What’s Wrong with Seminaries? Why Don’t They Provide Solid Training in Biblical Interpretation?

 The situation is the following: seminaries and theological schools in North America, more often than not, do not require students to learn the languages of the Bible and of the core literature of the tradition they are charged to uphold. In those that do – e.g., evangelical seminaries that require Greek and Hebrew, conservative Lutheran seminaries that require Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German, Catholic seminaries that require Latin - students nowadays come to the seminaries with little or no background in said languages. The result is inevitable. Overwhelmed by many other claims on time and mind, students end up with a merely cursory and superficial preparation in the literature that is supposed to be compass, mirror, and anchor of the ministry they will carry out.

Many students finish seminary with a semblance of familiarity with critical methods, and a few memorable anecdotes to tell about their OT profs, who, by all accounts, are cooler than their NT colleagues, but with no thorough knowledge of, or  “chapter by chapter” and “verse by verse” familiarity with, the contents of biblical literature. 

Seminaries that have kept language requirements in place, a laudable policy, are nevertheless failing to raise up priests and pastors with a love of biblical learning in the original languages. The vast majority of students, upon graduation and ordination, place their Nestle-Aland and BHS on a bookshelf of their study, where they collect dust forever and ever, amen.

Which way forward?

Seminaries and theological schools which train Christian ministers could learn a thing or two from rabbinical seminaries, where wannabe rabbis actually master Hebrew and Aramaic, not just dabble in said languages, as is the norm among Gentiles. But the comparison, for the sociologically aware, sends up a number of red flags. Hebrew and Aramaic are more than the languages of Judaism’s canonical texts. Both are also languages of liturgy (the Tanakh, the Kaddish, the Siddur) and study (Talmud). Hebrew, furthermore, is the language of Israel, a home away from home in the eyes of many Diaspora Jews.

I went to seminary in Italy and Germany, so my experience tells me there is another way. Here are some key differences, based on personal experience:

(1) Incoming students at the Waldensian seminary in Rome arrive, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to their first day of class, with a strong background in Greek, Latin, the classics, and western philosophy (if one asks them something about Kant or Hegel, e.g., they will spout off something fairly accurate).

(2) That’s because they’re coming off an education in a liceo classico, where those subjects are seriously taught. They are only 18 or 19 years old when they start seminary, because seminary does not require a previous degree. It takes six or seven years to finish seminary, which includes an obligatory year abroad at a seminary elsewhere (Germany and the US are top choices), and a concluding thesis that sometimes differs not at all from a doctoral dissertation (mine was accepted for publication, and that is not a unique case).

(3) Papers written for seminars (very different from lecture courses, a discussion of which would take me too far off subject) during the course of seminary training have to be of very high quality. This is true in Germany as well, to judge from my year at the Kirchliche Hochschule Bethel.

(4) With Greek and Latin under their belt already, it’s possible for students to do exegesis from the get go in the original languages, and refer to a body of exegesis extending from the Fathers to the Reformation.

(5) Hebrew still gets the short end of the stick. But, final exams before graduation include a grecone and a ebraicone. That is, you have to walk into a room filled with your professors and translate and comment on a passage on sight from anywhere within a subset of the NT (about half) and a subset of the OT (about 60 chapters, if I remember correctly).

(6) All exams are oral, an Italian tradition, which, of course, is why Italians are excellent b-essers. (This skill comes in handy as a pastor, let me tell you.) An oral exam before a board of profs is an exquisite rite of passage, subject, of course, to manipulation. I’ll never forget how some of my fellow students of the opposite sex dressed on exam day, for the spiritual benefit, I suppose, of their examining professors.

(7) In Germany, students move around from university to university to hear the lectures of the best profs going at any particular point in time. The level of intellectual curiosity tends to be much higher among students than it is this side of the pond. Once again, this depends a lot on the emphases of the prior schooling many of the students have had.

(8) Pre-graduation exams are comprehensive. That means you have to review and remember topics and fields of study you had a lecture course or seminar on two, three, or more years back. Students take copious notes and keep them for years, sometimes forever. It is also not uncommon to study for said exams months and months on end. The experience can be, though not always is, life transforming in the positive sense.

Obviously, a contributing factor to the success of European seminaries in equipping students with Bibelkunde (“chapter by chapter” and “verse by verse” familiarity with the contents of biblical literature, sorely lacking this side of the pond) and exegetical capability in the original languages is that, in the case of Greek and Latin, students come to seminary with a strong background in those languages.

Is there a way to furnish pre-sem students with a background in the original languages in the North American setting? I think there is. I’m experimenting with an idea in my own parish. More on that in a future post.

I realize my ruminations are out of synch entirely with the way deans and profs in North American theological schools think today. For some idea of their concerns, go here and here. With all due respect, I think they have their heads in the sand.

This post, by the way, was provoked by questions and comments from Iyov and Claude Mariottini.

UPDATE: For thoughtful replies to this post, see Iyov, Suzanne McCarthy,  and Stephen Hebert.

SECOND UPDATE: Tyler Williams chimes in, with insights of his own.

 

Comments

[Iyov]

A wonderful post -- I've posted some further thought here.

[Simon Holloway]

Israel is the "home away from home of all self-respecting Diaspora Jews"? I take that statement as an example of rhetoric, and not indicative of what you necessarily believe. After all, what about those of us who think that the very notion of a diaspora is political nonsense? With my parents from Europe and me being raised in Australia, the idea that Israel constitutes a "homeland" strikes me as a dogma that I cannot justify with genuine belief.

[Simon Holloway]

Oh, and an excellent post by the way. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

[John Hobbins]

You're right, Simon. The adjective "self-respecting" before Jews was thoughtless. I'll change it to "many." Herzl himself may well have taken offense at my formulation.

[Rev Sam]

Why just languages? As I understand it Roman Catholic seminaries require three years of grounding in philosophy before embarking on theology - the one is a necessary prerequisite for the other. And what about history? Surely it's not possible to understand Scripture without some awareness of the context - and indeed some notion of historiography. I'm not wanting to disagree - at all! - I just wonder why Biblical language is singled out. Possibly a Protestant/rabbinical emphasis?

[John Hobbins]

Welcome, Rev. Sam. You have a wonderful blog.

Thanks for calling attention to other areas of knowledge which enrich the life of the soul, and the care of the soul, I might add.

[Peter Kirk]

John, do I take it that Waldensian pastors are selected at age 18-19, all necessarily from an elite sent to special high schools, and are let loose from seminary at age 25 with no adult experience of the real world? They may have plenty of good theology, but are they genuinely called of God and equipped for pastoral ministry? Perhaps the North American seminary deans and profs realise that what makes a good pastor is not so much excellence in theology and biblical languages, but more the practical preparation needed for the job.

[John Hobbins]

Good questions, Peter.

Those who begin at 18-19 tend be PK's (preacher's kids). Traditionally, pastors send their kids to a liceo classico if they have the aptitude for it. An equivalent tradition reigns in Germany.

Those who are not coming off of schooling in a liceo classico or equivalent do a year or longer of propaedeutic study.

I agree that North American seminary deans and profs seem to think it's more important for a pastor to be well-trained in what we call in Italian la cura d'anima (the care of the soul) than to know the biblical languages, philosophy and theology, and preach an intellectually challenging sermon.

I'm a both/and kind of person, as you know by now, so I reject the dumbing down of the pastoral mind that afflicts North American Christianity.

[Charles Halton]

As usual, great post. I must say though, I am at a Jewish seminary and I can tell you that the future rabbis here don't know Hebrew half as well as some might think. The problems that you discuss cut across all of seminary education in the United States. I'm interested to hear about the things you're doing at your parish.

[Iyov]

I suspect that the more you travel towards the Orthodox, the better the average level of Hebrew gets. As someone once pointed out to me -- despite the problems with the Israeli rabbinate semikah examination, at least the subjects are taking it in Hebrew.

[Chip]

John,
Thanks for commenting on these wonderfully important issues! The problems in theological education to which you point are indicative of a broader issue within the American educational system. How could a collegian learn Hebrew when he does not know the grammar of his native tongue? How can she understand philosophy when no one has taught her logic? The seminary or university, which may want to have higher standards, is forced to adjust to the limited skills of the incoming student.

I do not know the answer to this dilemma in its entirety, but one way to go is to require higher educational standards at every level (read: higher requirements of students!). This includes more Greek for the seminarian, more liberal arts for the collegian, and more grammar for the grammar student. The problem is not that the classes are not offered (nearly every liberal arts college has a least introductory courses in classics and philosophy), but that no one is taking them. No one takes them, because they are not seen as important. They are not important because they are not required (1) to get a job or (2) to graduate from our institutions!

[Charles Halton]

Iyov, part of the problem that I see with the Hebrew of some rabbinical students is that since they know (at least some) Modern Hebrew, they then think that they simultaneously know biblical Hebrew. However, many would argue that the structure of Modern Hebrew is not even Semitic. Reading biblical Hebrew is a very different ball-game than Modern. But, I agree with you that the closer to Orthodox the better it probably gets.