Video

I was brought back here by your link in the NBLM discussion and noticed it seems like I didn't comment last time. I just wanted to say that this is the best and most coherent engagement on the topic I have seen from non-Porter perspective. I lean towards Porter/Campbells grammar of the verb because the arguments against it dont engage directly with their thesis. Here you are attempting to not just "explain it away" but also provide a test that would _predict_ why this tense form would be chosen. People like to argue forever (from the English) why one English tense-form better matches one Greek tense-form because of how that author subjectively understand a Greek phrase or sentence. I don't think the 'debate' can ever be resolved until a frameworks is presented that can properly predict the choice of tense-form.

I think your disdain for the grammar translate method clouds your view of the ability with a limited vocabulary and a biliary to parse to know what the word means and how it may be functioning in the sentence which is critical to meaning and truly aids in fluency, understanding and comprehension

Difficult to follow and I think this presentation needs a bit of communication fluency

I just started learning Greek at BMA where Darryl is the founder. I have always wanted to learn to read the NT in Greek and I always find it interesting no matter what topic I take up, there is always debate and controversy. What method do I use to learn? What pronunciation do I use? I guess that’s how we grow. Having said that, I think the majority of people, pastors, going to seminary are not interested in learning Greek or Hebrew. They do it because it’s required and just want to get it over with. Pastors today who have gone to seminary and now are in ministry are happy with using tools like logos. I don’t see many pastors running back to remedial classes in any of the pedagogical methods. It’s generally people like me, who want to read the Bible in the original languages. So I don’t think it is solely on method it’s the lowered expectation on pastors and those in ministry that is causing this issue. I am using both methods because I have the time and I am enjoying both methods. Two cents from a less than novice. Cheers!

मी मूळ मराठी भाषक आहे आणि हे अतिशय आक्षेपार्ह आहे

This is an excellent description of how most GTM programs in colleges do not equip students to read the New Testament. Instead, the student can comment on a Grammer feature (imperfect tense means the action is an ongoing process). Such students are dependent on tools like logos or interlinear Bibles. It would seem that GTM gets things backwards. Students should focus on acquiring vocab and reading simple sentences which gradually increase in difficulty. Then, after reading is possible, then reference Grammar to better understand the meaning.

Wonderful demolition job :)

Absolutely spot on. The results speak for themselves-deafeningly.

Wonderful thoughts, thanks!

Scientific study I love learning Grammer to learn a language works for me I'm an advocate

Excited for the textbook!

These interviews are incredibly interesting and helpful. Thank you Biblingo team for them.

Ouch! Love this!

Grammar translation does an enormous amount of harm. Especially for people training for ministry. It turns people off language learning. Imagine someone who has learnt French, German and Latin. And you mention the word pluperfect or preposition and so on. Such a student shrugs and goes on merrily. OK now imagine someone with little formal education or no foreign language training. Mention the same words to them? Panic and despair. In a normal class those who can't feel stupid and ashamed. In Christian circles people will relate this to the gift of tongues. They have it. I just don't have it - I was never given the gift and that's that (I mean they express this in words and language so probably DO have the gift of language). Either way. 1. i'm stupid and bad or 2. I don't have this gift. These messages rest in the minds of the student and do a lot of harm. Those who have it - you're a weird linguist, but then you have this "gift". Why do grammar translation? 1. A university course has to be hard and discriminating between passing and failing students (but we want all students to enjoy reading). 2. The course needs to be examined. It's easier to 'examine' knowledge of grammar translation, harder to 'examine' being able to read - though not impossible. 3. What does the teacher do? In a modern language they create communicative situations. The Greek teacher isn't able to do this or can't see the relevance. Maybe their accent isn't good (I mean who cares). The emotional load of learning and the diversity of students means that a language teacher is a knower of the students, a coach, a friend, a therapist and a helper in despair. Grammar should be very, very light and only if the student finds it helpful. PS I have learned French, German and Latin and I cannot tolerate grammar expect sparingly in languages I am learning. I am self learning. have grammar text books and instruction. I can't do it. I know what a verb is, what a subordinating conjunction, subjunctive, dative and genitive. And I cannot tolerate grammar based learning. It doesn't go into my head. I can't tolerate it. If you love grammar and like it, buy all the books and knock yourself out. But it's not me and not 90% of language students. It doesn't damage my self esteem because I'm good at languages and know GTM doesn't work. I worry about the student with a good heart who maybe feels insecure academically and takes away horrible self messages that damage them for years. Teachers are responsible for the learning and the well being of those who study with them. A great vision of a teacher. A bricklayer studies with them. Their education level is low. They get to love reading the New Testament in Greek with no complexes whatever. That is my vision.

I feel like both methods here are wrong. You propose the communicative method, and Daryl is proposing Grammer translation. Neither will give you the ability to read any higher level texts like the Iliad. Comprehensible input is the only way to learn ancient Greek. Reading with a reader's edition and listening is how I learned to read Homer.

"Music theory will help you a little, if you already know how to play the violin!" Perfect!

As much as I enjoyed your video, your cadence makes it very hard to focus on what you're saying. Your words are too spaced apart and each word ends very harshly.

I'm so glad there is someone in the biblical language learning (acquiring) community who is defending and teaching the Comprehensible Input method.

Re: vocab. But this is why reading editions are so valuable. If a student of so-called New Testament Greek learns every word that occurs 5 times or more (e.g., using Van Voorst), in their first or second year, and then takes the reader GNT and memorizes the words on the page not known (it won't be much) and read 1-2 chapters 2-3x in a sitting this way.

But what do we think when someone says "I'm an Egyptologist" and we say "so you know Hieroglyphs?" and they say "yes." We don't expect that they speak Egyptian; we expect that they can read Hieroglyphs. This could be something of an analogy for people who say "I'm a classical scholar" or "I know ancient Greek." Also, I'm always curious about what different people say in Greek when they say "I know Greek." I know what *I* say--I recite the first 3, 5, 7, lines of the Iliad. Or I recite the beginning of the prologue of John's Gospel. But this has to do with *using* spoken Greek in a way altogether different than you advocate. Suppose I recite these, and then indicate that I journal in ancient Greek. Would that suffice? Or is it the very basic small talk that can be learned on a one-pager? I believe it is entirely reasonable, and sufficient for someone to say they "know" ancient Greek who could do the above, and then indicate that they read the texts (and if handed an ancient Gk text, they could read it aloud with a good pronunciation and explain what it means--all things considered [this is so hard; but someone studying koine should be able to do this with many koine texts; someone studying Attic, with attic authors; someone who specializes in Homer, with Homer). What's the alternative? If language fluency involves usage in, reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Classical language fluency should do all these with a heavy emphasis on this hierarchy: reading (aloud), writing (and reading the writing aloud), and then speaking (and only then, in using real Greek to speak). Listening is a corollary skill with the above. When I say using real Greek, I mean using dialogues based on real Greek (like Z's), or other phase books (like Auden's).

Me: studied Greek GTM for number of years; re-studied Greek with reading approaches, dialogues; Polis, etc. Have taught Greek for a half dozen semesters. I think there is no real argument against the view to know a language is to be able to use it: thinking, reading, writing, speaking. These remain the goals of high proficiency in one's own mother tongue. I agree that GT is not the way. However, the challenge with the ancient sources you cite, and with Richards and Rogers, is that they are speaking of disanalogous contexts: of immersion into a second language, or (in the case of Quint. and many ancient authors) of *learning your native languages. I was raised in a home with two tri-lingual* parents (English-French-Spanish; Spanish-Italian-English-Russian* *pretty good); we spoke Eng. and Span. I had Spanish grammar lessons as a kid; hated them. I learned my spanish by listening at home, and, especially, by extended family vacations in Spanish speaking countries. But I cannot do this with classical or post-classical Greek. Modern Greek is not the same despite what Caragounis and others want to say. And let's be honest--*most* advocates and practitioners of living language approaches cannot model the language adequately--either wrt. to pronunciation (which arguably matters as much for ancient Greek as it does for some Asian languages), nor do they have the robust abilities that a native teacher would have. *Maybe* some very few do. I suspect they are likely to be modern Greek speakers with an excellent knowledge of the ancient language and even then, modern Gk speakers spurn reconstructed pronunciation as a rule; which is a problem. So where are we left? There is a reason why very competent teachers of prose composition stick to actual Greek examples. There's a reason why people like the great and powerful Zuntz constructed all his διαλόγοι on real ancient Greek. There's much ado about the alternative to strict GT being the use of, frankly, untutored anglicisms in poorly "spoken" Greek where students still mightily struggle to read unadapted prose and poetry with fluency after some time anyway. The proof will always be in the unaided reading of a variety of real ancient texts. Reading aloud with ease and fluidity and understanding as you go. By my lights, a CI/reading-focused program (using adapted real Gk as much as possible--so Athenaze/RG/Logos/Rouse will have to be used w. caution) with composition as a major target skill, and reading all texts and compositions aloud, together with basic, real gk διαλόγοι is a far superior method of getting fluent in the language (using it) than is the very slow progressions of spoken imperatives ἔλθε ὧδε. . . χαῖρε, ὦ φίλε, πῶς ἔχεις; καλῶς ἔχω. . . χαίρετε μαθηταί. . . etc. But imagine a 3-4 yr program that began with a CI reading program; the teacher used very basic dialgoues from actual Gk to welcome students, and do basic interaction; all students learned accentuation and prose composition (say, Dickey), and all students read aloud all Gk from as early as possible. In addition, some basic dialogues from Zuntz could be used. This would coincide with language theory and grammar (as the best reading programs like Italian Athenaze do), and the turn to good composition books like Dickey will entail basically working through a reference grammar front to back. Grammar can be taught all the way, because it is and remains a highly respectable discipline in itself that attracts students. Linguistics as well, and this remains a great benefit to 2LA with a special focus on grammar. This is like learning a classical instrument, actually. Theory and practice are undertaken simultaneously, not in step-wise fashion of practice and then theory. In fact, this remains the best analogy for ancient language learning.

This is my personal example... (1) I did three years of Greek in Bible college. After that, I did nothing for learning to speak, hear, or write Greek. In subsequent years, I read the NT and parts of the LXX in Greek pretty regularly, but I never felt that I had a real grasp (facility) with the language. In the past five years, I went through Athenaze (Ἀθήναζε) that teaches Greek through stories rather than through grammar (essentially). I spent time practicing reading aloud, recording things for myself, trying to get beyond translating. Only then did it start to work for me, but I still feel stunted in my Greek learning. (2) As far as Hebrew is concerned, I did two years of grammar and translation in Bible college. After that, I went to a synagogue to listen to people reciting the text aloud, memorized prayers from the Jewish siddur and passages from the Bible in Hebrew, and started to study modern spoken Hebrew on my own. My ability with Hebrew grew and grew, and whereas I feel stunted and hindered in Greek, my ability with Hebrew took off, and I learned it as a heart language. If I had done the same thing with Greek, I think I would feel much more confidence and stability in my understanding of the language.

A fantastic response. - Jason Hare

I have much love for _everyone_ who is working hard to raise biblical language skills. But yes, this particular video does need a strong response, because a strong response is what will be needed if we hope to resurrect the language skills for the next generation. On the topic itself, In my opinion, there is a false dichotomy being set up here. The optimum path for an educated adult, is almost certainly to do both. To learn the language as a "natural language", supported/scaffolded by "grammar education" along the way. (I suspect letting "natural language" lead ahead is better though, because it allows the grammar questions naturally rise out of real language).

Thank you, this is very educating

I thought Darryl was slowly shifting towards a more natural language approach. When he started his channel, his only goal was to help people read the New Testament fluently. Later, I noticed he began emphasizing the goal to understand secondary biblical literature, such as commentaries and journal articles. This made me think he might have realized that GT wasn't the best method for achieving reading fluency. When I saw the title of this video, I hoped he had finally decided to change his approach. Disappointed to see him double down and inconsistently blame learners for not being properly educated in grammar before coming to Greek but then say that modern textbooks do a good job of teaching it.

Kevin I am entirely on your side and it is about time somebody took up this idea. After studying Greek for three years I feel I have to go back and learn it anew. Yes I can translate very well but my confidence in the language itself has grown worse. Here some simple tests: Say something in Greek (or Hebrew) that makes sense. Answer questions in that language. Read aloud in the language something you have not read before and explain it afterwards. The GTM is not about learning a language, it is about decoding and that is something entirely different. My native language, English, now becomes the fundamental basis for how to decode. All nuance of the original language then becomes lost and we have a "this means this" type of scenario.

It seems that GTM has its proper purpose in language learning similar to the purpose of learning English grammar for learning English. It is true that you can learn to read, write, listen and speak English even without learning grammar, but learning the formal aspects of the language help build on what you have learned. This is all the more true for NT Greek which is no longer a living language where similar conditions for learning it no longer persists. In addition, one indeed learns a living language like English through contact in conversation and use, but this only pertains to everyday colloquial use of the language. Written documents which contain language distant from the present requires different approach that considers the diachronic aspects of meaning and grammar.

So glad to see a response video like this. Subbed. Might I add that GTM resources have to be bilingual? Don’t have a greek grammar in your language? Tough. Guess you have to learn english first.

Preach!

What would you say is the most adequate way to learn the language, and most of all, retain it?

I appreciate this video. Thank you.

I love both of you guys. However, I think you are correct. I think people get stuck in the "old" ways that they think are older than they actually are. This happens in theology too. People cling to relatively new theological beliefs (on the scale of church history) and think as though thats what christians have always believed.

I would love to see you two have a friendly conversation with each other.

Awesome! The only one! The only God!

Fantastic episode!

Very interesting! Thank you for your hard work

Would you please try to speak in a more relaxed rhythm? Thank you and with appreciation. ❤

❤

Thanks for video

For me, this was the almost the best yet interview of Jason A. Staples on this subject. The other best one was the very recent June 2024 interview on Onscript

Wow excellent video. That for organising and for the great questions from the interviewer and for Paul Nation's time and expertise!

Insightful.

Thank you for the info. I am looking forward to the Grammer in the Biblingo app!

Thanks for this.

Are your slides available online?

Romans Chapter 11: In its New Covenant context... There is no Plan B of salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in this passage. Plan A is found in verses 23 and 24. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period can be found in Matt. 10:5-7, and Acts 10:36-38, and Gal. 1:14-18. Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 1:16 proves they are wrong, since Paul said the Gospel went "first" to the Jews. Many ignore the fact that Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", and as "men of Israel", and as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later. This passage proves Paul was right about the Gospel being taken "first" to the Jews. Were all of the Israelites "partially" hardened in Romans 11, or were part hardened and another part were not hardened? The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5. Paul reveals two different groups of Israelites in Romans 9:6-8. There is an Israel of the promise, and an Israel of the flesh. This is part of the context of Romans 11. Paul speaks about the "remnant" of Israel in Romans 9:27. This is also part of the context of Romans 11. Paul starts Romans 11 with two different groups of Israelites. In verse one Paul reveals he is still an Israelite, even after his conversion. Then Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There were the Baal worshippers, and there was the faithful "remnant". In verse five Paul says there is also a faithful "remnant" of Israelites during his time. This must be the Israelites who have accepted Christ, as on the Day of Pentecost. Paul uses the two olive trees as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree. The unbelieving Israelites have been broken off but can be grafted back in through faith in Christ in verses 23-24. Verse 26 is the problem for many modern Christians. What does the verse actually say, and how is it changed by many in the modern Church. I have heard two of our nations famous preachers say the following. "And then all Israel will be saved..." I have heard another say the following. "And all Israel will be saved..." What does God's Word, recorded by the Apostle Paul actually say? Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word "houto", which is an adverb of manner, instead of an adverb of timing. Some have changed the word from "so" to "then", in order to change the meaning of the verse. How will all of the "remnant" of Israel from Romans 9:27 be saved? The answer is found in the verses that precede verse 26 and are found below. Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Paul quoted from the OT in referring to the Deliverer coming out of Sion to pay for sin. Did this happen at Calvary, or will Jesus die again for His people in the future? Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Verse 28 can only be understood by looking at how Paul started the passage. He started with two different groups of Israelites and he ends the passage in the same way. There are two different groups of "they" in verse 28. One group of "they" reject Christ and are the enemies of God, and another group of "they" are the election which accept Christ through hearing the Gospel and faith. Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Based on Luke 21:24b-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ. This agrees with what Paul said in Romans 1:16 about the Gospel going “first” to the Jews.

Thank you! Scary to think of how much fluency and intuition we are losing today. Hopefully that can change, because it effects our translations, preaching, teaching, and edification.

On this subject, I heartily recommend a track I discovered by accident (it appeared in my 'recommended' feed) by a British band called UNIT. The track is A Tribute To The Israeli Defence Force and it is excellent - tuneful and forceful without being bombastic combined with a lovely lyric. I know next to nothing about the group but on investigation I see they've recorded a whole batch of Jewish related tracks such as Pesach, Yom Kippur, Bar Mitzvah, Israel Is Real, The 613 Mitzvot and probably others I don’t know about yet. Some of them feature Rabbi Moshe Bryski which is definitely a recommendation in itself.