Sunday, February 17, 2019

Timothy Barnes on Sound Scholarship

I encountered this gem in the preface to Timothy Barnes's monograph on Early Christian Hagiography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010).
“In my first year of research ... I learned two fundamental truths about scholarship that are too often neglected: first, the most useful study of any subject or problem need not be either the most recent or indeed at all recent in date; second, that sound scholarship remains sound scholarship despite the passage of time and changes in intellectual fashion.” (p. x)
The book--originally a series of lectures delivered in German--was published three years after Barnes retired from his position as professor of Classics at the University of Toronto.

Here is a longer version:
 “Soon after I began research in Oxford in 1964, my supervisor Sir Ronald Syme encouraged me to investigate early Christian texts and documents in a spirit of extreme scepticism. … Syme suggested that I investigate the letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the acta martyrum of the second and third centuries on the assumption that every text needed to establish its claims to veracity and ought to be treated as inauthentic until it was proved otherwise. This was perhaps the most salutary and productive single item of advice that Syme ever gave me. For, while my investigation of the letters of Ignatius led nowhere at the time, it revealed to me the superb scholarship of Bishop Joseph Barber Lightfoot, who held the see of Durham from 1879 to 1889, and it convinced me that understanding of Ignatius had not progressed significantly in the three quarters of a century after Lightfoot. In my first year of research, therefore, I learned two fundamental truths about scholarship that are too often neglected: first, the most useful study of any subject or problem need not be either the most recent or indeed at all recent in date; second, that sound scholarship remains sound scholarship despite the passage of time and changes in intellectual fashion.” (pp. ix-x)

Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Living Language Pedagogy at Princeton University

Last week the Paideia Institute released a video in Latin (with English subtitles) about a Latin course offered at Princeton University last fall that was taught entirely in Latin:

When I first watched the video, I assumed it was a product of Princeton’s Classics Department. But while the classics department approved the video, it was produced by the Paideia Institute; Joseph Conlon, the course instructor, is a post-doc at the Paideia Institute; and the rather breathless online article about the course was written by the editor of In Media Res, a Paideia Institute magazine.

But when due allowance is made for an organization’s own promotional literature, the Living Latin course, and the fact that it was offered at Princeton, is still an exciting development: The course was offered in response to student demand; Joseph Conlon, who holds a PhD in classics from Princeton University, evidently knows Latin—along with about 10 other languages—very well indeed, and he appears to be an excellent teacher; eminent Princeton historian, Anthony Grafton, was impressed with the class. More importantly, students clearly loved it. Here are a few excerpts (in English translation) from the video:
"It is difficult to understand classical literature without speaking Latin or Greek. But it is difficult to speak Latin without friends who also can or want to learn to speak Latin."
"Before the course I could read Latin, but I had to translate every word into English, and now I can better understand the words of the ancient authors."
"I am always happy when I come to class. Even if I am having a bad day, I am happy in class."
The video itself makes a great case for a living language approach to teaching so-called “dead” languages. Watch the video, and you’ll see why I think the biblical languages should be taught this way too.