Unfortunately, it appears to me that the “theological interpretation” movement has allowed some students to imagine that philological and historical methods are not necessary for (or are even somehow opposed to) theological study. They need to be made aware that its best practitioners, like Childs, Seitz, and Moberly, have/had serious critical chops. There is no shortcut.

I totally agree with you.

I link to a recent symposium with a contribution by Seitz which proves the point admirably:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/11/the-strong-sense-in-which-joshuajudges-is-historiography.html

In the symposium, even Wolterstorff, who is a philosopher, does not bypass the historical questions. Why theologians would think they can is truly mysterious.

It seems, though, that even those with philological skills might not use them with integrity, as Charles has pointed out in his open letter to the NIV editors.

There is always that danger, Cool. However, I’d rather take my chances with skilled interpreters rather than ignorant ones.

Ahh, you don’t have to read Hebrew to do a PhD in theology. What I would have asked him is how good his German is.

I’m not sure if a skilled interpreter who chooses to act ignorantly is better than an ignorant one whom everyone knows is ignorant.

As for languages and theology: German, Latin and Greek for general theology. For OT theology, if there is such a thing, then Hebrew should be added.

[...] Halton had a sharp observation about biblical theology being treated as a soft substitute for historical study. (His actual point was on Hebrew Bible, but [...]

I agree with much of what is said about academic “short-cuts” and sloppiness. Those who have access to a wealth of resources have no excuse to be lazy or negligent in their pursuit of necessary tools.

I want to probe your thoughts on the “impossibility” of doing serious theological work without a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek or German.

What do we say to the majority of the world that does not have yet access to the resources that WESTERN universities and seminaries can provide for their budding PhDs?

I walked around the dim hallways of The Georgian Orthodox Seminary in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia last year. Most of the “text-books” were xeroxed copies of very old books. Yet I met brilliant people who love scriptures, pour over them in their own language, and desire to pass on their knowledge to the next generation. I wanted to weep over the academic binge that takes place in the US. So can we honestly say that there is not a chance of serious theological work taking place in Tbilisi, Georgia?

Would a criticism from Edgar Conrad in his READING ISAIAH apply here, “Historical critics, as an interpretive community, have employed reading strategies so distinctive that an unbridgeable gulf has opened between then and other interpretive communities.”

[NB. I would not fully buy into Conrad's postmodern posture either]

Bacho–

It’s the parable of the talents. Everyone is responsible for being productive with the gifts they are given. Students in most Western universities and theological schools have a lot to work with.

CBH

Charles,
I agree with you that If one does not learn Hebrew, it will be hard to be a scholar in the OT. But not only Hebrew, but Akkadian, Ugaritic, German and French, Historical Hebrew Grammar, and maybe a course in NW Semitic languages and Egyptian. Now these languages require work and time to learn, they will benefit the individual who want to be proficient in the OT. The languages and the culture of the OT is vast and diverse and if one cannot translate the languages, then they are dependent on others research. I am taking NW Semitic Epigraphy and Paleography at Johns Hopkins this fall and the spring of 2010. Also, I will have to take German and French before I complete my PH.D work. The OT scholar must have a working knowledge of the OT languages so that he or she can critique the work of other scholars in the same field.