Summary of Chapter 1

The introduction has asserted that a lexicon’s usefulness is determined by how well its users can find the meaning of a particular example they have in mind; yet New Testament lexicons do not always deliver well with such a feature. Whilst some users might expect that lexicons provide contextual meanings for low-frequency lexemes, this is not necessarily the case. A methodology is needed for determining contextual meanings (for individual New Testament contexts). Low- frequency lexemes, in particular, require greater clarity in regard to their given meanings (whether they are meant to apply to particular New Testament contexts or are based on various other contexts). Low-frequency lexemes thus highlight key methodological and exegetical concerns.

Two important matters of methodology were discussed in relation to the two most influential Greek New Testament lexicons (BDAG and LN), namely how to approach and engage with ‘other literature’ and ‘other disciplines’. A methodology for both concerns (in BDAG and LN) was apparently important but not readily apparent. A methodology that seeks to deal with these primary concerns is required.

Based largely on the archaeological principle of in situ, the decision was made to withhold an examination of ‘other contexts/other literature’ (other than those found in biblical literature) in favour of focusing on ‘other (exegetical) disciplines’ in the development of a methodology for determining contextual word-meanings. It was also asserted that context is such a potent factor

84

that other factors like linguistic approaches (and linguistic theories) should not be considered to be as determinative as exegetical approaches when it comes to determining contextual meanings for low-frequency lexemes in the Peshitta Gospels. It was argued that exegetical studies in the Greek Gospels could be used in order to develop, and test, an exegetical methodology for the examination of several low-frequency lexemes in the Peshitta Gospels. The ‘other disciplines’ of focus are thus the exegetical kinds of analysis familiar to scholars of the Greek Gospels.

Discussing linguistic theory highlighted further the present choice for an exegetical approach by indicating its advantages over and against the use of a particular contemporary linguistic model. The semantics-pragmatics controversy was acknowledged. It was asserted that a division between the two need not be sought here. New Testament linguistics, as partly isolated from contemporary non-biblical linguistics, has traditionally tended not to separate pragmatics from semantics, since exegetical or grammatical analysis can subsume both. The difficulty in

determining which of the thirty-two kinds of linguistic analysis might be applicable to a given study of New Testament lexemes in the Oxford Handbook of LinguisticAnalysis was further apparent because linguists themselves have been unable to clarify this. It was observed that context is the most potent determiner of meaning which consequently demands consideration of how context is delimited—hence the need for a clear, careful (and self-conscious) exegetical methodology. Utilizing Wierzbicka’s NSM as a case in point, it was argued that one’s linguistic approach is not the greatest determiner of meaning. Rather it is the kind of context one includes in one’s methodology. Cognitive linguistics remains potentially useful with future research, yet a point of difference (from an ‘encyclopaedic’ view) is the present goal to begin with the individual context as though it were the only known context. Similarly, corpus-based linguistics was less relevant because, by its very nature, it demands the examination of words occurring many times in a large corpus (whereas words of very low frequency are presently in view from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke). While corpus linguistics often ‘strays’ from its ideal of using texts taken from ‘real life’ situations, its goal is admirable and, like exegesis, takes seriously the notion that context determines meaning. The subsection on theory concluded with the suggestion that in the case of low-frequency lexemes, we do not always need to distinguish between a contextual

85

meaning and a lexical meaning since it is in combination with contexts that words have meaning. Similarly, it is presently supposed that the smallest meaningful units of language are

predominantly phrasal units, rather than lexical units.

Dealing with words and phrases appearing in narratives means that literary theory is relevant to Gospel lexicography and Gospel exegesis.

Further advantages for utilizing research and techniques employed within Gospel studies were given. One advantage for utilizing Gospel studies for exegeting the Peshitta Gospels, is that exegesis of the Greek Gospels already exists and has explored many areas including having to deal with the Semitic dimension of the ‘Greek’ Gospels (and the complex nature of Gospel- composition). Consequently, ‘Gospel studies’ has already had to deal with many language complexities in the Koine Gospels which are texts composed (and translated) from Semitic source materials. The Peshitta Gospels, which translate back into a Semitic tongue, simplify many of these language peculiarities. As a result, the Peshitta Gospels are often easier to exegete (they employ a less uneven dialect and have significantly less manuscript variants) than the Koine Gospels. Exegesis of one can assist with exegesis of the other.

Whereas dealing with the ‘Old Syriac’ Gospels will have to deal with many differences with the extant Greek Gospel texts, the Peshitta translation is much closer to the Greek Gospels and much of what can be said about the Greek Gospels can be seen to apply also to the Peshitta Gospels.

Danker’s assertion, that lexicographers are exegetes, led into a discussion of the kinds of exegesis relevant to lexical research. Lexemes in the Gospel narratives may benefit from a narrative approach. Finally, the proposed exegetical components were outlined.

The grammatical table (along with the comments on grammar and semantics) grounds all the antecedent analyses and is, by necessity first, because it functions as an anchor for all the analyses that follow. Thus it orients later exegetical analyses, whereby straying is curbed, focus is more easily regained, and the researcher is not lost in the process.

86

In line with the aim of this thesis to be easily replicable by both scholars and students, translation analysis is next so that even the student researcher can compare the underlying Greek text at the ‘smaller’ level of the verse, before the component of analysis gets unmanageably large. Obtaining whole chapters of Greek manuscripts is something for the advanced scholar who can employ translation comparisons at any of the later stages.

Genre analysis (‘literary form’) follows here because it analyses units that are slightly larger than the verse, helping to inform the exegete about the meaning of words and phrases. It also helps the exegete to consider the importance of the relationship between literary form and meaning.

Rhetorical analysis looks at structural patterns in still larger units (which is why it comes next in the present methodology) by considering the text as a ‘composition made by a writer for a particular audience’. As such, it aims to observe ‘writing techniques’ and the intended effect on an ‘audience’. It is also able to incorporate any relevant anthropological insights (concerning cultural symbols and perspectives).

Narrative analysis follows, taking in the context of the whole book (by observing its characters, scenes, themes and plot/storyline). The advantage of including narrative analysis is that it is wide enough to provide a larger context but narrow enough so that it places a limit on foreign (or conjectured) contexts from impinging on the text in view (like a customs ‘border security’ system).

Following this, New Testament parallels and other occurrences are considered. This form of analysis brings to light the differences between passages so that the exegete can more fully respect differences between each passage.

Finally, at the extremities of the proposed components of analysis (after the individual textual context has already been well established) other biblical contexts (OT) can be considered. This ensures that all possible relevant biblical passages have been explored.

After all these analyses have been undertaken, it is important for the exegete to critically reflect on the data gathered in order to compile the results and draw some conclusions. It is only now

87

that other lexical entries are consulted and critiqued. This uniquely allows for a comparison between the current results and the existing work of lexicographers.

In the fourteenth component, the researcher can condense the results in the form of a lexical entry (and, where possible, propose a definition).

How the proposed methodology began to develop now follows. Chapter 2 uses an earlier

methodology-in-progress to articulate a problem discovered whilst attempting to evaluate certain contextual meanings that become evidently unsatisfactory. This is symptomatic of what the lexicographer may have to confront when beginning with other lexicons. The full methodology (implemented in chapters 3–9) proposes not to begin with previous lexical entries. But this important point was only discovered after a long struggle with a difficult Syriac lexeme, compounded by problematically derived meanings in the Greek lexicons.

88

Chapter 2. The Problem of Context Delimitation: Deconstructing Previously-