Use and Abuse of Etymology in the Exegesis of the Bible

Doug Chaplin points out the danger of parsing the meaning of a text based on the etymology of one of its terms. Iyov points out that a knowledge of etymology can be helpful in the exegetical task.

Both Doug and Iyov are right. As usual, God (or the devil) is in the details.

The relevance of the etymology of a word for the interpretation of a specific text can never be assumed. It must be demonstrated. Thus far, Doug is in the right.

On the other hand, the biblical text itself frequently engages in etymological (and “folk” etymological, or pseudo-etymological) exegesis. Etiologies are an obvious case in point. More generally, biblical authors often play off the etymologies (or quasi-etymologies!) of the words they use. A bibliography of studies which touch on this phenomenon – those of Michael Fishbane come immediately to mind – might be compiled for the benefit of all. I’m hoping Iyov will do this. If not, I will.

The piece which sparked the debate was penned by Claude Mariottini. In a brief comment on Jeremiah 1:1-10, he emphasized that prophets are “called by” God based on the etymology of nabi ‘prophet,’ in biblical Hebrew. Personally, I doubt that the etymology of nabi is “live” in Jeremiah 1:5. In any case, it is necessary to demonstrate that it is, not assume that it is.

The curious thing is that Claude’s point is in the text in bright red letters apart from recourse to the etymology of nabi. Just go and read Jer 1:4-10. That Jeremiah is “called by” God is absolutely obvious.

I suppose it’s easier to remember the point by hanging it, so to speak, on the hook of a keyword’s etymology. So long as you know what you’re doing, I’m not opposed to this.

When I listen to a sermon or read a commentary, I tend to be acidly critical of the contents. [Ed.: surprise, surprise.] I was trained to be by the rabbis, priests, and pastors at whose feet I have sat over the years. I am thankful for that training.

But, so as not to lose heart completely, I learned to play a game early on. Every time I notice that a preacher or a commentator just pulled a rabbit out of a hat (by an inappropriate appeal to etymology, for example), I race in my mind to connect the rabbit to the historical sense, as I understand it, of one or more biblical texts. It’s important, I think, to think in terms of texts, not individual words and dictionary definitions.

[Ed.: aren’t you working on a dictionary of ancient Hebrew right now for Logos? Yeah, I know. But it’s going to be a different kind of dictionary. Just wait and see.]

As for the rabbit that was pulled from the hat, it usually is possible to connect it with a text that is, so to speak, its rightful rabbit hole. Usually more than one rabbit hole, in fact, turns up.

A very interesting fact, if you think about it. It has something to do with canon, I think. How canon shapes our thinking in such a way that even when we go wrong in our Einzelexegese, we do not, at least not fatally, go wrong from the point of view of the whole.

It remains to emphasize that the historical critical approach to the Bible is about flushing out rabbits from rabbit holes, not pulling them out of a hat.

Still, I have a confession to make. In the presence of truly powerful magic, the rabbit pulled out of the hat is so mesmerizing that I don’t feel I must, at least on the spot, find the rabbit hole(s) from which it came.

Examples of aggadic midrash come to mind, and halachic exegesis, too (the latter in particular is an acquired taste for a Gentile, not something I would expect everyone to appreciate). Should one wish to get a feel for the magic of New Testament exegesis, I recommend, for starters, the work of Richard B. Hays.

Did I mention that God is in the details?

Comments

[Angela Erisman]

Hi John,

I put your quote about historical criticism up at Imaginary Grace. Fantastic. And well-timed, as I'm about to sit down and write about models of Pentateuchal composition.

[Iyov]

One thing I notice about Jewish vs. Protestant homilies is that it always seems to me that the Protestant sermons are "holding back" -- whereas in a typical Jewish sermon one sees references to the Bible, Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, Halachic literature etc. and many speculative techniques (e.g., Gematria); it seems that many Protestant sermons are much narrower, and seem to draw more on personal experiences. Of course, my sampling is not scientific at all.

I usually find that techniques such as etymology provide interesting insights and a good way to frame different homiletic material; but it is not a way of "proving" material -- those who attempt to take this techniques too far end up spewing nonsense (e.g., the Bible Codes.)

As far as making a bibliography is concerned -- I don't know -- it is such a massive list! I'm wondering if any major Jewish commentator hasn't used etymological methods.

I'm not familiar with the work of Richard Hays; I'll need to look at it. It does seem, though, that in general Christian authors who write both about Scripture and theology tend to be remembered for their theology and not the exegesis (e.g., Aquinas, Luther).

[John Hobbins]

A bibliography on etymological exegesis taking in the whole sweep of the history of interpretation would be difficult to keep within reasonable bounds, but very interesting nonetheless. I had something more limited in mind, to wit: punning and etymological exegesis in the Bible, not on the Bible.

A strength/weakness of homilies by both Catholics and Protestants is the appeal to personal experience. You would think the former would cite Thomas at least, but I don't think it happens very often. You would think the latter would cite Augustine, Luther and/or Calvin, or Wesley, all of whom are very citable, but once again, it does not happen very often.

I blame the seminaries. Christian theological education is such a vapid thing. You are not really expected to master anything, Bible or tradition.

[Claude Mariottini]

John,

Thank you for your post on the use and abuse of etymology in biblical exegesis. The understanding of the meaning of words is vital for the proper understanding of a text and what it is trying to communicate. A word may attain a technical meaning that communicates a very specific idea. However, when one understands the etymological background of the word, that understanding helps to clarify the meaning of the technical word. A good example in English is the word “diarrhea.” Most people use the technical word without a proper knowledge of the etymology of the word. So, I believe that etymology, when properly used, can help clarify the text or explain the message behind the text.

Claude Mariottini

[Iyov]

I blame the seminaries. Christian theological education is such a vapid thing. You are not really expected to master anything, Bible or tradition.

An interesting opinion. It is certainly the case that three-four years of seminary certainly seems to have less focus than a graduate program of similar length in some professional programs (Law, Medicine) or even a one-two year academic Masters program.

I've wondered why this is: perhaps because a larger proportion of students must work full-time to support themselves and their family? perhaps because students often commence seminary study at a relatively late age? perhaps because because many seminaries seem eager to push rather mediocre distance learning programs? perhaps because modern seminary training is divided between academic training and pastoral training? perhaps because seminary programs (in the Catholic Church, at least) focus on languages needed for pastoral duties (e.g., Spanish) at the expense of classical languages?

I have met a some Christians who do not have ministerial posts, but as a matter of personal devotion maintain truly stunning programs of personal study of Bible or theology -- these people are devoted to the Christian equivalent of Lishma Torah (Is there a term in common use? If not this is symptomatic of my comments here.) But it seems to me that they are often viewed as eccentrics -- at least as compared to the parallel situation within traditional Jewish circles.

[Peter Kirk]

Why should we Protestants cite theologians of past ages, rather than the Bible or their contemporaries? We don't accept anyone outside the Bible as an authority. And we don't (well, at least I don't) accept that anything is of special value because of its age. Our sermons or homilies are intended to be relevant to our congregations, who in general have little interest in the views of people from the distant past. So, while we certainly should study historical theology, we should normally keep it well in the background in our preaching. (I use "we" in a rather general sense as I do not preach.)

[Claude Mariottini]

John,

Don’t blame the seminaries. A seminary education is designed to prepare students to become ministers in a local church. Seminary students desire skills for ministry. Those who desire to specialize in a specific subject need to enroll in a program that will help them master that subject.

A seminary is a school of the church. The educational mission of a seminary is to prepare ministers for the church.

Claude Mariottini

[Bob MacDonald]

John - I am glad you got such a response. The pastors I have had to submit to have at times been less than inspiring in their study. I think I must say with care that though few of them can read Hebrew or Greek, their posts are given by the Spirit - so my criticism must be a complaint to the Most High - why did you allow a single person to have all the responsibility for preaching, teaching, sacraments, administration, and scholarship? And the answer is, "I did not - you (plural) did it". Is it so that God follows where we lead (or wander)? I have to admit to some frustration relating to the governance structures of the churches. In other words, I think (pace those who decry enthusiasms) there is a place for the charismatic and the churches have a great deal of difficulty with the tension between risk and of control in the liturgy. (I am, by the way, of the children of Korah. Eventually, we will get the last word in spite of centralization of power structures. This note relates to what I felt I could not approach from Dr. Claude's recent post on Jeremiah 1:1-10.)

[John Hobbins]

Peter and Bob,

Of what use is the letter without the Spirit? One heartfelt prayer dripping with sweat and tears is worth more in God's eyes, I wager, than all the Hebrew and Greek in the world. I don't see that as an excuse for anti-intellectualism, however.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

John, you might like to know that this post of yours (and the first of the seminary ones) received favorable mention from the estimable Professor Carl Conrad on the B-Greek list, here, a few days ago.