515 - The Semantics of Biblical Language

The Semantics of Biblical Language
By James Barr
313 pp, New York, Oxford University Press, 1961. $6.00.

All Christian theology is in some sense or to some degree "Biblical Theology." The term is customarily used particularly of one or other of three types of theological treatment of the Bible: (1) a descriptive discipline, in Eichrodt's words "a comprehensive picture of the world of faith of the Old Testament"; (2) a dogmatic theology chiefly constructed of Biblical materials (in translation) and claiming Biblical authority; and (3) a "Word of God" theology with both descriptive and normative aspects, which attempts to recapture the Hebraic mode of theological thinking of the Biblical writers themselves. Basic to all three but especially to the third is the prior problem of understanding Biblical thought through the language in which it is expressed. This requires a semantic transference across a time gap of many centuries; a transference also from a Semitic language and an ancient Near Eastern culture, in the case of the Old Testament, and, for the New Testament, from a form of Greek profoundly affected by Old Testament thought and turns of expression, and from a mixed but basically Hellenistic culture.

There are consequently many possible pitfalls for the translator and for the Biblical theologian. Professor Barr demonstrates in this book that these pitfalls have not been avoided, and some of them not even recog nized, by theologians who adduce linguistic evidence in support of their views. Not that lie is against the effort to formulate a Biblical theology; on the contrary, he hopes by his criticism of these "unsystematic and haphazard" linguistic arguments "to clear the way for a re-assessment of Biblical language [and] of the use that may be made of it in theology" (p. 4). His book is a stern reminder that theological conclusions drawn from linguistic phenomena may be vitiated by an unsound methodology; not seldom "a good theological case is spoiled by a bad linguistic argument" (p. 127). "In some of the more extreme cases where particular

516 - The Semantics of Biblical Language

problems have been investigated by the methods I have criticized," the author says pointedly, "it will be a major task to discover whether any real and lasting theological construction remains after the mass of pseudolinguistic argument is removed" (p. 280).

Barr's principal target is "the illegitimate confusion of theological and linguistic methods" in the work of such writers as Torrance, Hebert, Knight, Rowley, Snaith, and many of the contributors to Kittel's Theologisches Wörterbuch zum N.T. He is critical also of the view which these authors, broadly speaking, share with Pedersen and a non-theological. writer such as Boman-that the characteristics and peculiarities of the Hebrew language reflect the mental structure of the Biblical writers, as contrasted particularly with the Greek language and way of thinking. The peculiar psychology of the ancient Israelites is taken to be the key both to the linguistic phenomena of the Hebrew language and to the theological understanding of the Bible. The unity of the Bible is seen by this school "in the existence of a number of terms of rich theological content which are well rooted in Hebraic soil and which form a kind of framework for the theological structures of the New Testament" (p. 5). "A few phenomena which illustrate the theory seem to be a striking confirmation of it" (p. 23). Basic problems are ignored, the relevant languages are not examined as a whole, and the contrast of Greek and Hebrew is distorted because it is made in isolation from a wider linguistic scale and frame of reference.

The case against theological writers who venture without due caution on to the slippery slope of Biblical semantics is argued in detail, cogently, with wide learning and some asperity. Their claims at certain particular points are characterized from a strictly linguistic standpoint as "absurd," "exaggerated," "irresponsible," "misleading," "very naive," "perverse," and even "comical." Some of the examples Barr gives are amusing, but they are not offered facetiously. The learned counsel for the prosecution is in earnest, and he builds up methodically a case which will not be easy to refute. Those whose methods he attacks will no doubt attempt to defend themselves, but they and others will be forced by this book to reexamine their presuppositions and to make sure of their ground, before again making easy generalizations or far-reaching claims on linguistic grounds. This is all to the good.

Although the author's immediate purpose is to point out errors in methodology rather than to propose a new approach to Biblical theology, it must not be thought that his views are wholly negative. For one thing, among the Biblical theologians whom he does not criticize are Eichrodt, von Rad, Vriezen, Koehler, Sellin, Procksch, North, Johnson, Burrows, and Wright (thought possibly in some instances this may be accidental).

517 - The Semantics of Biblical Language

Moreover, in his two final chapters Barr suggests sounder lines on which ,the investigation of Biblical language in relation to theology might proceed. After having pointed out the fallacies of excessive reliance on the supposedly all-pervasive "root meanings" of words, since "the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history" (p. 109), he suggests instead of the prevailing lexicographical analysis of word-concepts the study of "larger linguistic complexes such as the sentences" (p. 263). The semantic values of particular words vary in different contexts, but "the theological statement can be restated in another language" (p. 265). "The distinctiveness of Biblical thought and language has to be settled … by the things the writers say, and not by the words they say them with" (p. 270). "The relation between the meaning of sentences ... and the mode of their expression is a stylistic matter" (p. 272). "Lexicographic research should be directed towards the semantics of words in their particular occurrences and not towards the assembly of a stock of pervasive and distinctive terms" (p. 274). "It is probable," Barr concludes, "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" (p. 296).

This work presents a challenge which cannot be evaded and should have both negative and positive results. It will inhibit unwarranted statements about Biblical language, and point to new areas of research in Biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, and theology. Serious students of the Bible will want to read it, and will find it illuminating and suggesstive.

R. B. Y. Scott
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey