# Is it worth learning Hebrew?



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

Is it good use of a layman's (limited) time to try and learn Hebrew? If so what tools does he need to help him?

PS I am useless at languages.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 7, 2008)

I suppose it depends what the layman would want to know Hebrew for. If you intend to do serious OT exegesis it is essential. Otherwise, it is nice to know if you have the time and inclination but...?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

I have thought to write something further in relation to expounding OT law; but I am not sure if Hebrew would be essential?


----------



## MW (Apr 7, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I have thought to write something further in relation to expounding OT law; but I am not sure if Hebrew would be essential?



If you are looking to do anything serious in terms of OT interpretation then Hebrew is essential.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 7, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I have thought to write something further in relation to expounding OT law; but I am not sure if Hebrew would be essential?



How much of your own original exegesis would you be doing and how much would you be relying on the exegesis of other reformed authorities? If you intend to rely heavily on the work of others, I would say it is probably not necessary. If you plan on doing original exegesis your credibility would be enhanced by knowing Hebrew.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > I have thought to write something further in relation to expounding OT law; but I am not sure if Hebrew would be essential?
> ...



I do not know so much about OT interpretation, more expounding plan statements (if that makes any sense), nevertheless, I get the feeling that even for that Hebrew is essential.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 7, 2008)

ADKing said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > I have thought to write something further in relation to expounding OT law; but I am not sure if Hebrew would be essential?
> ...



I suppose I would be leaning heavily on other authorities, which is probably why I asked.


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 7, 2008)

You could benefit greatly from learning Hebrew, as long as you can remain humble. Much of the problem is learning to do some translation and then thinking you know more than you do. I would strongly recommend studying the language though. Many excellent works interact with the language on a level that can't be understood without some knowledge and understanding of terminology. For instance, knowing the difference between a wayyiqtol and a weqatal can influence your understanding of a passage. The stems are much different than either English or Greek. At least if you study and learn it to a certain degree, as well as picking up some good helps, you will be clued when an author discusses the qal stem and how that might differ from a piel, pual, etc. 

If you're able to devote the time, here are some resources.

Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar by Russell T. Fuller and Kyoungwon ChoiFrom Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew by Chisolm
An excellent reader is now available by Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary Pratico.


Don't be intimidated by Hebrew. It seems incredibly foreign if you're not familiar with eastern languages, like me. But it is much simpler in form and less technical than Greek.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 7, 2008)

Daniel, if you are planning on continuing to write on theological topics, Hebrew will be quite helpful.


----------



## Devin (Apr 7, 2008)

The only advice I can offer is this:

Whatever you do, find a way to convert your studies into fruit for the body of Christ. There's no need in becoming a scholar if you can't help those who don't quite have the time to be scholars themselves.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 7, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Anybody who is going to write on the OT at all had better know at least enough Hebrew to use a Hebrew dictionary. Relying on authorites alone can leave you with egg on your face when your authority makes a mistake. 
And if you find yourself doing origianal exegesis, be sure check your analysis and conclusions with a competent Hebraist.

To adduce but one example of what can go wrong when one has a little knowledge and doesn't double check; one young theology student claimed Deut 19:15 finds God legislating that "in ... capital crimes that the witnesses who bring the accusation against a person be innocent of that very same crime."
Had this writer checked the Hebrew he would never have put forward this interpretation, for two grammatical points render it untenable. The NASB reading of the first clause of the verse is, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or sin which he has committed;” establishes what is not permitted while the second “…on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established” is the law that the passage establishes. Legislating the need for two or more witnesses to establish guilt indicates that the Hebrew word "echad" is here to be translated as “single” in the first clause rather than its lesser meaning of the indefinite article "a". 
Thus the translation “a witness” is almost certainly incorrect. The text is not saying "A man shall not rise up against a man ...." but “one witness” shall not rise up against a man. 

Also, if I correctly remember the text, the "he has committed" is not reflexive. If so, it is the accused who may have committed the crime; whether the witness did so or not is neither stated nor implied. Thus the text is not legislating against a known criminal giving testimony in the case of a later instance of the same crime that he himself witnessed or prohibiting stool pigeons testifying against fellow criminals in the same crime: instead the intent of the text is to prohibit convictions on the basis of the testimony of a single witness: two or more witnesses are needed to convict someone of a crime. If God’s intent for the verse was to prohibit an uncaught criminal from giving testimony in a subsequent crime either the first clause would have been “A witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or sin which he himself has committed” or the second would have been “No criminal’s testimony shall be valid in a later trial for the same type of crime of which he was convicted.” 

NT allusions to Deuteronomy 19:15 also rule out this student's interpretation. In John 8, the Pharisees attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of Jesus’ testimony concerning Himself by saying “You are bearing witness of yourself, your witness is not true” i.e. His testimony was invalid because it was unsupported by other witnesses. That this is an allusion to Deut 19:15 and the principle drawn from it that only confirmed testimony could be accepted as valid is shown by Jesus’ retort, “Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I …bear witness of myself and My Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” If the rejected interpretation of Deut. 19:15 was the correct understanding of the law the Pharisees could never have used an allusion to it in an attempt to muzzle Jesus since He had never been convicted of false witness. Moreover, if the students understanding of Deut. 19:15 was in fact correct, Jesus would not have replied with the fact that the Father was His second witness, but with the fact that He had never been convicted of false witness as he did when he elsewhere challenged his enemies "Which of you convicts me of sin?"

Alexander Pope still has the right of it: a little learning is a dangerous thing.


----------



## Davidius (Apr 7, 2008)

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring!

Even if it wouldn't be that helpful, you should still do it. I mean, why in the world wouldn't you?!


----------



## Archlute (Apr 7, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > ADKing said:
> ...




You don't need to know the nuances of the Hebrew language to figure that out, you merely need to finish reading the verse....


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 7, 2008)

If you are serious, you can always try:

*Beginning Biblical Hebrew*, Mark D. Futato, Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2003

On the other hand, I would recommend *Basics of Biblical Hebrew: Grammar* by Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt (Hardcover - Aug 2007) mainly because it comes with a host of companion pieces that will be of help to you. 

*Biblical Hebrew* (Zondervan Get an A! Study Guides) by Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt (Paperback - Jul 1, 2005).

*Basics of Biblical Hebrew: Workbook, 2nd Edition *by Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt (Paperback - Aug 2007).

*The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew* by Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary D. Pratico (Paperback - Aug 1, 2003).

*Biblical Hebrew Survival Kit* by Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt (Paperback - Jan 1, 2007) 

*Basics of Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary Audio* by Gary D. Pratico and Jonathan T. Pennington (Audio CD - Jun 1, 2006) - Audiobook 

*Graded Reader of Biblical Hebrew: A Guide to Reading the Hebrew Bible* by Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary D. Pratico (Paperback - Aug 1, 2006) 

*Charts of Biblical Hebrew* by Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary D. Pratico (Paperback - Feb 23, 2007)

In other words, if you are serious about learning it, then Van Pelt and Pratico are ready to get you there in a stripped down Hyundai or in a fully loaded limo.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2008)

If you are serious about internet theology debates, you must have Hebrew. Honestly, how can you lose a debate if you go in the manner: "Well, I know the original Hebrew and you are so wrong!"


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 7, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring!
> 
> Even if it wouldn't be that helpful, you should still do it. I mean, why in the world wouldn't you?!



By all means, learn it. It is so cool when it comes together. There is a definite romance to reading ancient Hebrew, you can almost smell Abraham's cooking meat or incense in the temple. The Psalms sign. 

I'd do it for pleasure as much as exegetical benefit.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 7, 2008)

concordia seminary offers a full video hebrew course for free on itunesu.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring!
> 
> Even if it wouldn't be that helpful, you should still do it. I mean, why in the world wouldn't you?!



Just to clarify: I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying if you're going to write on the law you need to learn enough Hebrew to make sure the authorities you consult aren't making mistakes.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 8, 2008)

Online Hebrew


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 9, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > ADKing said:
> ...



Readers should note that Greg Bahnsen does not actually cite the text in the relevant section of Theonomy in Christian Ethics [p. 229, 3rd edition], but merely refers to it in brackets. Therefore, the construction which Tim has put upon Bahnsen's understanding of that verse is not based on what Bahnsen actually said himself, but on Tim's interpretation of Bahnsen. 

It would be more proper to assume that Bahnsen believed that the principle that a witness should be free from involvement in the crime was something which could be inferred from the general principle of that passage. Tim does not seem to release that this was Bahnsen's MTh. thesis, and so his comments also reflect upon the competence of the scholars who gave him that qualification. Perhaps Bahnsen was wrong to infer what he did from that passage (though I think it can certainly be inferred from other Scripural texts - especially as the witnesses had to carry out the execution), however, this has nothing to do with an inadequate knowledge of Hebrew on his part.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; especially when that little knowledge is used by someone to discredit a PhD trained scholar and philosopher. Although he was a fallible man - I differ with him on EP, pictures of Christ and a number of other points - I do not understand why any Christian wants to make it their calling in life to discredit someone else, even to the point of actually putting words in their mouth and accussing them of things which they did not actually say.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 9, 2008)

I have made the point before on the PB, but a scholar's job is to take what is difficult to understand and make it simple enough for anyone to understand. For someone wanting to write theological books, such as yourself, Hebrew is essential. You are only as strong as your sources. How can you know whether the authority you quote on the Hebrew Bible is accurate in what he says, especially if it is based on a disputed point of Hebrew grammar? Two thirds of our Bible is written in this language. If you think learning Greek is important, Hebrew is equally so. At the very least, it will gain you access to the technical commentaries. And I wholeheartedly agree with the aesthetic argument made already. It is a beautiful language.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 9, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Apr 9, 2008)

Would any of you recommend Robert Alter's translation/commentary of the Pentateuch? Alter is a non-Christian Hebrew scholar at Cal-Berkley, but apparently his commentaries on OT Hebrew are quite good. My pastor uses Alter all the time to expound on Hebrew meanings, especially in Genesis. Anyone else familiar with his work?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Would any of you recommend Robert Alter's translation/commentary of the Pentateuch? Alter is a non-Christian Hebrew scholar at Cal-Berkley, but apparently his commentaries on OT Hebrew are quite good. My pastor uses Alter all the time to expound on Hebrew meanings, especially in Genesis. Anyone else familiar with his work?



I can't say firsthand but he is supposed to have done a good job in employing "chiasms." I would be interested in the work.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 9, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Would any of you recommend Robert Alter's translation/commentary of the Pentateuch? Alter is a non-Christian Hebrew scholar at Cal-Berkley, but apparently his commentaries on OT Hebrew are quite good. My pastor uses Alter all the time to expound on Hebrew meanings, especially in Genesis. Anyone else familiar with his work?



He's rather essential in Genesis studies these days, because of his sensitivity to the literary aspects of the book. As long as he is read critically, I would recommend reading him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 9, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > Would any of you recommend Robert Alter's translation/commentary of the Pentateuch? Alter is a non-Christian Hebrew scholar at Cal-Berkley, but apparently his commentaries on OT Hebrew are quite good. My pastor uses Alter all the time to expound on Hebrew meanings, especially in Genesis. Anyone else familiar with his work?
> ...



Anther good translation has been done by Everett Fox, a Professor of Judaic and Biblical Studies at Clark University. It gives the flavour of the language beautifully:

Amazon.com: The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (The Schocken Bible, Volume 1): Everett Fox: Books

Robert Alter calls this translation: "A bracing protest against the bland modernity of all he recent English versions of the Bible."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 9, 2008)

Tim I have not got time for your sophistry. It never ceases to amaze me that any time a topic comes up you are immediately out Bahnsen-bashing at every opportunity; this thread had nothing to do with Greg Bahnsen, yet you could not resist bringing him up - do you seriously think that we did not know who you were talking about?

You may think it is your duty to spend 95% of your time on the internet arguing against Christian Reconstruction, but since you are neither a minister or have the academic qualifications necessary to take on those whom you claim to be refuting, then I think you are wasting your time. Moreover, if you are really concerned about "Christian Unity" then you would exercise some self-restraint, especially in threads that are not directly related to the issue at hand. The so-called errors in exegesis and historical understanding that you claim to have found have all been pointed out before, and some of us remain unconvinced as to the weight of these accusations.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 9, 2008)

I offer no rebuke whatsoever to Daniel or Tim, but I do think that this thread has come to the end of its usefulness. I suggest that if Daniel and Tim wish to discuss Bahnsen further, they should do it privately.


----------

