Steps for Performing Word Studies
3. Select the Meaning that Best Fits the Context
Once students have a good feel for the possible meanings of a word, the must select the one that fits best in the passage under study. They must exercis care to avoid simply, but illegitimately, imposing any of the possible senses onto specific use. This temptation is especially great where one meaning fits th interpreter’s theology or pet position. At the same time, students should feel free tc question the lexicons. That is, students will not always agree with the category c meaning in which the “experts” have located a specific text. Because of the corn plexity of word meanings, the interpreter should seek to discover all the informa tion about a word that may help in determining its meaning in a specific passage.
Once the potential meanings of the word are known, contextual factors be come the supreme arbitrator for selecting the most probable meaning. Often th general subject of the passage will strongly favor one semantic domain of the word This marks the key principle: The use of a word in a specific context constitutes th sin&e most crucial criterion for the meaning of a word. Thus the interpreter mus scrupulously evaluate the total context to decide which of the possible meanings fit best in the passage under study. The elements we have discussed up to this poin become crucial determiners. Which meaning fits best given the historical-cultur:
background of the passage? Which best fits the literary context? Which fits the a~
gument of the narrative or the poetic structure, et al., in the most appropriate man ner? Remember, though words have a range of possible meanings through thei history, individual speakers or writers decide how they will use words in specifi contexts. Conceivably, writers modifl meanings or employ words in unique way:
In fact, writers may deliberately use words ambiguously or with double meanings as occurs with the Greek word an&en (“again” and/or “from above”) in Jn 3:3 7. Did Jesus mean that people needed to be born again, born fkom above, or both To repeat, context is the sin&e most sz&nificant determiner of the meaning of a WOE or phrase.
Grammatical-Structural Relationships
As
important as it is to know the meanings of words, our task is not yet corn plete. Indeed, as we just asserted, apart from larger contexts we cannot even bl certain about what words mean. People communicate by combining words togethe in larger units. The final component of language communication we must assess tc understand a writer’s meaning encompasses the grammatical and structural rela tionships of words and word-groups. How are words combined so that people cal communicate? Before we proceed to explain how the various genres of literaturl function, we must explore the topics of grammar and structure.200 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
Technically speaking, grammar consists of two elements: morphology and syn- tax.“j Morphology concerns the forms of individual words-typically how words are inflected (manipulated) to indicate their function in a language. To take only one simple example, in English we may put an -s on the end of some nouns to indicate
“more than one.” The -s is a morpheme indicating more than one in English. So, we say, “She ate,one apple, but I ate two apples.“” Functioning like the English -s, Hebrew employs fm, t, or
6tat the end of its words to make plurals. Greek is more complex yet, with different plural morphemes (these formal indicators) often asso- ciated with each case (nominative, genitive, etc.). To take another example, we put -ed at the end of some verbs to mark past time: “Today I will pick a red apple, though I picked a green one yesterday.”
S’tax
describes the system each language has for combining its various con- stituents in order to communicate. Word order is a crucial element of syntax for the English language. “John hit the ball” says something quite different Tom “The ball hit John.” Because the words “John”and “ball” are not marked in any way, English indicates their functions in this example by word order.lu Word order is less fixed for languages like Hebrew and Greek. Some conventions apply, but the languages exhibit more variety than English permits. For some languages like Greek, case mark- ings on nouns, pronouns, adjectives, etc., indicate functions to show whether a word serves as the agent or the recipient of an action. Students who have studied German know the importance of word endings to indicate whether a noun functions as sub- ject, object, or indirect object. Thus, syntax expresses the way a language arranges words to form a meaningful phrase, sentence, or larger unit.
Most guides to exegesis and analysis tend to work on the level of the sentence, and that remains an essential task for all interpreters. More recently, however, lin- guists have stressed the need for analysis of larger units-paragraphs and entire dis- courses. Communication rarely occurs simply in isolated sentences. Often called discourse analysis or text linguistics, this program is beginning to bear fruit.l16 In
l13A fine introduction to a modem understanding of language, especially ln its application to biblical studies, is Cotterell and Turner, LinguM&s. A seminal article on the topic is E. A. Nida, “Impli- cations of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 91 (1972): 73-89. For more general introductions to grammar as understood by modem linguistics, see J. Lyons, Introduction to lhorefi- cal Lingubtics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); and id. Language and Lingufstics (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Perhaps this is the place to remind readers that grammar only describes how languages function. That is, the modem study of grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive.
‘i4English is so difficult! While we put an -s on apple to indicate plural, it takes -es for box, -en for ox, -ies and the removal of y for sky, -i after removing -us for cactus, -a in place of -urn for stadium, a change of the final -i- to -e- for crisis, but not a thing for deer. We sympathize with our friends who have learned English as a second language. ,
ii50f course, in poetry some of these “rules” for word order may change, showing they are not really rules at all-only conventions. Thus, when one enters a different genre one expects new criteria for combining elements. We discuss poetry in the next chapter.
‘%ee W. Pickering, A Framavorkfor~course Analysis, SIL Publications in Linguistics 64 (Dallas:
Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1980); E. A. Nida, et al., Style and &course (Capetown: Bible Society, 1983); A. B. de Toit, “The Significance of Discourse Analysis for
General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose
201one sense language consists of combining various elements, as building blocks, to construct meaningful communication. In simple terms, combining morphemes (minimal elements of meaning, like the plural marker -s in English) produces words;
putting words together produces phrases, clauses, and sentences; and combining sentences results in texts, passages, or discourses.
This process of putting words together to communicate successfully involves many factors. The relationship that exists between the multiple words that make up a sentence and the sentences that constitute an entire passage may be indicated by word order, the forms of words, and the use of connecting words (conjunctions, prepositions, etc.). This underscores the absolute necessity of interpreting every bib- lical passage consistent with its grammar. Since grammar is a basic component in how writers organize words to express their thoughts and how audiences decipher the meaning from the words, grammatical analysis is an essential aspect of correct interpretation.
The Importance
of Gramma tical Relationships
To understand the meaning of any statement one must understand how words, phrases, sentences, and larger units interact (or are interrelated). Each word’s im- pact on the thought expressed stems from its relationship with the rest of the words in the sentence. Returning to the simple statement, “John hit the ball,” its
impactdiffers greatly fkom the similar sentence, “The ball hit John.” Both sentences use identical words, but they communicate different meanings depending upon whether
“John” or “ball” functions as the subject or object.l17 If these two short sentences involved a fastball thrown by a major league baseball pitcher, the consequences for the batter would differ radically! In other words-grammar matters.
Grammatical study is strategic for correct interpretation because the biblical languages sometimes convey nuances that are hard to capture in an English transla- tion. The First Epistle of John begins with an explicit assertion of the reality of Christ’s physical body. Attempting to counteract a docetic Gnostic teaching that claimed Jesus only appeared to have a physical body, the author affirms that his message about Jesus is based upon that “which we have
heard,which we have
seen with our eyes.”Both verbs occur in the Greek perfect tense, which expresses a re- sulting state of affairs that is ongoing. Blass, DeBrunner, and Funk [BDF] call it
“the continuance of completed action.“l18 By using the perfect tenses, the author
New Testament Interpretation and Translation,” Neofesfatnentica 8 (1974): 54-79; and E. Talstra, “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I. Elements of a Theory,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 35 (1978): 169-74.
“‘Obviously other combinations prove unacceptable in English. “Hit John ball the” conveys no message despite clear meanings for the individual words. With some flexibility English grammar pre- scribes acceptable word order.
“‘F. Blass and A. DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Chris- tian Literature, trans. and rev. by R. W. Funk (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 19611, 175. On the “stative” aspect, which describes the meaning of the perfect tense, S. E. Porter says,
“the action is conceived of by the language user as reflecting a given (often complex) state of affairs”
(Idioms of the Greek New Testament [Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 19921, 21-22).
202 Intioduction to Biblical Interpretation
relates that his experience of Jesus was vivid and personal. What he had heard and seen produced a new state of affairs in which he now lives. This is no mere historical reporting of past events.
In similar fashion the command in 1 Jn 4: 1, “Dear friends,
do not believeevery spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,” uses a present impera- tive of prohibition, a grammatical construction often employed to forbid the con- tinuation of something already happening. 119 In this context, “Stop believing every spirit” might well express the grammar more precisely. The grammatical construc- tion used here may suggest that the Christians gullibly accepted some so-called spirit- induced utterances.120 The negative command in 1 Jn 3:13, “Do
not be surprised,my brothers, if the world hates you” might well carry the same force, suggesting that confusion troubled some believers and needed to stop. Taking another matter, the following “if’ clause does not mean, “maybe the world hates you and maybe it doesn’t.” In using this type of conditional Greek clause the writer does not ques- tion that the believers were experiencing hatred; for the sake of his argument he assumes the existence of hatred. 121 On the other hand, an “if’ whose premise is uncertain (as in “If it rains, we will get wet”) occurs in Mt 5:13. Jesus tells his followers, “You are the salt of the earth. But ifthe salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?” Jesus does not assume salt (the disciples) will lose its saltiness nor that it will not. This remains an open issue. These differences in the significance of the conditional conjunction “if” go back to different Greek conjunctions or ad- verbs (ei,
ean),but will not be readily apparent in translations.
If we consider Hebrew we encounter a language whose verbs function quite differently: in certain contexts imperfect (incompleted action) and perfect (com- pleted action) may indicate past, present, or future actions. Hebrew does not use a negative particle with the imperative as we just saw in Greek; however, it does
“9BDF § 336 (3), p. 172. Cf. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1927, 1955), 301-2; and N. Turner, Syntax, Vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, 4 ~01s. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 74-76. On the other hand we must be alert to the fact that this grammatical construction does not always forbid an action in progress; it may do so in less than half of its occurrences in the NT if J. L Boyer, “A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study,” Gg8 (1987): 40-45, is correct. He found that in only 74 of the 174 instances of the negated present imperative in the NT did the writer call for the termination of ongoing activity. This conclusion is affirmed by Porter, Idioms, 224-26.
i20At the same time, grammatical analysis must always take care not to “overexegete” such fine points. It would be inappropriate apart from further contextual evidence to posit too confidently its existence or how pervasive was the problem to be stopped. Clearly, the prohibition seeks to prevent and, if necessary, stop false beliefs. Again, the grammar allows for or opens up the potential for this nuance. Context determines its presence or absence.
‘*lAt the risk of oversimplification, we must insist that some older grammarians of Greek mis- took the meaning of the “first class condition. ” That is, this Greek usage does not necessarily mean that the premise (if-clause) is actually true. It merely indicates that the writer/speaker assumes its truth for the sake of the argument. It may or may not be factually true; the context rules again. In his research Boyer discovered that the “if” in such first class conditions can be accurately translated “since”
(indicating its obvious truthfulness) in only 37 percent of its NT uses. Another 12 percent are false premises, while the remaining 51 percent are indeterminate. See J. L. Boyer, “First Class Conditions:
What do they Mean?” G772 (1981): 75-114. Cf. Porter, Idioms, 25559.
General Rules of Hermeneutics-Prose 203
employ features that appear similar to those we find in Greek
orEnglish-nouns, adjectives, participles, prepositions, and infinitives, to name a few. One feature of Hebrew employs an infinitive before a finite verb. For example, “hear (infinitive) and hear (finite verb)” and “see and see” literally render the words in Isa 6:9, as in the WV: “Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.”
However, this feature of Hebrew grammar is a way to indicate “surely, indeed, cer- tainly.” Thus, “hear and hear” may be literal, but this feature obscures the meaning.
Better is the
NIV:“Be ever hearing
. . .be ever seeing.”
As with Greek, Hebrew also has the capacity to use different kinds of condi- tions whose nuances must be studied carefully. Conditions may be assumed ful- filled, contrary to fact, or more or less probable.122 Another common Hebrew grammatical feature, the uconstruct state,n consists of one word-noun or adjec- tive-ccurring with another noun, adjective, pronoun, or clause. The result ap- pears as “X of Y.” The relation between the two is a matter of the interpreter’s understanding of the context since the construction may indicate various ideas. The English reader may not always realize that the translator made the decision how to render the construct. For example, in the phrase “wisdom of Solomon” (1 Kgs 4:30) the idea is the wisdom that Solomon displays.123 On the other hand, “mourn- ing of an only son” (Amos 8:lO) in context clearly means
not themourning that the son does, but that others mourn for an only son.124 Or the construct state may be descriptive: uscales of righteousness” (Lev 19:36) must mean “honest scales” as the
NIVtranslates.125 Psalm 23:2 literally reads, “He makes me lie down in pastures of grass.” uGrass” or “grassiness” somehow characterizes the pastures. Most En- glish versions translate this as “green pastures.” At other times the relationship is one of apposition, as in “the land of Canaan” (Num 34:2) or “daughter of Zion”
(Isa 1:8).
These limited examples illustrate that English translations do not always make clear certain nuances in the biblical languages. They illustrate, as well, that when translations differ, an English reader may be at a loss to understand why. One may be more literal; one may better capture an original nuance. And as we saw, “literal”
may or may not be more accurate. Therefore, reliable biblical interpretation re- quires careful evaluation of the grammatical nuances of the biblical languages. It follows also that accurate interpretation must be based on the original language texts of the Hebrew and Aramaic OT and the Greek NT. Ideally, every interpreter should know these biblical languages. Many grammatical features are apparent only in the original languages. Even the best of translations do not and probably should not bring them out. Where good modern translations do express clearly some gram- matical nuances, they involve a greater or lesser degree of interpretation, for schol- ars do not always agree on the significance of certain grammatical constructions in a given passage. Knowing the biblical languages equips the interpreter to weigh the
“*For a more complete discussion see B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Bibli- cal Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 19901, 636-38.
‘*This is analogous to the Greek subjective genitive.
““Like a Greek objective genitive.
‘LsSimilar to the Greek descriptive genitive.
204 Introduction to Bibliral Interpretation
contextual evidence to identifjl the grammatical explanation that fits the text best.
People who do not know Hebrew or Greet must always remember that they work at a disadvantage. Every reader who aspires to become a biblical scholar must be- come competent in the biblical languages.
However, we are realistic enough to admit that it is impractical to expect all interpreters to know the biblical languages. Stage of life, the pressures and responsi- bilities of living, language aptitude, access to a program of instruction-all these and more make this ideal impossible for many Bible students. Yet we sincerely be- lieve that
all believers are competent to study the Bible.They must compensate for their limitation of not knowing the biblical languages by having a good grasp of English grammar, by using the best literal English translations of the Bible, and by using reliable commentaries and other resources written by scholars who can ex- plain the grammar. On the last point, by comparing several sources on a specific passage, one can see whether or not an alleged grammatical analysis has general consensus. Further, the contextual evidence cited in support of a suggested gram- matical point will enable the reader to understand the issues involved better.126
Accurately understanding a passage requires analyzing its structure and the significance of important grammatical constructions. While some grammatical in- sights cannot be discovered apart Corn thr original language texts, the willing stu- dent can uncover a surprising amount of important grammatical information by carefully analyzing the English text. This is especially true of the structure. Analyz- ing the structure for meaningful grammatical insights requires an English transla- tion that preserves the original language sentence pattern fairly closely. Many find the New American Standard Bible,127 the Revised Standard Version, or, now, the New Revised Standard Version (
NRSV)‘~*most valuable for this type of study. While many modern translations break up longer, complex sentences in the original lan- guages into several brief sentences in English, the
NASBand RSV ofien keep the long involved sentences with their many subordinate clauses.
Obviously, the modern trend to shorter sentences contributes to smoother reading and higher comprehension. We highly recommend the versions that seek better ways to communicate the Bible’s message. For example, a dynamic equiva- lent translation seeks to convey in English what a biblical writer would have said were he speaking English in his
own time.The
Good News Bibleis a prime example of this tactic.129 For the NT, J. B. Phillips takes another approach.130 He seeks to say
‘26Again we draw our readers’ attention to Carson, Bvgetical Falkacies, which contains a short but helpful section on “Grammatical Fallacies” (67-90). Though focusing on the Greek NT, Carson raises numerous cautions that could well apply to the OT. For example, his warning about reading more into tenses than is there should be heeded by all interpreters.
"'NASB (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1972).
%RW, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. This is the revision of the previous RSV, 1946-52, whose language was more in the
KJV tradition. The NRSV, however, does seek to use the modern idiom and to be more inclusive in its USC
of language.
?New York: American Bible Society, 1976); also called Today’s English Version.
l”OZSbe New Testament in Modern English (London: Bles, 1960).