D. A. Carson, Summary of Word Study Fallacies

Encountering Scripture Beyond Translation
David A. deSilva
Notes from D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Word-Study Fallacies
1. The root fallacy. The meaning of the root of the word does not necessarily encode the
real meaning or the basic meaning of the specific form. Also, the meaning of a
word is not always to be found in the sum of the meaning of its parts.
2. Semantic anachronism. A meaning of a word that is only attested later than the text
under scrutiny should not be read back into the occurrence of that word in that text.
Also, cognates in derivative languages (e.g., dynamite in English as a derivative of
Greek dynamis) do not shed light on the meaning of the originating word.
3. Semantic obsolescence. Earlier or original meanings of words do not necessarily
illumine the meaning of later uses of that word. The meaning of a word can change
radically over time.
4. Appeal to Unknown or Unlikely Meanings. There should be fairly ample and fairly
widespread evidence that a particular word carried a certain meaning at the time of its
use in a particular text. Exceptionally rare senses (which may, in turn, be metaphorical
extensions of the meaning of the word in question rather than actually part of that
words lexical sense, or perhaps discourse meanings that the word carries by virtue of the
context in which it sits) urged on the basis of one or two possible instances in Greek
literature should be regarded with suspicion.
KEY POINT: The evidence for a words well-attested senses and usage during the time
roughly contemporaneous with the author or text under investigation is of greatest
value for a proper word study.
5. and 6. Careless appeal to background material and verbal parallelomania. Investigators
need to explore as fully as possible the various possible backgrounds for the use of a
particular word-in-context, and think critically about the contextual arguments for
hearing one background as more informative or natural for first-century hearers than
others. Investigators also need to be cautious about the significance of discovering
parallel uses of the word or phrase in other literature, where it might have a wholly
different and unrelated meaning. If an alleged parallel is truly informative for the text
under investigation, the investigator will need to make a plausible case for influence or
confluence.
7. Linkage of language and mentality. The structures of a language do not necessarily
reveal the character of the mind, experience, or perception of the individuals who use
that language, nor the limitations or possibilities of the speakers mental
conceptualizations. Many generalizations about the Hebrew mind or Greek mind
should be ignored.
8. and 12. False assumptions about technical meaning and unwarranted restriction of the
semantic field. Individual words or phrases are often assumed to bear far more meaning
than they do in a particular context, simply because they are theologically important
words (e.g., sanctification, justification, faith, baptism in the Holy Spirit). They are
treated as if they have come to be technical terms for a particular doctrinal conception
or some such thing, rather than quite ordinary words that combine their senses with
others in the immediate discourse to convey the authors meaning without such extra
baggage.
9. Problems surrounding synonyms and equivalence. There are very few true synonyms:
many words, however, are partial synonyms. Partial synonyms can be, functionally,
strict synonyms in particular contexts (that is, the context may evoke that range of
meaning in each word that overlaps with the other the two words for love in John 21,
like the words for feed/tend and lambs/sheep, may be examples of this). Context
might also suggest that one explicates the other, or perhaps even stands in contrast with
the other. All these issues need to be sorted out through an examination of the context,
not on the basis solely of study of each words range of lexical meaning.
10. Selective and prejudicial use of evidence. This is a basic logical fallacy, not merely a
word-study fallacy. A scholar or preacher needs to look at all the relevant evidence, not
merely highlight those bits of evidence that tend to support the interpretation he or she
favors.
11. Unwarranted semantic disjunctions and restrictions. Again, this is a basic logical fallacy
and not merely a word-study fallacy.
13. Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. Even if a word evidences a range
of meanings or senses (and most words will), it is most probable that only one of those
meanings or senses will be evoked in a particular context; cases of ambiguity or doubleentendre are quite rare, and should only be adduced when there is sufficient contextual
evidence to support it. It is easy, especially in the course of a sermon, to comment on
the broad meanings of a word at the risk of obscuring its specific function in a given
text (Carson, 61). KEY POINT: Focus your own study on what the salient words mean
in the particular context of the particular passage (and book) from which you are
teaching, preaching, or conducting your own personal study.
14. Problems relating to the Semitic background of the Greek New Testament. The
bilingualism of Jesus and the majority of the New Testament authors is an important
consideration in interpretation, but it is fallacious to explicate the meaning of a Greek
word in a particular text on the basis of the meaning/semantic range of the Hebrew or
Aramaic word that would be its likely translational equivalent (or, in the case of the
LXX, the demonstrable translation equivalent). People acquiring a second language
tend to have more difficulty mastering the syntax of the new language, less so the
vocabulary and the different ranges of meaning represented by word in the new
language. Moreover, some NT authors spoke and wrote Greek with great even native
facility (like Paul, the author of Hebrews, Luke, and the authors of 1 and 2 Peter).
15. Unwarranted neglect of distinguishing particularities of a corpus. Simply put, Paul did
not necessarily use the words for faith or sanctification or salvation with
precisely the same nuances of meaning that John did, or the author of 1 Peter did.
Meaning developed by Paul (often the discourse meaning of particular words not
even yet Pauline technical terms) is not transferable to the meaning of those words in
John or Matthew or James without clear and critical examination.
16. Unwarranted linking of sense and referent. A word refers first and foremost to a mental
conception or construction (the sense), which, in turn, if often linked to some reality
(concrete or abstract) in the social or physical world. This is an important distinction,
since often qualities of the referent are mistaken as components of the sense of a
particular word (e.g., qualities of Jesus are subsumed into our understanding of the
sense of the phrase Son of Man or the word Messiah in all contexts). This leads to
the illegitimate transfer of meaning from one context to another.

D. A. Carson, Summary of Word Study Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. A. Carson, Summary of Word Study Fallacies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. A. Carson, Summary of Word Study Fallacies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some word study fallacies to avoid?

What is the importance of context in determining word meaning?

Encountering Scripture Beyond Translation

You might also like