the myth of the calculator

A school (let's just say near Caltech) recently has made the argument that to ask MDiv students to learn biblical languages is no longer useful on the basis of the surge of technology in language tools.  The analogy made by a prominent professor at the same school near Caltech  is that just as the slide rule was replaced by the calculator, the language tools have now rendered obsolete the need to memorize vocabulary and verb paradigms.  The information is out there; therefore there is no need to learn the languages anymore to be good preachers of the Word.

At first, it sounds like a great idea.  No need to spend lots of time learning words that the tools can give you in an instant.  What's wrong with that?

Well, for starters, just because one is able to decipher individual words in a language by learning the alphabet and downloading a program that will give the semantic value of a lexeme in an instant DOES NOT mean the person understands how the language functions as a whole.  Anyone who has ever learned another language knows that there is a turning point in the process, when the system is learned, when the relationship between words start making sense in your mind and the meaning of individual parts are interconnected to others. 

This approach also reflects a rather limiting view of language learning and the value of knowing Greek and Hebrew syntax.  If the goal of learning of say Hebrew ( since this is where I spend most of my time) is only to translate and parse verbs, then, yes, I guess I could live with relying on the tools and translations available since they are going to produce the same result as my own translation of the text. Why spend 5 minutes looking up a form in a lexicon, when Dr. Accordance is handing you the answer in less than a second?  But, if we are looking at the text as a dynamic expression of meaning, then we are also deeply interested in the variations which are intended by the author to convey particular significance or emphases. In other words, this quest is at the core of our interpretation of God's Word.  Often, however, modern translators have smoothed over these variations in Hebrew syntax because the English (or French, etc.) syntax simply is not capable of conveying the precise nuance reflected by the Hebrew. Other times, because Hebrew syntax thrives on the conception of repetition, these very features are dissolved in translation because the English prose would be too "heavy" or repetitive if the exact Hebrew equivalency was retained.  There are countless examples of this phenomenon, but I guess it's not that important anymore.

The other argument made is that we should leave the actual learning of the language to a few specialists and so we can rely on their expertise via their technical commentaries.  Again, this sounds ok at first until you realize that if you take this approach you are basically capitulating the process of interpretation of the text to others.  No doubt commentaries are useful but as a preacher, I have to know what is going on in the text myself.  I need to "crack it open" myself, rather than relying on the commentaries to be the primary voice speaking about the text.  This second-handed knowledge of the text is precisely what the Reformers tried to move away from: "ad fontes" " back to the sources" was their rallying cry. 

Finally, the slide rule vs. calculator/ language learning vs. tools  is not working out too well as an analogy.  Pupils today are still  asked to learn their multiplication and basic math skills, even in the age where we walk around with unbelievably sophisticated devices that make the early calculators look like total clunkers.

All this will do, I fear,  is continue to create two tiered pastors:  those who have spent time in commentaries all week to prepare their sermons and those who have actually spent time in the Word, wrestling with the details of the text and their significance for interpretation.