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.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

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...?

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Pastor, Westminster Presbyterian Church (WPCUS)
Lyndon, VT
www.vt.wpcus.org

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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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.

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.

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

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.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Married up in 1988 and blessed with two wonderful sons
TMS graduate
Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI
http://www.SoundLife.org

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

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

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.

__________________
Devin Brian
1689er
Attending Trinity Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA.
Vivian, Louisiana, USA

"The fall of man is written in too legible characters not to be understood: Those that deny it, by their denying, prove it." - George Whitefield

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.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

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?!

__________________
Davidius
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing, yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an accomplished civilization. - Abraham Kuyper

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

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Pastor
Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Chapel
Pistol River, Oregon

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.

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!"

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.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

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

__________________
Aaron Josh Wright
Second Baptist Chruch, Humble Tx
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

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.

__________________
Name: Richard
Church: Church of England, UK

Read