Recently I read on a blog comment that Hebrews/Israelites didn’t have abstract terms because the Hebrew mind doesn’t think that way. The commenter has not pondered Job or Ecclesiastes or such great terms as glory or justice or righteousness or salvation in the Hebrew Bible. This notion was put aside decades ago and needs to go the way of the dodo bird.
But it’s not just reading blogs that perks my attention about words, it’s also reading books and how some make much of a word in a way that befuddles those of us who have serious training in such things as “word studies” and concordances and word searches, not to mention deep familiarity with Kittel’s famous NT word dictionary, or Botterweck-Ringgren’s OT word dictionary, or Spicq’s brilliant three volume NT greek word lexicon.
A publisher sent me a book, and I won’t mention the publisher or the author, and I was excited to read the book because it was on a topic that has my full attention these days. The first chapter was flat-out wrong both on the meaning of a word and how to discern meanings of words, and the point of the chp was to correct everyone on that word’s meaning. In the book I found four or five transliterated Greek or Hebrew words that were so badly misspelled that what was given was not just a typo but a word that doesn’t even exist. I won’t go any further. Instead, I want to offer some wisdom about words:
First, the meaning of a word in your English Bible — say “salvation” — is not determined by studying the English word or the history of that English word. Instead, every time you talk about a word in the Bible it is a translation of a Hebrew, an Aramaic or a Greek term. The only word worth studying is the original language word. Why? Because who knows if the original language term was always translated by the same English term. (That is often assumed; it is rarely, if ever, the case.)
Example: the Greek word euthus is often translated “immediately” but sometimes with “all at once” or “just then” or “suddenly.” You have a decent chance of accuracy, if you look up the word “immediately” in an English concordance and study it, of getting a fair sample of the Greek word euthus. But the wiser course is to find all the references to euthus in the NT and examining them, regardless of how English translations translate the term.
So, word studies always need to be rooted in references to the original language term.
Second, these original language terms rarely, if ever, have only one meaning. Words are flexible little things and they can do the work most speakers and authors ask them to do. It is often said by linguists that no word has the same meaning in two locations or off the lips of two speakers. So, what to do? Ask the more particular question when studying words: What does this word mean when this (one) author uses it? And, also ask this: What does this one word mean by this one author in this one passage?
Please don’t assume that what a word means in Paul is what it means in Jesus and what it means in Jesus is what it means in Isaiah and what it means in Isaiah is what it means in Psalms and what it means in Psalms is what it means to Moses. Words don’t work like this; speakers and authors don’t work this way.
Words change in meaning over time.
Third, avoid using original language terms if you can’t read those languages. Here’s a rule of thumb: if you don’t know Greek, say this: “According to Spicq, this Greek word soteria means… “. Don’t say, “This word soteria means this.” In the former, you cite someone who knows; in the latter you lead your audience to think you know when you really don’t. Be honest, especially you preachers. I know a pastor who frequently says “My Greek teacher used to say…” and this is his way of saying “I’m with you; I’m not good at Greek; but here’s what the authorities say.”
Fourth, almost never break a word into its etymological components and then say “See, this is what the word means.” It is rare that a word means what its etymology suggests. The English word “sincere” comes from Latin and some say therefore it means “without wax” (sine + cere), and that’s at least disputed anyway. But the word “sincere” doesn’t mean “without wax” it means genuine or sound intentionally etc.
Yes, sometimes the etymology of a word leads us to its meaning and sometimes it illustrates the meaning well, but only say such things if you know the history of that term.
More could be said, this is enough. I’m sure others will have some wisdom too.
Why do I say these things? Because anyone who takes you as an authority will believe what you say, and if you don’t know what you are saying, you are trading on authority you don’t have and potentially leading people into mistakes.
I wish I could shout AMEN from the roof tops. I have had the privilege through my graduate studies to learn Greek and Hebrew and the discipline of word studies in exegesis. It kills me to see people using word studies in a fraudulent way. Not only that but it makes me sad, because would be readers believe the person has added authority because they said the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic word.
Thanks for pointing out four correctives. Although I wish you would keep going!
http://www.studyyourbibleonline.com
Scot,
While I see the wisdom in not assuming that a word means precisely the same thing to any two speakers or writers or even exactly the same thing to a writer in two contexts, don’t we at least have to assume some connection or similarity – otherwise how do we ever get anywhere?
Excellent post. A little knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is a dangerous thing. While I think you mentioned it in your post, I would like to emphasize that the most important element in determining what a word means is by its context. Words are somewhat like silly putty in that they are flexible and have a finite range of meanings but the context works to form and shape the word into the specific meaning intended by the author. I am sure your readers are familiar with the book but chapter one of D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies should be required reading for every preacher.
Good word, Scot. At the seminary I attend, the OT & NT profs spend quite a bit of time demonstrating how NOT to do word studies, the limitations of word studies, and how to do proper word studies. One prof said word studies constitute about 10% of the exegetical process (most people think it constitutes about 90%). I think Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies” helps here. I have heard numerous sermons when the pastor quoted some Hebrew or Greek word and the by quoting the word the only thing they wanted to say was, “Hey, I’m an authority and I’m smart so you better listen to me.” Rarely have I heard a sermon where quoting the word was actually pertinent. Perhaps the technique I heard most often is a quotation of the Greek word followed by what word we get in English from that Greek word. One word: pointless. Though this may be interesting, it tells us nothing about the meaning of a word.
Old school “exegesis” has almost exclusively followed a strict word study, syntax, and grammatical analysis approach. It is obvious that this hasn’t gotten us very far, and it’s good to see people incorporating other things into their method. Even conservatives are branching out into literary study, theological interpretation, rhetorical analysis, social-scientific examination, intertextuality, discourse analysis, etc.
rjs,
Yes, that’s true. We operate with general hypotheses on the meanings of words, and that means we assume words mean what we think they mean. So, in reading a word like “justified” in James 2 we assume — or most do — what we have learned from Romans about that word and the context of James 2 gets us confused. But mostly, yes, words carry sufficient meaning to tide us over into next contexts where they can take on more particular meanings.
To your second point, I would add that we should not assume that Paul (or Jesus or whoever) always used a word in the same way.
This post called to mind a post by Bill Mounce on the Koinonia blog. In it he talks about how to use Greek from the pulpit…
http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/01/mounce22.html
His regular column is well worth reading.
Good stuff. Of course, I can already hear some folk saying, “But the author of all the books of the Bible is the Holy Spirit! So we CAN assume that words mean the same thing throughout the Bible.”
This was the point I was trying to make on the Headship post. There should be a term, and maybe there is, for “but the Greek says…” style advocacy.
Scot (or others), I am wading into the deep waters of looking at Greek and Hebrew and trying to make sense of things. The way I am doing it now is to use the net bible (which appears to be down right now). I have found that it helps me to clear my mind of preconceived notions by going back to the greek or hebrew and encounter the text on its own.
My Question – Do you have a recommendation for internet users? Is the net bible valid as far as you can tell? It seems quite thorough to me. Thanks.
DRT,
My first piece of advice: learn the languages. OK, OK, Ok, ok, ..k
Second … the NetBible is reliable. I use it for texts on this blog quite often.
I just have to say “AMEN” to this! As an instructor of seminary students I simply cannot stress the points you made enough! Lots of “exegetical malpractice” going on!
Well Scot,
So how best to learn the languages? I’ve tried some on Greek, how about Hebrew? Especially when money is an issue and seminary courses not an option?
Scot,
I have considered ancient Hebrew thought and language to be more concrete than abstract, and ancient Greek thought and language to have more capacity for the abstract. Not that the Hebrews had no capacity at all for abstract thought, but that they operated more from the concrete. Do you agree? Or do you think the Hebrews and Greeks were about the same in how they though and talked about concrete and abstract things?
For an example from Hebrew, I think of kabod, the Hebrew word for “glory.” Literally, it speaks of heaviness or weightiness. Figuratively, it is used to speak of glory and honor, even of wealth. I can see how the concrete meaning could come to be used of the majesty and goodness of God. C. S. Lewis’ book, The Weight of Glory, comes to mind.
rjs,
My advice: get a really good translation that leans toward the literal (NASB, NetBible), get an interlinear, and find experts whom you can ask or to whom you can turn for specifics. It takes years to master Hebrew, and hours and hours of reading it in order to feel natural with it.
OK
I second rjs question.
Oh – and an afternoon post on baseball would be fitting today, as the Twins become the first team to clinch a division. (I know – off topic, I apologize…)
One of the blogs on my regular reading list deals with this issue frequently. If you’re interested, here’s the link: http://goddidntsaythat.com
I use the NASB primarily — only to suffer ridicule for its “unreadability” when we discuss translations here. Now … vindicated?
Scott!
Learn the languages?! That’s your advice? I was with you until you tossed that out. That’s like saying, “Do you want to understand Hinduism? Go live in India for 20 years.” It’s easier said than fun.
Here’s what I’ve learned. It’s time to scepticize (my word) when the preacher says, “The Greek word here actually means is…”
Seriously, though, good advice for us all.
Mark@18 – Thanks for that link! I hope that is authoritative since it looks useful.
Now we just need a text that let’s us know the jokes and inside phrases from the good old days. Pop culture of first century NE.
http://xkcd.org/794/
An example I came across in preaching through the Gospel of John is this: John’s use of *pistis* (the ‘faith’ word group) is not that of Paul. I think too many read a Pauline theology into John’s gospel.
I say
“totality transfer”
“semantic anachronism”
“root fallacy”
but I like
“my Greek teacher says…” better.
I took a lot of Greek in college and theological school; just enough to know I don’t know very much. So…I don’t do a lot of quoting unless I think it will help listeners “see” the text more clearly.
Let me add that I often say things like, “Scholars say,” or “Scot McKnight writes,” or “My Greek teacher said,” or other similar things.
rjs-thank you for your question @#13. This is felt by a number of us. And Scot thank you for your suggestion-I haven’t looked at the NetBible in a while, but will check it out again.
Being a language novice, in preaching I often resort to the “scholars/Scot McKnight/Tom Wright says…” as well
I remember Carl Hoch (way back in my seminary days) making the same rant (and I use that word positively
Thanks for the reminder. I find sometimes that people who don’t have language or linguistic training react negatively to these ideas, but they are crucial ideas.
I know a little Greek. He runs the deli down at the corner.
Scot, a very good post. After taking the languages in seminary, I realized that I actually knew very little. I have also tried to be pretty cautious about bringing my tools into the preaching moment. I will work with the languages with the best tools I have but I know enough to know that I need to be cautious about making absolute statements about the languages.
I recall a man who once taught adult Sunday School classes. Again and again he made these statements regarding what the “Greek says.” (He never even had an intro class). He was quoting something that he had read in one of the older word study books.) I sensed that some people felt that he an exceptional knowledge of the Bible because he did this. Not good.
Scot,
I am a student at Eastern University and am currently studying Biblical Hebrew. Is there anything that you could recommend that would be helpful in learning Biblical Hebrew? We are currently using Randall Buth’s “Living Biblical Hebrew”, part one and two.
rjs,
This Hebrew tutor was suggested as a supplement a few years ago in my seminary classes: http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Tutor-Biblical-Personal-Interactive/dp/1572640618/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285191418&sr=8-1
CBD has it, too.
It looks and feels old but if you can get past that, I think it is quite helpful. I would probably create a Windows 98 virtual machine and install it on that, if you are familiar with such. Otherwise, just use an old machine! It gives you bite-sized pieces and helps you hear the pronunciations. I wish there were an updated version with a better interface. I think this might be one of the most practical / realistic ways for the “rest of us” to get our feet wet with the language.
DRT, My first piece of advice: learn the languages. OK, OK, Ok, ok, ..k
1. The first rule of NT Language Club is: You must learn NT Greek.
2. The second rule of NT Language Club is: You MUST LEARN NT Greek.
3. The third rule of NT Language Club is: Read large passages/sections of the Greek NT at a time (as in “entire chapters”).
4. The fourth rule of NT Language Club is: Take those large passages and break them into clauses to show grammatical relationships.
Etc.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit. But the things that grab me are not so much individual words (i.e., “word studies”), but how the words relate to each other, how synonyms may be used, how word order affects meaning and effects emphasis, how participles are used (and they’re not always translated as such in English), what alternatives the writer could have used but didn’t, etc. And if you don’t know the language well enough to see or play with these things with some level of understanding, you’re missing out, IMO, on some of the real benefits of, and reasons for, learning or working with NT Greek.
Okay, I’m off my soapbox! :^)
Excellent post! Even those with a reading knowledge of Greek and Hebrew do not always grasp the way the meaning of words has changed over time.
Ironically (?) the ad to the right is/was “Learn Biblical Hebrew online with the Holy Land’s best teachers”…
I was doing my “this is what it says in the Greek” thing to a 70 years old parishioner at her home. She excused herself and went into the back room and came out with her Greek NT and pinned me to the map. She had taken Greek by correspondence course unbeknown to me and had more than a working knowledge of it. I learned my lesson that day!!!
When I teach classes on Bible study here at church, I pass along Smallman’s Law: “When the preacher proclaims, ‘The Greek says…’ DUCK for cover!” Shortly after saying that one year, we had a guest pastor [a graduate of a certain seminary in a large state in the South] performing a wedding in our church. In the course of a 20-minute devotional during that ceremony, he must have said, “The Greek says…” at least a dozen times. All over the church, people were glancing at me and smiling!
I don’t say much about “the Greek” in my sermons 1) because I’m hardly a Greek scholar, 2) because I think it’s usually an ego thing for preachers, and 3) because it subtly tells people that they can’t REALLY understand the Bible because they don’t know Greek. So if I want to make a point that doesn’t come out clearly in the translation we’re using, I try to find a different translation that captures the subtlety. “The NIV translates it ‘XXX,’ but the NASB does a little better job by putting it this way….” In general, if I can’t find another translation that makes the point, I find that maybe I’m trying to squeeze something out that’s not there.
The “dirty little secret” that most parishioners don’t know is that most (though certainly not all) pastors still essentially have a “flash card” knowledge of Greek. The people I know who really know their Greek don’t “translate,” they simply “read” their Greek NTs. I’ll never get there! What I tell people who ask is that I know Greek and Hebrew well enough to be able to use serious critical and exegetical commentaries in my research.
Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t find “the Greek says” to be offensive. Nor do I think it is usually an ego thing for preachers. Nor do I think it teaches people that they cannot understand the Bible unless they know Greek, any more than “N. T. Wright says …” or “Scot McKnight says …” teaches them that they cannot understand the Bible unless they study Wright or McKnight.
In addition to specific benefits explaining the meaning of a Greek word or construction can shed light on a Scripture, I can think of some general benefits of referring to the Greek or Hebrew. For one thing, it reminds hearers that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, and that what we are dealing with in English are translations, which helps explain why there are differences between English versions. For another, it can alert hearers to the fact that what we have in the Bible is not a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation, but that one can go back to the original source.
Now, whether one is accurately and helpfully citing the Greek or Hebrew is a different question, but that fact that one cites it at all should not be a cause for offense or something to be belittled.
One other comment: people do find the idea that a word can have more than one meaning confusing (as though the Greek language alone had some mystical elasticity) . . . until you point out how this happens in English all the time. We just don’t think about it, because we’re making the mental adjustments on the fly.
One example I use with people is the expression “blow up.” It can mean “inflate,” “enlarge,” “detonate,” or “lose your temper” — all depending on the context.
And I’ll add my own shoutout for Carson’s “Exegetical Fallacies.” Good cautions.
A particularly annoying example (from my church heritage) is the sermon on ‘ekklesia’. Instead of talking about the original use for assembly, the preacher usually splits the Greek word into ‘out’ and ‘called”, and then proceeds to explain how the church should be (must be) a community that is called out. 15 minutes on the call and 15 minutes on what we are called out of and I am too tired to listen further or think about ekklesia.
Leland, in my church background, lo these many years ago, a big word was “Nicolaitans.” Nico = rulers, laitans = laity. Clergy / laity. You can easily deduce that the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which the Lord hates, is the dividing of the church into clergy and laity.
This helps explain why I read Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies like some folks read Jane Austen: alternately laughing and crying!
One of my past favorites (said tongue in cheek) read a modern word derived from Greek back into the Greek: Rom 1:16, the Gospel is God’s dynamite (dynamis) to bring salvation.
There are certainly times when having studied the original language helps us to know what the author is up to. For instance, Paul’s word plays are invisible in the English, so we may miss what he’s emphasizing and sometimes even read between the lines to get the drift of his argument.
I would not commend DA Carson’s, Exegetical Fallacies. There are other books which teach logic and logical errors without grinding axes on others. A professor friend who knows Greek very well, translates into a 3rd language directly from the Greek, and writes commentaries told me that, as far as he could recall, it was the only book he ever threw across the room. From my perspective, Carson seemed to use his book as a bully pulpit to cherry pick flaws in other scholars’ works, and particularly focused on tearing down those who wrote in favor of women in ministry. (the edition I read, anyway) Carson, at the least, seemed to be ungracious toward fellow Christian scholars, and so focused on the knotholes in a tree trunk that he’d miss the whole forest marching by in another direction.
The logical errors are real, and we certainly need to be cognizant of them when constructing arguments. However, making a logical error does not necessarily eviscerate the whole academic argument; it depends on its location in the argument’s structure. Furthermore, the assessment of a logical error is more subjective than many would find comforting. Using our minds & words to tear down others’ work does not seem a good use of the Lord’s intellectual gifts to us.
Ann, it’s been quite a while since I read Exegetical Fallacies and then it was mainly the one chapter on word studies. I honestly don’t remember how much that chapter involved issues about women in ministry. It was my first semester in seminary and I had a pretty intense schedule, including a hermeneutics class that changed a lot for me.
I think it is helpful to have a text that unambiguously names errors such as root fallacy, anachronisms, etc. I think it is good for pastors to be warned and wary of repeating such errors.
Do you have another text you prefer to recommend?
Ann F-R:
Based on your comments, I re-read and/or skimmed through Exegetical Fallacies (Second Edition) today. There are indeed some places where Carson seems to get on a soapbox at unnecessary length (IMO) against egalitarianism (e.g., pp. 37-41 re: kephalê and nomos; pp. 108-112 re: Lawrence Richards’ chart of models of headship; the things he says on pp. 92-95).
I wouldn’t unrecommend the book simply for those instances. I think Carson points out some good things to think about or be aware of. But at times he perhaps comes across as picking on people.
What I remember from my first reading of it, which I felt again today, was that IMO EF is not a well-written book. It needs a good editor and the important points need to stick out more clearly from the rest of Carson’s discourse (much of which should be rewritten or deleted).
YMMV
MatthewS, I’m sorry to say that, due to a recent cross country move my books are in boxes and some of those boxes are almost 2000 miles apart!
However, I have noted in recent research (i.e., since packing) that there are a number of resources on the web that adequately survey logical argumentation and logical fallacies. If we’re familiar with the structure of logic, proper argumentation and major pitfalls, we can use these resources to administer the sniff test to questionable arguments. For instance, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ offers a laundry list & explanations of logical fallacies. Wikipedia offers some resources & references, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
Add’l information – cautionary or warning: some of the sites best explaining logic & errors are atheist! I use them, too, because I think it’s helpful to examine the (il)logic Christians sometimes deploy poorly from the eyes of skeptics. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
EricW, I also considered Carson’s book to be poorly written. Yes, I agree with him that logic and construction of arguments are important and people should be sound and reasonable in presenting their points. However, context must not be neglected in the disputation of a thesis, and that, IMHO, was one of Carson’s major oversights. Furthermore, my work in reconciliation ministry led me to wonder at his apparent antagonism toward scholars with whom he disagreed.