Spoken Greek

Recently I read (perhaps here) that the Spoken approach to Biblical Greek and Hebrew as reconstructed languages were unimportant (and perhaps harmful) to Biblical Studies. Some of the objections are answered here and here. I will try to make a case for spoken fluency in the ancient languages. The objections all boiled down to exegesis. It was argued that what we do in Biblical studies is different than just reading the text. This presupposes that being able to think in a language is inferior (in terms of understanding it in detail) than being able to analyze it; it also presupposes that one cannot analyze a language one speaks and thinks in. I sure hope that isn't true in modern literature nor in academic papers. It would take me 1000 times as long to read anything if I were to analyze it in detail. My experience with reading ancient languages as well as with spoken ancient languages has led me to believe that the types of analysis that are commonly done in exegesis are crutches in place of quick, natural understanding. Sure, one may need to analyze a passage carefully if there is dispute about meaning, but ultimately, the meaning should emerge much more organically. I think that the exegetical method often thinks of the brain in computer terms rather than the way it really works. I have been impressed lately that logic (think computation) is a tool that is powerful, but not the most powerful in the arsenal of our brain. As a unicyclist, I think of Greek Grammars and Dictionaries as a kind of "how to unicycle." But when people ask me how I do it (unicycle, that is), I say, "Practice. Your body will figure it out." I think language is like that. It is not something you do consciously, but something that should come naturally. All of us who know more than one language languages can attest to the idea that when you learn a new language, you are often scrambling about looking for how to say things. But when you have learned it well, you are not translating any more. You just know it. Analysis paralyzes and slows understanding. Speaking and thinking a language speeds it up. The same should be true of the ancient languages.

A number of objections have been raised. 1) We don't have enough data to resurrect these languages, particularly Hebrew. This may be true (particularly for Hebrew), but that doesn't mean we can't try . . . and supplement (with, say, modern or reconstructed forms). 2) Our reconstructions are faulty. Of course they are faulty! But imagine if you refused to learn to think in a modern language until your knowledge of the language was exhaustive. You'd never get very far. In spoken Greek, of course teachers and students are going to make mistakes. But how much easier is it to notice a pattern in Greek or in a Greek author when one has the facility to think in the language and read quickly than if one has to slowly plod through the text word-by-word? Someone who can think in a language is in a position, if they pay attention while reading, to correct errors by noticing how their understanding differs from that of the authors they read. If one can read the book of John in one sitting one can correct one's errors in thinking about John's grammar and vocabulary much more readily than if one has to plod through the text a few verses a day. 3) This leads to objection number three: one's feel for the language can never be proven to other exegetes. That is true. However, it can more quickly lead to discoveries. By reading quickly through John, one notices peculiarities of style and patterns. It is by noticing these patterns that one can ask future research questions that may not have occurred in slow reading . . . or by reading quickly and widely, one may find that certain patterns in an author are found in others. These can be the basis for formal analysis and research. However, I would contend, and have been contending for a long time, that the "Old Method" of learning ancient languages makes one narrow. One has little time for an actual encounter with the vast literature out there. One cannot get a feel. And one's research can get stuck narrowly on one author, placing him/her in a larger context of literature that one has not experienced first hand (and therefore improperly understood). This is similar to trying to read the Old Testament without Ancient Near Eastern context. I don't mean only books about Ancient Near Eastern context, but actual texts. I think of how the rich variety of texts in the Hellenistic Period in Greek and Latin illuminate the mind in a way that summaries do not. Textbooks on "Greek Thought at the Time of Paul" are helpful, but assume a computer-like model of the brain. We need not only information, but we need to be shaped by context. This requires reading lots of ancient texts - over and over if possible. I don't claim to have done a great job. 4) Modern Hebrew and Greek are better and more accessible. A case, I think, may be made for Modern Hebrew, but it is not the same. With Greek this is a complete misstatement. The language has so drastically changed over the millennia that it is of little help with Classical or Hellenistic Greek. Grammatically, Homer is closer to the New Testament than is Modern Greek. That is not to say there are no advantages to learning Modern Greek. These advantages, however, are of a different nature - seeing how vocabulary was retained, changed, developed, or was discarded gives a great insight into how Hellenistic Greek fits into the historical development of the language, which has implications for understanding its grammar and for lexicography. But speaking modern Greek will not really help you read Ancient or Hellenistic Greek. 5) The coup de grâce is that of pronunciation. None of the pronunciations are entirely accurate and each classroom has its own method. Ergo, one can only speak ancient Greek in one's own classroom. This argument has several flaws in it. The first is that any science or endeavor that has many separate participants trying to establish it will have variety. Think of linguistics itself! A novice would expect uniformity. Au contraire. One finds a dazzlingly diverse array of linguistic theories. One might almost be tempted to think that linguists have no idea what they are about. Usually in science, however, some uniformity arises when certain schools become prominent, as when the Erasmian pronunciation became prominent in the English-speaking world. In my own experience, however, the differences in pronunciation have not been a great barrier. I went to a spoken Latin conference in Washington a few years ago in which some had the Classical pronunciation and others the Ecclesiastical. To compound this, we had people from various countries there. And yet, with some adjustment, we all managed to understand one another. For anyone who speaks English, the surmountability of the problem of dialect and pronunciation should be obvious.

I want to express why this is important to me. I think that perhaps the biggest problem with the study of Biblical languages in seminaries and churches is an improper understanding of language per se. This can be, in part, remedied by formal study and the reading of books such as Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek by David Allen Black, but a more complete remedy would involve both formal training in Linguistics and being taught Greek the way World Languages are normally taught in the classroom. This will help us, for instance, not be so surprised when we see authors use ὑπὀ + gen. to express means rather than agent (without personifying anything). We would see that language is functional and not something that produced through synthesis in binary or linear way. That there are such things as synonyms in both Vocabulary and Grammar, while still maintaining that there may be nuances that we are missing just because we have no native speakers. We would imbibe quickly and naturally aspects of the language which would otherwise take decades to internalize.

That said, I will close with a caveat. It is easy to expect that one way of doing things is the only way. I would like to reiterate a need for a complementary approach. We need formal training. I think historical linguistics is key. But it would be so much easier to remember that τρώγω replaces ἐσθίω in Hellenistic Greek, especially as it progresses colloquially towards Modern Greek, if we saw it used that way in speech first. If we already could sense what things meant before putting a name on it, we will be in a better position to understand the naming itself. We may even begin to ask whether the terminology needs to be changed based on how the language actually functions.

So, that's my two cents.