The "Illegitimate Totality Transfer" Fallacy Illustrated

Tyler Williams has an excellent post in which he illustrates “what D.A. Carson calls the “illegitimate totality transfer” fallacy (i.e., the explicit or implicit transfer of all the meanings of a given word into any given passage).” [Carson bases himself on James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (1961), p. 218: Hat tip: J. Richard Middleton.] Suzanne McCarthy also draws attention to the post.

As I pointed out previously, the abuse of etymology in the interpretation of the Bible in the hands of a grounded interpreter may be more or less innocuous, or even brilliant. But in the hands of a biblically illiterate or theologically obtuse interpreter, it is precisely the illiteracy and obtuseness that shine through the etymologizing explanation.

Tyler’s example is well-chosen. Another fun way to get a sense of the potential goofiness of uncontrolled etymologizing exegesis comes from applying the technique to random phrases and see what happens.

(1) Rick Mansfield claims he has a “fetching wife.” I’m sure she is. Apply fallacy. I wonder whether she gnaws on the Frisbee between fetches as much as my dog.

(2) Iyov says,

                            “I am spoiled.” Darn right he is. Apply fallacy. I guess I don’t want him for dinner.

(3) According to Angela Roskop Erisman, Charles Halton has a great post on branding yourself as a scholar. Apply fallacy. Charles, I didn’t know you were into that. I’m trying to remember on what part of the body a calf is normally branded.

Perhaps a few principles are worth enunciating. The relevance of the etymology of a word for the interpretation of a specific text can never be assumed. It must be demonstrated. Whether a semantic connection between word x and word y, or between senses x and y of the same word (see the examples above) is "in play" in a specific passage, is a legitimate and very interesting question. But: the connection cannot be assumed. It must be demonstrated.

The metaphorical potential of a given word usually is latent only, not actual. I speak of “metaphorical potential” in a broad sense to include the possible exploitation of a word’s etymology in a specific context. If I say, "I beat him" in English, in many but not all contexts, chances are, the literal sense of 'beat' is dead, not live. The etymological sense of the word “beat” is not relevant in most contexts. Often, the word in context is metaphorically washed out, and simply means “I won” in a game of chess or what have you.

Poetry in particular is given to exploiting the metaphorical potential of the words and phrases it makes use of. Once again, however, context must be the guide in determining the extent to which such is actually occurring in a specific case.

 

UPDATE: Suzanne links to this post and worries too much. A grounded interpreter like Suzanne can overetymologize and still not grow astray. The rabbit she pulled out of a hat, if that is what she did, probably has one or more genuine rabbit holes elsewhere in biblical literature.

Simon Holloway keeps the conversation going, and keeps it funny, too. Simon, it’s good to have you back.

Comments

[voxstefani]

My goodness, my sense of humor works exclusively on the basis of illegitimate totality transfer, semantic anachronism, semantic obsolescence, and the root fallacy. Which is probably why no one ever laughs at my jokes.

[JohnFH]

I checked out your site, Esteban. Your use of language gurgles with laughter.

As a friend recently pointed out (Angela over at Imaginary Grace): Laughter is carbonated holiness. - Anne Lamott

So maybe some of your passions hang together better than some may think.

[Shawn]

hilarious. A great way to start the day.

[Robert Holmstedt]

John,

For future reference, calves are typically branded on the left flank. (I do remember a few things from my former life.)

[voxstefani]

Thanks for your very kind words, and for the Anne Lamott quote, which is quite darling!

And by the way, I thought exactly the same about Rick Mansfield's "fetching wife" upon encountering his blog earlier yesterday (or perhaps Monday?). These exegetical fallacies are, by now, second nature to me! ;-)

Esteban

[Lingamish]

There's nothing funny about etymology. It's my favorite tool for twisting scripture.

[Charles Halton]

Eisenbrauns has just released a cattle brand with an ibex on it to go along with their new t-shirts. So, all scholars who want to brand themselves as ancient Near East experts can now do so.