Brief Notes from John Lyons, "Language, Meaning and Context" (Pages 172-174)

Background to This Book: The linguist Sir John Lyons lived between 23 May 1932 – 12 March 2020 and he was a Fellow of the British Academy. His concentration was semantics: his peers considered him to be a "major semanticist" (Clark and Kempson). Out of the major work he did, one important study was Language, Meaning and Context, published in 1981. This book was written to outline and critique the status quo of semantics at the time. Since the field of linguistics has a significant impact on theology and speech act theory plays a role in contemporary theology, I want to comment briefly on this subject with help from the book by Lyons. 

On page 172, Lyons makes it clear that he does not truly like the terminology, "speech acts," so when he analyzes John Austin's inchoate theory of performative utterances, Lyons introduces personally-crafted distinctions while adhering somewhat closely to Austin's terminology the best that he can. Austin's famed work was How to Do Things With Words published in 1962. He lectured at Oxford and set forth thought-provoking ideas, but Austin did not leave an organized manuscript that his peers could publish. The lack of a suitable manuscript led to the imprecise articulation of his speech act theory, which John Searle later studied, propagated, and then offered his own ideas. 

On page 174, Lyons relates that Austin's theory was born in the midst of verificationist controversies: that is, some philosophers and linguists suggested that theological, metaphysical, moral, and aesthetic statements are emotive rather than communicators of truth or falsity. This would include statements like "Murder is wrong" and "Joe is a better singer than Barry." Austin criticized the verificationists and came up with his own counterexamples like "I promise to pay you five pounds on Tuesday." This statement is neither true nor false, but evidently obligates the one uttering the words to keep his/her promise or to act in a certain way. Hence, the terminology, "speech acts" (performative utterances). Linguists commonly articulate this theory in terms of the categories, locution, illocution, and perlocution. Kevin Vanhoozer has utilized speech act theory to explicate his theological thought. I also recommend Lyons' book if one wants to learn more about speech act theory, deixis/indexicality, semantics in general, Gricean implicature theory and much more. 

Sources: Lyons, John (1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana.

https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2738/19-Memoirs-19-Lyons.pdf

Understanding the GNT Use of Pas Qua Substantive

I favor a two-pronged semantic approach to understanding how GNT writers use "all" (πᾶς) substantivally. What I say below applies to other ways of determining the semanticity of words:

(1) Examine the cotext of particular texts or verses. By "cotext," I mean the literary context or surrounding words, verses, paragraphs, chapters (etc.) found in a scriptural work.

(2) Perform exegesis by undertaking an intertextual approach. That is, compare other texts written by the author/authors to ascertain how he/they employs a particular word in certain literary contexts. Then move from that author such as Paul or Peter to other relevant writers by extending your study to the LXX, papyri and writers like Josephus or Philo as well as the church fathers. The intertestamental literature can also yield helpful insights on a Greek word that occurs in the GNT.

For more on reading the Bible in this fashion, see Ernst's R. Wendland's essay in D.A. Black's (editor) Linguistics and NT Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. Pages 101-143).

Asking Questions About Scriptural Texts?

Greek (THGNT): Ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος· τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ.

1 Corinthians 2:10 (YLT): "but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God"

We're encouraged to meditate (think deeply) when reading the Bible (Psalm 1:1-3). For instance, it's good to ask what a Bible account tells us about Jehovah, how we can apply what we're reading, and also how can we use the material to help others? Moreover, how does the Bible account we're reading help us to appreciate the overall tenor of Scripture?

It's essential to think about the context of what we're reading. Why did the Bible writer pen those words? What point was he trying to make? What is the setting of the Bible book? For example, the Pauline epistles normally address specific issues, questions or problems.

I've included a sample text above, on which one might meditate. In addition to the foregoing questions, things I would ask about this verse include: What is the identity of "us" (to whom does the plural pronoun refer?); to what does the understood "them" refer in the passage? What does it mean for God to reveal something through his Spirit/spirit? In what sense does the spirit search into all things? What is the referent of πάντα? What are the depths or deep things of God? Does the context elucidate these questions?

This is just a brief review of how we might ask questions about Bible texts. We must meditate on Jehovah's Word since his thoughts are deep and multifaceted (Psalm 92:5; Romans 11:33).

Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part IV

The last post discussed chapter 3 and only touched on chapter 4 about the vocative case in Merkle's Exegetical Gems. I will review chapter 5 now which is about the genitive case.

It is good to remember that it's not always possible to be dogmatic about genitival constructions: Greek will offer grammatical possibilities many times rather than absolute certainties. Merkle gives one example with 1 Timothy 3:6 (WH): μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου.

How shall we understand the genitival construction εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου? Merkle poses a query to make the student of Greek think: is it "the condemnation that the devil gives" or "the condemnation that the devil receives"? Before answering this query, Merkle reviews uses of the genitive case.

The genitive case is a delimiter and translators often render genitives with "of" (e.g., "the birth of Jesus Christ") but not always. These constructions also contain head nouns along with the genitive term, and the genitive term normally follows the head noun (the qualified or delimited nominal) although writers sometimes reverse this taxis in order to supply emphasis or contrast terms (page 22).

Functions of the genitive case include: possession, relationship, attribution, source, content or material, partitive (also called the wholative genitive), subjective, objective, time, separation, comparison, apposition and direct object. Moreover, a genitive can be subjective or objective when the head noun is verbal. Merkle gives the familiar example in this case, to illustrate the difference between a subjective and objective genitive; he uses the "love of God" which could be either subjective or objective depending on the context. Compare Revelation 1:1.

Chapter 5 then returns to the opening example, namely, 1 Timothy 3:7. Is it talking about "the condemnation that the devil gives" (subjective) or "the condemnation that the devil receives" (objective)? Some commentators maintain the genitive here is subjective and that is a possible reading while others favor the objective reading. Merkle gives reasons for why someone might favor one side or another, then he concludes the chapter without revealing where he stands. I will conclude by quoting scholars that analyze this issue.

Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, Jr. (1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American Commentary Series):

The reference to falling “under the same judgment as the devil” is literally translated from the Greek as “the judgment of the devil.” That literal phrase is capable of two different interpretations. It can refer either to the judgment the devil receives or the judgment the devil causes.61 The translation of the NIV suggests that the former interpretation is preferable. The translation of the NEB (“a judgment contrived by the devil”) reflects the latter interpretations. Fee follows the former interpretation, suggesting that the judgment is that given to the devil by Christ's death and resurrection (cf. Rev 12:7-17; 20:7-10). However, Kelly points out that this interpretation does not prepare us for the devil's role in setting a trap in v. 7. In that verse Paul described Satan as setting a trap for the unwary overseer. It seems best to take the references in both v. 6 and v. 7 as condemnations or spiritual traps Satan causes.62 Proud people will become blind to Satan's working and will fall into defeat, trouble, and ruin (cf. 1 Tim 6:9, where Paul described the progression of falling, entanglement, and drowning). This is a condemnation Satan can inflict on spiritually insensitive leaders. Although Peter's denial of Christ was not due to pride, it displayed an arrogance and conceit that came from blindness to Satan's working (Matt 26:30-35).

Reflections Pertaining to 1 Peter 4:7

Greek (SBLGNT): Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν. σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε ^[a]εἰς προσευχάς·

[a] ΠΕΤΡΟΥ Α΄ 4:7 εἰς WH Treg NIV] + τὰς RP

Craig Keener (1 Peter: A Commentary) accepts a "Neronian date" for Peter's first letter. Like Keener, I reckon that Peter or his amanuenses wrote the first letter around 62-64 CE: tradition also states that both Peter and Paul died around this time due to Neronian persecution. In any event, Nero was emperor of Rome between 54-68 CE. 

Reinhard Feldmeier believes that 1 Peter 4:7 clearly references the "imminent end" of the world (The First Letter of Peter, page 217). Compare Mark 1:15; James 5:8. However, one could argue that Peter's words have a more limited application to the end of Judaism as a systemic way of worshiping God in Jerusalem via the Second Temple. The Romans did come against Jerusalem in 70 CE; they destroyed temple and all. Could Peter have been referencing that τέλος drawing near?

Feldmeier links the imperatival σωφρονήσατε with the classical notion of "level-headedness and prudent self-control" (page 218). The Petrine counsel is part of what Feldmeier labels an "eschatological paraenesis." In point of fact, one sees NT writers stress prudence in Matthew 24:45; Romans 12:3, and 1 Timothy 2:9, 15; 3:2. A Christian manifests such prudence by expectantly and actively watching out for the Master, Christ Jesus (keeping spiritually awake). The second letter of Peter urges Christians to be "waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (2 Peter 3:12 NABRE) as they display holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion (2 Peter 3:11 NWT). Finally, Peter exhorts his addressees to be sober-minded and pray (compare Matthew 26:41). Leading a virtuous Christian life is impossible without praying to Jehovah God. The Bible teaches that we can do nothing without God-given power beyond what is normal which issues through Christ Jesus (Acts 2:33; 2 Corinthians 4:7; Philippians 4:6-7).

With respect to some grammatical notes, Paul Achtemeier contends that Πάντων is emphatic and evidently neuter although it could be grammatically masculine (1 Peter, page 293). The Greek verb ἤγγικεν is perfect active indicative third singular of ἐγγίζω. Compare Matthew 4:17; 10:7; Hebrews 10:25; James 5:8.

σωφρονήσατε is aorist active imperative second person plural of σωφρονέω, and νήψατε is aorist active imperative second person plural of νήφω. See 1 Peter 1:13; 5:8.

Revelation 22:3 and the Anchor Bible Commentary for Revelation

J. Massyngberde Ford (Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation) brings a couple of interesting issues to the table.

Ford thinks that the phrase καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου is "suspect" and she notes that "some [textual?] critics see it as an insertion" (page 362). Furthermore, the claim is made that καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου is "awkward in the context" and conflicts with οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ λατρεύσουσιν (I am using Ford's 1975 commentary).

Personally, I do not think that we need to exclude the phrase to make sense of the passage, but just what do the textual critics specifically observe?

David Aune (Revelation 17-22, page 1242) reckons that the mention of the Lamb in 22:1 reflects an "expansion" of a previous apocalyptic text, but he feels it's possible that Psalm 110:1; Revelation 3:21 background and influence the current lectio. Concerning Rev. 22:3, Aune writes:

This phrase is somewhat redundant since “the throne of God and of the Lamb” has already been mentioned as the source of the river of the water of life in 22:1. The future indicative ἔσται, “will be,” reflects the prophetic tenor of the passage. As in v 1, the phrase “and of the Lamb” is probably a later gloss.

Aune, Dr. David. Revelation 17-22, Volume 52C (Word Biblical Commentary) (p. 1242). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Ford observes that God (not Christ) must be the antecedent of αὐτῷ in Rev. 22:3. She points out that Rev. 22:4 speaks of God's face and God's name (καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν). Rev 22:5 also tells us the following: ὅτι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς φωτίσει ἐπ’ αὐτούς. In other words, the context of Rev. 22:3 strongly indicates that God (the Father or YHWH) is being discussed and made prominent in this context, not the Lamb. As we can see by examining Aune above, he concurs with Ford in viewing Rev. 22:1-3 as "suspect" or not original.

Ford concludes her remarks pertaining to Rev. 22:3 this way:

"One would expect the third person plural instead of singular if the Lamb was originally part of the text. Rev 22:3-4, therefore, should probably read, 'and the throne of God will be in her (the city) and His servants will worship Him . . ."

So much for the assertion that the third person singular pronoun must refer to God and the Lamb "as a unit." Ford contends that if John meant to include the Lamb in this text, he would probably have employed the third person plural verb instead of the singular form. However one views this debate, at least this shows another possible way of understanding Rev. 22:3.

2 Timothy 2:20-22: Life in the "Big House"

Greek (NA28): Ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν· ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ, εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον. Τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε, δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην πίστιν ἀγάπην εἰρήνην μετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας.

What is the background for the language used in these verses? Why was this counsel given to Timothy?

When I speak about the background of these verses, I am not merely referring to the sociocultural background for the verses, which we can find by studying Roman history and the domus, but rather I have in mind the scriptural context. For example, what verses from the Hebrew Bible might have influenced the discussion about vessels made of gold, silver, wood and earthenware? Additionally, why dive into this topic with Timothy? The context helps when we consider 2 Timothy 1:15; 2:14-19; 3:1-9 and possibly 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 10. Notice Paul's employment of εὔχρηστος in 2 Timothy 4:11.

Gordon D. Fee (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, page 260) notes that the metaphor which Paul wields in 2 Timothy 2:20ff concerns houses owned by the affluent: they would be the ones possessing large domiciles and numerous vessels (Ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν); the honorable vessels in the house would be used for big meals whereas the dishonorable vessels were utilized for dumping excrement and refuse (Fee, 260). Raymond F. Collins writes that the "large house" is a "kind of mansion" (1-2 Timothy and Titus, page 236). He also offers some remarks on how ancient vessels were used in Collins, 237.

Fee cites Jeremiah 18:1-11 and Wisdom of Solomon 15:7. The point seems to involve Timothy's association within the Christian congregation and how he could keep himself sanctified and useful to his owner ( ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ, εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον) like a temple vessel. Compare 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος).

Was Timothy being warned to avoid false teachers or false teachings? Fee places stress on the latter, but 2 Timothy 2:22 urges Timothy to guard against vessels fit for a dishonorable purpose, and he's warned about certain types of association in 2 Timothy 3:5. However, being wary of his association does not mean that Timothy could not try to adjust certain wayward ones in the "big house." Timothy is urged to associate with those who call upon the Lord out of a clean heart.

Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part X

What is rhetorical criticism and how can it be used in GNT exegesis?

Black writes: "Rhetorical analysis is essentially an attempt to clarify our understanding of the biblical text through a study of its literary techniques. Ancient authors often employed these techniques in order to assist readers to understand the message of the text or to persuade them of the truth of the presentation. As the art of reading a text, rhetorical analysis involves close attention to the scope of a given passage (its beginning and end), the discovery of figures of speech (e.g., simile and metaphor), the observation of compositional techniques (e.g., parallelism and chiasmus), and judgments about the relationship of form to meaning. Hence the interpreter should always allow for the possibility that the rhetorical dimension of the text will bear directly on exegetical questions."

Hence, one can see that rhetorical criticism (analysis) covers much ground: there are many ways that one could examine the Bible from a rhetorical perspective. First, I will consider tropes, also known as figures of speech or rhetorical devices.

Paul utilizes a trope in 1 Thessalonians 4:17: ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

This verse contains pleonasm (Greek, πλεονασμός). One source defines pleonasm as "the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense (as in the man he said)" (see Merriam-Webster): a synonym of pleonasm is redundancy. Vide David A. Black (Linguistics for Students of NT Greek, page 136)--he defines pleonasm as "the use of more words than necessary, as in 'He was appointed temporarily, for the time being.' "

Compare Ephesians 3:21, Colossians 2:13 and Philippians 1:23 for examples of this trope.

Under the entry for ἅμα in BDAG, we also read that ἅμα σὺν (1 Thessalonians 4:17) is evidently pleonastic: cf. the Latin una cum and 1 Thessalonians 5:10 which seems to be a clear example of pleonasm, maybe even more distinctly than the former verse in Thessalonians.

David J. Williams (1 and 2 Thessalonians) adds that the whole phrase ἅμα σὺν "is emphasized by placing it early in the sentence" prior to the verb ἁρπαγησόμεθα in 4:17 (Williams, page 85). He notes that ἅμα "reinforces" σὺν here.

For a potential use of pleonasm in the Gospels, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260447?casa_token=bUUCkHIh13cAAAAA%3AaF08QG9k3a5LB_SjmsNpaff6zjYStNa4KPL6Mo9Sl5VTaEXzzJZ7pN-qMluDm1Vt-psjGSlbV7HWRa04RNUB1EjjIwnB_AOqxCBr5O4gkEClAg_oqEc&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Gregory K. Beale argues that pleonasm occurs in Revelation 2:7, 17 with the occurrence of Τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ; one thing that indicates αὐτῷ is pleonastic is the fact that some MSS omit it. See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 235-236.

For more on pleonastic participles (also called redundant or appositional participles), vide https://bible.org/article/participle

Next I want to discuss metaphor. John Sanders made a comment upon which I'd like to piggyback:

"When God is said to be a husband, father and friend, these metaphors depend on the reality of God's being a personal agent" (The God Who Risks, page 26).

The point I want to extract from Sander's comment is that when the Bible proclaims that God is a husband, father or friend, it is employing metaphorical language. God doesn't have a corporeal and female wife and Jehovah is not a friend to any human in the same way that human friends are (Exodus 33:11; Numbers 12:8; James 2:23). The same principle applies to my relationship with Jehovah as Father (Matthew 6:9; James 1:17) or when it comes to his relationship with Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:26)--God's figurative wife.

Having said the foregoing, however, I want to make it clear that I think it is still possible to speak literally (i.e., non-metaphorically) about certain spiritual realities. A medieval thinker named Duns Scotus set forth the possibility that humans possess the resources to speak univocally about God and creatures. The late William Alston did work in our time on this same question: he insisted that it's possible to speak literally about God, yet much of our theological speech remains metaphorical.

One example of metaphoricity in the Bible might be Colossians 1:15. πρωτότοκος is possibly a metaphor: (1) For according to Scripture, Christ was not really born since God is not a man and does not have a wife, but he was created since John calls him, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ (Revelation 3:14). Even if Trinitarians don't want to accept that Christ was created, I would submit that they don't think God sired a Son. Moreover, God's bringing forth a heavenly male Son should not be appealing to non-Trinitarians. Keep in mind that the created angels in heaven are called "sons" in the Hebrew Bible.

2) The verb "born" and its derivatives or cognates is used metaphorically in the Hebrew Scriptures to portray the divine act of bringing forth contingent entities. Psalm 90:2 refers to the "birth" of mountains actually created by God. Isaiah 66:7-8 depicts Zion giving birth to sons and a land in one day, id est, in a moment. But the context shows that Jehovah is the one who causes Zion to bring forth sons in a figurative sense: he too produces the land that suddenly issues forth.

In the prophecy's fulfillment, God is responsible for the repatriation of Judah as he causes the land to teem with people. By returning Judah to her homeland, Jehovah "creates" a new heavens and a new earth (Isa. 65:17ff); nevertheless, the prophet likewise employs birth imagery to delineate this event which is clearly metaphorical. Revelation employs similar tropes (Revelation 12:1-6).

Another trope or rhetorical device that I will discuss briefly is chiasmus: the chief interest for me is how Bible writers deploy chiasmus.

Definition of chiasmus: "inversion of the second of two parallel phrases, clauses, etc. ( Ex.: she went to Paris; to New York went he)"

(Webster's New World College Dictionary)

Others describe chiasmus as literary crisscrossing that may assume the rhythmical form ABBA (“But many that are first / Shall be last, / And many that are last / Shall be first”; “Beauty is truth, truth beauty”).

See https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/chiasmus

Compare Matthew 7:6; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Colossians 3:3-4; 2 Peter 3:8.

It appears that John 14:1 employs chiasmus or literary inversion--notice the syntax, πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε.

Another example of rhetorical usage is 1 John 2:12-14, which is D.A. Black's example for doing rhetorical criticism.

Further Reading:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476993X07083629

https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/at/article/view/1647

https://www.academia.edu/9686371/Chiastic_Structures_in_Hebrews_A_Study_of_Form_and_Function_in_Biblical_Discourse

https://archive.org/details/chiasmusinnewtes0000lund