Teaching Contradictory Biblical Languages—What Do We Do When Experts Radically Disagree?

Some students are aware of what lurks beneath the surface. Two versions of ancient Greek are taught today. One version has no time reference in the verb, the other has a highly differentiated tense-aspect system in the indicative verb. One of the two is not Greek. There are at least two "Biblical Hebrew"s. One works pragmatically from a Verb-Subject word order. The other from a Subject-Verb word order. Variations of the two versions also question whether weqatal or wayyiqtol exist(ed) and their meaning. Translators need the pragmatics of these languages, syntax, too. How should students and teachers interact with such situations? How can traditional, majority, or theoretical linguistic positions help or hurt? Should there be a moratorium on trying to internalize a language when dispute is so radical?

Converging approaches can encourage student and teacher. There are ancient mother-tongue discussions for Greek. For Hebrew, ancient translations by bilinguals can be studied. Dialects of Greek and Hebrew have been in continual use for three millenia. Tradition may play a role, but which tradition? Cognitive linguistics helps along with the recursive nature of language. Students can internalize a language as much as they are able and can build their spiraling learning-curve from more probable starting points. Fortunately, the internalization process enhances interaction with the text, and the mother-tongue texts advance the spiral for those paying attention.