I am entering late into this discussion (perhaps too late in blog time), but this is my first opportunity to do so. As is well known by now, Larry Hurtado has been expressing the view (here, here and here) that New Testament PhD students in Britain should have reached a certain standard of linguistic competency by the time of completion (which could include testing at the viva – no thanks, I’m scared enough as it is). For traditional NT PhDs, this seems a reasonable proposition. However, there need to be some fairly major changes to the teaching of theology in the UK if this is to be taken seriously.
At Durham, we naturally have opportunities to study both ancient and modern languages, but I wouldn’t like to have started any from scratch. I am doing this with Latin this year, but fear that I may not be able to devote the time to make it stick. Realistically, therefore, the British candidate needs a reasonable competency prior to beginning research.
In which case, there needs to be more emphasis on languages earlier in the education system. It is pretty much expected these days that applicants for PhD will have an MA in an appropriate subject. These degrees are described by the AHRC as ‘Research Preparation’ degrees since they are meant to be the preparation stage for the PhD. In my Biblical Studies MA at King’s College London, we had to take a module in a language, either ab initio or advancing previous study. This is good, but is it enough? Should there not be a larger language component if the PhD is the aim? However, one academic year is not a lot in the study of a language. This turns the spotlight on undergraduate degrees.
Which is a problem, because it is quite possible to get a degree in Theology and Religious Studies in the UK without studying any ancient languages. Then again, there are plenty of subjects within this field which do not require them. However, if we are hopeful that there will be future generations taking up the discipline, then they will need the tools to enable them to do so. This is particularly acute with ministerial training in almost all denominations (a route which many PhD students have typically taken), where courses often avoid original language study altogether.
If we enforce Hurtado’s language requirement for the PhD and do not change our earlier theological education, then I fear for those educated in the British system. I fear that this will mean in practice that the subject of traditional NT Studies will remain open to (a) those who are self-motivated enough to do the language study on their own (good for them); and (b) those who have studied Classical languages at school, which in the UK, almost entirely means public school (i.e. private school). I am not comfortable with the potential class implications of this, and indeed, it would be interesting to know how many of our current senior figures in the subject have a public school background which has contributed to their linguistic ability.
In other words, this is an important topic with implications for the structure of theological education as a whole, and not just for reasons of academic competence.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 2:18 pm
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your thoughts here. I wasn’t aware that there was a debate raging about this. I also take your points about class, priviledge, and a system that shifts the blame. Those are probably not good virtues for a discipline to engender.
However, I am curious about wanting to waive the language competency for NT or OT PhD’s… That seems like a strange thing to do since it is arguably integral to an academic aspect of the sub-discipline.
Surely it would be better for the discipline if NT and OT PhD’s were expected to have a competency in the language in which they were working. Surely it wouldn’t weaken the research that the discipline carries out. Couldn’t a counter-argument be made that the language requirement would only strengthen the quality of research?
I learned recently of a British student’s funding being dependent upon whether they could pass a Greek exam upon entry. I thought that if the student was to get all of their fees paid for the duration of their course, then this is not an unreasonable thing to ask of them–especially since they are setting out to do a NT PhD.
Perhaps you could say more about your reasons why a language competency should not be desireable? This hesitancy sounds strange for some future PhD student who might apply for a job that at some point it would be required of them to teach that language.
Why wouldn’t this requirement set the bar for the rest of the other institutions that you’ve listed as a model?
Josh
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Josh,
I obviously didn’t make my point very clearly – sorry! I am not suggesting that the language requirement shouldn’t be there necessarily (I think it has generally been an unexpressed assumption until now), but rather that if we are going to include one, thereby making an explicit change to the educational process at one end, then this needs to affect the rest of the process of theological education up until that point. It does not seem sensible to me to set a ‘bar’ in place which very few will be able to jump – not through their own intrinsic lack of ability, but because their education (school, undergraduate, etc.) has not given them the skills.
The trouble is, even if they have an interest, most undergraduate students and trainee ministers see languages as hard – and they’re right! This means that fewer take the courses, which makes it more difficult to justify teaching them. It becomes a vicious circle. This is why I think the suggestion made by Hurtado has to raise questions about the way we deliver theological education at all levels.
So, we need either to change the process, or change the language requirement. My vote is for the former, for the reasons you helpfully indicate.
Thanks again,
Ed.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 3:13 pm
Hi Ed,
Thanks for replying.
Like I said, I’m not one that is accustomed to ‘the debate’ but it still seems strange to me to treat this issue as an either/or.
Either change the process or change the requirement. Wouldn’t doing the former implicitly involve changing the latter? How long would it take for ‘the system’ to change sufficiently in order to make it reasonable for the latter to come in as a requirement?
I am sympathetic with those ministers and undergraduates that see language learning as a difficult task. But doesn’t this just highlight a confusion between the task of a university and a task of a seminary?
At the denominational level, a seminary can decide if they want their ministers to know Koine Greek or Hebrew, and it is up to the denomination to decide whether a language requirement should be in place for a minister to conduct her vocation.
However, for a research university, I would think that such a language requirement would be required for the acquiring of critical skills for research. I don’t know Hurtado’s work well, but if there was a problem with his exegesis (heaven forbid!), wouldn’t the research postgrad need to show how that problem is related to the original texts?
Since Durham and Edinburgh aren’t seminaries, but research universities, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to establish the language requirement. Especially, if as you say, it is already implicitly expected of the student. Wouldn’t that be a more transparent approach for incoming research students?
I don’t mean to be difficult here. I guess this debate caught me off guard because of something that I thought was already considered a virtue worth streamlining.
If virtues were easy, would they still be virtuous?
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 3:52 pm
What’s more, I’m a little dismayed at the idea that any PhD student at Durham would have a supervisor who would not ensure that language skills were obtained before arriving or made an immediate priority…
Wednesday, 21 September 2011 at 8:38 am
In my experience, I don’t think there’s any danger of that!
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 3:58 pm
Sorry, for some reason the first comment didn’t post.
I think you both have strong points (sorry to be that guy). Ed is right in that, if there is no point at which sufficient time is given to students to obtain the necessary language skills, it is unfair to require they be tested on those skills. Like Ed said, it presumes either students gained these skills at school (bringing in debates about class) or students will at some point independently acquire these skills (either in addition to regular course requirements or by taking time out of school).
I’ve struggled with the French, German and Spanish I’ve needed for my research, ultimately deciding to cut elements out purely on the grounds that there just isn’t enough time to develop the language skills.
Now, I also agree with Josh- there should be a language requirement. But I would say that the department would also need to make sure that Greek and Hebrew (at least) were available at the UG level and specify that they will be requiring proficiency for PG work. It would also need to be emphasized at the MA level. Then I think it would be appropriate for there to be a language component to the process that all first year PhD students go through in order to progress in their studies.
It’s not that I disagree with Josh when he says that languages are necessary. But I do think that it is an either or situation. Either provide the resources or don’t make it a requirement. Obviously one university can’t dictate the policies for the country, but I think if Durham provided the necessary opportunities then it would be justified in expecting students to take advantage of them. If I have to choose between excluding students at the PhD level based on skills that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have obtained or taking the time to reform the system, admitting that may weaken the field of research for a period, I’d take the latter every time.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 4:05 pm
Thanks for chiming in Thomas!
Like I said in the initial comment, I grant all the objections raised concerning class, privilege, and and a system that shifts the blame down to the bottom.
Both you and Ed’s reasoning about reforming the system are sound.
My issue came about when we specified this, not for PhD students in general, but rather for biblical studies students specifically.
To me, this was where things became self-subverting.
Thanks for clarifying the points and thanks to Ed for raising them.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 12:50 pm
[...] http://dunelm.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/languages-for-all-the-language-debate-and-theological-educati… [...]
Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 1:42 pm
Hi Ed,
I am a bit puzzled over your comment regarding the class implications of a field that requires competence in multiple languages. You seem to be presenting this as though it were a new development. In spite of the desire of many people to portray their roots as being particularly humble, class has always had a significant impact on whether or not someone has the educational opportunities necessary to become a first rate academic. Most exceptions to this, historically, have been when a gifted person without means happened to have a wealthy benefactor. Today, because of public education, economic class is less a determining factor than it was in the past; but it still remains a significant element in the equation.
It seems to me that, if we want to broaden the opportunity for men and women across the socio-economic spectrum to become scholars, the last thing we should do is lower the prerequisite requirements for actually doing scholarship. Creating such second class academic credentials is setting up such students for failure in the vocation the PhD is supposed to be preparing them for.
Best wishes,
David
p.s. I am personally aware of the struggles you are addressing. I grew up in a rent-controlled apartment in New York and studied engineering in college (spending 9 years in the military in exchange for my education). I never attempted to learn a second language until I went to seminary. So, while I grant that you are addressing a real problem, I suspect the solution of lowering standards is worse than the problem it is trying to solve.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 9:52 pm
I think part of the issue being brought out here is the difference in educational systems in the US and the UK. With seminary training in the US there is ample opportunity to learn Greek and Hebrew before the PhD while also learning (some) research skills. With a typical 1-yr MA that moves at a break-neck speed in the UK, there is really little or no time to pick up a new language. Thus, Ed’s concern is (as it seems to me) that it might squeeze out those who don’t come from a background that will have allowed them access to these languages previously.
Historically, this wasn’t a problem in the UK because the majority of people that went to college came from grammar schools (aka class reinforcing programmes) that taught these languages. Now that university education is more democratised in the UK, it presents the problem that Ed raises. Not sure if that’s correct, but it seems to correspond. I don’t think Ed is wanting to lower standards, but he’s just asking if it’s necessary (as it is), where is the system allowing for it to be properly integrated. That is, there are always examples of motivated individuals, but how do we better shape a system that aids the mastery of these tools (in the UK setting)?
Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 8:32 pm
Thanks to David and to Ben (who has put it rather better than I did myself!). David, you are absolutely right that class has typically corresponded with educational opportunities, and this is a very hotly debated issue in the UK at present. Only yesterday, a report came out that indicates that many of the top universities here are not succeeding in meeting targets to admit students from more disadvantaged backgrounds (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/29/british-universities-fail-poor-students). These are often the universities which teach Theology and Biblical Studies. Thus, I think that Ben is right to point out that this is a particular UK issue, which is the context in which it was originally raised.
However, I was trying to suggest that if we introduce specific standards (as I said, not unreasonable for a traditional NT PhD), then the rest of the higher education system of theology should reflect this, by giving more opportunity for the study of languages, not less, as seems to be the current trend. If we do not do so, then only those who have had other opportunities for study will make the grade, reflecting the kind of situation you describe. It’s great to hear of your perseverance though, and to know that those who are sufficiently determined will make it no matter what. I would hope, however, that along with the appropriate consideration of academic standards would go the consideration of who can make it and how we can help them (us!).
Monday, 17 October 2011 at 1:50 pm
{Great|Wonderful|Fantastic|Magnificent|Excellent} beat ! I {wish to|would like to} apprentice while you amend your {site|web site|website}, how {can|could} i subscribe for a blog {site|web site|website}? The account {aided|helped} me a acceptable dea…
I’m really impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays…..