Hebrew teaching grammars: update
Quite some time back I asked my blog readers for advice about grammars for teaching biblical Hebrew. Those responses, and the many reviews I’ve read since then, as well as my experience with examination copies of the books, lead me to the conclusion that every teaching grammar is idiosyncratic in some way, each has its own strengths and none are without weaknesses, and the grammar you prefer is partly a function of learning and teaching style.
At this point, it looks like I’ll probably go with Gary Pratico and Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew (Zondervan, 2001). I do not have a strong preference at this stage in favor of any particular grammar, and my colleague Tim Willis, who usually teaches the Hebrew class, has most recently been using Pratico and Van Pelt. The variety of supplementary materials (workbook, flash cards, CD-ROM, etc.) is helpful, and I like the fact that I can take students through the grammar in two semesters, leading right up to the final lesson—an introduction to BHS—as a nice segue into the third semester, which is more of a readings and syntax course. But the main reason I’m leaning heavily toward Pratico and Van Pelt right now is simply consistency with what Tim has been doing and will probably resume doing after next year. I don’t really want my students to have a radically different experience in Hebrew instruction from the students who took the class two years earlier or will take it two years later.
The biggest disincentive right now to using Pratico and Van Pelt is the presence of the little interpretive articles. Some of them are fine (e.g., Roger Valci on “The Hebrew Acrostic,” chapter 1; Catherine Beckerleg on כחש vs. שכח in Psalm 137:5, chapter 32) but some of them are just outright wrong in my view, as when Pratico himself “interpretively” translates ושמי יהוה לא נודענתי להם as “but in the character expressed by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them” (chapter 27), or when Jeffrey Niehaus tells students that, to Baalist, “Baal was himself the storm” (my emphasis, chapter 36), a statement that I’m almost positive that at least the Baalists at Ugarit would never endorse. Still, those sections don’t actually bear on the value of the book for teaching students the grammatical and syntactic aspects of biblical Hebrew, and I can always communicate my personal agreement or disagreement with positions taken in those little articles if need be.
There’s also the matter of the availability of an answer key, which may tempt some students to doctor their homework before turning it in. I’m not quite sure how to deal with that, except by relying on their personal integrity.
Any suggestions or feedback would, of course, be most welcome.
5 comments Christopher Heard | Bible translation, Hebrew, teaching and learning
I’m looking into a text for teaching as well and kind of feel the same way about Pratico and Van Pelt – I appreciate all the learning supplements, but there’s nothing worse than a first year student armed with some ‘insider’ exegetical knowledge that is suspect at best. The idea of exegetical insights is a good one I think as it keeps the students engaged; just too bad they didn’t use more discretion as there is plenty of material which is less dubious that could be used more beneficially.
I used to use the First Hebrew Primer for Adults when I was at Fuller. It’s overly simplistic, but it worked well for a bunch of folks who were scared to take the language to begin with. It also avoids all discussion of proto-semitic phonology and morphology, which I’m convinced doesn’t belong in a first year Hebrew class.
Chris,
When I used to teach Hebrew at Southwest Baptist University, I used A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew by J. Weingreen (Oxford: University Press, 1959). I liked his approach and the fact that the exercises were based on the book of Genesis. He emphasizes grammar and translation. By the end of the second semester, my students could translate the whole book of Jonah by themselves.
Claude Mariottini
I teach Biblical Hebrew to older adults. After surveying several texts, I settled upon The First Hebrew Primer (EKS). It does have shortcomings, but on the whole, its emphasis on simplicity does work well with folks who are out of the formal education loop. I’ve had an excellent retention rate using it.
In answer to your answer key dilemma, one of The Primer’s greatest flaws is also one of its greatest strengths. The Primer’s answer key is studded with errors. Consequently, I can tell when my students are simply copying from it rather than using it as a guide. After a few notes on homework advising, “Stop cheating! Use your Gd-given brain!” these students have learned to use their answer keys properly.
I believe that Basics of Biblical Hebrew is the best choice available for anyone teaching a two semester course.
Here is a suggestion about the exegetical notes: Use them as a learning tool (in a way that they were not intended!). One of the dangers associated with learning first year Hebrew or first year Greek is that students easily imagine that they know far more than they do – and they use this “hidden knowledge” (a form of academic gnosticism) to dazzle their friends. You could warn against this fact early in your course, and then take a few minutes two or three times during the course to explain how “even the textbook” has fallen into the trap of misusing a little knowledge of Hebrew.
As to students overusing the answer key: There is no adequate substitute in learning first year Hebrew for regular quizzes. Any student who isn’t approaching the HW as a quiz will be revealed on the actual quizzes that you give.
David