Problems in Determining Meaning in Word Studies (Semantics)

Several problems with word studies and faulty methodologies in semantics have led to false assumptions and poor exegesis (in-depth explanation) of the biblical text. Since James Barr’s 1961 blast against “illegitimate totality transfer,” to Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s 1998 hermeneutical question, “Is there a meaning in this text?” scholars have grappled with problems in determining meaning and moving from words to concepts to theological propositions (Barr, Semantics, 218; Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning).

There are basic fallacies practiced in biblical studies that do not hold up in any language (Cotterell, “Linguistics, Meaning, Semantics,” 145–50; Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 82–112; Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, 1–20; Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 27–64). These include:

• Problem of “root fallacy” or “etymological fallacy”—the belief that the “true” or literal meaning of a word and its derivations can be found in its root or historical word origin (Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 28–33; Cotterell, Linguistics, 146; Barr, Semantics, 100–106). This may be the most common and misleading problem with word studies. For example, the English word “nice” has taken a long journey from its etymological Latin root meaning “ignorant.” Within this fallacy is the assumption that in compound words, each part of the root contributes to its meaning. For example, English speakers realize that “butterfly” receives no intrinsic meaning from its two parts, “butter” and “fly.” Similarly in Greek and Hebrew, care must be taken with referring to the “literal root meaning” of a word to make false assumptions or comparisons.

• However, it must also be pointed out that etymology—the research of the historical background and origin of words—is important in comparative semantics and linguistics. For example, it plays a vital role in providing clues for the meaning of the more than 1,800 words in the Hebrew Bible that occur only once or twice, especially by comparing these with ancient languages in use around the time of the writing of the Old Testament, such as Phoenician, Ugaritic, Moabite, Akkadian (Babylonian), Egyptian, and other languages still being discovered through archaeological finds.

• Problem of a assuming a core meaning of a word, or the fallacy of “point meaning”—the belief that even if a word has a range of meaning, each one has a fundamental, or basic meaning. This faulty assumption seeks a common meaning that lies behind every use of a word and its related forms. There may be common themes within the semantic field of a word, but there is not one core meaning that can be interjected into every use of the word. This fallacy is often related to the problem of “root fallacy” (Cotterell, “Linguistics,” 145–46).

• Problem of “semantic anachronism”—treating words as if their meanings never change during the course of time. All living languages are in a constant process of change. The problem of semantic anachronism is compounded when we add the factor of a different culture to the factor of time. For example, Carson gives the example of the English colloquial use of the Greek word “power, miracle” (dynamis), from which comes the etymological derivation of the English “dynamite.” However, to translate this New Testament Greek word with “dynamite,” even if it is catchy, is completely faulty (Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 33–34).

• Within this category also fits the problem of obsolescence: words often change their meaning over time. What was true of the meaning of a word during one generation may not be true in a later writing. For example, the English word “gay” bears no resemblance to its earlier etymology or use. Similarly, care must be taken when appealing to classical Greek to define a New Testament word, and interpreters must remember that the Old Testament was written over the course of hundreds of years—during which some words may have changed in meaning.

• Problem of “illegitimate totality transfer”—transferring the meaning of a word used in one context into a different context when the sense or implications do not apply in the same way. This can include a faulty method of somewhat randomly picking a meaning from a shopping list of possible glosses. Recognizing that many words have a broad semantic range and that each occurrence of the word has a specific, nuanced meaning is essential in understanding the text. Respecting the context of a word requires realizing that “any one instance of a word will not bear all the meanings possible for that word” in every other instance (Barr, 218). For example, the Hebrew root “evil” (ra’; ra’ah; r’ ’) occurs 46 times in Genesis and is rightly translated into English using at least 20 different words, and nuanced in the Septuagint by using eight Greek forms (11 lexemes). Yet English-speaking people often incorrectly assume an underlying meaning of “sinister, moral wrong” and interject that into each use of the Hebrew word.

• Problem of culturally determined understandings—failure to recognize that words carry connotations that are primarily culturally determined. This is also known as “the myth of unique denotation,” in which once a word is identified by the reader, the reader assumes they have identified its meaning, without realizing that the author may have had an entirely different image in mind. This is especially tricky with metaphors. For example, Psa 22:6 states, “I am a worm, and not a man.” In English, a worm is abhorrent, lowly, and weak. However, in a language closely related to biblical Hebrew (Amharic), “worm” implies “strong, powerful” (Cotterell, 148). Learning contextual and culturally determined connotations can sometimes correct our interpretation of a passage.

As semantic research has progressed through discoveries, errors, and challenges, methodologies continue to develop that refine our ability to find meaning and significance in words within their context.