Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:57 am
Interesting blog. To sum it up, I think it is saying that there is value in discussing theology in Greek because at the same time a) it limits your vocabulary and thought to the target language and b) through the discussion in Greek you advance your understanding of Greek.
Yes, that's the idea.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:57 am
I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, but I see the point. It reminds me of when I used to preach in Chichewa. At first, I would compose in English and then try to turn what I had written into Chichewa. It just didn’t work. I would inevitably put words and conceptual approaches into my English sermon that could not easily be expressed in Chichewa. I needed to start and end in Chichewa.
I think this is a common experience of those in such contexts. Has this led you to new insight into your own understanding of the scriptures? Simply to get at it from a different angle/
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:57 am
I think speaking about Greek (and theology) in Greek is a wonderful goal. I would just add that I think learning Greek via communicative methods yields benefits for interpretation even if a person does not reach the level of fluency needed to be able to discuss the text or theology in Greek.
Absolutely agree, 100%. I think even getting 10% of the way there (to the proficiency that would be required for these more advance discussions) is tremendously helpful for interpretation and understanding the text. My blog post was kind of taking a lot that for granted and assuming that my readers had already encountered those truths. I was trying to think through an additional benefit of reaching the highest levels that doesn't get brought up too much. But by all means, at much much lower levels you already start to benefit greatly.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:57 am
The benefits are hard to pin down because language is such a complex thing. Bi-lingual learners tend to understand the benefit intuitively. The illustration I use with my bilingual (Bantu languages + English) learners is to imagine the following. Their father wrote them a letter in their mother tongue. That letter is intercepted and translated into English by a committee of the best translators in the world. The translation is as good is it could be and conveys everything the father meant to communicate. “So,” I ask them, “do you still want to see the original letter?”
Of course, the unanimous and enthusiastic reply is “YES!” Then I ask them “Why?” Why is it so important to see the original? I’ve never heard a concise and convincing answer. I, too, can’t give a single powerful reason for why I am so dissatisfied with reading a Biblical text in translation and so very much want to see the Greek. I think answers to that question always limp because language is so complex. Ironically, using language to describe how we experience language is very difficult . We could talk about how reading fluency improves recognition of the flow of thought, ability to compose or speak in Greek helps a person to see that the author chose to say it this way instead of that other way, understanding semantic differences at gut level from having used the language, κτλ. But this only scratches the surface. The experience of understanding a language at an implicit level is far more complex than any list could describe.
This is an excellent example. For me, I think the heart of my answer to such a question would be based on the fact that language is much less of an objective entity as it is a tool. What do I mean? Language is not like a math equation, which is inherently and ontologically an objective entity in itself, in the sense that the answer/result is ultimately what is important.
Language is much more like a tool or a musical instrument. While one might use a trumpet to signal one's soldiers to wake up in the morning, the tune the trumpet blows is just as important as the actual message to 'wake up!'. I highly doubt anyone who got used to the typical regal trumpet wake-up call would feel the same way about a loud-speaker that just had a boring voice say, 'wake up!', even though the meaning is exactly the same. Language, as a tool more akin to a musical instrument than a math equation, is just as much about the way in which something is expressed as it is the specific objective meaning that is expressed. Language is designed not only to communicate objective meaning but also to communicate and invoke feeling. As such, there is a certain degree of precision to the original language that can never be replicated.
Paul-Nitz wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 10:57 am
That leads to my answer to the blog title, “Does learning Koine Greek as a living language impact our understanding of theology and/or exegesis?” I believe that any language learning method can result in the sort of natural approach to a text that is most fruitful for interpretation. Learning Greek as a living language results more reliably in leading more learners to that approach.
Yes, I agree.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 12:04 pm
In your blog, you give the example of determinism versus free will. The value of using Greek is that it is closer to what the texts actually say, it is not a translation. But most theological debates about things like determinism versus free will are not very close to the Greek text in the first place, they are debates about systematic theology that is not based on a close reading of the text. So I don't think living language approaches will help much here.
I think this is an interesting point, and one which I appreciate. Having actually done this once (had a very brief discussion about free will and sovereignty) with a friend of mine, what I found was that discussing this issue in Koine Greek actually
forced us to stay close to the biblical text. It forced us to use scriptural language to discuss the issue. In fact, it made me feel like discussing some of these issues in Koine Greek might allow us to feel more comfortable with certain tensions that we are less comfortable with in English. That was just one experience, though I can imagine if one was highly conversant with the language of Plato, they might be able to expand this conversation to a point where it did force you to deal with the tensions. My experience might have been due to my own limitation to mostly biblical vocabulary for the discussion.
Jonathan Robie wrote: ↑January 7th, 2019, 12:04 pm
The more you need to understand the nuances of a given text, the more helpful a better understanding of the Greek language is. I think there are people like Carl Conrad who know the language well but are not very oral, so I don't think living language approaches have a monopoly on this, but I do prefer them.
I certainly agree with that, especially when it comes to Greek (I have less confidence of this--but not none--when it comes to Hebrew, based on experience, but that is another story).
One of the difficulties about trying to drive home a certain point is that so many others go unsaid and unaddressed. But I do agree here that those who do not go for the living-language route still have very valuable contributions in understanding the nuances of the text. I have definitely benefitted from many such scholars and do to this day. And there are many instances where I would even defer to such a scholar to explain the nuances of a text far better than I could, even though they do not have a living language background.
Nevertheless, what I think there is a certain effect that only comes with a certain level of language proficiency that can only be achieved through the living language method. It is not to say that those who do not take this approach cannot express and write and contribute just about everything that those in the living approach could, but it is to say that the idea I'm getting at of actually restructuring your mental categories in a subconscious way is very unlikely to happen unless one approaches a very high degree of spoken and/or compositional fluency.
Thank you both for your feedback!