The Semantics of Biblical Language
Introduction
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
James Barr (1924–2006) was a Scottish Old Testament scholar, best known for his critique of linguistic method in mid-twentieth century biblical studies. After a short time as an ordained minister, including service in Israel with the Church of Scotland, he held appointments at institutions in Canada, Scotland, the US, and England. His first major publication, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), was also his most influential, and it is still considered a seminal work in modern biblical studies.
Summary
In The Semantics of Biblical Languages, Barr critiques the misuse of linguistic evidence in the field of “biblical theology.” Although the subject matter relates to contemporary exegetical and theological scholarship, the focus of the book is linguistic, not theological. In Barr’s words, “The purpose of this book is not to criticize biblical theology or any other kind of theology as such, but to criticize certain methods in the handling of linguistic evidence in theological discussion” (p. 6). His critique is wide-ranging, but major issues include:
- The supposed connection between language and mentality
- Etymological fallacy
- The sentence as the fundamental meaning unit
In the book, Barr evaluates many examples of linguistic evidence at different levels of language, often showing the absurdity of taking a particular approach to its logical end. He acknowledges this accumulation of negative examples, and provides two reasons for the critical tone of the book: a) to present a cumulative case, since a single critiqued example “may easily be shrugged off as a passing oversight” (p. 6), and b) to stimulate and guide the critical faculties of students and others . . .” (p. 7).
Outline
- The Importance of the Problem
- The Current Contrast of Greek and Hebrew Thought
- Problems of Method
- Verbs, Action and Time
- Other Arguments from Morphological and Syntactic Phenomena
- Etymologies and Related Arguments
- ’Faith’ and ‘Truth’—An Examination of Some Linguistic Arguments
- Some Principles of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary
- Language and the Idea of ‘Biblical Theology’
- Languages and the Study of Theology
Key Concepts
Method versus conclusions
Barr stresses the distinction between the truth of a conclusion and the truth or validity of an argument used to support that conclusion: “Where linguistic evidence has been used in aid of a theological argument, and where I believe that evidence to have been misused, I do not necessarily believe the conclusion of the theological argument to be itself wrong in particular. Quite often I think that theological arguments which I have examined would have been better and more convincing without the linguistic evidence which has been used in their support” (p. 6).
Such a case of a correct conclusion supported by faulty linguistic evidence is seen with Boman's approach to Hebrew stative verbs. Boman concludes, in part, that morphologically stative verbs are not necessarily stative in thought, but in fact express actions. Barr does not disagree with this conclusion. Barr does not, however, accept the support that Boman offers for this conclusion, nor the further argument made by Boman that all stative verbs are dynamic in nature. Barr summarises the (lack of) logic, which is clearly circular, as follows:
[Hebrew] verbs are dynamic.
Stative verbs are verbs.
Therefore stative verbs are somehow dynamic and indicate an action or activity of the subject. (p. 55)
Linguistic form and "mentality"
Barr criticises the approach popular at the time of writing which held that language maps more or less directly onto the mentality of the speakers of the language. In other words, Hebrew language reflects the "Israelite mind," and Greek language reflects the "Greek mind."
His aim is not at this dualistic contrast itself, but on the evidence and argumentation used to support it. [footnote: In the final pages of the book [p. 295], Barr does express doubt that "language has an implicit metaphysics," which suggests he finds the entire enterprise to be fruitless.] The contrast popular at the time of writing can be represented in a series of opposing poles:
Hebrew- dynamic; concrete; monist; totality thinking
Greek- static; abstract; dualist; divisive and analytic thinking
Misuse of etymology
Barr describes the misconception that words are used “properly” when their meanings coincide with their earliest known sense. He points out the unfortunate effect when such an etymologising “obsession” appears not only in lexicography, but in theological argument (p. 108). Because etymology is a historical study concerned with the derivation of words from previous forms, it “is not, and does not profess to be, a guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage, and such value has to be determined from the current usage and not from the derivation” (p. 107).
One example of such etymologising comes from N. H. Snaith’s comment on Psalm 1 (p. 116). The first word is Hebrew אַשְׁרֵי (lit. Happinesses of. . .”), which is related to the word for “footstep” or “to go straight ahead” (as well as the relative pronoun) in various Semitic languages. Snaith observes the “apt” use of this word in Psalm 1, given its pathway motif, since “the happy man is the man who goes straight ahead” (“The Language of the Old Testament," The Interpreter’s Bible i, 224). Barr criticises the lack of inquiry regarding this association, since “there is not the slightest evidence that these associations were in the mind of the poet” (p. 116).
The sentence as foundational semantic unit
Key Arguments
[This section is incomplete.]
Sample argument map:
[Hebrew verse structure]: Hebrew verse is structured according to a syntactic constraint and a system of tropes.
+ <1225 lines>: "The proposed description is adequate for a diverse corpus of 1225 lines" (p. 5).
+ <Analogy>: The poetic systems of some other languages are similarly structured.
+ [positive]
- negative
<_ undercut
Key Evidence
Barr interacts with a variety of roughly contemporary scholarship within the "biblical theology" movement, including:
Boman, T. Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem griechischen. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. Eng. Hebrew Thought compared with Greek. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Translation of Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979).
Knight, G. A. F. A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity. Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers, no. 1. Edited by Thomas F. Torrance and J. K. S. Reid. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1953.
See also the book's bibliography.
Impact
The Semantics of Biblical Language, and the work of James Barr more generally, has received a remarkable amount of attention and review and is considered a classic in the field. The influence of Barr's work is seen, for example, in Moisés Silva's Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983) and D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). A recent volume considers his influence over the decades since The Semantics of Biblical Language was published: James Barr Assessed: Evaluating His Legacy over the Last Sixty Years. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Boston: Brill, 2021.
Critical response
Barr’s work is largely deconstructive. This is not necessarily a weakness, given the hegemony of the “biblical theology” framework he was criticising. It is, however, a limitation.
[This section is incomplete.]
Important ideas
The power of presuppositions
The Semantics of Biblical Language illustrates how presuppositions (whether correct or misguided) can shape–even determine–one's conclusions. It gives ample example of confirmation bias at work. If, for example, "you know how distinctive the Hebrew mind is, [then] surely all this distinctiveness in concepts and in thought must somehow be manifested in the linguistic phenomena” (p. 22, italics original). Indeed, "a person deeply conscious of the features of the Hebrew mind will notice some linguistic feature which illustrates it," without considering that there may be features with point in the opposite direction (p. 23).
Apart from the specific issues concerning Barr, this book is a cautionary tale about the importance of examining one's presuppositions and against the general tendency toward confirmation bias in research. Indeed, "if these [etymologising] arguments have any validity in them at all, you can make the scripture mean anything you like at all" (p. 138).
Current usage determines word meaning
Although diachronic study of a word is a valid enterprise, it is problematic to assume that the history of a word affects its sense in a given text. Similarly, the supposed "root meaning" of a Hebrew word does not govern every instance where that verbal root occurs. Barr cites the Hebrew words lehem (bread) and milhamah (war) as examples of words with the same verbal root, yet without any semantic relationship based on this root (p. 102).