Get started learning New Testament Greek for free at bma.to/getstarted Check out what our courses offer at www.biblicalmastery.academy/m... Want a tour of my library? • Books that shaped my t... Follow me: Twitter: / darrylb
Vocabulary is the obstacle to language learning. The amount of time spent on anything else, including grammar, pales in comparison to how difficult it is to learn thousands of new words and have them not fall out of memory
I would like to point out that, just because one uses the "natural method', does not necessarily mean that one cannot or does not learn the grammar (explicitly or implicitly).
Beth teaches Hebrew grammar in Hebrew. Some Hebrew grammatical terms, like "nif`al", have no corresponding term in non-Semitic languages, but others, like "beynoni" and "tsiwuy", do ("participle" and "imperative").
0:00 "for thousands of years the grammar translate method as it's called has been used for teaching a second language" ... not exactly. The grammar translation approach, especially as its currently used to teach the ancient/classical languages is a relatively recent phenomenon. Latin, for instance, was both the language of study AND instruction in the West (that is, it was spoken daily in the classroom to learn ALL subjects) up until sometime in the...1700s? Thereabouts? That's a good 2000 years of education in what would probably be called today a communicative/living language approach.
Yes! In the schools in Germany during the Reformation, they were teaching Latin by getting the students doing little skits and dialogues from day 1 so that they would later be able to teach everything else in Latin. I do think they were teaching grammar at the same time, IIRC. I have also seen an old 'first reader' teaching children to read in English and Latin side-by-side - so starting on Latin before they've learnt English grammar (as a subject) at all. Meanwhile, by the time you get to Churchill, who experienced the 'Classical' methods in use a century ago, he got pretty much nowhere with Latin, let alone Greek.
Teaching Grammar to learn to read a language does indeed go back as far as the ancient Greeks who learned grammar to be able to read older Greek texts. Later it was adapted by the Romans for the same purpose. We have grammar manuals on papyrus dating to as early as the first or second century AD. Certainly it has developed since then, but grammar as a tool for learning second languages can be traced back a long way.
I agree with you fully💯. When we teach children our language(s), we don’t start with the grammar. They speak and then after we teach them what the grammar is/means and how it works. It’s actually not difficult to start reading Greek. You’ll learn to read it quickly, but may get stuck in understanding and translation, so you’ll need that grammar. Your approach of doing them together is by far the best and most effective I’ve experienced. I’m staying with BMA for life.
I'm really big on learning to read Greek by reading Greek. It's a rewarding experience to watch a text that was once difficult become easy while your need to translate in your head fades away. Ideally, you want to start with beginner material, which we have very little of.
We don't teach children their native language. They have a God-given, species- specific capacity to communicate. This expresses itself in the language(s) of the language communities in which the child grows up. Thus they learn, or acquire, without being taught a language.
Yes I remember finishing Greek 1 and 2, and my first NT Interp./Exegesis class was in 1 Corinthians. It was sooooo difficult to follow 😅 But over time of sticking with it, I’ve started to gain an “intuition” in reading the Greek text. God is faithful!
This video really puts a spotlight on the question directed to a person who has gone through Greek courses, "Do you know how to read Greek?", and it seems that in light of, the appropriate response may be, "Well, it depends on what is meant by 'read.'" 😅 If the ultimate goal is to be able to exegete, then reaching a particular point may suffice, but if the person is seeking to be able to pick up the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and enjoy reading them with virtually no helps, then the method, program, and community of which you've come up with appears to be the person's near best bet; and I'm stating this as one who is not a member of the community, neither benefit in any way apart from a watch of the videos. You've already done a video on the different levels of reading, and maybe an update is in order. I completely agree with you though, your analysis of the grammar-translate method that is. I learned how to read Greek going through Mounce's third edition (self-taught) and am now reading through Hebrews, and can read comfortably through about 13 other books in the New Testament. The grammar-translate method indeed works. It's just that as you stated, it has to be put into practice to the point where it becomes second nature, and enjoyment in just picking up the Hebrew or Greek scriptures is first-nature on account of the second-nature components being utilized without thought. The overall question that has to be answered it seems, is "What is my ultimate goal in this?."
Yes! The goal is critical here. We want to teach people to read and study the biblical texts and are setting up our program around these two goals. Not everyone wants this. Some just want to read. But I don't think it is helpful to try to study without learning to read, yet this is what many seminaries seem to want to do.
I know this is a wall of text, but I hope you consider what I have to say. 1. I studied latin in high school with the GT method for two years. Truly an awful experience. I really didn't learn latin. I couldn't read or write in the language, and speaking was unthinkable. What I did learn was a bunch of grammar rules, that I hated latin, and I sucked at languages. Thanks to God, I have unlearned the last two. I've been learning Portuguese for a year and half through natural methods. It's eons ahead of where my Latin ever was. 2. Is it really too much to ask for more beginner reading material? I have found only one graded reader for beginners (Mark Jeong's book). Meanwhile, there are several for Ancient Greek in general (Athenaze, Reading Greek, Logos etc.). To steal your analogy, the GT method is like learning lots about driving, but never starting the car. Give students reading material so they can learn to read greek by, you know, reading greek. There's also research to show how effective reading is for language learning (see Stephen Krashen on reading). 3. Why not resources entirely in Greek? Consider the wider world here. Right now, if you want the best resources to learn Greek, you have to know English. A resource entirely in Greek would make the language more accessible for those who don't speak English. 4. The damage that the GT method has caused is abundant. It's hurt me personally with Latin. I've had a pastor look over my shoulder while I was reading Athenaze and loudly "Greek? Nope. Never Again." I've seen men with PHD's in Theology admit that they don't know Biblical Languages. And frankly, every pastor I have known simply does not know Greek. I don't expect Seminaries to adopt 100% input methods and only teach Greek in Greek. But, do we really need to be so far in the other direction? It seems like a balanced approach would be entirely reasonable and well suited for the education system. Other input based resources can be available for those outside of the education system, or who just want to learn independently.
Most people doing grammar translation hate it. They rationalise the hatred by "I'm no good at languages". They turn their hatred of the method and point it at themselves. They are to blame, not the method. It's a recipe for failure and discontent. Blame the students, blame society, blame history. Never question your own pedagogical methods even when we know they stink. Blame students, make them have a horrible time and make most of them shudder to even look at a New Testament in Greek even once they've learned it enough to scrape the exam.
Very interesting. I took one course in Beginning Biblical Greek over 40 years ago ! I don't think I learned much. Within the last 10 years, I've tried again to learn Biblical Greek but understanding it still eluded me. So I think your observation about grammar is correct. Unfortunately now I'm getting old. But I appreciate your channel. Thanks.
In the mid--1960s, I was not taught grammar in primary school. We were thought to be stupid and it was intended that we stay that way. When I started to learn Latin in 1984, I suddenly was confronted with subject, object, dative, ablative, clauses etc. I learned English grammar through inflected languages, which was the whole point of Latin in schools, to teach English grammar. I completed 3 years of Classical Greek at university as a mature aged student, and have been reading the Greek New Testament daily for over 30 years. Without grammar and translate (English to Greek and well as Greek to English) combined with immersion reading one's experience and knowledge of the language will be poorer than with it.
I'm sure there are advantages in learning Greek if you're coming from another inflected language. But I'm not conversant enough in the educational approach of those other languages to know how it would work out. Thanks for watching!
@@bma Thank you. I'm sure the same grammatical principles will still apply. It's just that some languages may not have the definitional aspects that English grammar has, but the concepts will still be the same. To date, there is still no translation of the Bible in my mother tongue that is done from Greek, and Hebraic languages. Scholars who do bible translations are linguistic experts in English than their mother tongues, so there is a tendency to translate more from English to vernecular languages.
What I found out is that most students who are required to take Greek for one year (whether 2 or 3 semester classes), only take it just for that reason. It is required. They have no interest in continuing. You take take a horse to the water but you can't make him drink. You can teach a man how to fish, but if he does not go fishing he will not live without it. It boils down to if the interest is alive in the student. You can have very bright students, they learn the lessons and grammar and vocabulary but if you do not use it you lose it. One year after the student who got an A in the class he or she has forgot most of it. In a seminary situation this is what happens year in and year out. The teacher sees great students but knows a year down the road or two years it is all gone. Myself, I put down my english bible and only read from the Greek NT that was in 83. Never picked it up since (as a bible that I daily read). I own a bunch of English bibles but I only read from the original languages. I of course consult with them over idiomatic translations all the time. what i have found out is that you have to use it or you will lose it
I see a distinction you made correctly said! one learning a language for reading and exegeting for example : Biblical Greek and Hebrew two learning a living language for speaking and interacting for eemple: Spanish and Italian! big disctinction!
I appreciate the points that you've raised, and I agree. I was taught using the classical trivium through third grade in private schools, was put into public schools through middle school (where I struggled greatly) and was homeschooled through high school based on the mastery approach to promotion using a classically oriented curriculum, with which I excelled. Understanding grammar, logic and rhetoric has had a huge impact on my life generally, and the value of using the blended approach of learning to read a language with an active focus on understanding the grammar to enable complete comprehension in that tongue with comparisons to one's own mother tongue cannot be understated as it relates to forging and forming the mind, creating more rigorously logical thought process. As English speakers, knowing the language of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew tongues that have had such an influence on the development of the language of the English tongue over the centuries is so important for those who would want to read with comprehension, let alone translate between, any tongue generally. Given the appalling lack of understanding of the grammar and vocabulary of the English language by most native speakers today who suffered through the woeful inadequacies of a non-classical education, I think that it world be wise to require all English speaking students (given their varying degrees of precision and clarity in communication generally) of Greek and Hebrew to first learn the grammar and etymology of English, then to learn Greek and Hebrew using the blended approach, with later courses being taught exclusively in the target language. It will make them more suited to understanding the scriptures generally in both the overall narrative and particular context of the passage, avoiding some of the hermeneutical traps that comes with an exegetical-only approach when reading, studying and meditating on the scriptures, even when reading using an idiomatically accurate formal-equivalence translation in their mother tongue, like the early modern English language employed in the AV/KJV (this holds true for the other Received Text translations of the scriptures in other tongues based on the same translation philosophy). It will also lend an appreciation and respect for the difficulties in translating between languages where the features of the languages are such that the concepts being communicated using those features that are not present in the target language and have to be communicated through a combination of linguistic features and words that have dissimilar, if not disparate, semantic and idiomatic fields are fully transmitted, hopefully giving them a careful and cautious approach to handling the scriptures with the reverence due them and the gravity of that work at hand. I pray that God blesses you in your endeavor. Godspeed!
The grammar translate method is not that old. Actually the natural method is the one that is that old. Athenaze is the Greek version of it. The Latin version is Latin by the Natural Method by fr William G Most, yes the same guy who. Wrote stuff like the book Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions and Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars and Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics
I learned some Greek through that method in seminary. I hated it. I knew grammar terms beforehand, but good grief there were so many genitives! I was constantly being confronted with grammar, much more so than words. I much preferred the Hebrew class, even if the letters looked like chicken scratches. I liked how it was taught.
Interesting content. Valid point that the method has been used a long time, and that students are different now being a prime reason for the difference in effectiveness in the method. I would add that almost all Biblical languages students have no interest in learning the language, as in acquiring it, intuiting it. The actual intended applications are arguing in a deeper way about a language they don't truly speak, understanding commentaries, being able to translate or even site translate. For these goals, grammar-translation is ideal. I took a little Hebrew and three years of Koine Greek in college. It was intensely grammar-translation. After the program, I learned to read the easier portions of the NT just by reading them repeatedly (of course building on top of the three years of study). Interestingly, I decided to learn a modern language after this, to think in it. Modem Geek just didn't really work out, so I've studied Russian for ten years. If I was to compose authentic language meaning arguments at a graduate level in Russian, as an authentic speaker of the language, without translating, I think it'd take twenty years of heavy language study. Grammar-translation is a decent compromise for ministers, who can't afford such extensive, longterm language study. And a minister can go on to develop an intuition of the language by regular reading and composition, if he wishes.
Except that people do it all of the time. Humans have a God-given capacity to acquire the language(s). They must receive comprehended input in those languages as that is the key to acquisition.
@@user-yp8dd2qv5o No, they do NOT do it all of the time. For anybody to acquire a language, they must learn to distinguish between grammatical and ungrammatical utterances. Exactly how children do this is still a mystery (we say that their language acquisition is "natural" and leave it at that), but adult learners of 2nd languages (like learners of New Testament Greek) do it, on the other hand, is not: they have to be TOLD plainly and face to face by their teacher (or other authority, e.g., their textbooks). They have to acquire this knowledge CONSCIOUSLY. Having acquired their native languages "naturally," adult native speakers KNOW, unconsciously and intuitively, the difference between an utterance which is "grammatical" and one that is not. The same cannot be said for adult language learners. They have to learn the difference slowly, painfully, and CONSIOUSLY.
I don’t think learning basic grammar is all that hard for an intelligent and motivated person, you are greatly exaggerating that difficulty. The rules of Greek grammar can be learned in a semester or two; vocabulary acquisition is the biggest barrier to reading fluency and the student needs an organized way to memorize and drill words down to a frequency of 5 or less. It would be nice to have an “immersion” experience to learn the language “naturally”, but where can you get that. Koine (and classical) Greek being dead languages. You should immerse yourself in reading Greek texts, that is the way to really learn the language. I think you are creating a straw man argument to sell your learning program.
Do you not know we are God’s temple and His spirit is in those who belong to Him? How can this be so easily misunderstood? We are to glorify God in our bodies through everything we think, feel, say, and do. But man says it is about eating, drinking, and taking care of yourself. However, the kingdom of God is not about meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). In Mark 7:14-15, Jesus said nothing that enters the body can defile it, but what comes out of the heart. Even the drinking of wine is not a sin-*_drunkeness_* is. For God made wine to gladden the hearts of man (Ecclesiastes 10:19, Psalms 104:15, Proverbs 31:6, Judges 9:13). Simply put, do what God said through Jesus and you will live.
I'm sorry but this is completely off the mark. The grammar-translate method may have worked in the past only because kids started to learn the classical languages so early that they eventually did acquire some linguistic knowledge, but little compared to the number of years they spent on it in the classroom. The real issue is that the brain is not structured in a way that language should be learned through grammar. The language almost everyone knows best is his/her mother tongue, and no mother would correct their 2-6 year old by pointing to a grammar rule. The language almost everyone knows best is his/her mother tongue, and this is the language for which formal grammar is least useful. This is actually why one is fluent in his mother tongue, because he has not learned it through parsing and grammar, which is the worst thing someone can do who just hopes to read fluently. Too much grammar develops a dependence on grammar and is a huge impediment on fluency because you develop the reflex of analyzing every word of every sentence. I unfortunately suffered through this nonsense in 3-years of Arabic (and I'm actually very good at formal grammar, so I got top marks). I suggest you read works on language acquisition. Your analogy with learning how to drive is, I think, misplaced. If we learned to drive in the same way that we learn ancient languages through grammar, that means that we would be expected to know almost everything there is to know about mechanics: how gas goes through the carburetor and how this cause the car to move once in the Drive position; the action caused by using the break pedal; etc. etc. Nobody who just wants to drive cares about this stuff. Yet this is exactly how the grammar approach works. By the way, how many native English speakers know that they use three cases all the time -- the nominative, accusative, and "oblique" (or dative/ ablative)? Very very few, and this has no incidence on their fluency in English.
