We wish in this book, therefore, to establish principles and develop methods for the study of all types of words (not only theological terms) as elements of language in their own right. Our goal is not to deduce the theology of New Testament writers straight out of the words they use, nor even to map out semantic fields that in themselves may reflect theological structures.⁵⁷ We have the relatively modest goal of determining the most accurate English equivalents to biblical words, of being able to decide, with as much certainty as possible, what a specific Greek or Hebrew word in a specific context actually means. To some students, this task may seem only a bit less boring than, say, textual criticism. But just as the establishment of the correct text—no matter how tedious the process involved or how unsensational the results—is a fundamental step in biblical interpretation, so lexicology takes priority in the exegetical process. We may pursue the analogy and suggest that, although not every exegete need become a professional textual critic, every exegete must have sufficient involvement in that work to evaluate and assimilate the results of the “experts.” Similarly, all biblical interpreters need exposure to and experience in lexicographic method if they would use the linguistic data in a responsible way. In a survey of biblical scholars and students conducted in the late 1960s, some respondents commented on the need for “a better understanding of the nature, use, and limitations of a lexicon” on the part of dictionary users.⁵⁸ The point, which could hardly be disputed, is still valid today. This requisite understanding, however, can only be developed on the basis of a solid grasp of the theoretical foundations of lexicology. It is to these principial questions that the present book is devoted.
Note: The electronic version I used does contain the word "principial." So I did not remove it.
