A ‘word study’ (and everyone denies that they rely on these alone,
but I see plenty of relying on them in evangelical circles) is when you
construct a doctrine purely in terms of the way a word is used in
Scripture, usually by getting out your computer software and collecting
all the different references. It is not a useless activity, but
a) it is prone to ignoring the way in which words may be used in
radically different ways in different contexts – and that, as linguists
all know, context is best determiner of meaning, not the lexicon (which
is a record of usage)
b) it prioritises vocabulary over the myriad other ways that Scripture
speaks about concepts – parable, metaphor, image and above all
narrative.
c) it leads to arguments from silence – ie, ‘a word x isn’t used in this
way, therefore it is invalid to use it in this way in theological
thinking about the concept’. Word studies have a helpful critical
function in that they discipline us to think ‘why didn’t the Bible
writers use this vocabulary in this way’, but that is all they achieve.
d) a word study often relies on tendentious claims about the way in
which the word is used in such extant Greek literature as we still have
(which is of course extremely fragmentary). This sort of move can help
to rule IN certain types of usage, but it can’t rule OUT any usage.
e) evangelical word studies frequently depend on a spurious dichotomy
between ‘ordinary’ usage and ‘religious’ or ‘special’ usage. So, we
often hear claims that word x is actually simply a secular and ordinary
word and that the NT is not using it in the sense that the word later
came to have in the Christian tradition. I would say: this alleged
dichotomy is usually a false one, and neglects the fact that the NT is
written down only after the early church had been going for some two or
three decades (and a bit more), and had plenty of time to make its usage
of words quite specialised.
f) the word study appeals for its power on the claim that this is what the Bible is really saying, over the heads of the misguided tradition that came after it. I don't think that this is a theological way to read Scripture...
Simply put: a Christian understanding of (for example) ‘faith’ will
be assisted by a description of how the word is used in Scripture, but
this is only the beginning and not the whole of the theological task.
7 comments:
James Barr blasted "illegitimate totality transfer" in his Semantics of Biblical Language.
But is there such a thing as "Legitimate Totality Transfer?" For example, that strikes me as what Peter Leithart does in his fascinating Deep Exegesis and perhaps other works of his. I'm not sure he'd like that description.
My hunch is that there is some kind of "totality transfer" at work within the Bible.
I'm not sure this is what a "word study" does though.
Lots of likes to this one, brother. Lots of likes.
I wonder if this is related to (if not derived from) our focus on the word of God with the emphasis on "word" in modern English understanding. Thus we have people criticising Bible translations because they "change too many words" from the original, as if that could not or should not happen.
Of course a decent word study (¡) on "word" in both Greek and Hebrew as well as any theology of translation (since the NT treats the OT in translation as the "word of God" without impediment) would tell us that the focus is too narrow and that it'd be more precise to speak of "the Message of God" rather than "the Word of God." The focus then falls not on lexical minutiae but on larger semantic units.
(Unknown = Martin Shields, but the way.)
I'm knee deep in Donald Robinson's earlier scholarship at the moment, and, for what it's worth, my impression is that it is a lot more careful and a lot less prone to some of the totality transfer and other fallacies that were to follow. (Just one example--he argues that "baptism" as an almost completely religious-rite word in the New Testament and that it doesn't mean [as they say] 'simply to dip'. Pretty sure I've heard people make the opposite point a number of times...)
Also, I think the word study thing fails to distinguish between what the Bible 'says' and what the Bible 'teaches'.
For example, the bible 'says' that Christians in same place and at same time with intentionality = ekkelsia. But is that what the bible is *teaching* about church? Did any Bible writer expect that particular point to be dogma?
Also, I think the word study thing fails to distinguish between what the Bible 'says' and what the Bible 'teaches'.
For example, the bible 'says' that Christians in same place and at same time with intentionality = ekkelsia. But is that what the bible is *teaching* about church? Did any Bible writer expect that particular point to be dogma?
Post a Comment