[B-Greek] relative value of re-reading the Greek NT versus following the advice of Conrad and Buth
John Sanders
john.franklin.sanders at gmail.com
Mon Mar 3 01:13:08 EST 2008
Even though it is late, I would like to respond to this post.
But first, one should take stock of your capabilities. If you can read the
GNT in Greek as easily and comfortably as you can read the AV (or KJV) in
English, then I would say read whatever you wish. But if you cannot and you
wish to be able to do so, then you need to develop a plan to acquire that
skill (of reading Koine Greek easily and comfortably).
Not long ago Iver gave a conceit that I think is accurate, except he had it
reversed. That is, it is not so much that this world is imperfect as it is
that the paradigms are imperfection reflections of language usage.
Before I continue, I would like to introduce two definitions. The first is
the definition of a dead language. I believe that I define it slightly
differently that what I see commonly referred. It is true that all dead
languages have no native speakers, but it is inaccurate to say that all
languages without native speakers are dead. I can think of several, at
least they were living languages without native speakers during some period
of their life: specifically Latin, Attic Greek (Classical Greek), Hebrew,
Classical Chinese, Sumerian, an Sanskrit come to my mind. Classical Chinese
I am somewhat familiar with. Some of the classic pieces of literature in
Classical Chinese were composed 500 to 1000 years after the last native
speaker died. A dead language is one which no one actively uses to
communicate any more.
The other definition is that of language fluency. The US State Department
and the US military have a simple schema to semi quantify fluency. They
have developed (with the help of linguists, I suspect) a scale from 0 to 4
to categorize fluency. "0" identifies those individuals who have no
knowledge of the language. "4" identifies those who are native speakers of
a language. "1, 2, and 3" are the categories that define those who are
attempting to learn a language as a second language. These numbers can have
a "-"or "+" appended to them to give a relative idea of the range of the
individual speaker. A "1" signifies someone who cannot communicate
meaningfully with anyone else. A "2" signifies someone who can communicate
meaningfully in limited situations (for instance, telling a taxi driver your
destination), but all other speech is just background noise. A "3" is what
one thinks of as fluency in a language.
I may be in error here, as I have never been in a seminary language class,
but it appears that what is offered as Greek language instruction may really
be a course in linguistics with Koine Greek as the example language.
>From personal observation, and again I may be in error, it appears to me
that about 350 hours of active engagement with a language is sufficient to
put an individual into the class "2" or even a "2+" level. Another 450
hours into a "3-" level. What does not count as active engagement is
reading a textbook, memorizing paradigms, learning linguistic jargon, and
parsing sentences. These things may be necessary, but they will not create
fluency.
What will create fluency is reading extended passages, memorizing blocks of
speech, actively listening to spoken passages, writing or speaking sentences
of your own.
Again, if you do not read the GNT easily or comfortably as a second language
and you wish to do so, then you need to develop a program that will achieve
that goal.
--
John Sanders
Suzhou, China
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list