Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Matthew,

May I dub the approach you are describing to foreign language teaching the
"natural approach." I like it very much, and I have indeed familiarized
myself with the subject because I was teaching a fair piece of ESL (English
as a second language) to Soviet immigrants a few years back. I used entirely
a
natural approach with my ESL students, partly necessitated by my not
speaking Latvian, Ukrainian, Russian, or Lithuanian! I have also tried to
incorporate some of the principles of the natural approach in my teaching of
BH over the years, and I must say that natural-approach classes were fun and
memorable. I doubt if any of those students has forgotten what "shim`on
'omer" means or their body parts in Hebrew! We had some great
improvisations around visiting the BH shuk in which buyers and sellers
bargained in Hebrew for gemalim 'o shemen. One of the most useful
activities was a card game in which the cards had Biblical stories
illustrated on them. The students would get the cards from a partner by
describing the pictorial content on the cards: "'ish babayit. shmo david" or
by telling stories about the pictures on the cards: "vayece' ha'ish mibayit
vayelek 'el ha`ir."

I hope it is already clear that I do not simply want to be a spoiler or
nay-sayer
when it come to the natural approach. I am anxious to get my ears on Randall
's program, which I am sure is expertly done.  On the other hand, I do not
do those types of "natural" of activities much any more in BH class.  Let me
explain my decision.

For one thing, in the natural approach, we always gravitated towards Israeli
Hebrew, which is considerably more Indo-European than BH in terms of syntax
and verbal semantics.  Since, in the natural approach, the goal is
communication, getting things done, rather than correctness of speech or
composition, it was hard to correct the Israeli dialect without being almost
over-bearing.

Second, we wound up practicing most what is less frequent in the Tanakh.

Also, as Randall Buth has suggested, the goal of the program is critical,
and I would add that the goal should dictate to the pedagogy.  IMHO, most of
us, like it or not, are naïve to have the goal "fluency in BH."   As Randall
has stated, fluency would require immersion in BH, something he says
requires a year or two in Israel. This is in the least. There is also the
distinct possibility that immersion in Israeli Hebrew is not an immersion in
BH at all.  For example, I know, in explaining passages of Tanakh to Israeli
friends, there was this pointy, prickly hurdle to overcome: that I was
explaining to them how to read *their* language, so they thought.  I found
*their* language was *their* handicap *in
some respects*.  (And of course, it was their advantage in many respects!)

It is true that many, if not most, who study BH (as opposed to Modern H),
have as their goal to read one book, the Tanakh, in Hebrew.  The goal "read
the Tankh in Hebrew" is distinct from the goal "become fluent in BH."  And
so Randall's assessment of the goal of many BH programs is indeed more or
less correct:  "i'm not sure most b-hebrew programs are geared toward
learning and internalizing BH, rather, towards describing the morphology and
syntax, amassing a gridwork in a foreign language for a basic vocabulary and
writing exegetical papers in the respective foreign language."  I do not
think it is a goal to be sneered at.  It is a reasonable and practical goal
for most of us.  It is a goal that is within the reach of most people who
*should* be able to read the Tanakh in Hebrew.  Also, would a scholar in the
States, a clergyman, a missionary, a translator, want to talk or write
papers about the Tanakh in Israeli Hebrew?  Why in the world would he ever
want to write papers about the Tanakh in BH? It is no more of a practical
goal than writing exegetical papers on Shakespeare in Shakespearean English.
(BTW, do I need to become immersed in Shakespearean English to appreciate
it?)  Does anyone dream in BH?

One other thing about teaching BH by the natural approach:  Who will teach
it?  The basic premise of the natural approach is that the best way to learn
a language is by imitating, in the classroom, the natural context in which
people, especially children, learn their native languages.  This is
relatively workable when we have native speakers for teachers like me with
my ESL students or like the teachers in the Israeli ulpan.  It's especially
workable when the students are also living in the community that speaks the
language they are learning.  Neither of these situations is quite possible
for the BH classroom.  I am therefore as skeptical of the natural approach
for teaching BH as I am skeptical of the instructor's ability both to be
fluent himself and also maintain the distinct dialect(s) called BH.  A great
deal of the responsibility to create the natural BH environment falls on the
highly skilled teacher.  If anyone can do it, Randall can, but how many
Randall Buth's are there in this world?  Do you know how many teachers of BH
there are in within a fifty-mile radius of my home?  You probably won't need
both hands to count them.   Can Randall's materials substitute for Randall?
That sounds like a neat prospect.

I think that the best way to go at a goal is by the direct route. If the
goal is to read the Tanakh in Hebrew, start reading the Tanakh rather than
conversing in BH. Start with the things one encounters most. Move towards
what one encounters the least.

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267