Definición de los aspectos estéticos y visuales

Barr also heavily criticises the adoption of an overly diachronic approach. A belief underlying this approach concerns the “unity of the Bible,”9

and the Hebrew language as “the language that fits the ultimate theological realities.”10

The “extraordinary peculiarity of the Hebrew language” is highlighted and presupposed, which leads to

7 _{Barr, Semantics, 277. Furthermore, Barr criticises the semantic study of conducted}

by Torrance. Barr, Semantics, 119–29. According to Barr, Torrance wrongly imposes the OT concept of the synagogue onto the NT term. Barr states that there is a common practice in “reading the maximum possible theological content into a linguistic choice.” Barr, Semantics, 129.

8 _{Various modern scholars support Barr’s criticisms and argue that in some biblical semantic}

study a NT word is simply taken of its textual or wider context. For example, Meeks states that this flawed method is widely adopted in the entries of the TDNT “sacred lexicography.” He argues that many NT words are treated as though “absorbed by the exclusiveness of their new content,” and carry certain theological meanings not shared by other Koine Greek literature. Wayne A. Meeks, “A Nazi New Testament Professor Reads His Bible: The Strange Case of Gerhald Kittel,” in The Idea of

Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (eds. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman; Boston: Brill, 2004), 513–44. Furthermore, Berding indicates that this flawed method is commonly practiced by those who do not realise that any meaning of a word can only be “defined more narrowly if the context suggests it.” Kenneth Berding, “Confusing Word and Concept in ‘Spiritual Gifts’: Have We Forgotten James Barr’s Exhortation,” JETS 43 (2000): 51. For Balentine, the fundamental problem is that scholars and students often wrongly bring “certain general theological convictions” to the exegetical task, and use a word to “describe” a certain theological concept that they have already embraced. Samuel E. Balentine, “James Barr’s Quest for Sound and Adequate Biblical Interpretation” in Language Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (eds. Samuel E. Balentine and John Barton; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 13.

9 _{Barr, Semantics, 274–5.}

an overemphasis on the Hebraic linguistic heritage of the NT,11 whereby a NT word is always traced back to its Hebrew equivalent. The fundamental flaw is “starting from the theoretical end, from the assurance of understanding the Hebrew mind, and working from there to its linguistic form.”12

This facilitates two problematic practices in biblical semantic study.

First, some semantic research overly emphasises the historicity of a word. It is supposed that a NT Greek word always stems from a Hebrew theological concept. As a result, the research fails to investigate how the Greek word functions in the Greek non-biblical system.13 Second, some semantic research commits the “root fallacy.”14 A word is etymologised, “giving excessive weight to the origin of a word as against its actual semantic value.”15

Barr pinpoints the flaw, stating that “the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history; it is only as a

historical statement that it can be responsibly asserted, and it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’

11 _{Barr directs this criticism at Boman’s method of contrasting Greek and Hebrew thought.}

Barr, Semantics, 47–8.

12

Barr, Semantics, 23.

13 _{Barr discusses the problematic approach of Robinson’s study of  and . Barr,}

Semantics, 34–7. Osborne echoes Barr’s concern, and contends that, in determining the semantic range of a word, a much higher priority should be given to its usage in contemporary literature, rather than focusing on its historical usage. Osborne also expresses caution towards Kittel’s approach, and states that the TDNT is certainly a tool, but is not exhaustive in identifying semantic range because of its emphasis on ‘theological usage.’ Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 102.

14

Barr, Semantics, 100.

meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.”16 However, Barr does not diminish etymology, and recognises the value in tracing the “Hebraic root” of a NT word. For example, in discussing Old Testament (OT) semantic study, Barr states that “the etymological recognition may be used in conjunction with the context of the Hebrew word to give a good semantic indication for its occurrence.”17

Barr provides various examples to illustrate these two problematic practices. An example of the “root fallacy” is Schlier’s analysis of  in the

TDNT. Barr stipulates that the word is interpreted with a “particular theological

importance” by incorrectly relating the word to its assumed root .18 Importantly, this illustrates a failure to investigate how the semantics of a word functions given its context.19 An example of the diachronic approach is John

Robinson’s analysis of  and . Barr states that John Robinson contrasts these two Greek terms with their supposed Hebrew equivalent , but fails to address “synchronic semantics” and investigate how these Greek terms function in “the Greek non-biblical system.”20

16 _{Barr, Semantics, 109. Various modern scholars echo this problematic practice. For example,}

Carson contends that the root fallacy is common in biblical semantic study, because some people are drawn to etymology and the search for a “hidden meaning bound up with etymologies.” D. A. Carson,

Exegetical Fallacies (2d ed., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Barker Book, 1998), 28, 30. Green stipulates that the meaning of a word cannot be determined by etymology, because when biblical authors composed their work new concepts represented by a word were “being modified and constructed.” Gene L. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics and Biblical Interpretation,” JETS 50 (2007): 809. For Osborne, even though a past meaning might consciously be in an author’s mind at the time of writing, etymology must not be abused and only has limited value. Osborne, Meaning, 112

17 _{Barr, Semantics, 158.}

18

Barr, Semantics, 237–8.

19 _{Barr, Semantics, 228.}

20 _{Barr, Semantics, 37. The following statement by Robinson illustrates this flawed mentality:}

“—another impossible combination for the Greek mind. Though the actual word

may be taken from Hellenistic terminology, we have here a good example of how, like every other term, it is drawn by Paul into his typical Hebrew usage.” John A. T. Robinson, The Body (London: SCM, 1952), 25.

The TDNT is a prominent example of this problematic diachronic approach. An overindulgence of “the realm of concept history” leads to a diachronic analysis of NT words, by correlating the NT Greek words with their so-called related theological concepts in the OT Hebrew and the LXX.21 In other words, there is a clear emphasis on how the historicity of a theological concept is transmitted from a particular OT Hebrew word to a NT Greek word.22 According to Barr, a sole emphasis on concept history and a failure to understand a word in its textual context leads to “illegitimate totality transfer.”23

This occurs when word is isolated from its context and “the ‘meaning’ of a word (understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as it sense and implication.”24

In summary, Barr criticises the adoption of an overly diachronic approach, which leads to two problematic practices in biblical semantic study. First, an over- emphasis on concept history leading to “illegitimate totality transfer,” and second, the “root fallacy” emphasising the etymology of a word.

21 _{Barr, Semantics, 207.}

22 _{This diachronic approach underpins various entries for anthropological terms in the TDNT.}

Schweizer makes a significant contribution to the lexical entries of , , , and , and constantly refers to the OT in his analysis of  and . E. Schweizer, “,” TDNT

7:1024–94; E. Schweizer, “,” TDNT 7:98–105; E. Schweizer, “,” TDNT 9:637–56; E. Schweizer, “,” TDNT 6:389–455.

23 _{Barr, Semantics, 218.}

24 _{To illustrate “illegitimate totality transfer,” Barr cites Schmidt’s lexical entry of  in}

the TDNT. Barr, Semantics, 218. Various modern scholars maintain Barr’s criticism, including Meeks,

Louw, and Silva. Meeks repudiates the claim that NT Greek words “often take on a Hebrew content” because there is “a fundamental difference in mentality between Semitic and Greek consciousness.” Meeks, “Kittel,” 536–7; J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982), 41–2; Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983), 25. Green warns against an overreliance on lexicons, given the danger of illegitimate transfer. Although lexicons can be helpful, he argues that “a simple survey of the semantic range” using lexicons, does not guarantee successful identification of the specific conceptual schema represented by a word in its specific context. Green, “Lexical,” 799–812.