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

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.

I beat the “I don’t care if you’re never going to use Algebra, you’re going to take it anyway because it exercises your brain” drum. :) Algebra and many other ‘non-essential’ disciplines actually create new highways and bridges in the brain, enabling more information to be processed efficiently and effectively. Greek and Latin IMO fall into this category, and since much of the Bible is written in Hebrew and is influenced by Hebrew culture, acquiring some knowledge of the language and culture is instinctive to me.

…the central focus in pastoral ministry is the public proclamation of the Word of God.

BUT- there are so many things that enable one to do this more effectively.

My kids are taking Latin, Greek, and Hebrew as required courses, and they’ve also chosen a foreign language as an elective- Emma is learning Italian, and Noah is working on his German. They all are also learning American Sign Language. Even if they never ‘use’ any of this in a ministry setting or as a vocation, the mental activity itself is invaluable. How much more should men who are training in the pastoral ministry prepare themselves to their fullest potential for the glory of God?

[RickyHorton] 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?

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.

[Jay C.]

That being said, it’s been ten years since Greek (already?), so I have to understand that I won’t retain it all. Because of that, I’ve been actively looking for something like “Mastering New Testament Greek on CD-ROM: An Interactive Guide for Beginners” or “Greek Tutor” to help me brush up. If anyone has a suggestion, please let me know.

Get a student or someone you can tutor. Seriously. One of my college Greek professors actually admitted that he had gained much skill through teaching the subject. Personally, I have been teaching a young man for almost three years, and my own skills have sharpened considerably through the process.

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

[Rodney Decker] I’d be sorry to think that we are limited to quoting only those with whom we agreed, which, presumably in this context, would mean some of my fundamental Baptist fellows.

Bro. Decker,

It is disingenuous to suggest that this is what I was saying in raising the issue of using Stott in this context. Please note that I suggested numerous non-fundamentalists above who would have been more likely candidates to support the point I made.

[Rodney Decker] It is not valid to argue that Stott is “a seriously flawed preacher” and therefore uncitable in regard to preaching. His “flaw” (a doctrinal position which I do not accept either) has no direct relevance to his view of preaching.

His flaws, annihilationism being one of the most egregious, really seems to make it ironic that he should be the one cited in lamenting the scarcity of good preaching. I would suggest you can find similar quotations in almost every book on preaching. Since Stott has such a serious flaw, it is extremely ironic to cite him in making this point.

[Rodney Decker] I’ve heard thousands of sermons in over a half century as a PK, Bible college & seminary student, pastor, and now as prof and active church member (I don’t “live and move” in an academic-only world). I only wish that it were not true that “biblical preaching is rare in our day, and a word from God is infrequently heard from our pulpits.” Perhaps my experience is not true of every part of fundamentalism, but I’ve seen a fairly wide swath of it over a fairly long period of time, and I will stand by my assessment on that count. One of the reasons for this state of affairs (though not the only one) is our historic anti-intellectualism and lack of serious academic study and work. Where are the grammatical and syntactical works published by fundamentalists? Where are the exegetical commentaries? Yet we claim to have the high view of Scripture as inspired, inerrant Word of God. How can we claim that and not even be able to read it as God saw fit to have it written? It is my bibliology that drives me to the original text. Yet so many do not make the attempt to learn even the basic skills of grappling with Greek and Hebrew or to maintain them after they have been gained. Shame on us.

Interesting… so your article is a criticism of fundamentalist preaching, then, and not preaching in the whole of Christendom as some on this thread suggest?

Well, I have listened to thousands of sermons as well. I am not as alarmed about fundamentalist preaching as you seem to be. Some sermons and preachers are better than others, and the Lord seems to use all kinds of preaching.

Regardless, I do agree with you that future pastors should learn as much Greek and Hebrew as they can. I regret leaving Hebrew till my last year of Seminary… I retain very little of it and wish I had more proficiency. I still can read most of my Greek Testament and am thankful for the skills that gives me in preaching the gospel.

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.

[Charlie] 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,

…As one excellent BJU professor said, “Exegesis is just reading on a higher level.”

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.

[Don Johnson] Interesting… so your article is a criticism of fundamentalist preaching, then, and not preaching in the whole of Christendom as some on this thread suggest?

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.

It is interesting to note the language and educational requirements of schools.

Bethel Seminary requires one year of Greek and one year of Hebrew. Many other evangelical seminaries have similar language requirements in their M.Div. program. One evangelical seminary has a one year course called “Introduction to Biblical languages.” The first semester is Greek and the second semester is Hebrew, which is all that is required.

Princeton Theological seminary requires no language in their M.Div. program. They also have no Greek, Hebrew, or Latin requirement for their Ph.D. program. In that program they require you know English and one other modern language such as German or French.

Many European Universities have no or minimal Greek and Hebrew requirements in their Doctoral programs. It depends on your research area. It is all about research and your contribution to general theological or biblical subjects through your research as seen in the dissertation.

The 4 year THM program at Dallas Seminary has three years of Greek and two of Hebrew. This is the same as many in conservative seminaries take for the M.DIV. program. However at Dallas you get the THM even if you have a C average whereas at other schools you must have at least a B average for admission to the THM after the MDIV, and then it would take another two years to achieve the THM.

The PHD at Bob Jones is about the same as a MDIV in other schools in number of units and may be actually less in course intensity than some MDIV courses, and most all THM courses.

My contacts, reading, and other observations through the years, give me the impression that accredited, nationally known seminaries such as Yale, Princeton, and others, have less language requirements than most conservative schools and are less intense in many course requirements. Those who state that denominational Pastors may be better at the languages than the Fundamentalist clergy may be very mistaken. Many of these have little or no language skills and have had little interaction in theological issues. To them most issues are not relevant to their liberal perspective.

My perception is that most Fundamental Seminaries such as Central, Detroit, Calvary, Faith, BB, and some others, do very well in the language skill requirements of graduates. The same is also true of some Conservative evangelical schools such as TEDS, Dallas, Talbot, and Masters. Some conservative evangelical schools such as Western Conservative Baptist have dropped their language requirements to but one year of Hebrew and one of Greek.

The requirements for Pastoral degrees varies widely. The DMIN degree is a doctorate based on ministry skills and many have no language requirements, even for admission. So many DMINers are clergy DRs with no original language skills, especially from moderate evangelical schools and liberal schools. I have a friend with a DMIN in church administration that has but one year of Greek and no Hebrew. When he last put his resume out to churches the pulpit seeking committees were thrilled to have a resume from someone with an earned doctorate. Many of his sermons are filled with church methodology and Psychology while purporting to be “expository.” Most assume he must know what he is talking about because he is a Dr. You Betcha!

So far as preaching today, many who purport to be expository preachers do not appear to properly define the term. An expository sermon gets the main theme from the meaning of an extended passage of scripture and the main points and sub points all come from that passage. John Stott is not a true expository preacher. Many of his sermons are topical sermons derived from a passage. I have found that many Reformed preachers use this method. Most who graduate from Westminster Seminary are theological preachers using both the topical and passage derived sermonic method.

Bottom line: Fundamentalist oriented preachers from good Fundamentalist graduate level Seminaries do very well at preaching expository sermons that teach the word of God. They may be better than many evangelical preachers. They are better than many Reformed preachers. This of course excludes the IFBX preachers who usually lack the training and/ or perspective to teach well and shun expository preaching. There is a lot of inferior preaching if one id looking for the preacher who effectively teaches and applies the Bible doctrinally and practically. However, this may vary greatly according to the area of the country and from one metropolitan area to another.

Also, knowing Latin is a thing of the past. All works in Latin worth reading are now in English. That was not so in earlier years. Good doctoral programs often require German before Latin unless you are in a Roman Catholic school. This requirement may still be pushed by the poor guy who took Latin in High school (I did) and is still trying to figure out what it is good for. You cannot order coffee at Starbucks in Latin and that would be the only thing I can think of for its use. 8-)

PULVIS ET UMBRA SUMIS

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.” H:)

I am very thankful for the undergraduate education I received. I have not yet pursued graduate level, but would love to if financial opportunities arose. Having a burden to get as much education I could in my undergrad, I majored in Biblical Languages at Northland Baptist Bible College (now NIU). The requirement for that undergrad major of a school that has never been a “heavy hitter” in even fundamental academia, was rather intense. We were required to get a C or better in three years of Greek and two years of Hebrew. The quality of the 2nd and 3rd year of Greek was excellent (a lot better than the first year) as I had very good syntax and Exegesis teachers. The two years of Hebrew were tough too as our professor (Dr. Gilbert Braithewaite, who I believe is at Faith now), expected a lot of us and taught those who wanted to learn with great passion (although dry and monotone-I never was bored in his language classes) Sadly when he left NIU they lost at great teacher and Faith got a great one. Another sad thing, when I enrolled in Biblical Languages major there were less than a dozen of us in the major. It did grow over my four years there.

Something I thought was weird was that I got so much Greek and Hebrew (it was very thorough too). But missions majors didn’t even have to take Greek (not sure if that has changed). I thought that was interesting as BIblical languages make probably even more sense in a foreign mission environment.

If God gives me the opportunity, I think I could use another 3 years of Greek and 2+ years of Hebrew. I use the education I received in languages more than any other aspect of my college education. I think all pastoral/missionary majors ought to be required the 3 in Greek and the 2 in Hebrew in their undergrad.

An example of the other side, is my Father came to serve God later in life, didn’t receive a formal education (but is one of the most intelligent thinkers I know) so he enrolled in a local community college in a small town in the State of Wyoming and there he received an education in Greek from an unbelieving Bibilcal Greek teacher who studied under Daniel Wallace. Opportunities abound if you look for them. My Father is an excellent expositor. I contribute that to three things. 1. He lives out the Word of God consistently (spends much time just reading in the English). 2. Loves to learn (researched and found a way to learn Greek) 3. Has more resources than your typical pastor. His apartment is a library, much to the chagrine of my mother. You want a book, he has got it. He chose to spend his money on books over the last 20 years rather than other pursuits. No, you don’t have to know Greek and Hebrew to be a good expositor, but you have to love God’s Word enough to learn it if possible.

My two cents

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.

P.S.

My post isn’t as long as it looks; I somehow reduplicated some of the content. If any moderator wants to take out the repeated paragraphs, be my guest.

I took care of it, Joseph.