look all that hard though. He probably still preaches quite well 98% of the time. Since, in his annihilationism, you still have God pouring out wrath on sinners in upholding His holiness, it probably usually shows up in preaching in the absence of references to "eternal" punishment. This is a problem, to be sure, but I have to ask myself how often to I specifically mention the eternal nature of sin's penalty?
(OK, well it came up quite often in the Romans series! ... it probably gets a mention somewhere in like every 4th or 5th sermon I preach. So maybe I just have to join you on that point, Don!)

how long ago was this? were there ever any christian middle schools teaching greek and hebrew? why do i even want to know rudimentary greek and hebrew? it seems much more efficient to me to teach good researching skills. i would have to spend a lifetime studying to match the expertise i can find by comparing several english translations and studying with a few good commentaries. a rudimentary grasp of the language gets me nowhere and only possibly into trouble if i think i know more than the experts.

Chris, it wasn't until the 19th century that Greek and Latin were excised form the curriculum. J. Gresham Machen, for example, deplored the discontinuing of Latin. If you read The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman, you'll find an example of a university interview. To get into, say, Oxford, students would be examined in one Latin work and one Greek work. The tutor would ask them about grammar and syntax, but even more about theme, plot, critical reasoning points, and such. So, education then was familiarity with a set corpus of literature and a facility in reading, writing, and thinking. In the aftermath of Scottish inductivism, American education has followed the trend toward amassing facts and testing quantity of factual knowledge.

For that matter, 300 years or so ago, everyone who went to university learned the same thing. There was only one course, the "Bachelor of Arts." You learned "the arts," which are roughly analogous to what we call humanities today. Then, you could get a Master of Arts, an intensive course focusing on logic, philosophy, and research skills. Then you could specialize into law, theology, or medicine, earning, for example, the Bachelor of Divinity. (Of course, I'm generalizing a bit since the exact order of courses varied by century and geography, but this is pretty close to how education went everywhere before the rise of the modern German research university).

I want to point out that our quality of ancient language pedagogy has declined sharply. The average contemporary PhD in Theology has nowhere near the facility in Greek that a post-Reformation scholar would have. If you read Philip Melanchthon's works on education, you find him recommending teaching Greek to what we would know as middle and high school students. The courses were conducted in Greek to the extent that the students would understand. The more advanced "high school" students could simply be read to straight out of the NT. So, the pre-university students of Melanchthon's Germany (at least the bright ones) would have a facility in Greek that only a few dozen specialists possess today. Do you know anyone that can speak Koine Greek conversationally? Even in Anne of Green Gables, Anne learns Greek and Latin. If I remember correctly, she likes Latin but not Greek. My point is that we are in a historical wasteland as far as ancient language facility goes. Where Koine is taught at all, it is generally taught as a dead language to be approached through a paradigm-oriented code breaking mentality. Students are taught to perform certain tasks (sentence diagramming, etc.), but not to learn the language as a real language. There are steps in a more positive direction, however. Randall Buth's Biblical Languages Ulpan offers immersion courses in (spoken!) Koine, and biblicalgreek.org takes a living language approach as well, incorporating classical Greek into the learning process. The ugly truth of the moment, however, is that probably 80%+ of evangelical pastors remember Greek and Hebrew merely as unpleasant educational experiences. That really is a waste of time.

I attended a Lutheran high school in the mid-80's where anyone intending to study for the Lutheran ministry needed to take four years of Latin and two years of German in high school. If you were not on that track by your sophomore or junior year, it was almost too late to be "called" to the ministry. The same is still true today in their system, as far as I know.
In the Lutheran school system, the major recruiting for the ministry preparation schools was really done in middle school.
I am not necessarily recommending that as a model, just saying what is -- or at least what I witnessed in my experience.
I can say without hesitation that if you had a Biblical languages contest between a group of fundamental baptist pastors and a group of orthodox Lutheran pastors, the baptists would get embarrassed pretty badly.

FWIW -- I taught part-time in a Christian school for three years and gave the kids in grades 1-6 a dab of Hebrew each week. They absolutely ate it up...

I would argue that it really is about being able to read Greek. Leaving the isolated and rather idiosyncratic world of "biblical" exegesis for a moment, any foreign language teacher will say that the goal is to internalize the language, to be comfortable thinking and communicating using the language as a medium. What we want to eliminate is the double mediation, in which I look at a French sentence, convert it through the use of memorized rules and paradigms into English, and then understand it in that English equivalent. The goal is to understand the French in French as French without having to process it through an English byway. Classics professors such as Carl Conrad the longtime moderator of the B-Greek email list, insist that internalization is the goal for ancient languages as well. The truth is that advanced analysis techniques derived from literary theory only work if you already know the language. They are not substitutes for learning it. People only moderately comfortable in the language who use these tools such as arcing are destined to overestimate the significance of isolated text factors (individual words or tenses) and to underestimate the impact of genre, discourse, and pragmatics. An illuminating example of this is Charles Ryrie's theology of crisis sanctification built upon the "once-for-all" aorist tense of παραστησαι in Rom. 12:1. The issue is not just that Ryrie totally misunderstands the aspective significance of the aorist, but that anyone would attempt to do theology in such an atomistic fashion. The same sort of mistakes occur when pastors try to prove complex theological points from the lexical definition of or even the proposed etymological derivation of a particular word. Another example would be the proof-texting approach in which I make a theology of justification by looking up all the verses containing a δικαι· root and try to add them together.

If you can't flop open your GNT and read it pretty decently, no technique or method of analysis is going to make you a skilled exegete. As one excellent BJU professor said, "Exegesis is just reading on a higher level."

From what I'm hearing (reading) from most of the posts, the quality of the message will not be the same from someone without languages in their background when compared to someone with the languages. Maybe it's because I haven't had Greek or Hebrew, though I have had Latin (not sure why Latin matters in this conversation though). I can see how someone that knows Greek and Hebrew would be able to have a better understanding of Scripture quicker than someone that does not know them. But by studying the plethora of writings available to us today, it would seem that the pastor or laity would be able to come to the same understanding though it may take longer. Is this not correct?

Don't misunderstand me, I am all for getting as much knowledge as possible...especially in Greek and Hebrew for a pastor. However, I do not believe that the quality of a sermon or personal study is strictly dependent on knowing Greek and Hebrew.

Yes and no. The problem is that occasionally the whole flow of a passage or even book can turn on one word (Ephesians 2:4's BUT comes to mind as an obvious example), so it's important to parse that word correctly. Is it an imperative (command)? Is it a Passive or an Active tense? Is it in the Subjunctive mood (expressing hope that something will yet occur, if I understand it correctly), or is it in the Indicative mood (a reiteration of the present state)?

That's a brief discussion. Some of it - the moods and tenses, for example - will be discussed by a good commentary, but you usually can't string along the commentaries to get the fullest idea of what Paul or whomever was trying to convey. Since I don't know Hebrew at all, I can't talk about that.

I feel bad writing anything after Dr. Decker's excellent response, but I believe that there is something worth noting. It is one thing for an individual with a grasp of Greek and Hebrew to minimize the value of original language studies (I doubt anyone who does have grasp would minimize the value), but if one doesn't know the language it is pure foolishness to say that it is unnecessary to know the language. If you don't know original languages that's fine; I understand that not everyone's life provides opportunities to learn them. However, it is absurd to claim any expertise on the subject if you have no first hand knowledge. It's like someone who has never tasted a steak saying that a hamburger is just as good. It is a claim from ignorance.

When reading the article, I couldnt help but thinking of the book I read recently, "Why johny Can't Preach."

First, apologies to Dr Decker for not giving you notice further in advance. Just poor planning on my part. (Dr Stallard gave us permission to post it but I agreed to notify authors in advance--and simply forgot to do that until a few hours before it posted).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts in the discussion as well as in the article.

I think the observation that exegesis is just reading on a higher level argues that reading is just reading on a lower level.
What I mean is that when we read we really are doing the same thing as when we carefully translate and parse, only faster. I'll concede that there is probably a whole lot to be gained from the more comprehensive reading that comes from doing it quickly, just because you get the flow of things better. I'll even agree that internalizing the language is a great idea--for some.
I'm very skeptical that a dead language can be truly internalized, though. It simply isn't possible to live the language's setting and use it conversationally. So I think a good bit of double mediation is unavoidable.

I didn't read it that way, myself. The point was that the lack of good preaching is based on his experience, which happens to be in fundamentalism. But it doesn't speak to the degree to which the problem also exists outside of it.

But thanks Bob,

Once again, I enjoyed reading your post. I will take your word for it about the schools you name.

With regard to my words about fundies losing a Bib language contest with denoms, I was of course factoring in the vast numbers on our side who have never studied Greek or Hebrew.

If the contest only included grads from the fund sems you list with M.Div. or higher, we just might win. Glory Be!!

I will put a plug in here for my alma mater, Faith Sem, and Dr. Hartog III -- who is extraordinary in all Bib languages!
Bib languages are in the air at Faith. They even have T-shirts in the bookstore that say "Greek Squad."

Bob's post is somewhat misleading.

On the general point about language requirements he is correct. Generally speaking, the more liberal a denomination or seminary (incidentally, a divinity school is not the same as a seminary; Divinity schools, like Yale, allow students to tailor their program if they have denominational requirements; so one can't really infer much from looking at an M.Div at a Divinity School because the program's structure doesn't reflect any denominations' requiremenst). However, it's also the case that, generally speaking, the more liberal schools have much better academics, and thus the people who do learn languages tend to know them much better than their conservative counterparts. So, it depends on what you are looking at. At a lot of seminaries and Div. schools, there tends to be a division between "practical" people who are ordination track and "academic" people, who are usually heading for PhDs or simply are focused on academic work. The latter group tend to be very good in languages; the former not so much, regardless of the requirements.

What Bob said about Princeton and the "European Universities" is also misleading. Princeton Seminary has numerous programs, and if you enter the NT program, for example, you are expected to be very good at Greek and to know Hebrew or Latin before entering. Moreover, in both the UK and German university systems, the PhD is a research degree without any course requirements, thus most language work is expected to be done prior to entering, at least your primary source work. UK biblical scholars, for example, are much better trained in languages than their Amerian Evangelical counterparts. I could tick off a list of prominent British biblical scholars all of whom know (as in, read, not dither around with dictionaries) five languages, on average. Any serious scholar in NT at a good PhD program will be expected to know very well Gk, Hebrew, French, and German, and often Latin, and many are now learning Coptic or Syriac. Conservative Americans fare poorly if they are compared to their European counterparts in linguistic comptence.

Also, in Germany, the program that a person seeking ordination goes through requires Latin, Greek, Hebrew, English, and French (the student will aleady know English and usually French from their secondary schooling), so any German who does a PhD in theology or Biblical studies will usually know 5 languages out of the gate. So, it's simply misleading to note that their PhDs don't have language requirements; they don't have formal requirements, but you are required to know whatever the scholarly standards demand you know for your field, which is usually at least two ancient and two modern languages, if you're a biblical scholar of any kind.

As I said, the fundamental division, even among conservatives/Fundamentalists, seem to be in the students. The "academic" students will almost always take their language courses seriously, and that's why I'm willing to bet that a guy like Charlie knew and knows his Greek better than some of his pastoral ministry counterparts at BJU. I saw the same thing at Liberty. Pastoral students (this is another distinct but related issue) seem commonly associated with less than the highest committment to academic rigor.

That said, Dr. Decker is right, I'm sure, about a problem with objective standards and how high they are. Presbyterians, even the PCUSA, for example, are quite demanding in their ordination requirements. Princeton's M.Div does not have language requirements in part because not everyone who gets it plans on ordination. But if you do, you have to pass a senior exam I seriously doubt most Fundamentalist pastors could have passed (assuming analogous content requirements in theology given ones' tradition)
See here for an example: http://www.pcusa.org/exams/examarchive.htm

The broader issue, though, is one of culture and expectation. One cannot address this issue simply by noting that Fundamentalists are weak at languages or scholarship in general. The issue is that different cultures have different expectations. People just expect their Presbyterian pastor to have a certain (from an outside perspective, perhaps quite high) degree of knowledge about Scripture and theology, which includes a facility in languages, church history, the confessional tradition, etc. Not only are their not uniform requirements (they cannot be among independent groups) amongst Fundamentalists, there are not generally high academic expectations. That's the issue: if you want to mproveanguage learning, or academic excellence in general, on a large scale you have to work to change certain dimensions of the Fundamentalist sub-culture.

So long as the general expectation from a culture is low, all persons who are really well trained will be by definition "exceptions" and "standouts." That is, no doubt, nice for their ego, but it's unhealthy for the group - note this applies just as well to "intellectual" people Fundamentalism. Bauder sticks out like a sore-thumb, which is why his academic acumen is so often mentioned. If the level of seriousness in academics and the extent of background reading and general intellectual culture that Bauder represents were normal, his distinction would not be so often mentioned. Thus, a guy like Paul Hartog, who basically did what any good academic is required and expected to do in his area at a good program (namely, really know the primary languages of his source texts and read the relevant scholarship in German and French), would not stand out if Fundamentalist's standards were not so low. I'm not saying distinction shouldn't be recognized; it should, but the deep problem is that such distinction is so unusual and unexpected: "Wow, a guy who actually does what all of his counterparts at good universities can do!"

You want the "norm" to be excellence commensurate to people's gifts, with a certain minimal objective standard for anyone in teaching ministry (e.g. I don't buy the idea of "language" and "not-language" people; that's crock - what is true about the mentality is trivial and not relevant to the issue of whether or not all pastors should learn the languages).

I don't really see much of this changing, of course. But I maintain that if one wants to see it change, one has to focus on the deeper issue, which is cultural.

I took care of it, Joseph.

Paul,

To clarify, somewhere around 30% (some estimates will be higher or lower - this is a number I've heard) ) of the important scholarship in NT and OT is in German. I think the material in French is a fair bit smaller. But the point is that, if you want to enter the conversation at a certain level, you need those languages.

Look at Paul Hartog's book, based on his dissertation. A huge percentage of the scholarship he interacts with is in German. Whatever one thinks of them, the Germans practically invented modern OT and OT scholarship.

I wanted to add a comment of appreciation to Dr. Decker for this contribution on Sharperiron. And when someone of Dr. Decker's stature says what he has, it has a pretty good amount of weight. The better a pastor knows his Hebrew and Greek, the better a Bible expositor he will be. Then I noticed a couple of comments, and wanted to respond:

Aaron, Ressourcement (if you haven't looked it up already) means "back to the roots." I didn't know what it meant either, until I took my Ph.D. exam - demonstrating, no doubt, my lack of French knowledge. Ressourcement is one of the key concepts in the Catholic school of thought, of which Dr. Ratzinger has been a part.

Paul, from a Ph.D. "is-be", but not on the ranking of Dr. Decker, if you are wanting a Ph.D. in an area of theology, learn your Hebrew and Greek very, very well. Secondly, learn Latin. These are the languages of the Scriptures, the contemporary literature and inscriptions of the time and enviornment of the Scriptures (and the latter two) of the Church fathers. Then learn German, then French. I cannot at all comment on Coptic. I have no knowledge of it. Most Ph.D. programs require two cognate languages. For any area of theology, Latin and German are far and away the most valuable for study. Also, be realistic. Unless you are a whiz, you probably are not going to become fluent in reading more than one of those languages, and that only after a few years lots of reading in that language. There is a program for becoming fluent in Latin, on the internet, done by some British scholars. It requries 20 hours of reading, writing, and speaking Latin per week, for a whole year. That would mean one year of Ph.D. studies devoted almost wholly to Latin.

Joseph, I am sure you are right about the requirements of the theology programs of many of the universities in Great Britain. Oxford, for instance, has such a heritage in classical studies - a heritage it has been keen to maintain - I doubt that it will be superceded any time in the forseeable future (one day in the Classical section of the Oxford library will tell you all). The requirements for German theology students, on the other hand, are quite different. They have to have five years of Latin before entering. However, they are taught one year of Greek and one of Hebrew. After that they learn the methods of source-criticism, redaction-criticism, etc. The knowledge of German university-trained theology students in Greek, Hebrew, syntax and text analysis, is probably inferior to that of the average theology student of an evangelical seminary (incl. "fundamental") in the US. When it comes to Bible exposition, German evangelical presses are constantly translating American and British authors.

Incidentally, I was referring to Hartog's monograph on Polycarp, which was the published form of his dissertation. I didn't realize he had another book out either.

Thanks, Jeff, for the further information about German students. My knowledge of the requirements comes from the Germany exchange students I know, but I obviously don't know the detail of their knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. I'll actually be in Germany for a year, starting this summer, so perhaps we can get in contact at some point. My wife and I will be looking for a good church.

Back in my days there, you had an option of either French or German. Those who wanted to read Calvin took French.

Of the theologians you mention, only Luther made significant contributions to textual studies (he wrote commentaries on the whole Bible). He died almost 300 years before the development of "Higher Criticism," and so had no involvement with it (except that it has had him continually turning over in his grave since it began). The others were all theologians, who accepted the conclusions of Higher Criticism, but did not participate in its development. After his conversion, Bonhoeffer had little use at all for the critical methods of text study, but simply took the Scripture as it was and applied it. Barth wrote a commentary on Romans, which was epoc-making, but not on account of text-study. It was a demonstration of thorough dialectic thinking, and challenged standard Liberal Theology. Martin Niemöller was a courageous man, and was one of the leading clergymen in Germany who stood up to Hitler. He did not, however, write any significant theological works.

The theologians who formed, and continue to form the German school of textual study are a whole host of other guys (including Keil and Delitzsch). I do not expect their leadership to persist, since nearly all of them now adhere to "The Critical Theology," which kills faith. Good minds here have turned themselves to other pursuits than theology.

Swiss. Switzerland is divided into two main sections, one French-speaking, the other German-speaking. (Actually, most Swiss probably speak both to some extent.) German-speaking Swiss theologians, I think, are often confused with Germans.

I'll bet this confusion would mostly only happen to Americans, since we are so language insensitive! I speak German, and I can tell you that Swiss German sounds so different, it's very hard to understand for those who are only used to Hochdeutsch (the main German dialect), and at least in conversation, some of the expressions are different. However, I've never read any works by German-speaking Swiss, and they may read very similarly to regular German, or so much the same you couldn't really tell unless you are a native.

Many Swiss really amaze me though. In addition to the French and German sections, they also have a (smaller) Italian one. The first time I visted Europe, I started in Switzerland, and on the train, the conductors had no trouble speaking all 3 of those languages, plus English! I didn't speak any German at the time, but if their command of the other languages was as good as their command of English, then they are completely fluent in all of them. My education certainly felt inadequate!

The standard up in the fields (to a San Franciscan the gold fields are up) was panning in a stream with minimal equipment, then going into the river banks and using a rocker box or sluice box, then diggin into the hill side to follow a vein. The method with the greatest long term pay off was/is digging into the hill side.
IOW, as an English language only preacher I can get enough to feed my flock and keep them healthy. If I had a few more language tools in my tool box, I could feed them a richer and more varied diet. Sorry, brethren, I'm spoiled by having David Innes as my senior pastor at Hamilton Square Baptist Church.

Bob,

Your point about European universities is exactly backwards, at least in part. Mark Noll, in "In Between Faith and Criticism," notes that going to do a resarch PhD ( say at Cambridge of Oxford - still very common amongst conversative evangelicals/Reformed) was a way many conservatives avoided having to confront coursework in higher criticism. In other words, the "advantage" of the British PhD for many American Christians is that you can avoid having to do work that challenges your assumptions. Anyone familiar with the British PhD (and I know many people in British doctoral programs) knows how narrow the focus and simple the process are compared to a US PhD: You literally just write a prospectus, send it to the person you want to work with, and if they like it you come over and spend three years writing it.

Americans are often ill-prepared for this because our undergraduate work is nowhere near as specialized as a traditional British undergraduate degree (three years of highly specialized coursework that normally assumes advanced - i.e., A levels - preparation in the field), which is why American either do a masters first (Cambridge strongly encourages this) or have a substantial graduate coursework in the field (e.g. which you could get in a M.Div/Th.M depending on the program.)

So, what is far more challenging for a conservative in biblical studies is going to a prestigious American doctoral program.

What I'm saying is confirmed by critics, too. I can't remember where, but I am sure I remember reading someone criticizing guys like Pete Enns, Kenton Sparks, et al. as being the "fruit" of prestigious but liberal Ivy programs, etc.

That's another topic, of course, but I just use it as an example.

I don't think there can be any serious question, however, that if what one is considering is simple academic quality and not theological orthodoxy, many prestigious schools are prestigious for a good reason: the students are better, the program more demanding, etc. What Christians' strategy should be with respect to doctoral education is also another discussion, one that interests me but which I'll leave alone for now.

Eta Linneman's Testimony

I have tried twice to link to Eta Linneman's testimony and failed. Just Google her name and it will be the first item.

As she affirms, higher criticism is more philosophy than historical research. Most involved in this methodology have the assumption that the Bible is the result of man's philosophy and reject the supernatural. Much has been written by conservatives refuting these arguments. Today, reading higher critical theories is like reading last centuries newspapers. It is old, rehashed, and empty headed reasoning. Most conservatives may not want to waste the time studying under such dead faith purveyors of bad reasoning. We can read their theories and refute them without wasting valuable time studying with them.

Joseph, you appear to give too much value to pursuing that which is of little value. Once you get through with your BA at Liberty U. you should pursue a degree at a Fundamental or Conservative Seminary. After that you may be in a position to better evaluate graduate theological education. Forget the prestige of academia as defined by a liberal unbelieving academic world. It is like seeking to satisfy your sweet tooth with cotton candy.

Edit: fixed link above

Just want to point out, FWIW, that assumptions will go unchallenged either way. It's just a question of which ones. The assumption that more rigorous is better, for example is not challenged at the Ivy League schools--nor should it be, but I'm just illustrating. I think they also do not challenge the assumption that assumptions should be challenged.

My point is just that the pursuit of knowledge--whether via academics or some other route--is always carried on with some convictions already in place and treated as givens. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that what Christianity is all about is taking the central doctrines of the faith--i.e., taking what God has told us--as givens.
(That said, I'm glad many true believers pursue a thorough knowledge of many of the bigger errors that have shaped our times. They enable us all to better recognize and combat these ideas. But this is not quite the same thing as having your assumptions basic beliefs challenged.)

Regarding the universities and assumptions: my point was descriptive - what I think about whether one should pursue doctoral work at, say, Harvard for ANE is not what I was addressing.

If I had addressed it at all, I would have said: there is no hard and fast rule. Some people would simply have their faith destroyed, given their background, knowledge, analytic capacities, etc. from going to such a school. Others would be able to work through their studies to a deeper faith that is necessary for being a witness to those who see all of the issues and problems that those studies draw attention to and, often, create. But not everybody can or should be the person to address those problems, and only a fool would suggest otherwise - I have never done so. One has to know one's limits, gifting, etc.

But the grenade lobbing from outside of a discipline, in this case historical-critical studies, is not convincing to anyone in the discipline (incidentally, I am familiar with Linneman). That's fine - one may simply want to show some non-scholar why they should not be perturbed by something a Jesus Seminar person is spouting on the History Channell. But the scholar will have a huge set of detailed reasons for his position, and if you want to engage him on his turf you'll have to be a scholar too, which is why I'm grateful for guys like N.T. Wright, Simon Gathercole, Richard Bauckham and a host of others (mostly Brits) who do recognized and respected scholarship that is, to greater and lesser degrees, critical of certain widely held positions (e.g. Gathercole published a book making a strong argument, by methods any scholar would accept, that the synoptics have pre-existent Christologies)

Moreover, the philosophical and theological underpinnings of a discipline change as the discipline changes, and knowing about nineteenth-century German theological developments, which is very useful (and, indeed, essential for any profound knowledge of most twentieth century problems), does not make one competent to address all of the discipline-specific problems a practioner in the discipline is concerned about. Most biblical scholars are not "big idea" people anyway; biblical studies attracts detail people because you have to being able to do detail work (e.g. an INTJ, like me, would not want to write a monograph on some aspect of Greek verbal aspect, unless somehow it related to a broader issue that he was concerned with). I can't address some of the biblical scholars I know on their own terms; I have to appeal to meta-level justifications of my own positions that are ,very sensibly, not terribly convincing to them - to be persuasive to someone who's immersed in the data of their discipline, as I said, I would also need to be a scholar in their discipline.

Finally, issues like the relation of Form criticism to Bultmannian assumptions about x, y, and z are obviously quite important (Bauckham provides a devasting critique of Form criticism in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, one that would valuable for those that would be put off by Linneman's more extreme and polemic critique, as many non-evangelical scholars would), but that does not get to the heart of the historical-critical method. The issue there is fundamentally whether the Bible, whatever else one may regard as (in our case the inerrant Word of God in the original manuscripts), should be read as a historical document and thus placed into its historical context, etc.

I think good biblical scholars are in a very tough position, and I'm glad to be a philosophical/theological student relative to them; but the issues they are dealing with are important and can't be shirked by intellectually inclined Christians but nor can they be taken up, or even understood, by all Christians (intellectually inclined or not).