Writer of Fancy: The Playful Piety of Jane Austen

Solomon Among the Postmoderns

The Baptized Body

1 & 2 Kings
Brazos Theological Commentary

The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter

A Great Mystery: Fourteen Wedding Sermons

Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, And Hope In Western Literature

Miniatures & Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austen

The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism

A Son To Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel

Against Christianity

From Silence to Song: The Davidic Liturgical Revolution

Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante's Divine Comedy

Blessed Are the Hungry: Meditations on the Lord's Supper

A House For My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament

Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature

Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide To Six Shakespeare Plays

Wise Words: Family Stories That Bring the Proverbs to Life

The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church

« Previous Post | Next Post »
« Previous post in category | Next post in category »

Hermeneutics: Semantic Minimalism

Much biblical interpretation today is minimalist.  Deliberately so.  Anthony Thiselton approvingly quotes this from Eugene Nida: “The correct meaning of any term is that which contributes least to the total context.”

Thiselton expounds: “we might define the semantic values of ‘green’ in several ways: as a colour, as meaning inexperienced, as meaning unripe, and so on.  Similarly, we might define ‘house’ as a dwelling, lineage, and a business establishment.  But as soon as we place ‘green’ and ‘house’ in syntagmatic relation to each other, we minimized the semantic values of each, so that ‘green’ can only be a colour, and ‘house’ only a dwelling.”

Do we now?

I think not.  Or, I think it all depends.  It depends first on what we mean by the “semantic value” of the word.  If Thiselton means simply “how we would define the word,” then he’s right about most uses of “green house.”  Asked by a non-English speaker “what is dis green?” we’d say “it’s a color.”  Correct as that it, it is also trivial for interpretive purposes.

And it’s trivial because of a second “it depends”: It depends on what kind of text you’re talking about.  Surely we can imagine Shakespeare speaking of a freshly founded dynasty as a “green house,” and in that context nearly all of the semantic values of green - except the color - come into play.  The dynasty is inexperienced, unripe, young, etc.  It is not colored green.  Putting “green” and “house” in syntagmatic relation limits green to a color only with certain kinds of texts, with the kinds of texts that are reporting and propositioning in indicative sentences.  This seems to be the kind of text Thiselton has in mind.

Which is surprising, because earlier in the same article he has complained that “pre-occupation with description assertions or ‘propositions’ tends to flatten out the distinctive contributions of biblical poetry, metaphor, parable, and apocalyptic, reducing it all to the level of discursive ‘units of information.’”  He apparently doesn’t recognize that the semantics he defends a few pages later is part of the problem.