After David Black offers tips for textual criticism, he explains the basics of lexical analysis (word study). The suggestions he offers are helpful; for instance, it's tempting to believe that word studies are what it takes to unlock Bible meaning. I first thought this way when I started studying Greek and dabbling in Hebrew: I felt that it would be possible to settle Trinitarian disputes and that the scriptures would become like an open book to me, if I only knew Greek. I now realize that one cannot expect too much from lexical analysis even though it is beneficial and important when done properly.
The ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) is a cautionary tale to remind us that word studies can be misleading: James Barr criticized TDNT for confusing Vort und Begriff. Black says TDNT illustrates that word studies must examine how writers employ words within particular contexts--not in the abstract. D.A. Carson likewise warns against committing exegetical fallacies when one does word studies; these observations show that lexical analysis can be fraught with danger if done improperly.
Black gives two examples of how to do word studies in preparation for a sermon, but I want to offer two of my own. The first term is the Greek word μορφή. Just what does it mean per its lexicality? Honestly, the word is surrounded with controversy and theological biases don't help much. I favor the meaning, "outward appearance, external shape, form" for Philippians 2:6-7, but others think differently. Whatever one decides, we cannot understand the term's denotation apart from the context in Philippians. The exegete may learn what the LXX, Plato, Aristotle, and other GNT verses have to say about the term, but at the end of the day, one cannot ignore the word's immediate context when trying to find its denotation. In my opinion, Carl Conrad exemplified what a word study for μορφή should look like at the bare minimum. You can find his thoughts here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=lexical
A second example I would proffer is the Greek term καταβολή, another contentious word. See how Bill Mounce defines the word: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katabole
Thinking about καταβολή leads me to other suggestions I would like to make, namely, that good word studies require sharp tools. For lexical studies in the GNT, there can be no finer/sharper tool than BDAG Greek-English Lexicon; Louw-Nida's lexicon is highly recommended and so is the more recent work by Brill. The Cambridge Greek lexicon will no doubt prove to be useful although there are mixed reviews of this work. Nonetheless, the important thing is having a good, updated lexicon like the ones I mentioned and a dependable GNT dictionary would not hurt such as NIDNTT, which supersedes TDNT.
Reflecting on καταβολή , BDAG states:
(1) "the act of laying someth[ing] down, with implication of providing a base for someth[ing], foundation" and
(2) "a [technical term] for the sowing of seed, used of begetting" (page 515).
Hence, I would say that καταβολή potentially means "foundation" or in certain contexts may have that sense: it may denote the casting of seed in other settings.
Nonetheless, a friend once said:
"I know from experience that if we consult a lexicon, it is simply
asking the writer of that lexicon his/her opinion of a word meaning.
This is why a concordance is always safer than a lexicon."
My reply:
I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. BDAG, Louw-Nida,
Abbott-Smith [another lexicon] or LSJ [a classical Greek lexicon], IMO, do more than give opinions on word meanings.
BDAG is the product of rigorous lexicography; Danker (and others before
him) has examined a number of texts and contexts. Ergo, though BDAG is
far from being infallible, I would not just want to chalk up Danker's
lexical judgments to personal opinion. On the other hand, I'm not too
trusting of concordances when it comes to lexical semantics.
Although I wrote that reply some years ago, my feelings have largely remained the same on this issue. Greek lexicons are not infallible but they are indispensable for doing serious lexical work and they're not just opinions about the potential denotation of words; on the other hand, never blindly read a Hebrew or Greek lexicon and please realize that LSJ is excellent but it's older and focuses on classical Greek sources and the LXX sometimes, not the GNT.
As Black closes this section dealing with lexical analysis (word studies), he offers two other lessons. Firstly, while one should not place too much emphasis on word studies, this does not mean that words are unimportant. There are times when a book or letter in the GNT revolves around a term or central concept (motif). For instance, doxa or dunamis: the occurrence of these words are not accidental: the writer likely has a reason for emphasizing them. Pay attention to how certain words support a book's theme or focus; note what they mean within the wider context of a literary work (e.g., pistis or elpis).
Secondly, the exegete or Bible student must never become stuck on words such that his exegesis or understanding of the Bible becomes word-bound rather than context-bound. Black quotes James Barr at this juncture: “It is the sentence (and of course the still larger literary complex such as the complete speech or poem) which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, and not the word (the lexical unit).”
So if we want to know what Paul meant by μορφή or καταβολή or what the GNT means by parousia, then we must study sentences, paragraphs, yes, whole books and letters. Word study alone will not suffice. Hence the need to study both microstructural and macrostructural components of a book. Doing so will enlighten our word studies. As one commentator once wrote, one can learn more about the Greek word ecclesia within its GNT setting by studying the book of Ephesians: we could get more from studying the book than we would from consulting lexical entries.
Thirdly, contexts help to disambiguate a word's potential signification. Translators often render the Greek word κόσμος as "world" but that English
translation results in a degree of ambiguity. What do we mean by "world"? Is the world a section of humanity, the entire human race, the
framework in which humans move and breathe? The apostle John wrote that the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19). Which world is that?
κόσμος may also denote the universe—the whole of all that exists: both Pythagoras and Heraclitus use it to convey this idea. When writers talk about cosmological dualism, the Greek term refers to the universe in these discussions. So the
expression "world" is not an invalid handling of κόσμος, but it does
produce a rather confused state of affairs once we start to use biblical texts or reflect on their meaning. In any event,
cosmological dualism is the philosophical view that asserts the world
(universe) is fundamentally two things. It claims that there are two
absolute metaphysical principles representative of this particular
species of dualism, yet the point here is that words must be understood in their broader contexts.
In conclusion, word studies are important; however, for them to truly benefit the exegete and others, they must be kept in their proper place. I will discuss syntactical analysis next time.
Sources for Further Reading:
https://guides.library.wheaton.edu/c.php?g=451045&p=3079661
E. Nida and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, vol. 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
https://oru.libguides.com/biblicalresearch/lexicons
https://libguides.eastern.edu/c.php?g=116096&p=756984
Moises Silva: https://books.google.com/books?id=lulsBdkfoLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Mois%C3%A9s+Silva%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxvpqZkOTyAhUYVTABHZsxAyoQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false
No comments:
Post a Comment