Barr’s Comments on Semantic Studies

Alongside heavy criticism of previous scholarship, Barr provides insightful comments on conducting biblical semantic study. The key comment is that any biblical semantic study must follow the modern science of linguistics. Barr succinctly sums up his comment: “It is probable that a greater awareness of general semantics, of general linguistic method in all its aspects, and an application of such awareness in biblical interpretation, would have valuable and important results for theology.”25

In other words, the semantic study of biblical Hebrew or Greek words cannot be excluded from the general linguistic rules that are applied in studying all other languages.26

In addition, Barr emphasises the importance of a synchronic approach, instead of a diachronic approach, and makes two clear suggestions. First, the textual context of a word must be prioritised in semantic study. Second, the wider context, including the particular writer and contemporary Greek thought, must be consulted. These two proposals are examined in greater detail below.

2.1.2.1 Textual Context

According to Barr, textual context is crucial in biblical semantic study. He argues that the theological connotation “of the type found in the NT has its characteristic

25

Barr, Semantics, 296. At the beginning of his work, Barr similarly argues that “by studying language linguistically one is making a genuine and valid contribution to the understanding of it.” Barr,

Semantics, 2. As previously mentioned, according to Barr, the problem of previous scholarship rests on the failure to “relate what is said about either Hebrew or Greek to a general semantic method related to general linguistics.” Barr, Semantics, 24.

26

Porter echoes this key proposal, and acknowledges Barr’s “ground-clearing” work and notes that various scholars in the Greek field are “explicitly utilizing the principles of modern linguistics.” Stanley E. Porter, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey,” in

Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 14–35. Louw states that semantic study involves “several dimensions: linguistic, logical, psychological, anthropological.” However, linguistics “must be the dominating dimension with others supporting it, since language is a linguistic entity in the first place.” Louw, Semantics, 16.

linguistic expression not in the word individually but in the word-combination or sentence.”27

Barr markedly contends that “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).”28

Therefore, “the real communication of religious and theological patterns is by the larger word- combinations and not by the lexical units or words.”29

Using Paul’s letters as an illustration, Barr suggests that:

the impress of the Jewish tradition in the Pauline letters and speeches was borne mainly by the things that he said, his sentences, his complex word-combinations, his themes and subject-matter; and that this

impress remained even where the individual semantic value of many words was not changed from the average Hellenistic, and was not greatly deepened where words were technically overprinted with a Jewish reference.30

Notably, as well as analysing a word in its sentence, Barr clearly asserts that any investigation must also consider “the still larger literary complex,” pointing to a complete written or oral form.31 This “larger literary complex” is equivalent to

27 _{Barr, Semantics, 233.} 28 _{Barr, Semantics, 263.} 29 Barr, Semantics, 264. 30 _{Barr, Semantics, 250}

discourse, as discussed in Chapter 1.32 In other words, a thorough investigation of a word involves analysing its sentential context and its discourse context.33

2.1.2.2 Wider Context

In addition to textual context, according to Barr, it is also important to investigate the wider context. According to Barr, the semantic value of a word should be understood through a systematic examination of the language: how a word is employed in

literature that is contemporary to the biblical text. In criticizing the abuse of

etymology, Barr points out a malpractice in which there is a general disregard of “the social nature of language as a means of communication” by ignoring a word’s

“current usage and current understanding.”34

In other words, to ascertain the current usage and understanding of a biblical word one must examine how the same word is used in its contemporary literature.

On the other hand, solely relying on the assumption that a NT word is directly associated with a particular Greek thought is unreliable. For example, Barr argues that many contemporary scholars wrongly perceive the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition,

32

See pages 5–6 in Chapter 1.

33 _{Modern scholars affirm the importance of textual context. For example, modern linguists}

who deal primarily with non-biblical texts express the importance of referring to the sentence where a word is found. Finn Collin and Finn Guldmann, Meaning, Use and Truth: Introducing the Philosophy of Language (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2005), 41. Carson, in discussing various fallacies in word study, provides a headline “The Heart of the Matter: Coping with Context.” He elaborates that “the heart of the issue is that semantics, meaning, is more than the meaning of words.” Carson, Fallacies, 64. Osborne maintains that the textual context of a word must be carefully considered, in order to avoid reading preconceived theological concepts into the word. Osborne, Hermeneutical, 110–1. Porter discusses the relevancy of considering discourse in biblical studies. Porter, “Discourse,” 21–35.

which sees an immortal soul imprisoned in a mortal body, as the typical Greek tradition.35

As such, rather than blindly assuming a theological concept governs the meaning of a NT word, Barr purports the value of investigating the wider context by examining how the word is used in other contemporary Greek literature.