New Testament Lexicography: Introduction - Theory - Method 9783110408973, 9783110408133
This text brings together in one volume two previous books that laid the groundwork for the construction of the entries
250 83 2MB
English Pages 372 [374] Year 2018
Polecaj historie
![New Testament Lexicography (Fontes Et Subsidia Ad Bibliam Pertinentes, 6) [1 ed.]
9783110408133, 9783110408973, 9783110409055, 3110408139](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/new-testament-lexicography-fontes-et-subsidia-ad-bibliam-pertinentes-6-1nbsped-9783110408133-9783110408973-9783110409055-3110408139.jpg)
![New Testament Introduction [4th edition]](https://dokumen.pub/img/200x200/new-testament-introduction-4th-edition.jpg)
Table of contents :
Editor’s Preface
Translator’s Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation
Introduction: The Contribution of the Cordoba-School to the Lexicography of New Testament Greek
Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)
PART I New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction (Jesús Peláez)
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
PART II. A Theory of Semantic Analysis (Juan Mateos)
Chapter 3: Introduction
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
PART III Method. A Methodology of the Diccionario Griego- Español del Nuevo Testamento (J. Peláez)
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
Catalogue of Semes
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)
Glossary
Bibliography
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography by Members of GASCO (Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba)
Index of Greek Words
Index of Subjects
Index of Authors
Index of References
Citation preview
Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos New Testament Lexicography
Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes (FoSub)
Band 6
Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos (†)
New Testament Lexicography
Introduction – Theory – Method Translated, Annotated, and Supplemented by Andrew Bowden Edited by David S. du Toit
ISBN 978-3-11-040813-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-040897-3 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-040905-5 ISSN 1861-602X Library of Congress Control Number: 2018942562 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com
Editor’s Preface In the history of the lexicography of New Testament Greek, 1988 – 1990 were outstanding years. Not only did the 6th edition of Walter Bauer’s dictionary (1988) and the 4th edition of Francisco Zorell’s lexicon (1990) appear, Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida also published in 1989 their novel Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. In a case of extraordinary coincidence, Juan Mateos, Professor at the Oriental Institute in Rome, in the very same year also published a monograph titled Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento, in which he presented in preparation for the planned Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento a theory for determining lexical meaning. Seven years later this was supplemented by a study titled Metodología del diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento by Jesús Peláez, Professor for Greek at the University of Córdoba in Spain. I am pleased that nearly 400 years after the publication of the first dictionary on New Testament Greek by Georg Pasor in 1619, these two important studies on lexicographical theory and method can be made available to a broader scholarly public by means of an annotated English translation. For a more detailed assessment of the importance of the “Cordoba Model” presented here, I refer to my introductory essay in this volume. When I suggested some years ago to Albrecht Doehnert, Editorial Director for Theology, Jewish and Religious Studies at De Gruyter, to publish a translation of these two theoretical studies on lexicographical method, he immediately proposed the series Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes (FoSub) as the appropriate series for publication—certainly a most fitting location for such a technical study. I sincerely thank him for all his support for this project. The project was to a large extent financed with funds from the Investment Fund of the University of Munich—I express my gratitude to all those involved in granting me this generous financial support. I also thank Nara Kim for his invaluable contribution pertaining to many aspects of the project and Daniel Kuss for compiling the indexes. Special gratitude is furthermore due to Jesús Peláez, the congenial partner of the late Juan Mateos († 2003), who from the very start accompanied the project with enthusiasm and provided advice and active support whenever needed. In particular, I am indebted to my student Andrew Bowden who enthusiastically took on the challenge and—notwithstanding serious illness—dedicated himself with diligence to the fulfillment of the project. Without his meticulous work, discipline, and prowess this project would never have been completed! David du Toit Munich/Jena
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-001
Translator’s Preface The concepts, terminology, and layout of the Spanish texts of Mateos and Peláez presented several difficulties. My original strategy as translator was to deal with the various challenges by rendering the original Spanish rather literally in English. Additionally, if the books’ various diagrams were not aligned in the text, I felt no need to align them in my translation. If the authors placed a Spanish word in italics, I placed its English translation in italics. If a word was capitalized, I capitalized the English word. By translating in this manner, I hoped to render the original texts accurately, and, if I am honest, to bear as little responsibility as possible for their challenging contents, ideas, and terminology. David du Toit, who commissioned my translation of the text and serves as its editor, quickly indicated that another strategy would be necessary. Perhaps in part because of my translation method, many points were left unclear. It would not only be necessary to make the English version more reader-friendly, but also to expand, revise, and clarify aspects of the text. Although I knew the editor was right, I also knew this would involve a great deal more work, including a careful revision of the entire text and comprehensive translator’s notes would need to clarify challenging aspects of the text. Furthermore, it was decided to account for developments in the field of New Testament lexicography, such as the publication of BDAG in 2000. Thus, despite my originally unspoken and probably naive intention of allowing the original authors to bear the full responsibility for the translated volume, the project in some ways has become a product of my own. In spite of the challenges involved in the translation of the text, I have thoroughly enjoyed working on this project, in large part thanks to the support of Professor David du Toit. In the winter semester of 2014/15, Professor du Toit organized a weekly meeting at the University of Munich to discuss my preliminary translation and to understand the authors’ methodology. His insightful, critical, meticulous, and supportive comments have greatly improved my own understanding of the text. As a result, the translation is much improved. Additionally, Nara Kim, who faithfully attended these meetings, has improved the translation thanks to his insightful questions, as well as his careful proofreading of my English, the Latin, and, not the least, of every Greek accent. I have been amazed to see how many friendships have been formed and strengthened as a result of this project, and the fun that has been had as well. I could not help but note that in our weekly sessions at the University, we —that is, natives of South Africa, South Korea, and the southern United States— held discussions in German about an English translation of two Spanish books which contain a good deal of Greek and also some Latin. Our discussions of the text were always conducted in a congenial, light-hearted atmosphere. I am also thankful for the opportunity this project has afforded me to get to know Professor Peláez personally, first in Berlin and then in Munich. Special thanks are also due
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-002
VIII
Translator’s Preface
to Albrecht Doehnert, who not only agreed to publish the English translation with de Gruyter, but also enabled the collaborators to meet in Berlin and in Munich. It is thus clear that this translation is the result of a collaboration by many individuals. Nevertheless, for the end result of this translation and interpretation, despite my initial hesitations, I bear full responsibility. Andrew Bowden January 31, 2017 Munich
Contents V
Editor’s Preface Translator’s Preface Abbreviations
VII
XV
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation (D. du Toit, A. Bowden) XVII Introduction: The Contribution of the Cordoba-School to the Lexicography of New XXI Testament Greek (D. du Toit) Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)
PART I
XXXIX
New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction (Jesús Peláez)
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning 3 . 3 The Concept of Dictionary 8 . What Do We Mean by Meaning? .. Analytical or Referential Theory 9 Operational or Contextual Theory 11 .. 12 . The Practice of Bilingual Dictionaries . How Do Words Mean, If They Do? 12 Chapter 2: Testament . . .
. .. ... ... ... ...
A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New 15 Introduction 15 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) 17 W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des 23 Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (1988) Excursus: The Third English Edition: BDAG (A. Bowden) 28 J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (1988) 37 37 Unique Aspects of the Dictionary The Composition of the Dictionary 37 Primary Characteristics of the Dictionary 38 Justification for This Kind of Dictionary 40 How to Use the Dictionary 42
X
... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Contents
Basic Principles of the Analysis and the Semantic Classification 42 43 Critique of the DictionaryTN Organization of the Dictionary’s Entries 47 Material Cited in the Entries 48 Treatment of the Lexemes 49 50 The Definitions of Meaning Translational Equivalents 51 53 Lexemes and Paralexemes Practicability 53
PART II A Theory of Semantic Analysis (Juan Mateos) 57 Chapter 3: Introduction . Goals and Purpose 57 . Preliminary Overview of the Method 58 . Concepts and Terminology 61 61 Lexeme .. ... Morpholexeme 61 ... Paralexeme 62 62 ... Lexeme and Root ... Lexemes and Cases of Inflection 63 63 .. Semes 63 ... Semic Nucleus ... Nuclear Configuration 64 Generic Contextual Semes (Classemes) 64 ... ... Occasional Contextual Semes 64 .. Sememe 65 65 . Grammar and Semantics .. Grammatical and Semantic Classes 65 66 .. Semantic Classes Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula 70 70 . Entity Lexemes .. Entity Lexemes with Simple Structure 71 72 .. Entity Lexemes with Complex Structure 73 . Attribute Lexemes .. Attribute Lexemes with Simple Structure 73 74 .. Attribute Lexemes with Complex Structure . Event Lexemes 76 .. Event Lexemes without Connotation 77 .. Event Lexemes with One Connotation 77
Contents
.. .. . . . .. ... ... .. .
XI
Event Lexemes with Two Connotations 78 81 Event Lexemes with Three Connotations 85 Relation Lexemes Determination Lexemes 87 Abstract Lexemes 90 Classification of Abstract Lexemes according to Semantic Classes 90 Abstract Attribute Lexemes 90 Abstract Event Lexemes 91 The Correspondence of Abstract Lexemes with Verbal Forms of the Infinitive 94 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes 96
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis 103 . Grammatical and Semantic Categories 103 .. Gender 103 .. Number 104 105 .. Mode .. Tense 107 .. Aspect 109 111 .. Voice .. Hierarchy of Semantic Categories 112 Semic Development 114 . 114 ... Semes .. The Semic Nucleus: A Methodological Option 114 The Lexeme in Isolation: Determining the Constants 116 . .. Generic Nuclear Semes 116 .. Specific Semes 116 117 .. The Semic Nucleus .. Definition of the Lexeme 117 . Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes and Occa117 sional Semes) . Lexeme, Formula, and Semic Development 118 118 . Summary Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis 120 120 . Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes .. Entity Lexemes 120 126 .. Attribute Lexemes . Analysis of Event Lexemes 134 .. Event Lexemes with One Connotation 134 .. Event Lexemes with Two Connotations 137
XII
.. ... ... ... . .. ..
Contents
Event Lexemes with Three Connotations 152 Lexemes of Giving 153 156 Lexemes of Verbal Communication Other Event Lexemes 160 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes Relation Lexemes 164 Determination Lexemes 177
163
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis) 189 . Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία 189 . 193 Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω . Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action: φιλέω 195 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: . 197 δικαιοσύνη . Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία 200
PART III Method. A Methodology of the Diccionario GriegoEspañol del Nuevo Testamento (J. Peláez) 205 Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes . Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class 206 .. Grammatical Classes 207 .. Semantic Classes . The Semantic Formula 211 212 .. Denotation and Connotation .. From Formula to Meaning 215 . Semic Development of the Formula 216 217 .. Gender .. Number 218 220 .. Aspect and Voice Aspect 220 ... ... Voice 221
206
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development 222 222 . Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning . Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities .. Types of Collective Entities 225 227 .. Semic Development and Definition of Meaning ... Non-quantifiable Collective Entities with a Dynamic Event (Activity) 228
224
Contents
... ... ... ... ...
XIII
Non-Quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event 234 Non-quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event and a Dynamic Event 238 Collective Entities that only Denote a Relation 239 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Explicit Quantification: τετράδιον, -ου, τό 242 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Implicit Quantification that Denote 242 a Dynamic Event
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
247
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions 264 Catalogue of Semes
288
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish) Glossary
292
296
Bibliography
299
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography by Members of GASCO (Grupo de 305 Análisis Semántico de Córdoba) Index of Greek Words Index of Subjects Index of Authors Index of References
308 313
316 318
Abbreviations § A BAA
Section number in the translation; for example, § 40 refers to section 40 Attribute Bauer, W., K. Aland, B. Aland. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Berlin, 1988 BADG Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1979 BAG Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1957 BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 2000 CE Common Era D Determination DGE Adrados, F. A. Diccionario griego-español, Vol I-VII. Madrid, 2008 – 2010. DGENT Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Fasc. I-III. Cordoba, 2000 – 2008 Ent Entity Ev Event FIEC Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques FNT Filología Neotestamentaria G Generic Seme GASCO Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement L&N J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York, 1988 LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München LXX Septuagint LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 NT New Testament PGL Lampe, G. W. H., ed., Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1968 POx. Oxyrhynchus Papyri RBL Review of Biblical Literature S Specific Seme TRu Theologische Rundschau TWNT Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Stuttgart, 1932 – 1979 WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament X Polyvalent reality, representing an event and an entity depending on context
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-003
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation The monographs Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento, by Juan Mateos (1989), and Metodología del diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento, by Jesús Peláez (1996), are being published together in this volume. In consultation with Jesús Peláez, it was decided not only to print them in one volume but also to amend the original order of the chapters in order to facilitate the flow of reading and hence a better understanding of the theory presented in the two books. Consequently, this volume begins with the general introductory chapters of Peláez, Metodología (= Part I: New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction = chaps. 1– 2), followed by Mateos’s Método de análisis semántico (Part II: Theory of Semantic Analysis = chaps. 3 – 7) and then by the rest of Peláez’s Metodología (Part III: Methodology = chaps. 8 – 11). Such a combination of two texts required a number of steps in order to create a coherent text both in content and style. To attain this, the division of chapters of both volumes was restructured in such a way that the eight chapters of Método de análisis semántico were combined to comprise five chapters in the present volume (chaps. 3 – 7), whereas the lengthy third chapter of Metodología was split into two chapters (chaps. 8 – 9).¹ It should be noted that it sometimes has been necessary to exercise a good deal of translational freedom in order to foster the coherence of this new structure. The combination also required a completely different numbering system of the books. It was necessary to renumber the sections and subsections of both books, which sometimes required the introduction of new intermediate subtitles for particular sections. In order to help the reader find a particular passage in the two original Spanish source texts, the original page numbers are noted throughout the translation, namely by the symbol | followed by a number and then the letter -M or -P. This symbol indicates the end of the numbered page in the respective Spanish text: thus, |1-M on page one of this volume indicates that page one of the Mateos text ends and that page two begins. *** The translated volume of the text is sub-divided into sections numbered from §§ 1– 443, which facilitates precise cross-references both in the text and in the indexes. The cue for this has been taken from Mateos, who numbered the passages in his book in this way, although for each new chapter he started with § 1 (in this volume §§ 69 – 306, 441– 443). Since Peláez’s Metodología does not have such sections, his text was sub-divided into these units and numbered accordingly (§§ 1– 58, 307– 440).
Mateos, Método: Introduction and chap. I constitute chap. 3 in this volume, chap. II = chap. 4, chaps. III–IV = chap. 5, chaps. V–VII = chap. 6, chap. VIII = chap. 7. Peláez, Metodología: Chaps. I– II = chaps. 1– 2, chaps. III A = chap. 8, chap. III B = chap. 9, chap. IV–V = chap. 10 – 11 in this volume. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-004
XVIII
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation
To enhance both the coherence of the text as well as the understanding of the theory, many cross-references to various passages were added in the translation. This enables the reader to consult other passages that have bearing on the matter under discussion. Such cross-references are placed within parentheses and indicated by section numbers. Thus, if one sees a reference such as: (cf. §§ 297– 306), this would indicate that sections 297– 306 contain further information that is relevant for the matter under discussion. Of course, comprehensive indexes have also been composed to facilitate the practicality of the English translation and to enable readers to quickly find additional information on a particular topic. The indexes refer to the section number(s) of the matter being discussed and not to the page number(s). To aid those who want to delve deeper into the theory and method presented here, we also append a list of publications pertaining to lexicography by members of the Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba (GASCO). *** One recurring problem consisted in the translation of the “semes.” In order to convey the semes, the authors constructed artificial Spanish terms as a technical metalanguage (cf. § 205). Although there are a few instances where these terms present few problems (such as hostilidad = “hostility,” colectividad = “collectivity,” or humanidad = “humanity”), their translation often created difficulties. For example, there were many semes in Spanish that carried different connotations or were unclear in English, as was the case with objectividad (“objectivity” in English would not denote “objectness,” but rather the objectivity of a viewpoint), parcialidad (“partiality” in English might imply the partiality of a judge rather than “partialness,” i.e., something’s incompleteness), civilidad (“civility” denotes good behavior, but “civicness,” i. e., civic duty, is hardly a better translation). In other instances, the meanings of the terms were quite clear, but nevertheless could only be awkwardly translated in English, as was the case with jerarquicidad (“hierarchiness” or “hierarchicity”?) and sacerdotalidad (“sacertodalness” or “priestness”?). In another case belicidad could hardly be translated as bellicity, but are warness, battleness, or conflicticity better options? What is conveyed by the term terminalidad? Should this be translated as terminality, terminalness, or perhaps endness? Only after countless attempts did the choice, with strong hesitation, fall on towardness. Since semes recur throughout the text, the translator continually wrestled with this issue in translation. Because of the many difficulties caused by the translation of the numerous original Spanish semes, we decided to supply a comprehensive list of all semes as an appendix, which mentions all semes that appear in this volume. In this Comprehensive List of Semes, the semes are listed alphabetically in English, followed by the original Spanish terminology in italics. Readers can judge for themselves if they want to follow the translations offered for the semes in this volume. ***
Introduction: Notable Details about the Translation
XIX
The volume presented here is not just a translation of the two Spanish source volumes. In order to assist the reader to understand the complex theory forwarded by the authors, Andrew Bowden annotated the text with numerous comments. These explanatory annotations are found in footnotes. Instead of supplying an extra set of footnotes for these explanatory notes, all footnotes are provided consecutively. To distinguish translator’s notes from the authors’ footnotes, translator’s notes are indicated with a superscript “TN”. Thus, in chap. 4 of this text, “18” indicates a normal footnote, but “19TN” indicates a translator’s note. Accordingly, each of the translator’s notes in this book are clearly identified at the bottom of the respective page by means of an introductory “TRANSLATOR’S NOTE:”. The explanatory notes are intended to facilitate the understanding of complicated issues and unclear aspects of the original Spanish texts. Thus, for example, there are instances where the reason that a diagram’s arrows point in one direction or the other is explained, or why certain semantic classes are included and others are omitted is clarified. In this connection, special attention should be drawn to the Catalogue of Semes at the end of this book. Several translator’s notes had to be added to J. Mateos’s text because of the frequency with which he ends his discussion with “etc.” In the translation, the missing semes concealed behind “etc.” are supplied in translator’s notes for each of the semantic classes discussed by Mateos (i. e., for entities, events, relations, attributes, and denotation). Additionally, Mateos notes that the same semes are used for various classes, but he does not go into more detail on this. These semes are listed comprehensively in translator’s note 9 of the Catalogue of Semes. In conclusion, attention should also be drawn to two other features of the translation: (1) Although Peláez’s original discussion of Zorell’s dictionary (cf. §§ 26 – 28) cites Latin examples without translating these, we have opted to translate the Latin into English for the convenience of readers not fluent in Latin. (2) Due to the publishing of the 3rd edition of the English translation of Walter Bauer’s dictionary by Frederick Danker in 2000 (BDAG), we considered it necessary to supplement Peláez’s survey of dictionaries of New Testament Greek in Metodología with a critical discussion of BDAG by A. Bowden (§§ 36 – 47). David du Toit and Andrew Bowden
David S. du Toit
Introduction: The Contribution of the Cordoba-School to the Lexicography of New Testament Greek 1 Introductory Remarks In his invaluable book A History of New Testament Lexicography,¹ John Lee refers to the first fascicle of the Análisis Semántico de los Vocablos,² published by Juan Mateos and Jesús Peláez at the turn of the century in preparation of their planned Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT), and writes: It follows the footsteps of Louw-Nida in the use of definition. Though a debt to Louw-Nida is acknowledged, the definitions are independently formulated, and the presentation is alphabetical, not by domains. It also incorporates detailed semantic analysis of each word, along with full presentation of the New Testament occurrences. Like Louw-Nida (and unlike most lexicons), it has been preceded by a thorough exploration of method in preliminary publications. It is too early to assess this lexicon fully. What it offers is clearly valuable, but it confines itself to the New Testament data and does not contribute to major task of reassessing the whole tradition in the light of all the evidence.³
This concise evaluation of the DGENT-project in its early phase clearly acknowledges the potential of the Cordoba-project, but also notes particular limitations of the approach. In this introduction, I want to evaluate the contribution of the Cordoba-project to New Testament lexicography nearly fifty years after the commencement of this mammoth enterprise. Such an evaluation should comprise two different aspects. On the one hand, the DGENT-project should be situated within the modern history of New Testament lexicography inaugurated at the turn of the last century by Adolf Deissmann. On the other hand, an appreciation for the particular contribution of the lexicographical approach forged in Cordoba during the last few decades is an urgent need. In his book John Lee masterfully presents the development of New Testament lexicography, including the development in the twentieth century.⁴ The task of situating the Cordoba-school within the development of New Testament lexicography⁵ will thus be constrained in the following to the most important aspects (2). Con Cf. J. A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, Studies in Biblical Greek 8 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Cf. J. Mateos and J. Peláez, Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). Análisis semántico de los vocablos, Fasc. 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000). Cf. Lee, History, 165 – 66. Cf. Lee, History, 1– 175 (= Part I, chaps. 1– 10), on the 20th century: 119 – 75. New Testament lexicography arguably commenced with the publication of a Vocabularium in the fifth volume of the famous Complutensian Polyglot, printed 500 years ago (1514– 17) in Alcalá (Comhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-005
XXII
Introduction
sidering, however, that the work of the Cordoba-school—and in particular of its two leading scholars, Juan Mateos and Jesús Peláez—has received rather scant attention outside the Spanish speaking scholarly community, the particularities and innovations of their approach deserve to be spelled out in some detail (3.1– 3.2). In the final section I shall relate the Cordoba approach to some developments within general semantics during the last decades (3.3).
2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History: New Testament Lexicography in the 20th Century 2.1 Setting the Scene: Adolf Deissmann’s Lexicographical Program By the end of the 19th century it was common opinion that New Testament Greek (and the Greek of the Septuagint) constituted a variant of ancient Greek that was unique to the Holy Scriptures, with distinctive syntactic features and vocabulary.⁶ Due especially to the seminal work of Adolf Deissmann,⁷ however, this opinion on the character of New Testament Greek changed during the 20th century. By drawing on the flood of new publications of newly discovered Greek papyri (mostly from Egypt), inscriptions, and ostraca (mostly from Asia Minor and Syria), Deissmann demonstrated⁸ compellingly that the language of the New Testament should be considered “a specimen of
plutum), Spain, but published and distributed since 1522; cf. Lee, History, 45 – 60, 329 – 30. Considering that there existed no Spanish dictionary of the Greek of the New Testament at the start of the Cordoba-project, DGENT constitutes a kind of “coming home” of New Testament lexicography to Spain. In the meantime, however, a shorter dictionary has appeared; cf. Amador Ángel García Santos, Diccionario del Greigo Bíblico. Setenta y Nuevo Testamento, Instrumentos para el estudio de la Biblia XXI (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011). Cf. my review in Gnomon 86, (2014): 691– 96. An excellent and influential example is H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität (Gotha: F. A. Perthes 1866, 111923). The English translation was reprinted until 1954. On Deissmann’s life and work, cf. A. Gerber, Deissmann the Philologist, BZNW 171 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2010). Deissmann published his groundbreaking insights from 1895 to 1908 in three studies: G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1895); idem, Neue Bibelstudien: Sprachgeschichtliche Beiträge, zumeist aus Papyri und Inschriften zur Erklärung des Neuen Testaments (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1897). English Translation (of both): Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901). G. A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 1908 41923); English Translation: Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the GraecoRoman World (New York/London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908). Especially Licht vom Osten / Light from the Ancient East became a bestseller and one of the most sold theological books ever.
2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History
XXIII
the colloquial form of late Greek, and of the popular colloquial language in particular.”⁹ In the wake of this discovery about the Greek of the New Testament, Deissmann concluded that a new lexicon of New Testament Greek would be indispensable.¹⁰ Some years later he reflected programmatically on the future task of the lexicography of the Greek of the New Testament¹¹ and outlined the contours of a future lexicon of New Testament Greek.¹² Deissmann clearly formulated his main requirement for an adequate lexicography of the Greek of the New Testament: ¹³ The first main task of the future lexicon will be to place the New Testament vocabulary in living connexion with the contemporaneous world. Only in this way can the right place be found for every word, the place to which it belongs in the complete history of the Greek language, and only in this way can the points of contact and of contrast be established between the contemporary world and the cult-words used in the gospels and apostolic writings.¹⁴
According to Deissmann, New Testament lexicography has the task of contextualizing the vocabulary of the New Testament in its historical linguistic context, i . e . , of situating it within the Greek contemporaneous to early Christianity. For Deissmann this meant especially relating them to the evidence supplied by the contemporary documentary sources, as he had amply illustrated in Bible Studies and Light from the Ancient East. Within this basic framework it was clear to Deissmann that a lexicon has to meet a number of requirements in order to reach the appropriate standard. Already in his earliest statement on the issue and reiterated in Light from the Ancient East, he demanded that lexicography has to consider the newest results of linguistic research and “semasiology” (the technical term for “general semantics” at the time).¹⁵ Accord-
G. A. Deissmann, “The New Testament in the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the GraecoRoman World I-V,” ET 18 (1906/7): 8 – 15, 57– 63, 103 – 08, 202– 21, 305 – 310 (here 59). For an example of Deissmann disputing the traditional view, cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 198 – 228; idem, The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), 39 – 68. G. A. Deissmann, Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben, Vorträge der Theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen 12 (Berlin: de Gruyter 1898), 24 f. First published in abbreviated form in ET 18 (1906/07): 308 – 10 (see footnote 9), then in Light from the Ancient East, 411– 19 (= Licht vom Osten, 294– 301). At first, Deissmann intended to compile the dictionary himself. On the lexicographical aspirations of Deissmann, cf. Gerber, Deissmann, 7– 103, and G. H. R. Horsley, “The Origin and Scope of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, and Deissmann’s Planned New Testament Lexicon. Some unpublished letters of G. A. Deissmann to J. H. Moulton,” BJRL 76 (1994): 187– 216. On Deissmann’s views on lexicography I refer to my paper “Der verhinderte Lexikograph. Adolf Deissmanns Beitrag zur Lexikographie des Griechisch des frühen Christentums,” delivered at an International Deissmann Symposium (March 26 – 27, 2013, Berlin). The papers will be published soon by C. Breytenbach and C. Markschies. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 417. Deissmann, “Die sprachliche Erforschung,” 24 (= Gerber, Deissmann, 557); idem, Light from the Ancient East, 218. In his review of the 3rd edition of Bauer’s dictionary he refers to the necessary new semantic work (“notwendige semasiologische Neuarbeit”) to be done, cf. DLZ 46 (1925): 1108.
XXIV
Introduction
ing to him, a dictionary does not primarily have the task of providing word equivalents (i. e., glosses or translational equivalents) but has to present the use of words in contemporary sources.¹⁶ The goal should be to establish the measure of continuity and discontinuity that New Testament words reflect vis-à-vis the same words in contemporaneous sources.¹⁷ Finally, in some reviews as well as his preface to Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament, it should be mentioned that Deissmann emphasized the lexicographical importance of demonstrating the nature of sense relationships (“Sinnverwandtschaft”) between words.¹⁸ To summarize: The lexicographical program set out by Deissmann at the beginning of the 20th century contained the following points: (1) the synchronic (and diachronic) contextualization of New Testament Greek within its contemporary linguistic context; (2) an interdisciplinary approach that takes into consideration developments in general linguistics and semantics; and (3) lexicographical presentation which focuses not merely on giving word equivalents but on presenting the use of the words in contemporary sources as well as on demonstrating their semantic relations to other words. New Testament lexicography in the 20th century can be analyzed in terms of Deissmann’s program. In what follows I shall demonstrate that the various dictionaries can be judged to have fulfilled the requirements of Deissmann only partially.
2.2 The Realization of Deissmann’s Program in the 20th century 2.2.1 Contextualizing the Vocabulary of the New Testament: James Moulton, George Milligan, and Walter Bauer The challenge of contextualizing New Testament Greek lexicographically in its contemporaneous context was at first realized by Deissmann’s congenial British colleague James Moulton and by his successor George Milligan in their The Vocabulary of the New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. ¹⁹ Al-
“Zur Konstatierung der Wortgleichungen … bedarf es keines Lexikons … Das Lexikon hat ganz andere und kompliziertere Aufgaben; es muss das griechische Wort in der Geschichte seines Gebrauches vorführen unter Benutzung besonders der örtlich und zeitlich naheliegenden Sprachdenkmäler …” Deissmann, Die sprachliche Erforschung, 17 (= Gerber, Deissmann, 552). Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 417. It should not be overlooked, however, that Deissmann also considered it a task of New Testament lexicography to establish the diachronic place of a word within the semantic development of meaning; cf. e. g., Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 417– 18. In Deissmann’s preface to R. C. Trench, Synonyma des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1907) he develops a view which comes close to later concepts of word fields. Published in fascicles from 1914– 1929 (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1930). On this work, cf. C. Hemer, “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan,” NovT 24 (1982): 97– 123; G. H. R. Horsley, “Origin and Scope,” 187– 216; idem, “The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some Soundings,” In Linguistic Essays. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5, ed. G. H. R. Horsley (Grand Rap-
2 Situating the Cordoba-School in History
XXV
though strictu sensu not a dictionary, Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary constitutes the first systematic attempt to contextualize the New Testament vocabulary in its contemporaneous linguistic context.²⁰ It is the characteristic feature of the Vocabulary that it quotes the immediate context in which a word is encountered in the particular documentary source (often supplemented with an explanatory comment). The realization, however, of Deissmann’s lexicographical program belongs without doubt to Walter Bauer.²¹ Bauer used the lemma-structure of a dictionary by Erwin Preuschen (1910) and over many decades systematically incorporated an enormous amount of references (usually not quotes) from Classic, Hellenistic, and Roman Greek into his dictionary of New Testament Greek.²² In addition, he included references to most of the documentary material gathered by Deissmann in his Bible Studies and Light from the Ancient East, and by Moulton and Milligan in their Vocabulary. Bauer also supplied some new material, though not comparable to the quantity of literary evidence he gathered.²³ By the time that the 5th edition of Bauer’s dictionary was published, Deissmann’s challenge of contextualizing the New Testament vocabulary within (contemporary) Ancient Greek had become consensus among New Testament scholars, so much so that the concept of a particular “biblical” Greek is scarcely supported anymore.²⁴
2.2.2 Allowing Linguistics to Enter: Johannes (Jannie) P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida As we have seen, Deissmann’s lexicographical program required not only an approach that considers developments in general linguistics and semantics and that
ids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989), 67– 93, esp. 92– 93; idem, “Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917),” In Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, ed. Stanley E. Porter (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), 230 – 31. One should also mention the dictionary of H. Ebeling, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Hannover/Leipzig: Hahn, 1913, 31929). This was the first dictionary that systematically referred to the newly discovered documentary evidence. Deissmann acknowledged it to be a step in the right direction, was indignant, however, that Ebeling had not acknowledged him as proprietor of the enterprise (see Deissmann’s review in DLZ 20 [1913]: 1246 – 49). Cf. also Lee, History, 141– 43. Deissmann reviewed Bauer’s dictionary twice and in both instances was very positive: DLZ 46 (1925): 1105 – 09; DLZ 58 (1937): 520 f. In Deissmann’s last publication before his death he assessed it as follows: “Sein Erscheinen ist ein hocherfreuliches Ereignis … Denn dank der Sachkenntnis und dem eisernen Fleiße Walter Bauers besitzen wir nun ein ganz auf den gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung gebrachtes lexikalisches Hilfsmittel zur Erschließung des Urtextes unserer heiligsten Urkunde” (p. 520). W. Bauer, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Gießen/Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann/de Gruyter, 21928 31937 41952 ET 1957 51958, nachgedruckt 1963, 1971, 1976, ET 21979). Cf. Horsley, “Greek Documentary Evidence,” 92 f. But see N. Turner, Christian Words (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980), which restates the traditional viewpoint. For criticism, see the discussion by Horsley, “Greek Documentary Evidence,” 75 – 77.
XXVI
Introduction
provides not only word equivalents, but one that is sensitive to semantic differentiation and attempts to describe the semantic relations between words. On all these points Bauer’s dictionary failed to meet Deissmann’s requirements.²⁵ Only after an urgent plea by James Barr²⁶ could biblical scholars start applying general linguistics and semantic theory to their analysis of the meaning of New Testament vocabulary.²⁷ Nearly three decades after Barr’s plea, two leading scholars in this field—Johannes (Jannie) P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida—published a completely novel dictionary on New Testament Greek based on modern semantic theory.²⁸ The most significant features of the dictionary include the following: (1) Semantic categories (object, entity, abstract, relation) constitute the organizational basis of the dictionary; (2) words are categorized not alphabetically but on the basis of shared, distinctive, and supplementary semantic features in semantic domains and sub-domains; (3) taking their cue from the Oxford Latin Dictionary, the lexical meaning of words are provided through short lexical definitions based on the distinctive semantic features of the particular word; and (4) there are no references to literary or documentary parallels.²⁹ If one evaluates LNTSD with respect to Deissmann’s lexicographical program, it is fairly clear that Louw and Nida’s approach meets some of those requirements that Bauer did not meet. Louw and Nida show their ability to perform lexicography within a theoretical framework taken from general linguistics/semantics, and especially of presenting lexical meaning by relating words to each other. On the other hand, their text completely refrains from Deissmann’s main requirement of situating and presenting the New Testament vocabulary in its contemporary linguistic context.
Cf. the discussion of Bauer’s lexicographical accomplishment by Lee, History, 143 – 54, who convincingly demonstrates that Bauer did not reformulate the semantic content of the lexemes but took over the semantic structure of Preuschen’s dictionary. Interestingly, Deissmann explicitly excuses Bauer from this: “Mit Bewußtsein hat er nur, und das ist zurzeit ja völlig verständlich und entschuldbar, auf die an sich notwendige semasiologische Neuarbeit verzichtet,” DLZ 46 (1925): 1108. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961). E. g., E. A. Nida, “The implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 91 (1972): 73 – 89; J. P. Louw, Semantiek van Nuwe Testamentiese Grieks (Pretoria: Beta Pers, 1976; ET: 1982); E. A. Nida, J. P. Louw, and R. B. Smith, “Semantic Domains and Componential Analysis of Meaning,” In Current issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. R. W. Cole (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977). M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985); J. P. Louw, ed., Lexicography and Bible Translation (Cape Town: Bible Society, 1985). J. P. Louw, and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988). For a short introduction to the main features of the dictionary, cf. Louw and Nida, vi–xxiii. Cf. the critical appraisal by Lee, History, 155 – 65, also by J. Peláez in this volume (§§ 45 – 68).
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project
XXVII
2.2.3 An Unfulfilled Vision: A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels Approximately at the same time that Louw and Nida worked on their dictionary, Australian scholars commenced a project in which they sought to produce a new version of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the New Testament with a Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels. ³⁰ Although this extremely promising project unfortunately seems to be paused, it deserves mention here, since it sought to realize important aspects of Deissmann’s lexicographical vision. First, it should be observed from the very beginning that the scholars were concerned to take cognizance of developments in general linguistics and semantics.³¹ Gregory Horsley and John Lee explicitly situate their prospective lexicon in the tradition of the OED, OLD and LNTSD, that is, as part of the lexicographical “school” relying on lexemic definitions to present meaning instead of using translational equivalents or glosses. They differ, however, from Louw and Nida in that they aspire to formulate definitions as substitution equivalents. ³² The most important feature of Horsley and Lee’s prospective lexicon would have been the presentation of documentary parallels (incl. translations), which would illustrate the definition of meaning provided for a particular New Testament word. Arguably this would have constituted the closest approximation of Deissmann’s understanding of the lexicographical contextualization of the New Testament vocabulary in its contemporary linguistic context.³³
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project The commencement of the Cordoba-Project can be dated to the mid-seventies of the last century, when the Institución San Jerónimo para la Investigación Bíblica (later: Asociación Bíblica Española) called for bilingual dictionaries for the Old and New Testament to be composed in Spanish. Whereas L. A. Schökel was commissioned to publish a Hebrew-Spanish dictionary of the vocabulary of the Old Testament and decided to produce a bilingual dictionary in classical style,³⁴ Juan Mateos decided upon a new kind of dictionary in which the meanings of the words used in the Cf. Hemer, “Moulton and Milligan”; G. H. R. Horsley, and J. A. L. Lee, “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels. Some Interim Entries. Part 1 and 2,” FNT 10 (1997): 55 – 84; idem, FNT 11 (1998): 57– 84 (cf. 60 – 64 for a short description of their proposed lexicographical method). Preparatory work was published by G. H. R. Horsley in the Series New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 5 vol. (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1981– 89). Cf. e. g., G. H. R. Horsley, Linguistic Essays, NDIEC 5 (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989), esp. 117– 34. Horsley and Lee, “Interim Entries 1,” 61. The revised 3rd edition of the English translation of Bauer’s dictionary by F. W. Danker (BDAG, 2000) also adheres to the definitional approach. Horsley and Lee, “Interim Entries 1 and 2,” passim. L. A. Schökel, Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Espagñol (Madrid: Institución San Jerónimo, 1990).
XXVIII
Introduction
New Testament should be established on the basis of the insights of modern research in linguistics and particularly semantics. In the same year as the 6th revised edition of Bauer’s dictionary, published by Kurt and Barbara Aland, and J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida published their semantic domain lexicon (LNTSD), Juan Mateos published his Método de análisis semántico. ³⁵ In his text, Mateos presents a novel theory for establishing the meaning of the Greek vocabulary of the New Testament. In the wake of this he founded a seminar group at the University of Cordoba called Grupo de Análisis Semántico des Córdoba (GASCO), which systematically applied the method to the analysis of the vocabulary of the New Testament, resulting first in the publication of a monograph by Jesús Peláez in which he illustrates the methodology to be applied in making DGENT.³⁶ Since the turn of the century, the Group—at first under the auspices of J. Mateos and then, after his death in 2003, of J. Peláez—published five fascicles of the preparatory semantical analysis for DGENT (᾿Aαρών – βωμός).³⁷
3.1 Scholarly Ancestry of DGENT If one reads through Mateos and Peláez’s books it quickly becomes clear that their theory of semantic analysis is heavily dependent on particular forerunners, with respect to both general linguistics and semantics as well as to lexicography. Generally speaking, the theoretical roots of DGENT can be found in linguistic structuralism, particularly in French Structuralism, but also in American Structuralism. The terminology used in the theory betrays the heritage of French Structuralism. Particularly, the categories “seme,” “classeme,” and “sememe” are clearly borrowed from French Structuralists, such as A. J. Greimas and B. Pottier (but also E. Coseriu).³⁸ Especially,
J. J. Mateos, Método de análisis semántico. Aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1989), in this volume Part II, chaps. 3 – 7 (§§ 69 – 306). J. Peláez, Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 6 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996), in this volume Parts I and III, chaps. 1– 2, 8 – 11 (§§ 1– 67; 307– 437). Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). Análisis semántico de los vocablos, Fasc. 1– 5 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000 – 2012). According to J. Peláez, the sixth fascicle is in preparation and should be published this year. Members of the Group published a number of other works relevant to New Testament lexicography: cf. e. g., I. Muñoz Gallarte, Los SustantivosHecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Classificación Semántico (Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid/ Universidad de Córdoba, 2008); D. Romero González, El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica (Doctoral Thesis, Córdoba, 2010); Godoy, P., Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo Testamento (Universidad de Córdoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010); L. Roig Lanzilota, Diccionario de Personajes del Nuevo Testamento (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2011). A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structural. Recherche de méthode (Paris: Larousse, 1966), cf. idem. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983); B. Pottier, Linguistique génerále (Paris: Klincksieck, 1974), cf. idem, Lingü ística general: teoría y descripción, Biblioteca
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project
XXIX
for a fundamental tenet of his theory on semantic analysis—the distinction between nuclear meaning and contextual meaning, that is, between the meaning a word has independent of the various contexts in which it appears (= the so- called semic nucleus) and the particular meaning a word takes on due to the context in which it appears (sememes)—Mateos is indebted to A. J. Greimas.³⁹ Another fundamental feature of the theory behind DGENT is the semantic theory of componential analysis, which was advanced both by French structuralists like Greimas and Pottier, but also by American linguists like J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor and, particularly, by E. A. Nida.⁴⁰ The theory of componential analysis holds that the meaning of a lexeme can be analyzed or decomposed in terms of a set of general or basic components of meaning or semantic features (or semes), of which some (or all) also contribute to the meaning of other words. This theory constitutes the basis of the procedure of semic development, which is at the heart of the method of analysis developed by Mateos and Peláez. Finally, the dependence on Eugene Nida’s understanding of lexical meaning should be noted: Mateos not only adopts Nida’s concept of semantic classes (object, abstract, event, relation),⁴¹ but he is particularly indebted to Nida’s concept that many lexemes relate simultaneously to several semantic classes. Juan Mateos’s particular contribution to a theory of lexical meaning consists in the effective linking of Greimas’s concept of a nuclear and contextual meaning with Nida’s concept of semantic classes on the one hand, and in linking the theory of componential analysis with Nida’s concept of semantic classes. Over and above this indebtedness to structuralist theory, Mateos and Peláez were heavily influenced by the South African classicist and lexicographer J. P. Louw with respect to lexicographical method.⁴² Louw severely criticized the reliance of traditional New Testament lexicography, particularly in Bauer’s dictionary, on translational equivalents (“semantic glosses”) to indicate meaning and introduced the definitional approach as an alternative strategy to indicate the lexical meanings of ancient Greek terms.
románica hispánica 246 (Madrid: Gredos, 1977); E. Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingü ística General, Biblioteca Románica Hispánica (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1962). Mateos is also indebted to Greimas for the particular way he implements the concept classeme. He thereby extended Greimas’s concept of classeme, which Greimas applied to gender only, to pertain also to number, tense, aspect, and voice. In some structuralist models, “classeme” rather designates clusters of semantic features or semes. J. J. Katz, Semantic Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1972); J. A. Fodor, Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar (New York: Crowell, 1977); E. A. Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures (New York/Paris: Mouton, 1975); idem, Exploring Semantic Structures (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1975). In the theory of Mateos, these consist of entity, attribute, event, and relation classes. He furthermore adds the class “determination,” which pertains to aspects of reference and deixis. J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982); idem, “How Do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 42; idem, “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography,” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48.
XXX
Introduction
This approach was adopted by the Cordoba-School, thereby becoming heirs of Louw and Nida and continuing into the 21st century that strain of lexicographical thought inaugurated by Deissmann, which does not conceive the primary task of New Testament lexicography to consist in providing translational equivalents for the words in the relevant source language.⁴³
3.2 Characteristic Traits of the Cordoba-Model 3.2.1 The Aim: To Define Lexical Meaning Methodically “We view the lexicographer’s primary task to consist of explaining, viz. defining the meaning of words … This will consist … in describing the meaning of each lexeme abstractly … by means of a paraphrase that may be semantically equivalent to the lexeme.”⁴⁴ The theory and method of semantic analysis developed in Cordoba serves the lexicographical purpose of formulating definitions to present lexical meaning in the context of a bilingual dictionary. The particular contribution of the CordobaSchool to New Testament lexicography (and to lexicography in general!) therefore consists in the development of a scientifically controlled procedure to define lexical meaning systematically for a bilingual dictionary on the New Testament vocabulary. Taking their cue from Louw and Nida, the Spanish authors assume lexical meaning consists of a particular set of semantic features: “[W]e adopt the definition of meaning offered by Louw and Nida. Meaning consists of a lexeme’s ‘set of distinctive features’ (semantic components or semes) … The meaning is not another word, but is expressed in a definition that is clearly formulated and joins together a word’s semantic features.” The meaning of a word is not another word, but “a statement about semantic features and their range … Determining and explaining or specifying these semes (i.e., semantic features, DdT) is the crucial task for establishing the relationship between a word and its meaning. This meaning is expressed by presenting a lexeme’s semantic features and their inherent hierarchy.”⁴⁵ The Cordoba-model presents a method for determining the distinctive semantic features of words and to explain, viz. define its lexical meaning in terms of these features.⁴⁶
Although Lee, History, 27n6 is correct in holding that a definitional approach cannot be attributed to Deissmann, it should however be noticed that he was critical of the use of translational equivalents as a sufficient means to describe meaning. See also above § 2.1. Peláez; cf. in this volume § 5. See also § 9. Peláez, cf. in this volume §§ 21, 32. Mateos formulated clarity, functionality and efficiency as requirements for an appropriate method; cf. in this volume § 76.
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project
XXXI
3.2.2 A Two-Tiered Approach: Distinguishing Semantic Levels One of the most fundamental and distinctive features of the Cordoba-model concerns a distinction between two levels of meaning, which correspond to the structuralist distinction between langue and parole, between language (as abstract sign-system) and speech (as actual language usage). J. Peláez explains: “To determine a word’s meaning one must operate at two levels: the semiotic level (which corresponds to the study of the term itself, i . e . , langue) and the semantic level (the study of a term in context, i . e . , parole).”⁴⁷ Accordingly, word meaning should be described (or defined) on two levels: “There is thus a lexical meaning (of the word itself) and other contextual meanings (of the word in various contexts) … The lack of distinction between lexical and contextual meaning seems to be the primary shortcoming of the present lexicographical landscape.”⁴⁸ Lexical meaning can be considered the meaning carried by a word independent of the particular contexts of speech in which it occurs. It is thus the meaning that a word always contributes to discourse, irrespective of the particular or actual context. It should therefore be considered a lexicographical construct abstracted from all available occurrences in language use (and therefore belongs to the level of langue). In the Cordoba-model it is called semic nucleus or semic configuration. ⁴⁹ Contextual meaning concerns the meaning(s) a word reflects in context of actual language usage and might either correspond to its lexical meaning or differ from it because of additional or changed semantic features due to context. In the terminology of the Cordoba-model, the technical term for contextual meaning is sememe. ⁵⁰ For the lexicographical praxis this implies that meaning of words should be described in terms of lexical and contextual meaning.⁵¹
3.2.3 Basic Constituents: Semantic Class and Seme Two fundamental categories—the concepts “semantic class” and “seme”— comprise the building blocks of this theory and are constitutive for understanding the lexical meaning in the Cordoba-model. The combination of these constituent elements yields the meaning of lexemes. (1). Semantic class: It is assumed that language corresponds to a universal, intuitive perception of reality, breaking it down into entities (things) and events (states, actions, processes), both of which may possess particular attributes (e. g., quality, quantity). These aspects of reality are related to each other in different ways (e. g.,
Peláez, cf. in this volume §§ 14– 17. Peláez, cf. in this volume § 20 (italics added, DdT); see also § 35. Cf. Mateos, § 206. On contextual meaning, see also 3.2.7 and in this volume §§ 87– 89, 207– 11, and esp. 297– 306 (= chap. 7), 377– 409 (= chap. 10). Cf. also the Glossary s.v. semic configuration and sememe at the end of this volume. In the Cordoba-model, translational equivalents (semantic glosses) correspond to contextual meaning.
XXXII
Introduction
temporally, by cause and effect, in space, through participation, etc.), constituting a network of relations between them.⁵² In languages these aspects of reality are named and classified by means of words. These could also be used to actualize, situate, and objectify the aforesaid aspects of reality in time and space, therefore constituting a further semantic class (called determination in the Cordoba-model). Five semantic classes are therefore distinguished: Entity, Event, Attribute, Relation and Determination. The central tenet of the Cordoba-model is that the meaning of every word can be described in terms of these five categories.⁵³ Each word can be said to refer (primarily) to one of these five aspects of reality and can therefore be semantically classified as belonging to a particular lexemic class (entity/event/attribute lexeme, etc.). The Cordoba-model, however, uniquely differentiates between lexemes with simple and complex structure: Whereas lexemes with simple structure denote a particular item from the class referred to, lexemes with complex structure denote primarily an item from a particular class, but simultaneously denotes an item or items from another class (or other classes).⁵⁴ (2). Seme: The second fundamental constitutive element of the Cordoba semantic theory is the concept of “seme.” Semes are defined as elementary units of meaning constituting a lexeme’s meaning. Theoretically, semes are elemental, basic, or atomic semantic features that cannot be broken down into simpler features. Nevertheless, due to the inherent impractibility of such a concept, semes in the theory refer to clusters of semantic features that can be used to describe the inherent semantic features constituting a lexeme’s meaning (in the Cordoba-model usually referred to with abstract nouns, e . g . , “humanity,” “rationality,” etc.⁵⁵). Each seme is therefore a carrier of meaning, viz. is an elementary meaning-bearing unit that can contribute to the meaning of diverse lexemes. Accordingly, the meaning of a lexeme (or: its definition of meaning) is formulated with respect to a specific set of semes. A lexeme’s meaning, however, does not consist of isolated semes but of a set of semes conjoined and arranged in a particular constellation. The dual set of constituent elements (i. e., semantic class and seme) corresponds to a two-tiered procedure for determining the lexical meaning of a word. First, a kind
On this, cf. e. g., J. Lyons, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 2:438 – 52. In this Mateos and Peláez follow Louw and Nida, who distinguish the “semantic categories” object, entity, abstract and relation; cf. § 2.1 above. As was the case with Louw and Nida, they emphasize that semantic classes and grammatical classes (or: “parts of speech”) are not congruent, since, for example, many nouns do not signify an entity, but an attribute or event. For more examples, cf. Mateos, §§ 95 – 100 in this volume, cf. esp. the so-called abstract lexemes §§ 148 – 71. A summary by Peláez can be found in §§ 310 – 18. Cf. e. g., the adjective/adverb “big,” which denotes an attribute and is therefore an attribute lexeme of simple structure. The comparative adjective/adverb “bigger” connotes primarily the same quality/attribute as well as the relation of comparison and is therefore an attribute lexeme of complex structure referring to two semantic classes. Cf. in this volume §§ 101– 71 (= chap. 4). Cf. the catalogue of semes at the end of this volume. On the concept of seme cf. §§ 84, 353, and the Glossary s.v. seme.
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project
XXXIII
of semantic framework (known as “semantic formula”) is established with reference to the five semantic classes (cf. below 3.2.4). Next, a particular set of semes is identified for each element in the formula in order to establish the particular lexeme’s “structured semic nucleus” or “nuclear configuration” (cf. 3.2.5). On this basis, the lexical meaning can be defined (cf. 3.2.6).⁵⁶
3.2.4 A Frame for Meaning: Semantic Formula, Denotation, and Connotation One of the characteristic features of the Cordoba-model are the many diagrams, which appear on nearly every page of the Análisis semántico as well as in the monographs of Mateos and Peláez in this volume. These diagrams are graphic representations of so-called semantic formulas. A semantic formula is formulated in terms of the semantic classes to which the particular entities, attributes, actions, states, processes and relations etc. belong and which a lexeme calls to mind (i. e., which it denotes/connotes). The arrangement of the elements of the formula corresponds to the particular configuration of the entities, events, relations and determinations underlying the lexeme.⁵⁷ Semantic formulas usually consist of two parts: one part comprising the semantic elements, viz. the semantic classes denoted by the lexeme (in the diagrams contained in rectangular boxes) and a part comprising the connoted elements, viz. semantic classes (in the diagrams the arrows and letters to the right of the rectangular boxes). Denotation refers to semantic elements (in this case: the semantic classes) both necessary and sufficient to define the meaning of a lexeme. Connotation concerns semantic classes necessarily associated with or implied by a lexeme (e. g., relations of presupposition, agent, purpose, etc.), but which do not constitute an integral part of the meaning of a lexeme.⁵⁸ Many lexemes share the same semantic formula, viz. the same configuration or arrangement of semantic classes. Such paradigmatic configurations signify that the relevant lexemes have common semantic structures (i. e., features) and perhaps constitute a set of semantically related lexemes. When the shared features not only pertain to the semantic classes but also to (some of) the semes involved, it becomes possible to identify semantic domains.
3.2.5 Specifying Meaning: Semic Development The semantic structure of denoted semantic classes and connoted relations (i. e., the semantic formula) constitutes the “syntax,” i. e., the basic structure of a lexical definition. In order to be able to formulate such a definition of meaning, the semantic
Cf. Mateos, §§ 206 – 14; Peláez, §§ 319 – 30. Cf. on semantic formulae, Mateos, §§ 74, 101– 71 (= chap. 4), Peláez, §§ 319 – 31. Cf. esp. Peláez, §§ 320 – 28.
XXXIV
Introduction
framework of the formula is furnished with the semantic features (semes) specific to the particular lexeme. This is called “semic development.” Before considering semic development, it is first necessary to introduce another important concept of the model, namely the concept of “semantic category.” Semantic categories concern semantic information in part drawn from the grammatical categories of gender, number, mode, tense, aspect, and voice. These are considered generic semes, which transport fundamental aspects of meaning related especially to entities (number, gender) and to events (mode, tense, aspect, voice).⁵⁹ Semic development comprises the furnishing of all denoted and connoted semantic elements of the semantic formula with the appropriate semes, starting with the already mentioned generic semes and subsequently with so-called specific semes. Specific semes concern those semantic features necessary to identify the concept referred to by a lexeme (e. g., for οἶκος: building, location, demarcation, coveredness, self-containment, suitability; cf. § 226). They are identified by comparing the particular lexeme to semantically related lexemes, that is, to lexemes belonging to the same semantic domain, thereby establishing both common and distinctive semantic features.⁶⁰
3.2.6 Defining Meaning: Formulating Lexical Definitions As we have seen, the purpose of the Cordoba-model is to define lexical meaning in terms of distinctive semantic features (called “semic nucleus”). This semic nucleus is constructed by establishing a particular configuration of denoted and connoted semantic classes (semantic formula or semic configuration) and by furnishing them with appropriate semes (semic development). Definitions of meaning are formulated so that it explicitly reflects every semantic element contained in the semic nucleus. Two examples may suffice to explain this:⁶¹ (1) The lexical meaning of ὄχλος is defined as: “A large (A) group of human beings (Ent) in the same place (R)” (§ 224). This reflects the semic nucleus comprised of the denoted semantic classes entity (semes: plurality, humanity = “a group of human beings”), rela-
Cf. Mateos, §§ 172– 203 (= chap. 5.1); Peláez, §§ 332– 39. Generic semes related to semantic categories are: 1. (in)-animate, (non)-person, divine/human/animal, masculine/ feminine (= “gender”); 2. individual/singular/distributive, partial/total/corporate/virtual; collective, (non)-quantifiable; (non)-qualified (= “number”); 3. (un)-reality, (im)-possibility; (un)-certainty; (im)-probability (= “mode”); 4. (a)-temporality, (non)-contemporaneousness, retro-/prospectivity = past/future, (non)-simultaneousness = prior/posterior (= “tense”); 5. stativity/dynamism, (non)-relative, (non)-resultative, (non)-aoristic/(non)-process (= “aspect”); 6. (non)-agentivity, (non)-subjective affecting, (non)-receptive (“voice”). Cf. Mateos, §§ 220 – 96 (= chap. 6), where many examples are given for all kinds of lexemes; see also Peláez, §§ 354– 76 (= chap. 9), where semic development is illustrated with reference to collective entities, and §§ 412– 37 (= chap. 11), where it is illustrated with reference to semantically closely related lexemes. Many examples are provided in chaps. 6 – 7 (Mateos), 9 – 11 (Peláez) in this volume.
3 Juan Mateos, Jesús Peláez, and DGENT: The Cordoba-Project
XXXV
tion (semes: location, simultaneousness = “in the same place”), and attribute (seme: quantity = “large”). (2) The lexical meaning of ἀγαθοποιέω is defined as: “A beneficial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent 1) for (R2) another [human individual] (Ent2)” (§ 251). This reflects the semic nucleus comprised of the denoted semantic classes event (semes: dynamism, activity = “an action”) and attribute (seme: beneficiality = “beneficial”) as well as the connoted semantic classes entity (twice, with identical semes: individuality, humanity = “human individual”) and relation (twice: 1. semes: agentivity = “performed by”; 2. semes: transitivity, affectivity = “by”).
3.2.7 Establishing Contextual Meaning When the lexical meaning of a lexeme (which should be considered an abstract construction corresponding to langue) has been defined, the determination of the contextual meanings (i. e., the sememes) follows suit (cf. 3.2.2).⁶² In the Cordoba-model, it is assumed that context often alters lexical meaning. Such alterations affect either the semic configuration represented in the semantic formula or the semic development (or both), generating variant meanings due to contextual factors (sememes). In order to identify sememes, all occurrences of a lexeme should be analyzed in order to establish the extent to which the contextual usage of a lexeme deviates from the lexical meaning. Subsequently, the required changes to the semic configuration of the semantic formula or to the semic development are to be determined and the appropriate variant meaning(s) defined. It should be noted that the Cordoba-school is extremely reluctant to allow for polysemy; even serious differences in the usage of a particular lexeme is explained as contextual variants of a nuclear meaning rather than resorting to polysemy.
3.3 The Cordoba-Model in Light of other Semantic Theories The Cordoba-model is rooted in a specific strain of structuralist semantics, in particular it depends heavily on componential analysis (3.1). Some aspects of the Cordobamodel could be viewed as an attempt by Juan Mateos to compensate for some of the shortcomings of componential analysis. Particularly, the connection of componential analysis, the concept of semantic classes, and the theory of nuclear meaning generated a novel way of presenting meaning as a configuration of semantic features based on semantic classes and their mutual relations. Some aspects of the semantic formula- concept seem to approximate, and even anticipate, important aspects of meaning in other semantic theories. In the following I want to point out a few of them.
Cf. Mateos, §§ 87– 90, 215 – 17, 297– 306 (= chap. 7); Peláez, §§ 377– 411 (chap. 10).
XXXVI
Introduction
In particular, the importance of connotation as an integral part of the semantic formula and therefore of lexical meaning should be mentioned in this connection. Especially in the case of event lexemes, which connote notions of (in)-transitivity and subsequently different subject- and object-relations,⁶³ the theory approximates other theories, esp. semantic field theories, which consider syntagmatic relations and collocational restrictions to be an integral part of lexical meaning.⁶⁴ Whereas the configuration of connoted relations explicate typical syntagmatic sense relations, the semic development of the involved entities as subject and (indirect) object restricts the number of entities, which could enter into that particular syntagmatic “slot.” This links up with another aspect of semic development: Since semes in the theory are not restricted to elementary carriers of atomic semantic features but are used in the sense of complex clusters of semantic features (e. g., “humanity,” “animality,” “territory,” “habitation,” “construction,” etc.), they in part resemble semantic concepts which play an important role in other theories. As an example, I refer to the concept of paradigmatic sense relations in some semantic field-theories:⁶⁵ Semantic fields are often structured by relations of hyperonomy and hyponomy, in which a hyponym entails the meaning of a superordinated lexeme. When in the Cordobamodel a lexeme’s semic development contains semes like “humanity,” “animality,” “building,” etc., the particular lexeme is thereby marked to be a hyponym of those lexeme(s) denoting the particular (complex) seme as well as to be a co-hyponym of all other lexemes comprising that seme. Obviously, this is constitutive for defining semantic domains (or fields) and sub-domains. Another aspect should be mentioned in this context: The complex semes used in the Cordoba-model can be viewed as referring to units of encyclopedic knowledge contained in the meaning of a word. The semes of “angel,” “building,” “death,” “deliberation,” “government,” for example, clearly refer to complex encyclopedic concepts, which clearly resemble that which is referred to as “frames” in frame semantics.⁶⁶ This is even more the case if one considers some of the semic configurations offered by the Cordoba-school: For example, in the case of οἶκος (cf. § 226) it is postulated that—apart from the specific semes of the denoted entity (building, location, demarcation, coveredness, etc., which all seem to refer to complex encyclopedic notions!)—the lexeme connotes a complex set of relations, rendered in the lexical definition as “constructed by people for the habitation by people.” This comes very close to the kind of semantic information that modern frame theories assume to be a constitutive aspect of lexical meaning. In this sense, J. Mateos anticipated
Cf. Mateos, §§ 115 – 33 (= chap. 4.3), 244– 71 (= chap. 6.2). Cf. e. g., Lyons, Semantics, 1:250 – 67. Cf. e. g., Lyons, Semantics, 1:291– 317. Cf. on frame theory, S. Löbner, Understanding Semantics (Routledge: New York, 22013), 265 – 324; D. Busse, Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium (Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter, 2012).
4 Conclusion
XXXVII
some of the developments in semantic theory in the years to come.⁶⁷ Although other points of contact to other semantic theories could be named, these should suffice for the illustrative purposes of this introduction. But they do demonstrate sufficiently that the Cordoba-model links up quite well with some of the recent developments in other strains of modern semantics.
4 Conclusion It must be emphasized that the Cordoba-model truly constitutes a pioneering enterprise: For the first time in the history of the lexicography of not only New Testament Greek but in general of Ancient Greek (if not perhaps of all ancient languages!) a theory for describing lexical meaning is offered, which is based on modern linguistic principles and is attentive of the utmost complexity of the object under consideration. Although many critical questions could be addressed about the theory and serious shortcomings could be identified, it will for many years remain the solitary benchmark in the field. In particular, it will help scholars grappling with the problem of describing or representing lexical meaning of Greek words to acknowledge the complexity of the task, remind them that lexicography could accordingly only be done with reference to general linguistics and semantic theories, and lead them to ask the right questions and to attend to the appropriate problems, thereby refraining from simplistic—and therefore inappropriate—solutions.
It should be noted that definitional approaches in lexicography are prone to depend heavily on the encyclopaedic knowledge of the dictionary’s users. Cf. e. g., the definition of Louw and Nida for ναῦς in their lexicon: “a larger ocean-going vessel,” which presupposes encyclopaedic knowledge pertaining both to “ocean” and “vessel.” Considering the pivotal role of semantic definition in the Cordoba-theory (cf. 3.2.1), it could very well be that this had prompted Mateos to develop his concept of semic configuration (semantic formula) in the way he did.
Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)¹TN The project of a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testament is longstanding. In 1974, what was then called Institución San Jerónimo para la Investigación Bíblica and now Asociación Bíblica Española proposed that two biblical dictionaries be composed, a Hebrew-Spanish Dictionary and a Greek-Spanish dictionary. These projects were respectively directed by professors Luis Alonso Schökel and by myself, Juan Mateos. We had previously translated the Nueva Biblia Española (Madrid, 1975) and for this project we each gathered a team of young colleagues from among our students at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. Concerning the project Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT), I perceived at the onset that it was ill advisable to undertake the work as a team before the group of colleagues first acquired a sufficient familiarity with the texts under investigation. Thus, we began with a grammatical analysis of the texts, which served as the basis for the production of commentaries. The fruit of this work was the publication of a commentary on the Gospel of John (1979), another on the Gospel of Matthew (1981), and another on the Gospel of Mark (I 1994²TN, as well as the annotated translation of the New Testament (1987). Once the study of the texts was underway, the need for developing a method of analysis that was both linguistically and semantically informed became apparent. I had the privilege of developing such a methodology and publishing this in 1989 as the first volume in the series “Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria,” in conjunction with the journal Filología Neotestamentaria. The work was published with the Spanish title Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. ³TN After publishing my methodology, I organized several introductory courses in Cordoba to draw attention to this text and to attract collaborators. The result of these courses was the creation of a group of investigation called GASCO (Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba), which constitutes a permanent seminar with the purpose of understanding and applying the method. The group, coordinated by myself, currently consists of Jesús Peláez (Doctor of trilingual biblical philology), Carmen Pa-
Translator’s Note: Cf. Jesús Peláez, Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 6 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996), 11– 13. Translator’s Note: This probably refers to Juan Mateos and Fernando Camacho, Marcos. Texto y Commentario (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994). Further commentaries were published on Mark by Juan Mateos and Fernando Camacho, El Evangelio de Marcos. Análisis lingüístico y commentario exegético I-II.III (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1993, 2008; 2nd ed. 2009). Translator’s Note: Cf. Juan Mateos, Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento, Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 1 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1989). In this book, Part II, chaps. 3 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-006
XL
Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)
dilla (Doctor of Greek Philology), Rufino Godoy |11-P (Doctor of Theology), Julio Cuenca, Luis Domingo, and Angel Trujillo (graduates in Classical Philology). The present volume qualified Jesús Peláez for the chair of Greek Philology (New Testament Philology) at the University of Cordoba. The monograph⁴TN is indebted to the contributions of the previously mentioned group of semantic analysis in Cordoba. The contents of Peláez’s chapters are as follows: Chapter I: “Dictionary and Meaning,” examines different kinds of dictionaries and looks at various theories about the concept of “meaning” and the method of determining it. Chapter II: “The Method of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament,” examines three important dictionaries of New Testament Greek. After discussing their method of analysis, the author highlights their strengths and weaknesses.⁵TN Chapter III: “Steps for the Composition of DGENT based on Semantic Classes,” begins with the classification of lexemes according to their dominant semantic classes in order first to determine the difference between semantic and grammatical classes. Then, after introducing the semantic formula of lexemes (i. e., whether the formula is simple or complex), the semic development of the formulas based on semantic categories is discussed. This naturally requires a discussion of grammatical and semantic categories. The criteria for proceeding with the semic development of the formulas are explained, which then leads to the definitions of the lexemes. The chapter then illustrates the method by analyzing various nouns.⁶TN Chapter IV: “Contextual Meaning (Sememes),” establishes the different meanings of a term that arise due to context. Contextual influence is concretely investigated by applying the theory to the analysis of four nouns.⁷TN Lastly, chapter V: “Analysis of Similar Lexemes,” seeks to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposed method by analyzing five terms with similar meanings. By composing definitions, the lexeme and its different senses or sememes are established. In this way, the similarities and differences between the terms can be appreciated.⁸TN In later volumes, studies will be published that will offer various introductory materials for the dictionary’s production. Among the first to come to fruition will
Translator’s Note: In this volume, Part I, chaps. 1– 2, Part III, chaps. 8 – 11. Translator’s Note: Chap. I, “Dictionary and Meaning” remains chap. 1 in this volume and carries the same name; chap. II, “The Method of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament” remains chap. 2 in this volume but has been renamed “A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament.” Translator’s Note: The lengthy chap. III has been split into two chapters in this volume. Chap. III A corresponds to chap. 8 and has been renamed “Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes”; chap III B corresponds to chap. 9 and is now entitled “Method: Semic Development.” Translator’s Note: Chap. IV corresponds to chap. 10 in this volume and is now called “Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes).” Translator’s Note: Chap. V corresponds to chap. 11 in this volume and now bears the name, “Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions.”
Preface by J. Mateos in J. Peláez, Metodología (1996)
XLI
be the classification of the nouns of the New Testament based on semantic classes.⁹TN |12-P This study will make use of grammatical classes and will proceed from the letter A. It is our desire that both the method proposed in this volume and the materials of later publication might be a point of scholarly attention. We eagerly welcome suggestions that can improve our proposal. Juan Mateos¹⁰TN Director of DGENT (Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento) |13-P
translator’s note: Cf. I. Muñoz Gallarte, “Los sustantivos-hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica” (PhD diss., Complutense University of Madrid, 2009); J. Peláez, and I. Muñoz Gallarte, La clasificación semántica de los sustantivos en el Nuevo Testamento. I. Sustantivos Entidad, attributo, Relación y Determinación; Sustantivos Hecho (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, in process). Translator’s Note: J. Mateos was born in 1917 in Ceuta, Spain, and died in 2003 in Malaga, Spain, at the age of 86.
PART I New Testament Lexicography: A Critical Introduction (Jesús Peláez)
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning¹TN § 1. The need to compose a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testament stems from the absence of a dictionary in Spanish dedicated to this period of the Greek language. As a result, Spanish speaking scholars of the New Testament face the linguistic challenge of trying to base their philological studies on bilingual dictionaries in languages other than their own. A tool is thus needed to give Spanish speakers direct access to the Greek of the New Testament. This does not imply that dictionaries of classical Greek ignore the Greek of the New Testament: such dictionaries often mention the peculiar meanings of certain terms in the New Testament. Nevertheless, for obvious reasons the Greek of the New Testament in these dictionaries is not discussed systematically and extensively, but in a brief manner. Given the Greek language’s long period of evolution (from Homer to Hellenistic and then Patristic Greek), one cannot expect more from these dictionaries. A more detailed treatment would simply be impossible.
1.1 The Concept of Dictionary § 2. At the beginning of our study we ought to clarify what we understand by “dictionary.” María Moliner defines this as “a book in which the words of a language or of a particular corpus are arranged alphabetically and explained or given their equivalence in another language.”² A similar definition is given by F. Lázaro Carreter: “a book that, by means of a general alphabetical ordering, contains and explains the meanings of all the words of a language or maps them out with the equivalents of one or several other languages.”³ The double possibility expressed in these definitions—the dictionary as an explanation of the meaning of words or as |15-P a repository of translational equivalents—is alluded to by A. Schökel, author of the Diccionario Bíblico hebreo-español,⁴ a project parallel to ours except that it deals with the Hebrew language. Discussing the possible ways of organizing a bilingual dictionary of the Hebrew Bible, he marked out two: a) To define or describe the semantic content or the function of each term in a meta-language. b) To offer words or expressions in the target language that correspond to the various meanings and uses of each Hebrew term.
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 15 – 28 in the original text of Peláez. M. Moliner, Diccionario de uso del español, 2 vols. (Madrid: Gredos, 1977), s.v. “diccionario.” F. Lázaro Carreter, Diccionario de terminos filológicos, Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 6 (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1977), s.v. “diccionario.” Published as fascicles beginning in 1990 by la Institución San Jerónimo, Valencia; in a single volume, Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español, ed. A. Schökel (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1998). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-007
4
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
Additionally, as a third way he then adds, “The author of a bilingual dictionary is prone to combine the two tactics in varying degrees.”⁵ In his dictionary, however, Schökel did not follow this third option. Rather than beginning by describing the meanings of words and lexemes, he places a series of Spanish words at the front of the entry next to the Hebrew term. For example, next to the lexeme bayit (“house”) appear: palacio, mansión, hogar, taller, sala, habitación, cárcel, prisión, burdel, castillo, establo, corral, harén, residencia, posada, albergue, mausoleo [palace, mansion, home, workshop, room, habitation, jail, prison, brothel, castle, stable, corral, harem, residence, inn, lodge, mausoleum].
None of these terms, however, represent the meaning of the Hebrew word. They are translational equivalents in diverse contexts. The meaning of bayit could be described as “a covered building that demarcates an open and accessible space constructed to be inhabited.” § 3. A more technical, albeit shorter, definition of “dictionary” is offered by A. J. Greimas, who in part inspired the methodology that we will present in the pages that follow. Greimas understood dictionary as the stock of lexemes |16-P (and eventually of paralexemes)⁶ of a natural language arranged in a conventional order (normally alphabetically), which, taken as “titles,” have definitions or para-synonymous equivalents.⁷ A more complete definition is provided by J. Dubois:⁸ A dictionary is a cultural object that presents the lexicon of a language (or of several languages) in an alphabetical form, providing certain information for each term (pronunciation, etymology, grammatical category, definition, construction, examples of usage, synonyms, idioms). Such information is intended to allow the reader to translate from one language to another or to fill gaps that keep one from understanding the text in one’s own language. The dictionary also tries to
Cf. L. Alonso Schökel, “Sobre diccionarios bilingües,” In Text, Methode und Grammatik, Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, and T. Seidl (Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1992), 89. We understand the term “lexeme” as “each independent lexical unit that has its own semantic nucleus.” “Paralexemes” are “lexemes formed by a syntagm whose total meaning does not result from adding each individual component.” They are, therefore, semantic units whose meaning transcends that of the lexemic components from which they are comprised (e. g., the paralexeme υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου); cf. § 80. A lexeme is a unit of the lexicon (at the language level, langue), while a word and a word’s specific usage are units of the vocabulary (at the speech level, parole). A word’s specific usage refers to each time a word is used, while word represents a particular unit as a component of the lexicon (of all the words in the New Testament). Accordingly, we can say that the number of words in the New Testament (approximately 5,440) is clearly less than the number of specific usages of the words. See A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary, trans. Larry Crist and Daniel Patte (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 628. Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics, 122. J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística (Madrid: Alianza, 1973), 194. [Dictionnaire de linguistique (Paris: Larousse, 1973)].
1.1 The Concept of Dictionary
5
give a complete description of the means of expression and to expand the cultural knowledge of the reader.
§ 4. From these definitions of “dictionary” it can be easily deduced that we are concerned with a dictionary of terms or language (i. e., with the linguistic use of words), as opposed to an encyclopedic dictionary, which focuses on the concept, idea, or thing that a word represents. Yet, the border between these two kinds of dictionary is not clearly defined and it must be admitted that a dictionary of language is, to a certain degree, encyclopedic, and vice versa.⁹ The authors we have cited conceive of two ways of presenting definitions in their dictionaries: (1) words can be listed and their meaning(s) explained (which tends to be the case, in a more or less systematic manner, in monolingual dictionaries); and (2) words can be listed in one language followed by their translational equivalents in another language (which is common in bilingual dictionaries). We prefer to adopt the definitions provided by Moliner and Lázaro Carreter (mentioned above) by changing the disjunctive “or” to the copulative “and,” in which case “dictionary” would be defined as “a book that contains an alphabetically organized set of words of a language,¹⁰ explains their meaning(s), and, in the case of a |17-P bilingual dictionary, also presents their translational equivalents in another language.”¹¹ § 5. In DGENT we therefore adopt the third alternative proposed by Schökel. We combine the two tactics, in the first place giving the definition of the lexeme except when it refers to an obvious entity, in which case the definition is not necessary (e. g., “dog,” “cat,” “apple,” etc.). We view the lexicographer’s primary task to consist of explaining, viz. defining the meaning of words (which is not always an easy task). This will consist, above all, in describing the meaning of each lexeme abstractly (semiological level, langue) by means of a paraphrase that may be semantically equivalent to the lexeme.
Cf. J. and C. Dubois, Introdution à la lexicographie: le dictionaire (Paris: Larousse, 1971), 13 – 14. This work in general is very useful since it offers information about the various kinds of dictionaries and how they are organized and prepared, and also about other theoretical questions such as homonymy, polysemy, synonymy, paraphrase and its lexicographical treatment. Although the alphabetical organization of words is not a requirement for a dictionary, we consider it practical. One of the inconveniences of the dictionary of Louw and Nida, which we will discuss later, is a direct result of the authors’ decision to organize the words based on semantic domains. This immediately forces the reader to resort to an alphabetical index in the second volume in order to find the pages in the first volume where the word is discussed; cf. J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988). An encyclopedic dictionary will also systematically describe those terms.
6
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
Excursus: Definitions of Technical Terminology Having spoken about “dictionaries,” it will be helpful to distinguish this term from others, such as “lexicon” or “vocabulary,” which are frequently used without distinction. A lexicon is a book that contains the inventory of all the lexes (lexes = lexeme, paralexeme/set phrase) of a natural language from a certain time period.¹² According to T. Lewandowski,¹³ lexicon differs from vocabulary, the latter being the exhaustive list of the words of a corpus. |18-P Lexicon can have other meanings. In contrast to dictionary, it can evoke two kinds of works:¹⁴ a book that serves as the list of terms employed by an author, by a scientific discipline, or by a technology, and, on the other hand, a compact bilingual dictionary that parallels the lexical elements of the two languages being compared. As can be seen, the term “lexicon” has several meanings and is sometimes confused with “vocabulary.” Lexicon is therefore reserved in this volume for language (langue) and vocabulary for speech (parole). The units of langue are lexemes while the units of parole are words and their usage (“their usage” designates each appearance of a certain word). Nevertheless, as a technical linguistic term, “lexicon” does not imply a book but all items that form the language of a community, of a human activity, of a speaker, etc. The term “lexicography” not only refers to how a dictionary is constructed but also to its method of linguistic analysis. “Lexicography” is, moreover, |19-P as ambiguous as the term “lexicographer,” which can refer to a linguist who studies lexicography and to the editor of a dictionary. The science of lexicography and the practice of lexicography, however, are differentiated, as are also the linguist studying lexicography and the author who produces a dictionary. For its part, “lexicology” is defined as the scientific study of words.¹⁵
Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics, 241. Cf. T. Lewandowski, Linguistisches Wörterbuch, 3 vols. (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer Verlag, 1979), 437. J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística, 389 ff. It is helpful to define other terms that we will refer to in the following pages. If not otherwise stated, we take these definitions from the work of J. Dubois et al., Diccionario de Lingüística. Sign: In Saussure’s terminology, sign appears as a kind of synonym for concept. In effect, the linguistic sign is the result of the combination of the signifier and the signified, or put somewhat differently, between an acoustic image and a concept. Signifier: The acoustic image, that is, the phonological shape of the series of sounds that constitute the material shape of the sign. Between sign and signifier there is a relationship of presupposition (see presupposition below). Signified: Can designate the action (i. e., the signified as a process) or the result of its signification (i. e., that which is signified); thus, it can be paraphrased as “the production of meaning” or as “meaning produced” (cf. Greimas and Courtés, Semiotics). The term “meaning” can be reserved for what comes before the semiotic production. Here, however, “signified” will be defined as “meaning articulated.” “Signified” is also used as a synonym for “semiosis” (the act of signifying) and is interpreted as the meeting of signifier and sign (constitutive of the sign). But it is better to define signified as “the determination or the comprehension of the relations (sense articulated).” It may correspond with reference. Reference: Is the function whereby a linguistic sign (i.e., word) refers to an object (i. e., referent), real or imagined, of the non-linguistic world, and not in and of itself, but through the specific formulations of a given culture. In this way there is a direct union between sign (i.e., concept) and referent, but an indirect union between signifier (i. e., word) and referent. It is common to designate the referential relation as the denotation of a sign.
1.1 The Concept of Dictionary
7
§ 6. One question remains to be answered, namely, why a bilingual dictionary ought to explain the meaning of words before suggesting their translational equivalents in the target language. Two reasons can be given. First, a word in a target language is not the meaning of a word in the original language, but is rather a translational equivalent, as is outlined below (cf. §§ 9, 21). Meaning and translational equivalence are different concepts. Second, before suggesting translational equivalents, the dictionary ought to explain the meaning of the words. Doing so will help avoid the confusion of having to select a translational equivalent from among a series of words, which, as the series continues, strays further and further from the meaning that headed the series. Confusion can be avoided when the dictionary is more extensive and specialized and when meanings are arrived at through morpho-syntactical and contextual criteria. When the definition of a lexeme is not provided, confusion is likely to arise. § 7. Let us look at some examples. For the lexeme δίδωμι, the manual dictionary of J. M. Pabón¹⁶ lists the following translational equivalents: “to give” (something, acc, or from something, gen; to someone, dat), “to offer” (ὁμήρους “hostages”; δ. λόγον “to give account” [ἑαυτῷ] or “to let someone speak”; δ. δίκην “to pay the penalty” or “to give an account”; δ. ἀκοήν “to give or lend the ear”; δ. χάριν “to grant” or “to give free reign”; δ. πιέειν “to give something to drink”); “to offer in sacrifice”, “to sacrifice,” “to appease,” “to ascribe,” “to grant,” “to award”; “to concede,” “to admit” (in a discussion); “to give permission for,” “to permit”; “to hand over” (κυσίν “to the dogs”; ἀχέεσσι “to the pains”; τοῖς δεινοῖς αὑτοὺς διδόναι, “to expose themselves to the dangers”); or “to entrust” (in marriage, as a companion, etc.); “to pardon” (δέονται δοῦναι σφίσι ἄνδρε “they ask that the life of the men be spared, that they pardon them”).
Referent: Is that to which a linguistic sign refers in non-linguistic reality and also the specific human experiences (that which is referred to). The existence of a relation between sign and extra-linguistic reality ought not to be confused with the existence of the referent; a word can refer to something that does not exist (e. g., centaur). Translation: To translate is to say in another language (target language) that which is said in an original language while preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalents. For Greimas and Courtés (Semiotics, a. l.), it is “the cognitive activity that enables a given saying to be rendered as another saying that may still be considered equivalent.” Usage: A group of grammatical rules that are relatively established and used by the majority of speakers in a certain time-period and in any form of communication. A dictionary of usage is a unilingual dictionary whose nomenclature or series of words correspond to the common lexicon of the body of social groups that constitute the linguistic community. Implication: When given two propositions, implication means that if the first is true, the second must also be true. When the truth of the second proposition implies the truth of the first, double implication exists. Presupposition: Refers to the relation between two linguistic items such that the presence of the one in the chain of speech is the sine qua non for the presence of the other. Additionally, the presence of the determinant necessarily involves the presence of a name. It can be unilateral or reciprocal. J. M. Pabón, Diccionario manual griego-español (Barcelona: Vox, 1967).
8
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
The words from this list are not in and of themselves meanings of δίδωμι. Rather, they represent meanings that the verb acquires in specific contexts (the author of the dictionary is conscious of this, as is seen in the various parentheses). The verb δίδωμι actually means “an act whereby a personal agent |20-P causes something he or she possesses to become the possession of a recipient, normally personal” (cf. § 263). § 8. Let us provide another example. If one knows in advance that the Greek term κωλύω means “to cause (voluntarily or involuntarily) something not to happen,” then it can be translated as “to deprive,” “to avert,” “to impede,” “to prohibit,” “to hinder.” Depending on context, the term can be expressed by one of these translational equivalents. Although κωλύω can be translated in certain contexts as “to prohibit,” one should not assume that this is its meaning or that it can always be translated as such. A phrase like the one in Rom 1:13, “I want you to know, brothers, that I have planned to visit you many times, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο,” cannot be translated as “I was prohibited,” but rather as “I was hindered until the present.” The generic meaning of κωλύω (“to cause [voluntarily or involuntarily] something not to happen”) is present whenever the term is used and is translated as “to avert” or as “to deprive,” “to impede,” “to prohibit,” “to hinder.” In all of these cases something is impeded in one way or another from being accomplished. § 9. The lexeme εὐλογία presents a similar example. The term can be defined as “remarkable skill at verbal expression.”¹⁷ In context it can be translated as “to speak well,” “eloquence” (which does not appear in the New Testament), “gab,” “flattery (misleading talk),” (Rom 16:18), “praise” (Acts 5:12– 13), “approval,” “support” (Rom 15:29), “thanksgiving,” “blessing” (Jas 3:10), “promise” (Heb 12:17), “promised gift” (2Cor 9:5a), “gift” (Heb 6:7). The description of a lexeme’s meaning helps one choose the most appropriate translational equivalent in each context from those that are available. At the same time, one avoids the error of substituting each of the translational equivalents for the lexeme in any context.
1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning? § 10. Given that the dictionary ought to explain the meaning of words, we ought to ask ourselves what we mean by “meaning”—which is one of the most ambiguous and controversial concepts in the theory of |21-P language.¹⁸ The authors C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, in a work entitled The Meaning of Meaning, collect no less than sixteen definitions of meaning (twenty-three if each subheading is count-
Cf. J. Mateos, “Análisis de un campo lexemático. Εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 1 (1988): 5 – 25. See S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 54 ff., who we follow and will summarize.
1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning?
9
ed).¹⁹ Since the publication of their work, many new uses of “meaning” have been added to this formidable fount of ambiguity,²⁰ and in the opinion of some scholars the term has become useless for scientific purposes. The ambiguity can be reduced, however, by another relatively untapped method, namely, by limiting our attention to word-meanings using the theory of J. D. Fodor.²¹ § 11. Generally speaking, there are two schools of thought in current linguistics. The analytical or referential (componential) school tries to capture the essence of meaning by determining its main components, while the operational school studies words as they are used. This strand is less interested in meaning and more in the concrete usage of words.
1.2.1 Analytical or Referential Theory § 12. For the followers of analytical theory, including S. Ullmann, three factors always come into play for meaning: name, sense, and thing. “Name” (“signifier” according to Saussure) is understood as the word’s phonetic shape, the sounds that constitute it, and other acoustic features such as accent. “Sense” (“sign” according to Saussure) is the information the name communicates to the hearer. “Thing” implies the extralinguistic feature or event being spoken about. |22-P This explanation from Ullmann borrows aspects of Ogden and Richards’s basic triangle:²²
C. K. Ogden and A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 4th ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1936), 186 ff. See C. C. Fries, “Meaning and Linguistic Analysis,” Language 30 (1954): 57– 68, especially 62 ff. See Janet Dean Fodor, Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar (New York: Crowell, 1977). A bibliography about the term “meaning” prior to 1962 can be found in Ullmann, Semantics, 55n3. Plato seems to adopt the idea of correspondence of “name” and “thing” (without “reference” as the intermediate term). The investigation about the things themselves is, for him, a pium desiderium. “Name” is used by Plato as a teaching instrument and classification of being. Nevertheless, this is not to say that Plato did not accept the existence of “reference”: Gorgias (482e ff.) makes it clear that he recognized the triple plane of “name,” “that which is considered” (reference) and “thing”; cf. F. Rodríquez Adrados, “Sobre nombre y cosa en Platón,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1987), 89 – 94; cf. idem, “La teoría del signo en Gorgias de Leontinos,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1987), 61– 69.
10
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
The essential characteristic of this diagram is that it distinguishes between three components of meaning. According to this interpretation there is no direct relationship between words and the things they “represent.” Rather, a word “symbolizes” a “thought or reference,” which in turn “refers” to the feature or event being spoken about. According to Ullmann,²³ for a linguistic study of meaning, the basic triangle offers both too little and too much. Too much because the referent, the non-linguistic feature or event as such, clearly lies outside the linguist’s province. An object may remain unchanged and yet the meaning of its name may change for us if there is any alteration in our awareness of it, our knowledge about it, or our feelings towards it. The atom is the same as it was fifty years ago, but since it has been split we know that it is not the smallest constituent of matter, as its etymology suggests…. The linguist will therefore be well advised to confine his attention to the left-hand side of the triangle, the connexion [sic] between the “symbol” and the “thought or reference.”
As can be seen, Ullmann prefers not to utilize Saussure’s terminology (“signifier” and “sign”), but instead chooses more simple and ordinary terms: “name” (sound), “sense” (the information that the noun communicates to the hearer), “thing” (the referent of Ogden and Richards, i. e., the event or non-linguistic feature being spoken about). For Ullmann, “meaning” is the “reciprocal and reversible relationship between the sound and sense” (certainly a somewhat old fashioned definition, since the scholastics stated vox significat mediantibus conceptibus). § 13. On the other hand, Ogden and Richards’s system does not go far enough. It explains how a word affects the listener but it seems to neglect the speaker’s point of view. |23-P The direct relationship between name and thing, suggested by L. Bloomfield,²⁴ is unsustainable because in the majority of cases the speaker’s imagination or mental concept is present, but not the situation or the reality that was experienced. This becomes clear when something remote is being talked about. Someone Ullmann, Semantics, 56. L. Bloomfield, Language (New York: Henry Holt, 1933), 141. A study about Bloomfield and his school can be found in Claus Heeschen, Grundfragen der Linguistik (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), chap. 4: “Bloomfield und die Distributionalisten.”
1.2 What Do We Mean by Meaning?
11
describing an earthquake that took place from far away does not connect the sense with the thing, but with the concept that he has of the thing/event (earthquake). The same occurs with abstract terms (e. g., “justice”) or unreal entities like “centaur,” “unicorn,” “satyr,” “fairy,” “nymph,” etc., whose concepts do not “refer” to external realities. § 14. Ullmann’s theory provides a foundation for componential analysis. Since a word’s meaning has to do with a concept (i. e., with a “thought” or “reference”), one will try to identify the semantic features that comprise this concept and make communication possible. Such is the task of componential analysis and in the following chapters a method will be proposed for carrying out this analysis. But one must also consider that the meaning of a word does not depend solely on the “reciprocal and reversible” relationship of name and sense, since some words are associated with others. The study of this multi-faceted relationship enables the precise meaning to be determined in each case. Context, therefore, comes into play, as emphasized by operational theory, which is explained in what follows.
1.2.2 Operational or Contextual Theory § 15. The most nuanced and provocative formulation of operational theory was proposed by L. Wittgenstein.²⁵ Before him, S. Chase expressed, “The true meaning of a word must be found by observing what a person does with it, not what he says about it.”²⁶ Wittgenstein went one step further, claiming that the meaning of a word is not merely established by observing its usage, but that the meaning of a word is its usage in language. Wittgenstein successfully defined meaning in contextual terms (i. e., empirically). In this sense operational theory is not an alternative but the legitimate complement to |24-P analytical or referential theory, explained above.²⁷ Lexicographers and semanticists should heed this theory’s warning: a word’s meaning can only be ascertained by studying its usage. § 16. The contribution of operational theory is essential for the lexicographer’s task. Any definition of a word’s meaning depends on how it is applied. For lexicographers and semanticists, operational theory ought to be balanced by referential theory. More than simply two theories or methods (analytical or operational), these are two phases of semantic investigation whose mutual relationship ultimately corresponds to the relationship that exists between langue and parole: operational theory deals with meaning in speech (parole), referential theory with meaning in language (langue).
L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed., eds. P. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G. Anscombe, P. Hacker, and J. Schulte (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953). S. Chase, The Tyranny of Words (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959), 7, cited by Ullmann, Semantics, 64. Cf. Ullmann, Semantics, 67.
12
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
The investigator ought to begin by gathering an adequate sampling of contexts²⁸ and then by analyzing them with an open mind, allowing the meaning or meanings to emerge from the contexts themselves. Once this phase is completed, one is ready to move to the “referential” phase and to formulate the meaning or meanings according to what has been identified.²⁹
1.3 The Practice of Bilingual Dictionaries § 17. If we look at the definition of “dictionary” given above, a first glance demonstrates that the majority of bilingual dictionaries do not explain the meaning of words or do not |25-P explain them in a systematic manner. They normally substitute words (in Greek) with words in the target language that are more or less equivalent; rarely do they offer a definition. This is due to a concept of “dictionary” that is out of date or lacking a method for determining meaning. To determine a word’s meaning one must operate at two levels: the semiotic level (which corresponds to the study of the term itself, i. e. langue) and the semantic level (the study of a term in context, i. e., parole).³⁰
1.4 How Do Words Mean, If They Do? § 18. Since dictionaries contain words, we ought to pause briefly to pose a question formulated by J. P. Louw in an article entitled “How Do Words Mean, If They Do?”³¹ Along with E. A. Nida, Louw co-authored a Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament (cf. our analysis in §§ 45 – 68). It will be helpful to summarize his article:
Cf. F. Rodríguez Adrados, “Sintaxis y Diccionario,” In F. R. Adrados, Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria (Barcelona: Ariel, 1988), 132. He gives a catalogue of the different kinds of contexts that can help determine the meaning of a word. These include extra-linguistic context, context concerning the type of language and linguistic level, general context, distant context, syntactic context, and context based on the subclasses of words. F. R. Adrados thus states, “The first principle that ought to occupy one’s attention is that linguistic units only exist on the abstract level. In actual language, for example, a word does not exist except within the syntagm, which only exists within the oration, etc. Therefore, the sense of the word in the phrase depends on its context in it (more than on extra-verbal context or other data). In the sense of each word there is a part that is syntactically determined, since, having two words related with each other, we have syntax, order, or arrangement. Essentially this ‘syntax’ does not really differ from conventional syntax, which starts from the relation of subject, verb, etc.” (“Reflexiones sobre semántica, sintaxis y estructura profunda,” In Nuevos estudios de Lingüística General y Teoría Literaria [Barcelona: Ariel, 1988], 116). A third level focuses on the various lexemes that appear in a certain context in order to discover their mutual relations and the main point of the text (the level of discourse). Cf. J. P. Louw, “How do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 41.
1.4 How Do Words Mean, If They Do?
13
Among the various aspects of language, the strongest convictions and, at the same time, the most incorrect ideas are held about the use of words. Perhaps the most incorrect is the belief that language is primarily a matter of isolated words and their meanings. Such an idea has been especially dominant in biblical studies, where exegesis focused upon words has dominated until the present. In such exegesis, there is much talk of “hidden” or “real” meanings or of the “richness” of a word in the original biblical language, as if this were an exclusive or privileged phenomenon of the biblical language.³²
§ 19. Greek and Hebrew words are often explained in dictionaries in one of two ways: either by etymologies or by translational equivalents. The method based on etymology involves going back through the history of words in order to find their “original” or “real” meaning. Similarly, words are divided into subcategories and meaning is assigned to each category in order to arrive at the “real” meaning. The second method, which is based on translational equivalence, |26-P was inspired by the penchant of bilingual dictionaries to represent a term’s meaning through a list of words in another language, reinforcing the notion that a word’s meaning in one language can be adequately expressed through one or various words in another. This is mistaken, since a word’s range of meanings in one language is not covered by its “equivalents” in another. If the Greek χάρις is explained by the word “grace,” the reader is expected to guess how the meaning or meanings of “grace” correspond to the Greek χάρις. Such an explanation is precisely what the dictionary should provide. Lists of translational equivalents invite the reader in each instance to consider all the possible “meanings” of a word in its various contexts, since it is assumed that all of the equivalents must be viewed as various representations of the Greek term’s meaning. This leads to the assumption that since the term has features of all these equivalents, it means something more “elevated” or more “profound.” Unwary interpreters might be led to a search for a “basic meaning” or “Grundbedeutung,” and thereby to an etymologized form of meaning. As J. Barr expressed, this amounts to an “illegitimate totality-transfer.”³³ § 20. In summary, meaning is actually the content and information of communication. Meaning is accomplished by means of extra-linguistic signs and by many other signs, among which one of the most complex is the system of signs of natural languages. Meaning is primary; signs or words are secondary. No language coins a word and then finds a meaning to associate with it. When something new appears in a linguistic community, this new meaning is either expressed with a word that already exists or a new word is created. Isolated words are therefore not the primary elements of language or of communication or even of semantics; they are signs among many others, both verbal and nonverbal. On the verbal side, concrete meaning does not depend solely on the word itself but also on the context in which it is found. There is thus a lexical meaning (of the word itself) and other contextual
Louw, “How do Words Mean?” 141. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).
14
Chapter 1: Dictionary and Meaning
meanings (of the word in various contexts). Dictionaries often do not distinguish between these, but rather consider the contextual meanings as meanings of the word itself. The lack of distinction between lexical and contextual meaning seems to be the primary shortcoming of the present lexicographical landscape. § 21. For our study, we adopt the definition of meaning offered by Louw and Nida. Meaning consists of a lexeme’s “set of distinctive features” |27-P (semantic components or semes).³⁴ Determining and expressing or specifying these features is crucial in order to establish the relationship between words and meanings. The meaning is not another word, but is expressed in a definition that is clearly formulated and joins together a word’s semantic features. Hence, in our view, each entry in the dictionary should first provide a definition of the lexeme’s meaning, followed by a list of translational equivalents. The translational equivalents account for variations in the lexeme’s meaning, which arise due to the addition or subtraction of semantic features in contexts. § 22. Summary: This study is not concerned in the first place with theoretical issues of meaning but primarily with how the meaning of words can be determined in order to produce definitions of meaning for a dictionary. This question will be treated in parts two and three in order to show the steps for producing the dictionary. Before turning to these questions, it is important to take a look at already-existing dictionaries in order to explain why we do not adapt these, but rather construct our own. We observe that these dictionaries either lack a method or fail to apply a method consistently. In the following pages it should be kept in mind that this study does not specifically treat Greek dictionaries in general or the numerous thematic dictionaries. Nevertheless, their lexicographical tradition will not be ignored by us. In looking at these dictionaries, two aspects in particular have held our attention, namely, the method followed, especially by F. R. Adrados in the Diccionario Griego-Español, and the analysis of the portions specifically dedicated to the New Testament contained in these dictionaries. |28-P
Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, xvi. Although the authors provide this definition, they do not indicate how they make the semic description of lexemes in their dictionary.
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament¹TN 2.1 Introduction § 23. The lexicographical material related to the Greek of the New Testament offers a broad and diverse panorama, including dictionaries of various kinds, vocabularies and indexes of words, concordances and statistics about frequency. Within this material there are three main dictionaries available to New Testament scholars.²TN The first of these is F. Zorell’s dictionary³ of the canonical books of the New Testament,⁴TN which excludes primitive Christian literature. The second edition was a reworking of Preuschen’s dictionary, first published in 1910, and draws from the insights in the dictionaries of Bauer, Preisigke, and Moulton and Milligan. The third edition adds a 40-page bibliographic supplement. The fourth (1990) then updates the bibliography. W. Bauer’s dictionary is another primary lexicographical resource on New Testament Greek. This dictionary was originally a reworking of Preuschen’s. There is an English translation and adaptation by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker.⁵ The first English edition (1957), bearing the same title, was completed by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich based on the fourth revised edition of Bauer. Having already published this first edition of BAG, Bauer completed preparations for the fifth German edition, which became available as nine fascicles (1957– 58). The second English edition (1979) lost an editor (W. F. Arndt) and gained a new one (F. W. Danker). In the new edition, a large part of the material introduced by Bauer in the fifth German edition is utilized and new material that the American editors gathered themselves is added. An index of BAGD was prepared by J. R. Alsop.⁶ |29-P This index contains the biblical passages, cited by books, chapters, and verses, in order to facilitate the search for information about specific passages.
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 29 – 64 in the original text of Peláez. Translator’s Note: Perhaps this was the case in 1996 when Peláez composed his text; since then, however, several other dictionaries of the New Testament have been published, including BDAG, DGENT, and Danker’s Concise Greek-English Dictionary (2009). F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (Paris: Lethielleux, 1990). Translator’s Note: Although Zorell’s dictionary is not well-known in German or English speaking contexts, it is still one of the dictionaries of choice in Spain. Professor Peláez therefore convincingly demonstrated that the discussion of Zorell should remain in the English version. Cf. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., eds. K. Aland and B. Aland (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988); F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1979). J. R. Alsop, ed., An Index to the Revised Bauer, Arndt (Danker), Gingrich Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-008
16
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
§ 24. A third important dictionary of New Testament Greek was composed by J. Louw and E. A. Nida.⁷ In this dictionary the lexemes are organized based on semantic domains. The first volume contains an introduction and the semantic domains (the Greek words are divided into 93 domains) and the second volume contains the indexes (Greek-English, English, and biblical citations), which refer to the domains. As a dictionary the text of Louw and Nida is awkward. The distinct meanings of a word are often placed in various semantic domains so that in order to grasp the meaning(s) of a word one must begin by consulting the index and then the various entries where the corresponding meaning is found.⁸ § 25. Three other dictionaries that complement those just cited should also be mentioned. With respect to primitive Christian literature, G. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon rounds the Bauer series and LSJ.⁹ However, Lampe’s dictionary does not consider all of the Greek apocryphal texts. For biblical citations and allusions to the Fathers, one can consult the index (composed with the aid of a computer) of J. Allenbach et al.¹⁰ The first of Allenbach’s volumes extends from Christian origins to Clement and Tertullian, the second volume contains texts from the third century, the third volume contains Origen, and the fourth volume contains Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius. Another invaluable resource is J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan’s The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. ¹¹ Although now considered somewhat outdated, there is no other substitute for it. A new edition is being prepared by the Australian scholars G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee, who are editing the publication New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, |30-P from which five volumes have currently appeared.¹²TN Volume 5 of New Documents has various cumulative indexes of the previous volumes, including biblical passages, words, grammar, excerpts from Church Fathers and Jewish writers, and also other cited and referenced works. The editors of this series intend to pave the way for Moulton and Milligan’s new edition, a project that they announced in an address presented to the 9th congress of the “Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques” (FIEC,
J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon. The abbreviation “L&N” refers to the dictionary of Louw and Nida. When the authors of this dictionary are referred to, their last names are written (i. e., Louw and Nida). See the review of this dictionary by D. A. Black in FNT 1 (1988): 217– 18. Cf. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961); H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996). J. Allenbach et al., eds., Biblia patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique, 4 vols. (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975 – 87). J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957). G. H. R. Horsley and J. A. L. Lee, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. Translator’s Note: This project has not yet been completed. Volumes 1– 4 were published between 1976 – 79 and their corresponding fifth volume containing indexes and linguistic essays in 1989; volumes 6 – 9 were published between 1980 – 87 and the corresponding tenth volume in 1992. The editorship passed to S. R. Llewelyn in 1983 and to J. R. Harrison in 1992.
2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990)
17
in 1989).¹³ This new dictionary will complement BAA¹⁴TN and others, such as LSJ and DGE. Another lexicographical aid to the study of New Testament Greek was composed by F. Preisigke.¹⁵ For the fourth volume, begun in 1944, three fascicles have appeared (1958, 1966, and 1971).¹⁶TN An independent volume, a dictionary of non-literary Greek texts of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, has been published by W. Rübsam.¹⁷ This work is very useful for the study of the Greek New Testament. The present chapter will focus on the three primary dictionaries already mentioned (Zorell, BAA, and L&N), which deal directly with the lexicon of the New Testament and are not theological by nature.¹⁸ The criteria employed for discussing the first two dictionaries (Zorell and BAA) have been drawn from the study of the entries, since the authors do not explain the methodological principles that guided their work. L&N is the only dictionary of the three that dedicates the first pages to methodological questions.
2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990) § 26. The fourth edition of Zorell’s dictionary has an updated |31-P bibliographic appendix. The new bibliographic references are indicated in the body of the dictionary with an asterix in the margin. The purpose of the dictionary, whose first edition appeared in April of 1930, is to help with the interpretation of the text of the New Testament according to the editions of Tischendorf (1849), and Westcott-Hort (1881), and
Their address was titled, “A New Dictionary of the New Testament Illustrated from Inscriptions and Papyri.” Translator’s Note: There is some disagreement about the proper abbreviation for the sixth edition of the Bauer dictionary. Peláez refers to this edition alternatively as Bauer6, Bauer, and BauerAland. BAA is the common abbreviation in German speaking-contexts and the one I have used in this text. In his introduction to BDAG, Danker uses the abbreviation BAAR (p. vii; “R” stands for Viktor Reichmann, who assisted the Alands in the revision). For his part, John Lee prefers the abbreviation BRAA; cf. Lee, History 147. F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften Aufschriften Ostraka Mumienschilder usw. aus Ägypten; expanded edition by E. Kiessling, 3 vols. (Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925, 1927, 1931). Translator’s Note: three supplemental volumes of Preisigke’s dictionary were published in 1971, 1991, and 2000. W. Rübsam, ed., Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, Supplement 3 (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966 – 69). The special lexicons, which are not dictionaries proper, will not be a part of our investigation. These include G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10 vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933 – 79) (ET: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; 1964– 76); H. Balz and G. Schneider, eds., Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 3rd ed., 3 vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kolhammer, 2011), which complements TWNT; I. Coenen, E. Beyreuther, and H. Bietenhard, eds., Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 2nd ed. (Wuppertal: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2014).
18
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
also taking into consideration the editions of H. von Soden (Göttingen, 1913) and H. J. Vogels (Düsseldorf, 1920), F. Brandscheid (Freiburg, 1901) and M. Hetzenauer (Innsbruck, 1904) combined with the textus receptus. Zorell, therefore, cites the various findings of these seven editions of the New Testament. For the author, the language of the New Testament is the koine of the time (idioma commune illius aetatis), as demonstrated by F. Preisigke’s lexicon of the papyri. For reasons of space, however, Zorell did not gather lexical material from the papyri for his dictionary. In the preface to the third edition, published twenty-nine years later (1959), M. Zerwick affirms that Zorell’s dictionary is a classic in its genre and, referring to the dictionary of W. Bauer (1957, which we will discuss later), says that comparisons between the two works ought not to be made, since Bauer’s incorporates primitive Christian material in addition to the New Testament. Zerwick, however, adds that Zorell’s dictionary “far exceeds Bauer’s when it comes to didactic because it introduces the user to the semantic evolution of the words, and thus to their internal workings.” In the prolegomena of Zorell’s dictionary, various aspects relating to the spelling of consonants, vowels, and accents are examined, a list of acronyms is given, and a bibliographic appendix is added in the third edition. Given that Zorell does not explain the methodology employed in the preparation of his work, this must be deduced, as has been said, from the study of the entries. The following characteristics can be observed in the dictionary: 1. The lexicon of the New Testament is the focus, so that it clearly limits itself to the text of this corpus. There are, however, forays into earlier Greek (homeric and classic, biblical [LXX]) when the meaning of the word in classical Greek has evolved into a specific usage in the New Testament, or simply to support the meaning proposed for the New Testament with citations of classical authors. This is true, for example, with the entry ἀγών, ῶνος, ὁ: ἀγών, ῶνος, ὁ primitus conventus praesertim aurigarum et pugilum ad ludos publicos [first a gathering especially of chariot drivers and boxers for public games]; dein ludorum certaminumque locus (Hom. ss.) [then the place of conflict of the games]; hinc certamen, etiam metaphorice [here conflict metaphorically]: ἀγὼν λόγων, τῆς ψυχῆς, etc. In epistulis Pauli: servorum Christi inter aerumnas, obstacula, contradictiones ad consequendem seu efficiendum id quod |32-P debent labor ac contentio [In Paul’s epistles: of Christ’s servants in the midst of sorrows, obstacles, contradictions for the attainment or accomplishment of that which they ought to labor and contend]: ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι 1Thess 2:2 (cf. Acts 17:5 ff.), etc.
In the New Testament the lexeme is found only in a metaphorical sense. With less frequency this dictionary refers to later Christian Greek. An example of how Zorell shows the semantic evolution of a specific lexeme can be seen in the entry for ἅγιος, where part of the term’s meaning in the profane writings passes to the LXX and thereby into the New Testament. A similar path can be seen in ᾅδης: first the classical and Old Testament meanings are given in order to arrive at the New Testament. See, additionally, among various terms: ἀγρεύω, αἵρεσις, αἰών, δαιμόνιον, ἐκκλησία, παραβολή, παράδεισος, παράδοσις, εὐλάβεια, and ἐνέργεια.
2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990)
19
2. Zorell’s dictionary is for didactic purposes and its author is concerned not only with collecting data, but also with explaining it in an accessible manner. For example: a) If the word is a composite, he separates the prefixes from the root-forms with a dash: ἄ-γαμος, ἀνα-ζητέω. b) When Zorell thinks that the reader (whom he does not assume to have an excellent knowledge of Greek) might have difficulty with specific forms (both for nouns and for verbs), he does not hesitate to give the corresponding form, even if it comes from a regular paradigm, nominal or verbal: cf. ᾅδης, ου, ὁ; dat. ῃ, acc. ην, voc. η; ἀδικέω, aor. ἠδίκησα, aor. pass. ἠδικήθην; a fortiori when clearly irregular forms are discussed: cf. αἴρω (ex. ἀείρω), fut. ἀρῶ, aor. 1st ἦρα; impf. ἆρον, perf. ἦρκα, pass. ἦρμαι, etc. The same procedure occurs with adjectives by indicating whether they have two or three sets of endings, although in these cases it is somewhat confusing, since certain adjectives are treated as substantives. This is the case with Zorell’s entry for γερασηνοί, ῶν, οἱ, perhaps because it always appears as a substantive in the New Testament (cf. e. g., ἀσιανός, ἑβραῖος, κορίνθιος). c) The etymology of the word is often provided in parenthesis if it is known. Thus, ἄλευρον, ου, τό (from ἁλέω to grind), farina [flour]; ἀκυρόω (from ἄκυρος 2): sine auctoritate [without authority] [τὸ κῦρος], invalidum [weak], irritum reddo [useless], rescindo [annul]; αἰσχρολογία, ας, ἡ (from αἰσχρο-λόγος qui turpia dicit [one who speaks immoral things]) verborum obscenitas [foul language]; αἰχμάλωτος, ώτου, ὁ (from αἰχμή, lancea, porro bellum, pugna [spear, then war, battle]; ἁλίσκομαι “capior” [“to be captured”]) qui in bello capitur, captivus; [one who is captured in war, captive]; ἀ-μετα-κίνητος, ον, qui loco dimoveri non potest, inmovilis, incommutabilis, firmus [one who cannot be moved from a place, immoveable, unchangeable, firm]; ἀρσενοκοίτης, ου, ὁ (ἄρσην, κοίτη), mas qui cum mare concumbit, cinaedus [a man who sleeps with a man, an effeminate man]; αὐτόπτης, ου, ὁ (αὐτός ὄψις), qui ipse vidit eventum, testis oculatus [one who has himself witnessed an event, an eye-witness].
d) If considered necessary, the meaning of the word is explained. The definitions are often formulated accurately and |33-P seek to identify objects, states or processes, places, institutions, functions, etc. Thus, ἄμωμον, ου, τό, planta quaedam aromatica quae sec. antiquorum testimonia in India, Media, Armenia, Assyria crescebat, cujus ex fructibus pretiosum unguentum conficiebatur [a certain aromatic plant, which, according to ancient testimony, grew in India, Media, Armenia, Assyria, from whose fruit costly lotion was made]; σαγήνη, ης, ἡ sagena: rete quoddam grande multis simul piscibus capiendis aptum [a large net able to hold/catch many fish at the same time];
20
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
ἅλων, ωνος, ἡ: area, locus rotundus in campo ubi frumentum triturabatur; metonymice, ipse acervus frumenti in area congestus [the round place in a field where grain was threshed; metonymously, a pile of grain in a storage area]; γάγγραινα, ης, ἡ gangraena, partis alcs. (humani corporis) mortificatio et exstinctio, proveniens a magnitudine inflammationis quae neque digeri neque in pus mutari potuit sibique conjunctas partes in affectionis consortium pertrahens et ne ab ossibus quidem abstinens, quae vitioso humore perfuse imbutaque, quo caro circumposita madet, putrescunt emoriunturque [Gangre, death and destruction of certain parts (of the human body) due to a severe inflammation that can neither be removed nor changed in time and draws other parts into its own state and does not spare the bones; [this inflammation] is moist and damp because of its infectious discharge, causing the flesh around it to become moist, rotted, and dead]; λέπρα, ας, ἡ, lepra, morbus asperrimus contagiosus, insanabilis, qui totum corpus pervadit cuiusque tres species occurrunt (lepra maculosa, tuberculosa, anaesthetica) [a highly contagious and incurable disease that pervades the whole body and has three varieties (spotted leprosy, swollen leprosy (cf. Wikipedia, article “leprosy”), invisible leprosy)]; λειτουργία, ας, ἡ, ministerium [religious service], servitium quod a singulis in commune bonum ecclesiae confertur [service offered by a person in a community on behalf of the group]; συνέδριον, ου, τό: summum Judaeorum concilium et tribunal, ex 71 viris constitutum, sacerdotibus, senioribus, scribis, ad quod inter alia pertinebant causae criminum majorum [The highest council and tribunal of the Jews, comprised of 71 male priests, elders, and scribes, responsible, among other things, for the cases of major crimes].
However, Zorell does not systematically explain meanings but only does so with words whose definitions are normally provided in encyclopedic dictionaries. e) After indicating one or several Latin equivalents for each term, he often adds the equivalent in a modern language: ἀσκός, οῦ, ὁ, uter (Schlauch, outré, wine-skin) in quo vinum asservatur [in which wine is kept]); ἄμωμον, ου, τό, planta quaedam aromatic … cissus vitiginea (germ. weinartige Klimme) (an Indian spice-plant); γόμος, ου, ὁ, onus mercium navi impositum [the goods of a cargo ship]: cargaison; Fracht; γράμμα, ατος, τό; scriptum; (1) litterae figura scripta: Buchstabe [letter]; (2) alqd. litteris exaratum, scriptum: Schreiben, Schriftstück [a piece of writing]; ἔκπαλαι, adv. jamdiu: seit langer Zeit; depuis longtemps [for a long time] (Philo, Plut. pap.), etc.
f) If the meaning of a term coincides with classical usage, Zorell indicates that an author or authors used it: εἰρηνικός, ή, όν, ad pacem pertinens [pertaining to peace] (Xen. LXX, POx. al.), or the point of time from which it first appears: ἐκλύω (Aristot. ss. LXX). He also shows the form in which it appears in classical Greek or in the Papyri if this differs from New Testament usage (see, e. g., ἅλων). g) When classical and New Testament usage differ, Zorell begins by indicating the meaning in classical Greek in order to show the distinct meaning of the term in the New Testament. Zorell then seeks to identify the point of time from which the alternate meaning was employed. If there is a citation from the Old Testament, Zorell provides the Hebrew term |34-P in parentheses (see, e. g., the entry αἰχμάλωτος); in other cases, the Aramaic (see, e. g., the entry Γολγοθά) or the Syriac (see, e. g., the entry ᾿Aλφαῖος).
2.2 F. Zorell, Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti, 4th ed. (1990)
21
h) For the explanation of the lexemes he frequently gives abbreviated bibliographic details, which are cited in full form in the dictionary’s introductory pages: ἀββᾶ Dalman, WJ 157; ᾿Aβραάμ cf. Bandas 97 ff., 324 ff., ἀμνός, cf. Expositor 1910 II, 173, 266; παραβολή, cf. Fonck, Parabeln, 256 ff., etc. i) Certain signs at the beginning, during, or at the end of the entries indicate if the word appears for the first time in the LXX (*), in Hellenistic authors (X), in the New Testament (+), if it is exclusively in the New Testament (++), or if it is found in the LXX and the New Testament and writers closely related with these, such as Philo or the Fathers (*+). At the end of an entry, the number 1 indicates that the term is a New Testament hapax legomenon, an asterisk indicates that it only appears in the places previously mentioned in the entry, the up or down arrows indicate that the term is derived etymologically from that which precedes or follows. With quotation marks (“…”) the version of the Vulgate is indicated. Zorell thus arranged the entries in a manner that reflects his didactic purposes. The author wants to communicate his thoughts in an understandable manner by making the reader’s task as easy as possible. § 27. The dictionary’s limitations arise from the time it hails. Published in 1930 and never updated except for the bibliography, Zorell’s dictionary can be classified as a traditional dictionary whose entries were structured by grammatical categories and usage rather than by semantic categories. He does not describe meaning (except when it pertains to encyclopedic knowledge) and limits himself to giving translational equivalents in context. Without utilizing a methodology for determining the meaning of the lexemes, Zorell lacks a firm standard for the analysis of contexts. An example may illustrate this. When discussing the lexeme λαός, οῦ, ὁ, which he translates as “plebs, vulgus, populus [folk, people, populace],” he uses the following structure: 1. Sensu satis universalis, ut nostra vocabula die Leute: les gens: people; vulgus: a) homines congregati in templo [people gathered in a temple]; b) vulgus, homines inter quos alqs. vivit [people, men, among whom someone lives]; c) vulgus commune (opp. primores, magistratus); [common people, opp. foremost, public officials] d) plebs (opp. sacerdos) [folk, opp. priest] 2. homines ejusdem stirpis, natio [people of the same lineage, nation] 3. populus, plebs Dei = multitudo hominum Dei addictorum ac subjectorum [populace, people of God = a group of people joined and subject to God] |35-P a) populus Israel [people of Israel] b) christiani [Christians] c) beati, cives Ierusalem novae [the blessed, the citizens of the new Jerusalem] At first glance, the entry seems to be well (and clearly) structured. It proceeds from the generic to the specific. However, a look at the details shows that Zorell has not sufficiently analyzed the contexts where the lexeme appears, since he provides inco-
22
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
herent meanings. The author distinguishes between people, common people, Jewish people, people of Israel, and Christian people. However, in some of the biblical texts where he assumes the meanings of 1a–c, λαός actually refers to the Jewish people and ought to be mentioned in 3a (cf. Matt 4:23; Mark 11:32 [v. l.]); Luke 1:10 alludes to some of the Jewish people, but Zorell refers to this verse in 1d—whose general title is plebs, vulgus, populus—without further specification. Additionally, Zorell has not considered an important meaning of λαός when referring to gentile people; cf. Rom 9:25 – 26 (cf. Hos 2:23) and 1Pet 2:10 (cf. Hos 1:6). Despite his apparent clarity, Zorell can be imprecise due to the lack of a consistent standard for contextual analysis. Let us consider φυλή, ῆς, ἡ, another example in which the analysis of context is incomplete. The single Latin translation given by Zorell is tribus [tribe]. The entry’s brief content is as follows: populus Israel in duodecim tribus dividebatur [the people of Israel divided into twelve tribes], but Zorell has omitted a meaning: figuratively, the expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is applied to Christian people in Jas 1:1. Zorell places this text within the second group (“populus Israel”). § 28. A feature that occasionally detracts from his work is Zorell’s recourse to theological conceptualization for specific entries. For example: ἀμνός, οῦ, ὁ ‘agnus,’ quia ipse victimae instar ad delenda hominum peccata mortem sacrificalem obiturus erat, ‘Dei’ nempe quem Deus designavit, misit, sibi ad expiationem mundi eligit (cf. Expositor 1910 II 173. 266) [‘a lamb’ that was about to die a sacrificial death to remove people’s sins, ‘of God,’ that is to say which God marked out, sent, and chose to expiate the world]; παράδεισος, ου, ὁ (§ 2b) domicilium iustorum beatorum: (Luke 23:43), ubi prob. limbus patrum [the dwelling of the blessed and righteous, probably near the forefathers]; πέτρα, ας, ἡ (§ 1Cor 10:4) |36-P : Christus preexistens, i. e., Verbum Dei Israëlitas per desertum comitans et mirabiliter potans dicitur πνευματικὴ ἀκολουθοῦσα πέτρα petra spiritualis comes itineris [the preexistent Christ, i. e., the word of God accompanying Israel through the desert and miraculously giving drink, is called πνευματικὴ ἀκολουθοῦσα πέτρα spiritual rock, traveling companion]; γεέννα, ης, ἡ, Orcus, locus ubi damnati in aeternum igne cruciantur, etc. [place of the dead, place where the damned are tortured with fire for eternity].
In summary, Zorell’s dictionary is a product of its time, is didactically oriented, is interested in the semantic evolution of the terms, and is focused on the New Testament but with inroads into other corpora when this is deemed helpful for illuminating the meaning in the New Testament. However, it is not rigorous in the analysis of contexts and is led astray by theological bias with relative frequency in its description of lexemes. This shows that Zorell’s lexicography reflects the tradition of its era and normally proceeds, as is the custom in bilingual dictionaries, by proposing translational equivalents rather than by discerning the lexical meaning (lexeme in abstract) from the contextual meanings (or sememes).¹⁹TN
Translator’s Note: In John Lee’s view, Zorell’s dictionary is a tool for Catholics and others to
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
23
2.3 W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 6th ed. (1988) § 29. The sixth edition of W. Bauer’s dictionary, edited by Kurt and Barbara Aland (hereafter BAA), claims to be an important lexicographical innovation. The last edition of this dictionary appeared in 1958, with revisions in 1963 and 1971. During this time, an expanded and adapted English edition appeared under the editorship of W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and later a second edition by F. W. Danker.²⁰ Naturally this dictionary paralleled Zorell’s in many respects. The novelties offered by BAA from the previous editions, which the authors spelled out in the dictionary’s prologue (pp. v – vii), are interesting to note. They include the following: 1. BAA had to establish its reason for using the text of the New Testament as offered in the 26th Nestle-Aland edition and the 3rd edition of Greek New Testament. Bauer had still used the 21st edition of the Nestle (1952). Moreover, the references to the biblical texts had to be completed, including even those lemmata claimed by Bauer to be already complete (marked with double asterisks). At the same time, it was necessary to revise the discussion of the textual variants, which Bauer had gathered in abundance, and in each case to provide a (select) attestation of the manuscripts. This information was deleted in the 6th edition and was substituted with |37-P v(aria) l(ectio), given that the Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.) provided an apparatus of the variants. Only when this was not the case is the manuscript attestation indicated. This procedure seems more reliable. Moreover, this feature along with more space allowed the gathered variant-readings to increase considerably. 2. A revision (and expansion) of the “remaining primitive Christian literature or early Christian literature” (including those lemmata marked with single asterisks that were yet to be completed) was necessary. Given that Bauer (following Preuschen) had used the 6th edition of Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn’s “small edition of the Apostolic Fathers” as his basis for the Apostolic Fathers, it was based on a 100-year-old text (the 1920 edition was nothing more than a simple reprint of the large edition from 1881). A new collation and annotation of the text was therefore necessary. 3. A new collation and annotation was also necessary for the apocryphal books of the New Testament. The situation was especially difficult in this field since Bauer (again following Preuschen) was based almost exclusively on the Antilegomena and
whom Latin was still accessible or desirable. Zorell acknowledges no antecedents in his preface, and no New Testament lexicons appear in his bibliography in 1911. According to Lee, “Whatever the precise sources, [Zorell’s] method is just as crude as that of any of his Latin predecessors” (Lee, History, 140). W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957); W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979).
24
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
by Klostermann’s Kleine Texte, without considering the new findings of modern editions. Naturally, one can debate whether or not the apocryphal writings of the New Testament, and if so which of them, belong to “our literature” (as Bauer was prone to say). For this, they must have been preserved in Greek and produced before 150 CE, or at least be traced back to it. But even in the cases where this is debatable (i. e., where the date of origin might be the later second century or perhaps even the early third), there can be no doubt that because of their shared content, the New Testament Apocrypha belong in the foreground of writings that must be considered foundational for this dictionary, which extends its focus beyond the scope of the New Testament. Such has been attempted in the 6th edition. The reader who examines the 250 newly introduced entries will note that they rely substantially on the New Testament Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers. 4. On the one hand, citations of ancient Greek authors in the body of the entries have been considerably expanded, while on the other hand, they are trimmed in the headers. The long lists of names that are frequently encountered stems from the fact that in each case Bauer simply added a list of newly consulted ancient authors. When a word’s meaning remains unchanged after a certain author, it hardly makes sense to mention all the ancient authors. In such cases, only the first author who attests to a word and its meaning is mentioned, which is expressed, for example, as “since Homer.” This provides space in the introduction of the entries, which is used to highlight the grammatical forms that appear in “our literature” (which includes the LXX). The LXX is cited much more frequently than in previous volumes. Given the importance of the LXX for primitive Christian literature, this does not need to be justified. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament have also been considerably expanded, |38-P which is also true of the second temple literature and the remaining Jewish literature written in Greek. 5. On the basis of the criteria followed in this reworking, most of the translations proposed by Bauer are left unchanged. Only cautiously are they modernized or corrected. A complete reworking of the translations would have given rise to an entirely new dictionary. 6. The new material contained in this dictionary constitutes more than a third of its previous content. That the number of pages in the sixth edition is almost exactly the same as the fifth is due not only to the fact that many bibliographic notes have been deleted, but above all due to the new typographic layout. § 30. In the following paragraphs, we shall examine the introduction in BAA.²¹ Generally speaking, a better knowledge of the sources resulted in the dictionary’s 250 (approximately) new entries, as well as new insights in many others. In producing the work, Kurt and Barbara Aland collaborated with a team of investigators. More texts of the Apostolic Fathers were included thanks to updated references according
See J. K. Elliott’s review of this dictionary in FNT 2 (1989): 100 – 02.
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
25
to Bihlmeyer and Schneemelcher’s new edition.²² Numerous other expansions include the number of ancient New Testament Apocrypha, the number of papyri, and the inclusion of seventy newly cited ancient authors (in particular apologists and church fathers). The dictionary’s typographic layout is easier to read and places citations of the New Testament in bold face, thereby distinguishing them from citations of other Christian writers. The bibliography has been updated and many outdated references have been eliminated. The reader should note that alongside recent quality editions, there are often older, generally outdated editions of the same work. Furthermore, the list of papyri and inscriptions are practically the same as in the fifth edition, implying that additions since 1958 are minimal. As in Zorell, the Alands do not explain their methodology, so this must |39-P be deduced by an analysis of the entries. The same is true in BAGD, although several pages are dedicated to overviewing the history of the Greek dictionaries of the New Testament, the language, origin, and characteristics of the New Testament (koine), and various influences from its environment (LXX, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.).²³TN As has already been said, BAA preserves the translations of the previous editions, which were modernized with caution and only occasionally corrected. Therefore, most changes result from the new material that had been gathered, the bibliography, and the layout, rather than from technical lexicography. Various other points in this dictionary call for attention: 1. The Bauer dictionary not only covers the Greek of the New Testament but, as its title states, also the rest of early Christian literature (up to 150 CE). 2. It contains lots of information, with abundant citations of classical authors, contemporary Jewish writers, and Church Fathers. Although LSJ and Lampe are essential dictionaries for classic and patristic Greek, BAA gathers all that is necessary from both periods of Greek for New Testament text-critical work and interpretation. LSJ, with its 2,200 lengthy pages, and PGL, with its lengthy 1,600 pages, provide more extensive information than the Bauer series. Nevertheless, with respect to the Christian texts (including the apologists), Bauer is more meticulous and exact than both of these dictionaries, especially in the sixth edition. § 31. What can be said about Bauer’s skill as a lexicographer? From a modern semantic point of view, his method is somewhat outdated. He normally does not explain the meaning of words but instead prefers to suggest translational equivalents, that is, he substitutes Greek words with German words that are more or less synonymous. Additionally, BAA almost exclusively uses syntactical criteria to classify the diverse
F. X. von Funk and Karl Bihlmeyer, Die Apostolischen Vä ter. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausg. von Karl Bihlmeyer. 1. Teil. 3. Aufl.; unverä nderter Nachdruck der mit einem Nachtrag von Wilhelm Schneemelcher versehenen 2. Aufl (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1970). Translator’s Note: The Alands do not explain their methodology. Bauer, however, did so in the second through fourth editions of his dictionary. Beginning with the fifth edition, his methodological introduction was excised for reasons of space and cost. A slightly corrected English translation is found in BAG and is reproduced in BAGD, xi–xxvii and in BDAG, xiii–xxix.
26
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
meanings of a lexeme, and often the proposed meanings are unclear, poorly formulated, and repeat other meanings. J. P. Louw (in an article already cited several times in this text)²⁴ has looked at the entry for κατισχύω and explained how this verb’s treatment provides an example of the lexicographical method employed in the Bauer dictionaries. BAGD²⁵ begins with |40-P valuable information about the word’s appearance in Greek literature, followed by a syntactic explanation, namely, that it is used intransitively (i. e., it does not take a direct object in the accusative). Three glosses or translational equivalents are then given for κατισχύω: “be strong, powerful, gain the ascendancy.” The majority of the dictionary’s readers will probably assume that these glosses are “meanings” of κατισχύω—perhaps basic meanings—because meanings are then arranged in two paragraphs: (1) used in the absolute: “be dominant, prevail, be able, be in a position”; (2) used with the genitive: “win a victory over.” Based on this entry, the reader might be led to assume that all these equivalents or glosses are meanings of κατισχύω and that, based on the context, one of them ought to be chosen, taking into account that BAGD classified them by their syntactical usage based on (a) whether they are absolute or followed by an infinitive, or (b) governing the genitive. A methodological error is detected in this approach, since BAGD does not account for the difference between meaning and translation. § 32. If, using the treatment of κατισχύω as our basis, we continue analyzing Bauer’s methodology, it becomes difficult to see how “to be strong, powerful” and “to gain the ascendancy” are to be understood. Do they represent three translations of a basic meaning or of different meanings? In what sense should “to be strong” (κατισχύω) be understood? Does this speak of physical or moral strength? Can “powerful” be understood as a synonym of “strong” in some of the cited texts? Even if this is the case, “to gain the ascendancy” seems to indicate a different meaning that could be based upon authority or influence, intellectual capacity, or the possession of many material resources. In any case, the translation “to be strong” does not fully capture the meaning of κατισχύω, since the English term “strong” can have various meanings that do not correspond with the Greek term. As Louw aptly put it, the meaning of a term is not another word, but a statement about semantic features and their range (for our own method, we prefer to call these “semes” rather than “semantic features”). Determining and explaining or specifying these semes is the crucial task for establishing the relationship between a word and its meaning. This meaning is expressed by presenting a lexeme’s semantic features and their inherent hierarchy. § 33. Often Bauer’s subdivisions do not represent distinct meanings. His work is not structured according to a unified principle, since he uses various criteria for the lexemes and for the |41-P classification of a lexeme’s different meanings. This can be Louw, “How Do Words Mean?” 137 ff. Although Louw comments on Bauer’s methodology according to the English edition of 1979 (BAGD), this does not change our evaluation of his methodology at all because in this aspect the editors left Bauer’s original methodology unaltered.
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
27
seen, for example, in the discussion of the lexeme ἐσθίω. Bauer proposes two sememes or contextual meanings: 1) to eat a. with accusative of thing b. with prepositions, to denote the thing of which one partakes: i. with ἀπό τινος: ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων (Matt 15:27) ii. with ἔκ τινος: ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου (1Cor 11:28) c. used with other prepositions: ἐ. μετά τινος (Matt 9:11) d. used in the absolute (Matt 12:1) e. ἐσθίω and πίνω appear together frequently i. to receive support (1Cor 9:4) ii. to eat a meal (Luke 5:30) iii. ἐσθίω and πίνω with a negation to signify fasting: οὔτε πίνων οὔτε ἐσθίων (Matt 11:18) iv. eating and drinking as ordinary, daily activities (Luke 17:27) 2) to consume, devour The classification does not work uniformly. The numbers 1a–c are classified according to the case that governs the verb or the preposition that accompanies it; in 1d the absolute use of the verb is highlighted; in 1e the passages that form binomial phrases with πίνω or co-occurrences are given; the sub-classifications i and ii do not add anything to the previous; iii indicates that the two verbs with negation are used to signify fasting. Lastly, eating and drinking are described as daily activities. Perhaps such subdivision was not necessary, since ἐσθίω signifies eating in all of the passages— at times indicating what is eaten, with whom one eats, the action of eating, refraining from eating, or eating every day. It would have been sufficient to give the two meanings represented in parts 1: “to eat,” and 2: “to consume,” “devour,” in a figurative sense applied to fire, which consumes everything. In other words, the categories used by Bauer are often irrelevant from the semantic point of view. Simply dividing and subdividing does not add information and can actually cause the reader to consider these different meanings. § 34. Something similar occurs in the entry for ἥκω. Bauer organizes the entry in the following manner: 1) Of persons: a. with mention of the starting point b. with mention of the goal c. used in the absolute d. as a religious expression i. of the coming of a deity |42-P ii. of the coming of the worshiper to the deity 2) Used impersonally
28
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
In each case ἥκω simply means “coming or arriving (if the destination is indicated).” The specific contexts do not change the meaning because they all refer to the same lexical sense, which we can describe as “the completion of a movement towards a place, exerted by a personal subject.” § 35. The lack of distinction between lexical and contextual meaning can be considered the basic shortcoming of current lexicography in general and, as a consequence, of the various dictionaries, large and small, of the Greek New Testament. As such, this is also a weakness of the Bauer series. However, it would be unjust to criticize the traditional dictionaries on this point. They were written at the time when these problems were not recognized and the primary goal of lexicography was not the description of lexical meaning, but of usage. The dictionary of Louw and Nida, which we shall soon examine, seeks to explain the difference between lexical and contextual meaning and does not replace Bauer’s dictionary. There is room for various kinds of dictionaries. The Bauer series—especially BAA and even the English version by Danker (BDAG)—is and will remain a valuable instrument. Nevertheless, it ought to be used according to what it is: a dictionary of usage that seeks to offer translational equivalents accompanied by grammatical information.
Excursus: The Third English Edition: BDAG²⁶ (A. Bowden) § 36. After its publication in 2000, reviewers of BDAG quickly recognized and praised the dictionary’s significant contributions to the field of New Testament lexicography: “It can be said in advance that BDAG will become the standard dictionary for researchers and students in the English speaking world. One can only hope that the dictionary will find a place alongside BAA in every New Testament library in the German speaking world.”²⁷ “In my view, for the future, BDAG will be the work to consult where formerly one would have consulted BAGD, and it will be consulted with much more profit.”²⁸
Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition (BDAG), based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6 ed., eds. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). Because BDAG appeared several years after Peláez’s monograph, I have composed the following analysis. David S. du Toit, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, TRu 68.3 (2003): 385 (my translation). Terry Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3109.pdf. This review was republished as “A Review of BDAG,” in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker, ed. Bernard A. Taylor et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 53 – 65. I refer to Robert’s RBL review.
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
29
“Danker has done [an immense service] for scholars and students alike by again bringing the English version of the lexicon up-to-date … That is the fate of the lexicographer, [namely] to vanish nearly as a person and a scholar behind his work. Extensive use of the tool is the best tribute we can pay to the fine scholars who have produced it.”²⁹ “[BAGD] was a fixture on the shelves of exegetes of the NT for a generation. The new Danker is a worthy replacement, which makes some changes … which clearly improve the tool. Other changes could have been made to bring the old warhorse even further up to date, but scholars and students will still find investment in this book worthwhile.”³⁰ “[BDAG] is without doubt the best tool of its kind that exists in any language, and the present edition is decidedly superior to the earlier ones.”³¹ “All the work of the twentieth century, and with it all the previous centuries, may be regarded as summed up and encapsulated in … BDAG.”³²
The following sections will overview general features and strengths of BDAG, while also considering aspects that could be improved. § 37. The Origins of BDAG Although BDAG was published in 2000, the dictionary has a complex family tree consisting of previous English editions that were offshoots of German dictionaries, and at the top of this tree stands, not Grandfather-Bauer (1928), as some might expect, but rather Great-grandfather Preuschen (1910).³³ In this way, BDAG is comparable to many other Greek lexicons, since, although a large number of changes and additions have been made, the text is related to predecessors.³⁴ Walter Bauer’s 1928 revision of Preuschen’s dictionary transformed the lexicon into a text that critics greeted
Hans-Josef Klauck, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3111.pdf. Harold W. Attridge, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3112.pdf. Jerker Blomqvist, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2001): http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/ 2001– 06 – 01.html. Lee, History, 178. See Peláez’s overview of the history of the Bauer-dictionaries in section 2.1. I reiterate certain aspects here, since the history exposes BDAG to criticism. BDAG’s history is described in greater detail by J. Lee, History, 6. For reviews of Lee’s text, see David S. du Toit, review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by John A. Lee, TRu 70.4 (2005): 504– 07; Tobias Nicklas, review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by John A. Lee, RBL 7 (2004): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3244_3806.pdf; Andy Naselli, “John Lee on NT Lexicography,” Andy Naselli: Thoughts on Theology, 2 Dec 2015, http://andynaselli.com/john-leeon-nt-lexicography. Naselli admits that Lee’s description of Bauer’s lineage was “the most interesting” and “fascinating” part of the book for him. Naselli also states that “Lee’s historical survey is stunningly detailed and quite convincing. … I’ve taken lexicons for granted. I knew they must have been a lot of work to create, but I did not appreciate them like I should.”
30
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
enthusiastically.³⁵ The fourth edition of the (Preuschen‐)Bauer dictionary was translated into English in 1957 by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich.³⁶ BAG was replaced in 1979 by BAGD—an English translation by W. Gingrich and F. Danker of the fifth edition of Bauer.³⁷ A sixth German edition of the Bauer series was published in 1988 (see 2.1 above). BDAG is more than simply a translation of BAA. Rather, the dictionary is a significant revision of BAGD that also includes content from BAA.³⁸ § 38. General Features of BDAG With a total of 1,108 pages, BDAG is 200 pages longer than BAA. These figures, however, do not account for the lengthy front matter in BDAG (77 pages in BDAG compared to 24 in BAA).³⁹ The front matter in BDAG consists of Danker’s brief introduction to the dictionary (pp. v–xi), which is followed by an English translation of Bauer’s essay “An Introduction to the Lexicon of the Greek New Testament” (pp. xiii–xxix) and then by various lists of abbreviations (pp. xxxi–lxxix). The alphabetized composite list of all abbreviations in the dictionary is particularly helpful (pp. lix–lxxix), since it spares the reader from having to wade through various lists of confusing abbreviations. In his introduction Danker explains that “students can count on completeness of citation [of the New Testament or the Apostolic Fathers or both] of all except the most common words appearing in the main text of the 27th edition of Nestle” (p. x). If a
When Bauer’s revision of Preuschen was published as a one-volume work, Bauer’s name was prominent, while Preuschen was written underneath Bauer in smaller print (Lee, History, 14n13). Preuschen’s name was dropped in Bauer3 (1937). “Then when BAG (1957) appeared, it was easy to get the impression that the book was by Arndt and Gingrich. Though Bauer’s name was mentioned on the title page, the names of Arndt and Gingrich are far more prominent, and on the spine of the book they appear alone” (Lee, History, 10). Prior to the 1957 publication of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Thayer’s translation of Grimm-Wilke had reigned supreme in the English speaking world since 1886; cf. J. H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005). Blomqvist (review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [by Danker], 2) makes the following observations: Although Arndt and Gingrich are credited as the translators of Bauer4, they also added entries and included further bibliographic material from North American scholars. The second English edition (BAGD) was prepared by Gingrich and Danker, because Arndt had died in 1957. BAGD included an improved typography, as well as references to previously unavailable textual witnesses, to texts from the Judean desert, and to extra-biblical material. After Gingrich’s death in 1993, Danker shouldered sole-responsibility for the revision of the third edition. See John T. Fitzgerald, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3108.pdf. As Sydney Landau indicates, readers and reviewers often judge dictionaries by their size, and not by a thorough examination of their contents; see Landau, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 266. Size, however, does not necessarily indicate value.
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
31
word occurs in the LXX or second temple literature, this is always indicated. Danker deliberately preserves Bauer’s bibliographical data, much of which had been excised in BAA in an inconsistent manner. Thus, while numerous lemmata in BAA record cross-references to excised material, Danker retains this bibliographic material and adds to it in many instances (p. ix). Danker also expands certain bibliographies, especially when he seems to have a particular interest in a word.⁴⁰ Bibliographies of lemmata related to women are significantly increased (cf. e. g., γυνή, γαμέω, προστάτις). BDAG shows an awareness of recent methodological developments, as it mentions the omniscient author (s.v. ἀνάστασις), narrative criticism (s.v. ἄνωθεν), gender issues (s.v. γυνή), and rhetorical criticism (s.v. Φαρισαῖος).⁴¹ § 39. New Structure of the Lemmata A new structure of the lemmata in BDAG, augmented by a new typography, fosters clarity. In similar fashion to BAA, BDAG employs a print layout that fosters readability. The definitions of meanings and the references to biblical passages are written in bold. This feature makes it easier to locate a lexeme’s definition(s) and their corresponding biblical occurrences.⁴² Unlike BAA, BDAG does not make use of small print for references to secular Hellenistic literature, which fosters a smooth general layout. A lexeme’s definitions of meaning are marked with Arabic numerals (1, 2, etc.), followed by a definition in bold roman and then by translational equivalents (i. e., glosses) in bold italic. Subsets of meaning are marked by the traditional use of lettering (a, b, α, β, etc.) and are printed in italics, as are the translations of references. § 40. Definitions As the previous paragraph explained, BDAG makes use of “extended definitions” as well as “glosses.” These definitions are placed at the beginning of the entries, followed by the glosses that were previously found in BAGD.⁴³ Ideally, a definition is a clear and succinct statement of the area of meaning covered by the word, including
Abraham J. Malherbe, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker, RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3110.pdf. Hans-Josef Klauck, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). In Danker’s own words, “This revision makes … use of bold roman typeface to highlight the meanings of words in their functional usage … Extended definitions are given in bold roman and may be followed by one or more formal equivalents in bold italics. The user of the lexicon can explore such equivalents for translation of passages that follow, but within the boundaries of the definition” (BDAG, viii). For example, the lemma for ἐπιθυμία (BDAG, 372) offers two definitions: a great desire for someth., desire, longing, craving; the bold functions as a definition, and the bold italics as glosses. This meaning is subdivided and verses are provided, and then a second definition is suggested: a desire for someth. forbidden or simply inordinate, craving, lust.
32
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
any fuzziness. Clarity is essential, brevity is required.⁴⁴ The use of definitions to describe the meaning of lexemes is an improvement over the gloss approach, since definitions sharpen the general lexical analysis. According to Lee, the description of lexical meaning by definitions “is the only method that offers a prospect of accurate description of meaning, and the one long recognised (sic) as such among lexicographers … But it is the harder path, because it forces the lexicographer to spell out precisely what the word means …; definition by gloss is child’s play by comparison.”⁴⁵ Prior to the innovative use of definitions in the dictionaries of Louw and Nida and Danker, bilingual dictionaries (including New Testament dictionaries) commonly provided series of translational equivalents for the various lexemes. Lee explains, Essentially the same method has been used by all lexicons of ancient Greek to the present day … New Testament lexicographers had no reason to proceed any differently … Criticism of the gloss method in New Testament lexicography has been slow coming. It made its appearance only in the last few years of the twentieth century, thanks mainly to the work of Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida.⁴⁶
Surprisingly, Danker offers very little information about the manner in which he constructed his definitions. He merely states that “this revision builds on and expands Bauer’s use of extended definition” (p. viii). Danker acknowledges that Louw and Nida’s “forward linguistic thrust has left its mark,” which can be seen in “verbal echoes” (p. xi).⁴⁷ Nevertheless, Danker credits Bauer as the innovator of these extended definitions. § 41. Neutral Language Danker seeks to use inclusive language and to avoid ideology in his analyses (cf. the entries for ἀδελφός and Ἰουδαῖος). He warns against translating terms such as ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος with meanings they assumed in ecclesiastical evolution, but which were absent in the New Testament (p. viii). Malherbe draws attention to the interesting example of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. BAGD (1979) translates this as “the Son of Man, the Man” and then focuses on Jewish eschatological expectations (p. 835). BDAG explains that the literal translation of the phrase would be “the Lee, History, 21. Lee continues, “The definition should be a substitution equivalent, that is, a phrase that when placed into any of the contexts conveys the same meaning as the word itself; this ‘fit’ is the test of the definition” (p. 21). Lee, History, 21. Lee, History, 16, 19. The definitions in BDAG have been explored in more detail by both John Lee and Terry Roberts, who bring attention to the seemingly independent composition of BDAG’s definitions. The definitions share some similarities to the definitions in L&N: In some cases, there is direct overlap, abridgements, expansions, and slight rewordings. For specific examples, see Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts explains, “I do not wish to imply that L[&]N (sic) has been any more than an influence on BDAG.”
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
33
son of man,” but then clarifies, “in our lit. … the Human One, the Human Being” (p. 1026). This illustrates how Danker does not shy away from personal interpretation and exhibits an intention not to offend some people in academic circles who might be dissatisfied with the traditional “Son of Man.”⁴⁸ Similarly, the translation of ἀδελφότης in BDAG is changed from “brotherhood” to a group of fellow-believers, a fellowship. The term ἀδελφότης only appears in 1Peter, a letter that explicitly describes the church as a brotherhood rather than a fellowship (i. e., κοινωνία, which is not used in 1Peter). Perhaps Danker’s change overlooks the importance of a family metaphor. § 42. Problems Arising from BDAG’s History As explained above, BDAG derives from Bauer’s German dictionary, which was a revision of Preuschen’s 1910 dictionary. Although each edition in this series incorporates revisions and expansions, they preserve largely intact both good and bad qualities of the work from which they descend. This is true not only of BDAG, but of most New Testament dictionaries. As Lee explains, “the whole history of New Testament lexicography is one of reliance on predecessors and transmission of older material with varying degrees of revision. If all were well with the tradition, there would be no cause for concern … But this is hardly the case.”⁴⁹ What specifically about Preuschen—the parent of Bauer/BDAG—causes concern? Rather than incorporating (new) documentary material, Preuschen cited no outside evidence of any kind. Preuschen omitted references from the LXX and did not incorporate the new insights from the massive influx of papyrological findings. Therefore, when Bauer undertook the revision of Preuschen, he focused on amplifying the literary parallels, but not on revising the glosses. Although Bauer expanded the literary parallels significantly, his coverage of the documentary evidence rested on Moulton and Milligan.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, Bauer claimed to write a completely new book (“ein völlig neues Buch,” Nachwort, 1928). Lee, however, questions this claim: Bauer has put back the evidence from parallels that Preuschen had stripped out. … This is the general nature of Bauer’s revision. He takes Preuschen’s entry and expands it with useful addi-
Malherbe, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Lee, History, 11. Using the example of πλήν, Lee demonstrates how easily a mistaken assertion from 1856 regarding the lexeme’s supposed colloquial usage entered into Preuschen in 1910 and has not been doubted since. This has happened in numerous entries, which implies that modern dictionaries, including BDAG, are dependent on predecessors, and sometimes perpetuate views that are doubtful or wrong. In Lee’s opinion, “we quickly reach the position that all entries in today’s lexicons should be regarded with suspicion until proved reliable. It is not that everything in them is likely to be wrong, but that they may contain faulty material that has been simply handed on and not adequately tested” (p. 9). Moulton and Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
34
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
tional information that is expected in a major lexicon, but the statement of meaning is generally the same or only slightly adjusted.⁵¹
Each new edition in the Bauer series (e. g., BAA, BAG, BAGD, BDAG) has expanded the supporting evidence and secondary opinions⁵² of modern scholars. The corpus has been expanded, variant readings have been accounted for. However, “the semantic content of the underlying work of Preuschen was preserved with little modification. It did not occur to Bauer or his successors to question the fundamental method or consider whether a complete overhaul might be needed. Only with BDAG (2000) has such questioning begun, though with limited consequences. Preuschen’s work lives on.”⁵³ Danker can thus be credited with implementing a new method of indicating meaning, but the bulk of the remaining content corresponds to the (Preuschen‐) Bauer series. § 43. BDAG Offers Too Much Information The continued expansion of information from Preuschen to Bauer to BDAG has led to an overload of information in many of the entries. In his introduction, Danker expresses no qualms about this increase of information: “Bauer received some criticism for proliferation of references to Greek literature, but contemporary biblical study endorses his judgment, and the present edition increases the coverage, … Indeed, in some instances the heaping of references is necessary to discourage risky assumptions” (p. ix). Danker hints that this will characterize future editions of the dictionary.⁵⁴ However, one could also ask whether the amount of information in BDAG has reached a state of excess. John Lee argues that with a century of accumulation be-
Lee, History, 144, emphasis added. Ironically, although H. Attridge is very positive of BDAG, his main point of contention relates to the bibliographic material, which he feels could have referred to more recent works in a deeper, more consistent manner. Accordingly, “The next generation of NT lexicons … should utilize a new template, preserving the wealth of primary lexical material found in Danker, but seriously reconsidering the extent and character of modern secondary literature cited to support lexical decisions” (cf. Attridge, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [by Danker]). Lee, History, 151. Elsewhere, Lee comments, “there has not been a … reassessment of the decisions on the splits and definitions … BDAG stands (with some exceptions) on the foundation that goes back to Bauer and Preuschen and beyond” (p. 167). Danker also hints at the direction his dictionary will take in the future, which, essentially, involves the multiplication of references to primary evidence: “Future revisions of this lexicon will probably feature inclusion of lexemes from early Christian pseudepigrapha that are not found in the present text … [L]imited references are presently made to the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Aa). Increased acquaintance especially with lectionaries will also provide a fund of terms that can enrich the vocabulary base. A major development will most certainly be the bestowal of greater attention on idiomatic usage” (p. x).
2.3 Bauer’s Dictionary
35
hind it, BDAG has reached “a state of severe overload.”⁵⁵ The entries have reached massive proportions (e. g., ὄνομα contains six columns and twenty subdivisions), incorporate mini-essays (e. g., σύζυγος, φοβέω), and have gathered too much information of various types and degrees of reliability and usefulness.⁵⁶ § 44. Another Look at the Definitions⁵⁷ Danker’s composition of definitions is a feat that rightfully deserves recognition. As Lee explains, “Those who have attempted it know that constructing definitions is an extraordinarily difficult and subjective task, and it is all too easy to find fault with others’ efforts.”⁵⁸ Danker no doubt anticipated this, as indicated in his introduction: “… the publication of any new lexicon creates a crop of instant lexicographers. And this is as it should be. [As S. Johnson noted], ‘Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been granted to very few.’” (p. vii). As Roberts observes, it is important to pay careful attention to Danker’s terminology, because he does not define all lexemes. When Danker regards a lexeme’s meaning as obvious, he offers an English gloss. Danker explains, “When a formal equivalent [i. e., gloss] is sufficient to convey the meaning, … this meaning stands in bold italics without extended definition” (p. viii). Commenting on this distinction between definition and gloss, Roberts states “I regard it as a methodological shortcoming for BDAG, having set up this distinction [between definition and gloss], to have failed to
Lee, History, 170. Many of Lee’s criticisms have been repeated by David Hasselbrook in his lecture “A Proposal for the Form and Content of the Next Generation of Printed New Testament Lexicons” (LMU, Munich, Dec 2012), 1– 15. Hasselbrook argues that BDAG has reached “the maximum overload state” (p. 1), continues “to amass references to primary Greek sources” (p. 1), and provides a “sheer mass of information” (p. 2). Hasselbrook questions the helpfulness of many of the definitions (p. 4). The Bauer series illustrates a “lumping together of ‘main text’ and ‘footnote’ matter, making for strained reading” (p. 9). “There are instances where valuable secondary scholarly work is either not referenced or not adequately assessed … [but] amending the situation would be quite an undertaking” (p. 14). See also David S. Hasselbrook, Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing toward a Full Diachronic Approach with the Greek Language, WUNT 2/303 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Lee concludes that lexicographers are “impelled by a general desire … to squeeze in as much as possible of all the main types of information. The outcome now seen in a major lexicon like BDAG is the best that could be expected under the circumstances, but it is hardly satisfactory … [M]any entries are overloaded to the point of impenetrability” (History, 131). Lee illustrates this with BDAG’s entry for βιάζω, which fills over a column and offers four possible senses and a short introduction to guide the reader, all for two occurrences in the New Testament. For much of this section, I am indebted to Terry Roberts’s review of BDAG in which Roberts focuses his attention “squarely at this aspect [sc. the definitions] of the lexicon.” I respectfully present aspects of Danker’s definitions, knowing that their composition constitutes an extremely laborious and painstaking task. Lee, History, 160.
36
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
provide for each sense of each entry a single definition.”⁵⁹ After scanning BDAG, Roberts estimates that sixty percent of entries contain one or more definitions. To justify his use of glosses in certain cases, Danker discusses the lexeme of γαμέω, “to marry,” in the introduction (p. viii). Roberts finds this example an unfortunate one: “The gloss marry is ambiguous (it could mean: ‘join in marriage’ – of a celebrant; ‘give in marriage’ of a parent; ‘take in marriage’ – of a spouse).”⁶⁰ In various entries of BDAG, there are examples of lexemes that are assigned several glosses without a definition (cf. e. g., καπηλεύω: trade in, peddle, huckster). Roberts poses a fair question when he asks which gloss, if any, is taking the place of a clear definition?⁶¹ With other lexemes, a gloss includes a detail in brackets without additional information (cf. e. g., πρίζω, saw [in two]). Other entries in BDAG make use of surprising pairings of definitions with glosses (cf. e. g., πόρνη a political entity hostile to God, prostitute, whore).⁶² After noting “hundreds of occurrences” of glosses without definitions, but very few definitions unaccompanied by a gloss, Roberts concludes “that BDAG has not yet shaken loose from the lure of the gloss; that the role of the definition is not yet fully appreciated and distinguished from that of the gloss, and that entries without a gloss have been deliberately shunned.”⁶³ Lee concurs: “It is too early to say that the reign of the gloss is over. It retains its hold on German Bauer, and its effects will take time to eradicate even from BDAG.”⁶⁴ These observations lead to a second question, namely, which method did Danker employ for composing the definitions in BDAG? Despite the use of definitions in BDAG, the basic lexical analysis of BAGD seems to have been preserved. In Roberts view, “to a large degree, the definitions have been superimposed on a pre-existing sense structure driven by glosses.”⁶⁵ As has already been stated, BDAG formulated definitions for about sixty percent of the entries, but relied on glosses for the remaining forty percent. The lexemes in BDAG with definitions have been formulated out of and grafted on to older glosses. The combination of definition plus gloss is not a bad method, but “the grafting of new definitions on to the existing glosses found in BAGD has not produced a good result.”⁶⁶ The definitions “thus reflect Bauer’s—or more often Preuschen’s—lexical analysis,”⁶⁷ which was based on glossing. Without doubt, the composition of definitions is a grueling task, but Danker’s apparent reliance on previous glosses has resulted in definitions with uneven quality.
Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Lee, History, 19. Roberts, review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (by Danker). Lee, History, 169, emphasis in original. See Lee, History, 166 – 67, who continues: “The number of meanings, the glosses or headings assigned to them [in BDAG], and the criteria of analysis remain by and large as before.”
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
37
Conclusion: several features of BDAG make the dictionary an important tool in the field of New Testament lexicography. An improved typography, a helpful introduction, comprehensive lists of abbreviations, and, most notably, extended definitions make the dictionary a user-friendly and linguistically-sound lexicon. On the other hand, several features of the dictionary call for careful reflection. BDAG’s connection with the Preuschen-Bauer tradition implies that much of the textual references, interpretive decisions, and translational equivalents have been left untouched. Although Danker’s definitions mark an important progress in the field of New Testament lexicography, they are used inconsistently, show a reliance on glosses from earlier editions, and occasionally do not clarify the sense of lexemes.
2.4 J. P. Louw, E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains (1988) § 45. The first volume of L&N begins with a preface, followed by an introduction and bibliography, with the terms of the Greek New Testament sorted into ninety-three semantic domains. The second volume contains three appendices (Greek-English, English, and the biblical citations). According to Louw and Nida, their dictionary is intended for those who translate the New Testament into various languages, but it is also useful for biblical scholars, pastors, and theological students. Because of its methodology, it can also be of interest to linguists and lexicographers. |43-P The following analysis is divided into two parts: the first summarizes the ideas contained in the dictionary’s preface and introduction, while the second offers critique.
2.4.1 Unique Aspects of the Dictionary § 46. Unlike Zorell and Bauer, Louw and Nida explain their guiding principles (cf. pp. iv–xx). We now present a brief summary of the content of these pages in order to give an idea of what the authors sought to accomplish.
2.4.1.1 The Composition of the Dictionary⁶⁸ § 47. In the preface of the first volume, Louw and Nida explain the steps they followed to produce the dictionary. In the first place, the lexical meanings of the New Testament lexemes were classified into domains and subdomains. This was done based on the dictionary edited by Barclay M. Newman that accompanies the
Cf. L&N, 4– 5.
38
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
third edition of The Greek New Testament. ⁶⁹ Next, these meanings were verified and other meanings were added by means of a careful study of New Testament concordances and dictionaries. Third, the definitions and notes were prepared. The notes are of two kinds: some, designed for translators of the New Testament, are included in the text; others, of interest for linguists and lexicographers, appear in footnotes. Lastly, the work’s cross references and indexes were composed. According to the authors, this introduction has a double purpose, namely, to help utilize the dictionary in an effective manner and to facilitate the understanding of the principles that guided its production. The introduction is divided into four parts whose main ideas we explain in the following sections.
2.4.1.2 Primary Characteristics of the Dictionary⁷⁰ § 48. The dictionary’s introduction affirms that it is unique for two reasons: first, for having been organized by semantic domains |44-P and second, because of how the domains are structured and the data is presented.⁷¹ According to Louw and Nida, the main characteristics of their dictionary include: 1. The textual base for this dictionary is the entire vocabulary of the third edition (text and apparatus) of the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. 2. To classify the terms, they differentiate between words with unique referents (proper names of people and place), words with class referents (common nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.), and markers (usually prepositions and particles that show the relation between lexemes, phrases, and clauses).⁷² The lexical elements that designate class referents belong to three main classes: objects (domains 1– 12; we prefer the term “entity” rather than “object”), events (domains 13 – 57), and abstracts (domain 58 – 91, we prefer the term “attribute” rather than “abstract”). Relations or Relationals (i. e., pronominal and deictic expressions that point to or represent objects or entities, and to a lesser extent, events/deeds or attributes; cf. domain 92) also constitute a domain. In L&N, three kinds of semantic features (i. e., “semes”: shared, distinctive, and supplementary features) form the basis for the various semantic domains. The shared features are those elements of meaning that a group of lexemes
Cf. B. Aland et al., The Greek New Testament, Revised Edition with the Greek-English Dictionary by Barclay Newman, 5th ed., ed. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research, UBS (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014). Cf. L&N, 6 – 8. The dictionary edited by W. E. Vine et al., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index (Nashville/Atlanta/London/Vancouver: Thomas Nelson, 1996) groups the words in the second part (which contains the New Testament vocabulary) by semantic affinity, but without qualifying these as domains. These markers are called “‘function’ words” and many of them are described as “relations” (domain 89) or “discourse markers” (so, καί and δέ; domain 91).
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
39
have in common. The distinctive features are those that separate meanings from each other. The supplementary features are those that may be relevant in certain contexts or may primarily play a connotative or associative role. Within the domains or subdomains, the more general meanings are treated before the specific meanings. Louw and Nida note that due to the limited vocabulary of the New Testament it is not always possible to proceed consistently from general to specific meanings. The same applies for attempting to establish strict, logical binary contrasts in order to classify sets of meanings more comprehensively, since these meanings are related with each other in diverse ways and involve various different dimensions that constitute complex groups or constellations.⁷³ |45-P 3. Concerning the form and organization of each entry, the authors consider it important to list the irregular forms if these carry a new meaning or if they are irregular enough to make them difficult to identify morphologically. When, for example, the meaning of the middle voice cannot be easily deduced from the active, the verbal lexeme is given in both forms: for example, ἀποπλανάω (“to cause someone to definitely go away from one’s beliefs or views”) and ἀποπλανάομαι (“to no longer believe what is true, but to start believing what is false”). If a verb is found in the New Testament only in the middle voice, this appears in the dictionary only under the middle voice and not under the active (e. g., ἀποτίθεμαι). 4. According to the authors, one of the advantages of this dictionary is that the different meanings are marked with letters. The most common, unmarked meaning is listed first (letter a), followed by the next most common and proceeding to the periphery meanings. According to the authors, however, the order of the list is not particularly important, given that the meanings sometimes form multidimensional groups or constellations, making it difficult to establish an order of priority or hierarchy among them. 5. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of this dictionary is the fact that the meanings are explicated through definitions and not simply by translational equivalents. For example, ἐρημόομαι is defined as “to suffer destruction, with the implication of being deserted and abandoned.” Its translational equivalents are “to be destroyed,” “to suffer destruction,” “to suffer desolation.” Another example can be provided: if παρίσταμαι is translated as “to stand near,” this phrase does not indicate whether this nearness is friendly or hostile, so that it would be helpful to describe the verb as: “to be near or alongside someone, either with friendly or hostile intent.” Context will indicate which of the two attitudes apply in each case. A meaning’s exact definition sometimes requires a fuller description of the distinct characteristics and an explanation about how a term’s meaning differs from others. This is the case with πόλις (as distinct from κώμη, “village,” and κωμόπολις, “town”), which is de-
See physical impact (domain 19), where κολαφίζω (19.7), ῥαβδίζω (19.8), μαστίζω and μαστιγόω (19.9) comprise the common item of physical impact, although each lexeme refers to its own particular instrument with which the blow is given: the fist, a stick, a whip.
40
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
fined as “a population center of relatively greater importance due to its size, economic significance, or political control over a surrounding area (it is possible that fortification of walls and gates also entered into the system of classification of a πόλις, in contrast to other terms for population centers).” |46-P 6. This dictionary often contains “multiple entries,” meaning that various lexemes appear in the same entry and are given the same definition, since they belong to the same semantic domain. For example, in 15.78 the following words appear together: ἀπαντάω, ἀπάντησις, ὑπαντάω, ὑπάντησις: “to come near to and to meet, either in a friendly or hostile sense.” Domain 23.20 contains ἀριστάω, δειπνέω, ἄρτον κλάω (an idiom, literally “to break bread”): “to eat a meal, without reference to any particular time of the day or to the type of food involved.”⁷⁴ Sometimes, as with ζάω, ζωή, ψυχή in 23.88, Louw and Nida do not give definitions but only translations that are more or less applicable to each of the lexemes: “to be alive, to live, life.” 7. The dictionary offers suggestions that can be important for translators, especially when an action or gesture can have a symbolic meaning that differs in various cultures. For example, in the biblical era “to beat the breast” symbolized repentance (cf. Luke 18:13), while in other cultures it is a symbol of pride. In certain languages the equivalent for the biblical expression would be “to strike the head” or “to grasp the abdomen.” Another case is presented when the noun for an object or animal does not appear in the target language because the animal or object does not exist in the country where the language is spoken, for example, a lamb among the Eskimos.⁷⁵TN
2.4.1.3 Justification for This Kind of Dictionary⁷⁶ § 49. In the introduction, Louw and Nida devote several pages and many examples to justify the expediency of a dictionary based on semantic domains. The reasons they give are the following: 1. Existing dictionaries do not explain the meaning of words, but substitute words from one language with words from another. A word, however, does not explain the meaning of a word in another language but is merely a translational equivalent. It is therefore necessary to define the meaning of lexemes. 2. A more serious problem in other dictionaries is the unsystematic and sometimes confusing manner in which different meanings are discussed. The authors
Cf. also 12.37: πνεῦμα, δαιμόνιον, δαίμων, διάβολος, “an evil supernatural being or spirit”; 13.2: ἔχω, φορέω, “to be in a particular state or condition”; 13.4: εἰμι, ὑπάρχω, “to be identical with”; 57.142: ἀλλάσσω, μεταλλάσσω, “to exchange one thing for another”; 57.186: πωλέω, πιπράσκω, ἀποδίδωμι, “to dispose of property or provide services in exchange for money or other valuable considerations.” Translator’s Note: Although the term “Eskimo” is sometimes considered offensive and is sometimes replaced by the term “Inuit,” the author’s original terminology is maintained. Cf. L&N, 8 – 11.
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
41
use the example of λόγος in BAGD |47-P in which its classification of meanings is based on a diversity of criteria and on a failure to distinguish between meaning and reference. 3. According to L&N, other dictionaries do not offer a systematic treatment of idioms, since these are included within the entries of the main lexemes. Thus, βρόχος is translated in Bauer’s dictionary as “noose,” and βρόχον ἐπιβάλλω as an idiom (and is first given its literal meaning: “to put or throw a noose on someone”) and then its figurative meaning is defined as “to catch or restrain him,” that is to say, “to impose restrictions.” See, similarly, the expression δίδωμι δόξαν τῷ θεῷ, which appears under δόξα. In contrast, L&N treats idioms and expressions independently. 4. The main reason for undertaking a dictionary of this nature was to bring together the terms that are closely related semantically and that are often considered partial synonyms because the ranges of their meaning tend to overlap. The characteristics and unique semes of each of the terms can only be discovered in this manner. In general, according to Louw and Nida, a word’s different meanings are relatively far apart. On the other hand, there are a number of instances in every language in which the related meanings of different words are very close. This is the case with νοῦς, καρδία, ψυχή, συνείδησις, φρήν, and πνεῦμα as psychological faculties. 5. Another advantage of this kind of dictionary, at least according to Louw and Nida, is that different parts of speech can be classified together. So, for example, εὐχαριστέω and εὐχαριστία (verb and noun) both mean “to express gratitude for benefits or blessings.” The lexemes can be translated depending on contexts as “to thank, thanksgiving, thankfulness.” 6. In grouping meanings on the basis of shared features, it is essential that derivatives be treated as closely as possible to their semantic roots. For example, ὕβρις, ὑβριστής, and ὑβρίζω are all discussed together. Sometimes this procedure leads to surprising results, but the authors give the following justification: For some persons it may seem strange that derivatives are classed together with their bases. For example, ἀργυροκόπος (2.5), defined as “one who makes objects out of silver,” is to be found in Domain 2 Natural Substances, Subdomain G Metals, even though ἀργυροκόπος clearly designates a |48-P person and may be best translated in English as “silversmith.” One could argue that the semantic base of ἀργυροκόπος is really -κοπος, but the structural element -κοπος, meaning “one who does something with something,” is so highly productive (though it has various forms) that it seems far better to treat ἀργυροκόπος as an extended derivative of ἄργυρος (cf. p. xix).
7. Positive and negative lexemes appear within the same domain when they share certain semantic characteristics, even though the semes of positivity or negativity distinguish them. Therefore, in domain 65 appear not only καλός, ἀγαθός, and χρηστός, but also κακός and πονηρός.
42
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
2.4.1.4 How to Use the Dictionary⁷⁷ § 50. Regardless of whether a reader wants to find a Greek word, the English translation of the Greek word, or a passage of Scripture, in each case the starting point for using L&N will be the corresponding index in the second volume, that is, the index of Greek terms (vol. 2, pp. 1– 268), the index of English terms (vol. 2, pp. 269 – 334), or the index of cited biblical passages (vol. 2, pp. 335 – 75). Each of these indexes point to the place or places in the first volume where the relevant word or text is discussed. The authors give a longwinded justification for this manner of presentation, which, for matters of space, we omit here.⁷⁸
2.4.1.5 Basic Principles of the Analysis and the Semantic Classification § 51. Louw and Nida classify lexemes semantically based on the following five principles: 1. According to Louw and Nida, strict synonymy does not exist,⁷⁹ since lexical items never have the exact same meaning in all contexts in which they appear. Although lexemes do not seem to differ in their denotation, they do vary in their connotations. The principle of “no synonymy” does not, however, exclude variatio for rhetorical or stylistic reasons. In this dictionary, even when two or more words can be included in the same entry, this does not imply that they are completely synonymous. 2. The different meanings or connotations of a word are determined by (textual or extra-textual) context. Thus, the contextual meaning (i. e., “sememe”) of a lexeme will be generated by the context in which it is found. |49-P 3. Meaning is defined by a set of distinct features (i. e., “semes”). It is essential not to confuse a term’s meaning with its concrete translation in a specific context. Thus, ὄρνις means “any kind of bird, wild or domestic,” but in Matt 23:37 it refers to a hen. Although it can be translated as “hen” in that passage, the meaning of ὄρνις is more generic, as indicated in the definition. 4. The figurative senses differ from the literal or ordinary meaning in three main ways, namely, the variety of domains, the degree of awareness of the relationship between literal and figurative meanings, and the extent of the conventional usage. 5. The different meanings of the same word and the related meanings of different words tend to be multidimensional and are difficult to sort out, since they more commonly constitute irregularly formed constellations than clearly organized structures. Nevertheless, it is certain that some subdomains can have a clear system of relations (e. g., terms for kinship, colors, common foods, and certain kinds of plants and animals). Many subdomains, however, are irregular in form and the relations between Cf. L&N, 11– 16. Cf. L&N, xi – xv. The study of synonymy, homonymy, and polysemy is a main bone of contention among linguists; cf. Ullmann, Semantics, 141– 258.
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
43
them are complex. Because of this it is impossible to establish a Grundbedeutung, a basic meaning that should be found in each of a term’s connotations or that can explain them. With regards to related meanings of different words, some basic kinds can be established for the various relations of the shared semes. For the classification of lexemes, Louw and Nida have grounded their work above all on the characteristics of shared features (i. e., “semes”), distinct features, and supplementary features. In a small number of cases, other factors, including the relation of the part with the whole, were taken into account.
2.4.2 Critique of the Dictionary⁸⁰TN § 52. We ought to begin by making an observation about the general character and method by which L&N was produced. The successive steps (i. e., 1. classification of the lexemes according to the meanings given by Newman’s dictionary, 2. verification of these and addition of other new meanings, 3. drafting of the text) are clear at once. Other aspects, however, are not sufficiently explained for the readers. For example: |50-P 1. The authors do not explain the method used to verify and determine the meanings of the lexemes because they do not specify the manner for establishing the semic development. To understand the procedures employed by Louw and Nida more completely, their work Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament ⁸¹ must be consulted, where the principles that guided the production of their dictionary are developed. Chapter 3, “Analyzing the Different Meanings of the Same Lexeme” (pp. 35 – 79), shows the method followed: one should begin with the texts and use an inductive method (beginning with the texts themselves) with as little theological presupposition as possible. When a relatively full and illustrative series of passages containing the word is classified into groups, one must ask what each group has in common and what distinguishes the groups from each other. After provisionally classifying the different meanings, one must then test the classification by observing how efficiently and fittingly it accords with the rest of the passages. After this, Louw and Nida limit themselves in Lexical Semantics to illustrating various analyses that are carried out by different criteria. Thus, they analyze the term γῆ (pp. 40 – 45) by citing 31 of the 250 passages in which the word appears in the New Testament, but without indicating the criteria by which they chose these or if they used information from another dictionary. In dealing with these 31 passages, they begin by establishing the apparent oppositions and by tentatively identifying five meanings. They then examine contexts to verify the adequacy of
Translator’s Note: In spite of this critique by J. Pelaéz, a more positive assessment of Nida’s methodology can be found by J. Mateos in § 73. J. Louw and E. A. Nida, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament (Atlanta: SBL, 1992).
44
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
their provisional list of possible meanings. They consider it necessary to verify the five meanings in other contexts in which γῆ appears in the New Testament and to compare this lexeme with others from the same domain. Although these steps are discussed in Lexical Semantics, they are not demonstrated in Louw and Nida’s dictionary, making it impossible for the reader—who does not know the initial criteria for selecting the passages and does not have the final data of the analysis—to know if the suggested provisional meanings are definitive and if they exhaust the meanings of γῆ. For the term πατήρ (414 times in the New Testament) they draw on 24 examples in Lexical Semantics (pp. 45 – 50). Again, they construct homogenous sets by the method of distinct oppositions. In this way they establish eight provisional meanings without investigating the semantic features that characterize them. This is as far as the analysis goes. Further examples will illustrate the difficulties. According to the authors, the term ἐκβάλλω (Lexical Semantics, 51– 57) refers to a movement caused by an agent or power. Before beginning the analysis, they identify three semantic features: (1) the actual movement in space, (2) the agent which causes the movement, and (3) the entity which undergoes the movement (one could object that only the first feature or seme is denoted; the |51-P other two are connoted). Of the 81 passages in which ἐκβάλλω appears in the New Testament, they examine 23 without specifying the criteria of selection. They find that the proposed semantic features are not verified in many of the examples. With the term σάρξ (147 times in the New Testament, most having theological content) a different procedure is followed (pp. 57– 59): they begin with glosses or English translations and they explore other distinct problems. Although there is no other further analysis, conclusions are offered. For χάρις (156 times in the New Testament), they choose 18 key contexts (pp. 62– 68), again without explaining the criteria for selection. Here the procedure is different: The Greek text and the translations of four English Bibles are given followed by a discussion of the translations without having performed an analysis of the lexeme. Six provisional meanings of χάρις are established. As can be seen, there is no unified method for grasping the meaning of terms. The examples are insufficient and, contrary to the initial claims, lexical meaning is not distinguished from contextual meanings. 2. Another point left unexplained by the authors is the procedure employed for preparing the definitions of the lexemes—a step that seems preliminary for organizing words into semantic domains. Louw and Nida affirm that a definition is constructed from the semantic features (i. e., “semes”) that constitute a term’s meaning. The semic development, however, is not explicated in the work, leaving the manner in which definitions are obtained unresolved. In order to classify lexemes, Louw and Nida distinguish between words with single referents (proper names of person or place), words with class referents (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs), and markers (normally prepositions and particles that indicate the relation between lexemes, phrases, and sentences). The terms that signify class referents belong to three main categories: (1) objects or entities (primarily in domains 1– 12), (2) events (actions, domains 13 – 57), and (3) abstracts (attributes, domains 58 – 91), which include terms
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
45
marking relations. Domain 92 includes pronominal and deictic expressions that primarily point to (or take the place of) objects, and to a lesser degree, to events and abstracts. Thus, despite the challenges involved in sorting lexemes into their proper domains, Louw and Nida offer hypotheses about the semantic features of lexemes, which they do not test rigorously through detailed analyses of the terms. |52-P 3. Another unresolved point is the criteria adopted by the authors for grouping the lexemes into semantic domains. The dictionary affirms (p. xix) that to a certain point, some basic kinds of domains based on diverse relations between shared features can be established. Some sets of words form clusters in which there are certain highly significant distinctive features (e. g., the terms for kinship). In other cases, there are overlapping sets, as is the case with ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, στέργω (although the last lexeme does not appear in the New Testament). These sets are arrangements based on various hierarchies of generic or specific meaning, as with ζῷον, θηρίον, ὑποζύγιον. The sets of opposites include antonyms, such as ἀγαθός/κακός, and other reversives, such as πωλέω, “to sell,” and ἀγοράζω, “to buy.” Finally, there are other sets, including numbers, days of the week, months of the year, and periods of night. § 53. In Lexical Semantics (pp. 86 – 105), the following methodological steps are described: (1) a small group of meanings should be selected that seem to be very close in semantic space; (2) the type and number of their shared features of meaning (the basis for their constituting a set) should be specified; (3) the features that separate meanings from one another should be determined; (4) a distinction should be drawn between the minimal critical core features (those that are necessary and sufficient) and any additional supplementary features that may be important; (5) the types of relations between the meanings of any set should be determined, and these relations include “clustering,” “included,” “overlapping,” “complementary” (positive/negative, reversive, or role-shifting) and “serial” (infinite, repetitive, and ranked). These steps, however, are not adequately explicated or systematically applied by the authors so that the reader is confronted with a gap between the proposed theory and the actual analyses, leading to some confusion. One has the impression of dealing with an intuitive analysis of specific groups of lexemes rather than with a method that is explained and developed step by step. Excursus: An Analysis Based on Intuition ⁸²TN 1. The authors begin by presenting a group of lexemes that are closely related because they denote movement in space by means of the lower limbs (cf. περιτρέχω, εἰστρέχω, κατατρέχω, προστρέχω, προτρέχω, ἐκπηδάω, περιπατέω). The shared features of these lexemes rather than their common themes are of importance. Without explanation, the definition of each word is given and a particular context is considered.
Translator’s Note: The following excursus continues focusing on aspects that were discussed in Louw and Nida’s text Lexical Semantics.
46
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
2. The same occurs in the case of γῆ, παράλιος, χεῖλος, αἰγιαλός, ἄμμος, νῆσος, τόπος διαθάλασσος, for which the common semantic feature is the relation to a body of water. The English examples of run, walk, skip, and crawl are used in order to illustrate the method. |53-P 3. Next, the authors compare four Greek terms that express different kinds of movement (τρέχω, περιπατέω, ἄλλομαι, ὀρχέομαι) and others that express linear movement (πέμπω, συνοδεύω, ἀκολουθέω, διώκω, σύρω, ἄγω, φέρω). Additionally, the authors discuss verbs of oral utterance and activities involving learning. 4. As a prototype of a group they discuss δίδωμι and show its subset, which consists of δωρέομαι, μερίζω, μετρέω, κοινωνέω, χαρίζομαι. In each case definitions are provided that have not been explained. Meanings are given for μερίζω and μετρέω even though these do not affect the meanings in the subset. 5. Unique problems of analysis are encountered when meanings of words are essentially indefinite in extent, such as with ἡμέρα, αἰών, γενεά, καιρός, ὥρα, ἡλικία. 6. The authors contend that it is not realistic to look for precise, rigid categories, since language is not structured like a mosaic with well-defined borders of meaning on a fixed surface. Meanings change, are expanded or narrowed in different contexts, and fall into disuse due to changes in the culture that uses them. Another problem arises when the close relationship of several lexemes is masked by differing translational equivalents. To illustrate this, they point to certain uses of γίνομαι, ἐπιτελέω, ἐνίσταμαι, εἰσέρχομαι, ἥκω, ἐπακολουθέω, πληρόω, προγίνομαι, πίπτω, a series of lexemes in which there is only one single distinctive feature of meaning—the specific event or occurrence—represented by several different lexemes, each of which has supplementary semantic features that distinguish the corresponding referents. 7. According to the authors, there are some instances which involve more than one layer of inclusion and which do so only under special conditions. For this they cite several cases, among them ἔρχομαι in its double sense of “to go” and “to come,” depending on the point of view. There are also clear differences of meaning based on technical distinctions, which occurs with δικαιοσύνη when its usage is compared in Matthew and in the letters of Paul. 8. In the case of positive/negative contrasts, they observe that it is very easy to think merely in terms of polar contrasts, such as small/big, hot/cold, good/bad, without realizing that the contrasts are not so simple. They continue by discussing “negativized derivatives” with the prefixes α- αν-, such as δυνατός/ἀδύνατος. Finally, with ἀληθεύω/ψεύδομαι and εὐλογέω/καταράομαι, which refer more to the content or affect than to the act of speaking. 9. They then discuss special problems with related meanings of different lexemes, such as inclusives |54-P (θηρίον/λύκος or ἄνθρωπος/ἀνήρ) or religious terms (ἅγιος, καθαρός/ἀκάθαρτος, and μετανοέω). They also point to the differences of degree (ἀγαθός, βέλτιον/κρείσσων, ἄριστος, etc.). 10. They indicate that in many cases one or more features of meaning (semes) may not always be present in every context or that it can be uncertain if a certain feature is relevant. This implies that the definition should often contain expressions like probably, possibly, normally, or often. As examples, they give the definitions for ὄχλος/λαός, ἀλώπηξ, πλεονεκτέω/πλεονεξία, ὑπεραίρομαι. 11. Sometimes Louw and Nida find it hard to determine the domain in which certain meanings belong, such as with ὄναρ and ἐνύπνιον (“dream”), which can be considered psychological experience or communication. 12. In the classification of meanings, they consider the most difficult to be: (1) attitudes and emotions, and (2) moral and ethical qualities and their related behavior. 13. For those who tend to think primarily in terms of syntactic categories rather than in terms of semantic classes, some domains and subdomains may appear completely anomalous. For example, in the subdomain “purpose” there are nouns, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, idioms, and adjectives (cf. τέλος, εἰς, πρός, ἕνεκεν, ἵνα, εἰκῇ, κατὰ σκοπόν, διώκω, κενός).
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
47
14. The authors classify βούλομαι and βουλεύμαι together as alternative forms of the same lexeme. This is also true with derivatives like συμβούλαμαι and συμβούλιον and with others that have different stems but essentially the same meaning (e. g., ἐκλέγομαι, αἱρέομαι, λαμβάνω). 15. Conscious of the limitations of this kind of dictionary, Louw and Nida conclude by saying that it would be a grave error to think that such a lexicon, based entirely on the analysis of semantic domains, could provide everything necessary to analyze the meanings of lexemes. For them, it is simply one way to bring the problems of meaning into focus and must always be combined with the more traditional treatment of dictionaries based on alphabetical listing and focused on the various ranges of individual lexemes. Nevertheless, a dictionary based on semantic domains provides a new approach and new insights, especially concerning the high degree of uncertainty involved in identifying the boundaries of meanings. Another strength of Louw and Nida’s dictionary is its recognition of a language’s dependency on its culture. 16. For Louw and Nida, domains are classified based on (1) the existence of shared features, and (2) the association of entities and activities. So, for example, |55-P they find it helpful to put all bodily parts together in one domain instead of distributing them into a number of domains on the basis of form or function. The same is true with the parts of a building. 17. For the authors there are many ways to organize the semantic domains, especially when the differences are based on somewhat “slippery” categories like values and degrees. The first criterion for classifying domains, according to them, depends on how coherently the group of meanings reflects the “world view” of the native speakers. In the New Testament, this is only possible to an extent.
§ 54. Having discussed the book Lexical Semantics, one can appreciate its unique richness in details related to aspects of meaning while admitting that it lacks a more general vision. The exposition is particularly lacking regarding (a) the organization of the primary domains and the aspects that differentiate them from each other, and (b) the subdomains included in the main domains. Although terms that are clearly associated can help guide the construction of domains, the semantic link that guided the association should also be provided. Given that the authors do not sufficiently answer the three questions posed above (cf. §§ 52– 54), we have examined this dictionary from different points of view in order to arrive at a critical appraisal. By way of conclusion, we have analyzed Louw and Nida’s treatment of the lexemes in semantic domain 11, “Groups and Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes.” In the following section we summarize our conclusions on the basis of the previous analysis.
2.4.2.1 Organization of the Dictionary’s Entries § 55. One of the most salient and efficient characteristics of L&N is its exclusive use of semantic criteria for listing the lexeme’s various contextual meanings. On this point, the dictionary differs radically from the Bauer series, where entries are organized almost exclusively based on syntactical criteria. As Lee has shown, Louw and Nida’s |56-P disregard of syntactic structures is sometimes taken to unacceptable extremes.⁸³
Throughout these pages we will refer to the article by J. A. L. Lee, “The United Bible Societies’ Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning,” FNT 5 (1992): 167– 89. J. P. Louw responded to Lee’s objections with an article entitled, “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography,” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48. In this
48
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
For example, ἵνα and ὅπως appear without any mention of the accompanying verbal mood. Even prepositions are discussed as much as possible without reference to their corresponding grammatical cases. The dictionary’s scattering of meanings is extreme and the treatment of a preposition like ἐπί can leave the reader exhausted: its meanings are dispersed in 21 different sections. In only five of them—all in domain 90 (nn. 5, 9, 23, 34, 40)—is the preposition’s case indicated. We have verified this anomaly with other prepositions and note that the authors only begin mentioning the cases taken by prepositions in domain 90 (cf. ἀπό, εἰς, ἐκ, etc.). § 56. Another example is warranted. The verb εὐνοέω, which only appears in Matt 5:25, is discussed in three different sections. In 30.23 it is defined as “to consider a view favorably, with the intention of finding a solution”, in 31.20 as “to come to an agreement with someone,” “to agree to, to agree with”, and in 56.3 as “to settle a case out of court,” “to settle with.” The translation of Matt 5:25⁸⁴ in domain 31.20 (“go and agree with your accuser quickly”), and in domain 56.3 (“go settle with your accuser quickly”), does not correspond with the verbal aspect of the imperative or of the participle, which indicate duration and certainly have a conative aspect (i. e., “try to bring yourself into agreement with your adversary”; cf. domain 30.23, “consider how to resolve matters with your adversary quickly”).⁸⁵ |57-P
2.4.2.2 Material Cited in the Entries § 57. L&N does not treat texts outside the New Testament corpus (i. e., classic, koine, papyri, LXX). This is a problematic feature, especially with regards to the LXX. But their treatment of the New Testament can also be questioned. In each entry, often one or two short texts are cited even though the lexeme appears more often. For example, approximately 23 passages are cited for ἄνθρωπος, which appears 548 times in the New Testament; eight passages are cited for ἀγαθός (104 times in the New Tes-
article Louw discusses the translation of λέγω proposed by Lee (“to give an order”) and also the sense of the verb θέλω in Matt 26:15 and Mark 6:48 and of λέγω in Luke 9:31. Louw affirms that one of the more difficult aspects of lexicography is to extract with accuracy the semantic features (that inherently belong to the lexeme) from context in order to distinguish clearly between lexical meaning and contextual meaning. Perhaps this difficulty is the reason that Louw and Nida’s dictionary ends up being a dictionary of contextual meanings rather than one of lexical meanings. Louw also recognizes (p. 143) the difficulty of determining the lexical meaning when he says, “This is indeed one of the most difficult aspects of lexicography, namely, to extract from contexts those semantic features that can be said to be contributed by the lexical item itself. This is easier said than done, because each demarcation can have fuzzy edges. This is basic to all classification procedures in all sciences and enterprises.” In his article Louw also discusses Lee’s proposals for παρακαλέω, “to exhort,” in 1Tim 6:2 and Tit 2:15, or “to ask for help,” in Matt 26:53; ἡγέομαι in 1Thess 5:13; ζητέω, “to discuss, debate,” in John 16:19. Finally, he indicates several cases where Lee’s observations seem to be sound. Cf. ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ. In 30.23, ἀντίδικος is translated as “adversary”; in 31.20 and 56.3 less accurately as “accuser.”
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
49
tament), two for ἀγαπητός (61 times in the New Testament) and two for γράφω (190 times in the New Testament). The suspicion arises that Louw and Nida have not considered all the contexts where the lexemes appear, since the full spectrum of contextual meanings are often omitted. Thus, for example, the contextual meaning “command” applied to λέγω in Matt 4:3 is not given (“if you are God’s son, tell [= command] these stones to be changed to bread”).⁸⁶ The meaning of εὑρίσκω is defined as “to learn something previously not known, frequently involving an element of surprise,” and the translational equivalents “to learn” and “to discover” are given, but the meaning “to find” is omitted. As is the case in many dictionaries, the entry for ἀποκρίνομαι omits the contextual meaning “to react” when the verb refers to a preceding event or to a specific context or situation.⁸⁷ Such omissions come as little surprise, since Louw and Nida provide a relatively reduced sampling of citations instead of examining all of them and their contexts. § 58. Occasionally the analysis of a term is clearly deficient, as in the case of ὄνομα. The authors discern four contextual meanings (2.175): (a) “name” (33.126), (b) “person” (9.19), (c) “reputation” (33.265), and (d) “category” (58.22). However, they overlook the contextual meanings of “surname” (“surname” does not appear in the English index) and “title” (but cf. ὀνομάζω in 33.127). In 33.128 the idiomatic expression ἐπιτίθημι ὄνομα is discussed, which in Mark 3:16 (the only example cited) is translated “to Simon he gave the name Peter.” Here, however, “Peter” is a surname, analogous to “Boanerges” given to the Zebedees. In 57.102 the text of Phil 2:9—in which ὄνομα carries the sense of “title” (since it refers to “the Lord”)—is treated under χαρίζομαι and translated as “he bestowed on him a name.” In the Greek text, the definite article is used so that τὸ ὄνομα must be translated as “he bestowed on him the name … [Lord].” |58-P
2.4.2.3 Treatment of the Lexemes § 59. The scattering of a lexeme’s various contextual meaning into different semantic domains, without gathering them under one unified entry, results in the dismemberment of each lexeme. One must resort to the first index of the second volume to gain a succinct overview of the lexeme as a whole. It can be claimed that L&N is not a dictionary of lexemes and their various contextualized meanings, but rather an incomplete dictionary of contextual meanings, since, as has been demonstrated, these are sometimes not complete. Consequently, the definitions given to the respective contextual meanings in the various sections do not indicate the meaning of the lexeme itself. This implies that contextual meaning is given rather than lexical meaning. Despite the authors’ goal of considering the meaning of a lexeme abstractly as a starting point, they actually begin and end with the meaning of the lexeme in con-
Cf. J. L. Lee, “The United Bible Societies Lexicon,” 182, section “A use is not covered.” Cf. C. Padilla, “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 3 (1990): 67– 74.
50
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
text. This illustrates another instance where the praxis of Louw and Nida contradicts the theory established in the dictionary’s introduction.
2.4.2.4 The Definitions of Meaning § 60. Perhaps the most important insight of L&N is its distinction between meaning and translation, as well as the systematic use of definitions (factually, of each sememe) prior to translation. If, as these authors correctly affirm, meaning is constituted by a set of semes, one might expect them to identify the relevant set of semes before formulating a definition of meaning. One would also expect them to explicate the method used to attain the set of semes and the definitions. However, as has already been noted, this is not the case and it is indeed doubtful that this has been conducted systematically, since the authors’ definitions are often inexact and somewhat vague.⁸⁸ In spite of this, L&N marks a clear advance in comparison to BAA, since the latter does not define meaning but only provides translational equivalents of Greek terms in context. § 61. Frequently, Louw and Nida group distinct lexemes together in the same entry and offer a single definition of meaning for all of them. Thus, the meaning of ἀπαντάω, ἀπάντησις, |59-P ὑπαντάω, ὑπάντησις (15.78), is defined as “to come near and to meet, either in a friendly or hostile sense”; the meaning of ἀφαιρέω, περιαιρέω, καθαιρέω, λύω (13.38) as “to cause a state to cease, to do away with, to remove, to eliminate”; the lexemes ἄνεμος, πνεῦμα, πνοή, πνέω (14.4) are defined as “air in relatively rapid movement, but without specification as to the force of the movement”; the lexemes ἀποθνῄσκω, θνῄσκω, θάνατος, νέκρωσις, ἐκψύχω (23.99) are defined as “the process of dying.” Louw and Nida consider this grouping of lexemes to be one of their dictionary’s advantages. Various grammatical categories can be classified together in this manner because from a semantic point of view the lexemes belong to the same category. Although this procedure at first glance seems adequate for categorizing lexemes semantically, contrary to the claim of the authors we assert that one definition for a noun and its corresponding verb cannot be maintained. Thus, to cite another example, the verb εὐχαριστέω and the noun εὐχαριστία (33.349) are defined as “to express gratitude for benefits or blessings.” Similarly, nouns are sometimes defined as if they were verbs (e. g., ἀπάντησις/ὑπάντησις, νέκρωσις, θάνατος, εὐχαριστία), or verbs as if they were nouns (e. g., πνέω). § 62. Only with difficulty can these lexemes be considered synonyms. Rather, they belong to the same semantic domain but their semic content is different and therefore their meaning should also be defined differently. The lexemes of the first and second examples above (ἀπαντάω…, ἀφαιρέω) actually refer to actions (events, according to Louw and Nida’s terminology), although grammatically they are verbs
As J. A. L. Lee has shown for γίνομαι, χρή, ὄφελον, ἐκβάλλω, ὑπάγω, etc.; cf. Lee, “The United Bible Societies Lexicon,” 182– 85.
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
51
or nouns. In the third group, all of the lexemes (with the exception of πνέω, “to blow”) concern entities with associated action. In the fourth group of examples (ἀποθνῄσκω, etc.), both the nouns and the verbs can denote a process and a state, depending on the context and verbal form. Although the authors discount the existence of strict synonymy, this confusing procedure of juxtaposing different lexemes in the same entry and assigning them a single definition invites readers to view them as synonyms. § 63. At times the authors group heterogeneous lexemes together in one entry. This occurs, for example, in 67.113, where αἰφνίδιος, ἐξαίφνης, ἐξάπινα, ἐξαυτῆς, ἄφνω, ἄρτι, and παραχρῆμα are listed together and defined as “pertaining to an extremely short period of time between a previous state or event and a subsequent state or event: suddenly, at once, immediately.” In parentheses is added, “in a number of contexts there is the implication of unexpectedness, but this seems to be a derivative of the context as a whole and not a part of the meaning of the lexical items.” In the |60-P texts cited by the authors, αἰφνίδιος (Luke 21:34), ἐξαίφνης (Luke 2:13), and ἄφνω (Acts 16:26) are translated as “suddenly.” In our opinion, however, two kinds of lexemes are confused in this case. There are those that connect two events by referring to a brief temporal interval between them (relation of immediacy). These include παραχρῆμα and ἐξαυτῆς, which should have been included in 67.53 with εὐθύς and εὐθέως.⁸⁹ In addition, there are also adverbs that do not connect two actions, but instead refer to action occurring unexpectedly in a situation or influencing it. The lexemes αἰφνίδιος, ἐξαίφνης, ἐξάπινα and ἄφνω belong to this category and the semantic feature “unexpectedness” is not contextual, but lexemic. With regards to ἄρτι, which connects an action and a temporal specification, the lexeme denotes a definite time and connotes a speaker.⁹⁰
2.4.2.5 Translational Equivalents § 64. The translational equivalents proposed by Louw and Nida sometimes suffer from imprecision. Moreover, although Louw and Nida stress the difference between translating and interpreting a text, they sometimes lose sight of this, as can be demonstrated by a few examples. When discussing the idiomatic expression ἐπικαλεόμαι τὸ ὄνομα τινος ἐπὶ τινα (11.28), two passages are cited where this phrase is thought to appear. In the first case, however, (Acts 9:14, πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομα σου), the complement ἐπὶ τινα does not actually appear and simply means “to call upon someone’s name.” Louw and Nida translate this as “[to put in prison] all
The interpretation of εὐθύς in the texts cited by Louw and Nida (67.53), Mark 1:29 and 1:21b, is flawed because it does not correctly identify the antecedent and the consequent that are brought together by the adverb; cf. J. Mateos, “εὐθύς y sinónimos en el Evangelio de Marcos y demás escritos del Nuevo Testamento,” In Cuestiones de Gramática y Léxico, Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 2 (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977), 105 – 39. Cf. J. Mateos and J. Peláez, “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento,” FNT 8 (1995): 84– 94.
52
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
those who are your people (literally, ‘all those upon whom your name is called’),” even though this passage does not deal with “calling/invoking someone’s name upon another,” but simply with “calling upon the name of God.” In the other case (Acts 15:17), the phrase πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ’ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά ἐπ’ αὐτούς (literally translated as “all the nations upon whom my name has been called”) the translations “all the nations who belong to me” or “all the nations whom I have called |61-P to be my own” are suggested. A more literal translation, however, would be “all the nations that already bear my name.” Often L&N seems rather to offer a theological interpretation instead of a translation. If the objective of a dictionary is to propose translations that correspond to the Greek text, then it is difficult to accept Louw and Nida’s suggestion for Acts 9:14, “to put in prison all those who are your people” (δῆσαι πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου). This is not a translation but rather an interpretation or contextual deduction that is unnecessarily distant from the text. § 65. In similar fashion, in Domain 11.15 they translate αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί as “all of the people of God.” In 11.13 they propose translating the expression υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας as “people of God’s kingdom, God’s people.” Translating υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας as “God’s people” could be a conclusion based on exegetical analysis, but it cannot serve as a translation. As an idiomatic expression, this paralexeme could be translated as “citizens” or “recipients of the kingdom,” that is, those who belong to the kingdom or would be taken up into it. Similarly, they suggest translating υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός as “sons of the light, people of God.” The translation “sons of the light” is slavishly literal and betrays the sense, but “people of God” is truly unfortunate because it confuses exegesis with translation and eliminates any connection with the extremely important symbol of light. The phrase would be better translated simply as “those who are illuminated, those who are in the light.” “People of God” is offered as a possible translation for terms as distinct as λαός (11.12), υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός / τῆς ἡμέρας, τέκνα φωτός (11.14), αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί (11.15), οἱ ἅγιοι (11.27). We do not deny that in specific contexts these terms can refer to the people of God, but translation and reference—as Louw and Nida rightly say in the introduction of the dictionary—should not be confused. § 66. The translation given by Louw and Nida in 11.18 for Phil 3:15, “all of us who are initiated into this faith should have this same attitude” (ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν, cf. Col 1:28), seems inexact. As the authors noted in the same discussion, the most probable meaning for τέλειος is “mature, grown up, one who has achieved a goal” (cf. 88.100) that was “begun” (cf. 1Cor 2:6; 3:1– 2). A more appropriate translation would therefore be “all mature [Christians] should have this way of thinking.” The fact that the dictionary’s primary target group is translators of the New Testament could explain why the authors are more interested in exegesis and interpretive clarification of terms and phrases than in supplying mere translations. |62-P
2.4 Louw and Nida’s Dictionary
53
2.4.2.6 Lexemes and Paralexemes § 67. In contrast to other dictionaries, Louw and Nida examine paralexemes (phrasal lexemes) as if they were lexemes (e. g., υἱοὶ τοῦ φωτός, υἱοὶ τῆς ἡμέρας, 11.14) and sometimes include idiomatic expressions and possible set phrases (e. g., ἐπικαλεόμαι τὸ ὄνομα τινος ἐπί τινα, 11.28) as lemmata. It would rather have been advisable to supply paralexemes under their predominant term (as is traditionally done), or at least to supply references to the subdomain(s) where they are located. Another flaw of Louw and Nida’s dictionary is that idiomatic expressions are the only type of phrases dealt with, which they assign to a corresponding domain, often distinct from the domain of the predominant lexeme.
2.4.2.7 Practicability § 68. This dictionary’s practice of distributing contextual meanings over distinct entries proves to be an obstacle for the user, as has already been noted. In order to unpack a lexeme’s various contextual nuances and meanings, the reader must first consult the indexes in the second volume, which supply the particular locations of the lexemes within the semantic domains. One then has to consult the first volume and look up the meaning at the corresponding locations. For example, the distinct meanings of λαός are found in the following domains and subdomains: a: nation b: people of God c: crowd d: common people
. . . .
While the three primary contextual meanings are found in semantic domain 11, “Groups and Classes of Persons and Members of Such Groups and Classes,” a fourth is found in domain 87, “Status.” For the contextual meanings of ὀφθαλμός the reader must turn to twelve different entries, including some referring to idiomatic expressions; sixteen in the case καρδία, eleven for ὡς, sixteen for ψυχή, thirteen for λόγος. The number of entries increases in the study of prepositions: there are forty-two entries for εἰς and twenty-five for ἐκ. As a consequence, the dictionary is not easy to use. To improve the usability, it would have been better to combine two aspects: (1) to gather all the contextual meanings in one entry, as it is done in traditional dictionaries, and (2) to refer from here to a second |63-P volume dedicated to the organization of the semantic domains. Without doubt, it is instructive to see how a lexeme’s different contextual meanings frequently scatter into diverse domains, but this should not be done at the cost of practicality. Louw and Nida, however, prefer to present the dictionary in this befuddling manner. What’s more, Lee’s suggestion that the dictionary be reconstructed in alphabetical order is viewed by
54
Chapter 2: A Critical Appraisal of Dictionaries on the Greek of the New Testament
Louw as out of touch, since the dictionary is structured based on semantic domains.⁹¹ Summary: With this we conclude our analysis of the dictionaries of the New Testament. Despite our criticism of Zorell’s dictionary and of the Bauer series, one should not underestimate the ability of these veterans of New Testament lexicography. Their work was done at a time when morphology and syntax, rather than semantics, grabbed the imagination of linguists. One must also bear in mind that without a precise semantic theory it is difficult to conceive lexical meaning clearly, and even more so to explain it properly. For its part, L&N deserves recognition as the pioneer in the realm of semantics applied to lexicography and, because of this, for having blazed a new trail. It is regrettable that the authors did not systematically apply the theoretical principles that they so clearly and brilliantly explained in the introduction to the dictionary. But thanks to Louw and Nida, the path has been smoothed for new explorers of lexicography to apply more systematically to New Testament lexicography the principles sounded by these two scholars. |64-P
Cf. J. P. Louw, “Analysis of Meaning,” 140. Louw states, “Lee’s call for L[&]N to be recast in alphabetical order … shows insensitivity to the fact that L[&]N is a semantic domain dictionary.” However, the electronic version of this dictionary has resolved this problem by offering each of the contextual meanings within the particular entry for the various lexeme under consideration.
PART II A Theory of Semantic Analysis (Juan Mateos)
Chapter 3: Introduction¹TN 3.1 Goals and Purpose § 69. The scope of composing a bilingual Greek-Spanish Dictionary limited to the corpus of the New Testament has dimensions that can be realistically carried out. As is generally known, every dictionary is based on the study of words in context, within the spoken or written corpus being considered. The Greek of the New Testament has a certain unity due to the dominant theme that concerns the figure, the activity, and the doctrine of Jesus, and, in the second place, due to certain common categories inherited from the Jewish culture. The question of whether or not a language constitutes a more or less closed system is (in this particular case) not of primary concern, since the corpus that we have chosen has already been established and the time interval between its first and last writings, which does not even span one hundred years, allows for sufficient synchrony. § 70. In composing a dictionary, the fundamental task consists in determining the meanings of words. If one attempts to produce a new dictionary rather than translating or adapting an already existing dictionary, one must face the challenge of how to carry out the lexicographical analysis. It is obvious that such an endeavor does not begin from scratch. There are, indeed, concordances for the language of the New Testament and existing bibliographies about the diverse terms. Various authors have systematized this data into dictionaries and achieved valuable syntheses. One should mention the unquestionable value of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which first looks at the Hebrew equivalents of terms and then at their usage in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature. § 71. The reasons for endeavoring to develop a new dictionary are numerous. In the first place, since there is not currently²TN a Greek-Spanish dictionary of the New Testament, students must resort to others in which the “output” language is English, Latin, or German. Given that every language constitutes a particular system of oppositions and that two linguistic systems cannot be superimposed on each other, passing through an intermediate language inevitably leads to deformity, or at least to an impoverishment, leaving |1-M key resources untapped that would come to light if the original Greek were translated directly into Spanish. To profit from these dictionaries, students would need a mastery of a foreign language to the point of being able to appreciate the tiny nuances or apparent connotations that are clear to native speakers. This alone would justify composing a dictionary, but there are other more impor-
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to the introduction and chapter 1, pp. 1– 16 in the original text of Mateos. Translator’s Note: cf., however, Amador Ángel García Santos, Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Setenta y Nuevo Testamento, Instrumentos para el studio de la Biblia 21 (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011) and the review by David du Toit in Gnomon 86.8 (2014): 691– 95. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-009
58
Chapter 3: Introduction
tant reasons as well. Linguistics has advanced greatly in the last years and semantic studies have multiplied. It is now possible to produce a dictionary in a more systematic and rigorous manner than in the past. If a technique of analysis is established, greater precision can be achieved, and the consideration of semantic domains brings out the distinct nuances of each lexeme in the corpus.
3.2 Preliminary Overview of the Method § 72. The method that we propose contains some aspects that are borrowed and some aspects that are original. The systematization made by A. J. Greimas in the first part of his work Sémantique structural ³ is of great help and opens new horizons for semantic analysis. His theory about the semic nucleus and the diverse figures of speech that can represent the same nucleus has been very fruitful. Moreover, the distinction between nuclear and contextual semes provided a solid base for establishing the fundamental meaning of a lexeme and its different contextual meanings. Some deficiencies, however, are found in Greimas’s exposition. In the first place, a lack of a procedure for establishing the semic nucleus can be detected. The necessary methodological steps for systematically discovering a lexeme’s nuclear semes are not explicated in the work. In fact, the few analyses he offers concern exceptional cases of meaning—such as the example of tête (“head”). It can be said that the basic sense is not analyzed. The same occurs with the theory of “classemes,” which deals almost entirely with gender. In the second place, the work’s approach causes its analyses (tête, “head,” prendre, “take,” donner, “give”) to have only relative usefulness for scholars of a language. Greimas’s fundamental intention seems to be to find techniques for mechanical translation. For this he claims to achieve a level of abstraction that enables the mechanical translator to attain all possible combinations shared between the simple, common items of two languages. |2-M Since such a method did not prove helpful for developing a dictionary, it was necessary to look for a formalized procedure that would help develop an understandable and practica didactic method for all those that are interested in the matter. Thus, the question of how to establish the necessary steps for determining a lexeme’s inherent nuclear semes on the semiotic level (i. e., langue) was raised. § 73. Several works of E. A. Nida contributed to this task.⁴ Acknowledging previous studies, Nida establishes four semantic classes, which include “object,” “abstract,”
A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structural (París: Larousse, 1966) (ET Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, trans. Daniel McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie, intro. Ronald Schliefer [Lincoln/ London: University of Nebraska Press, 1983]). E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: Brill, 1974); E. A. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1975), and E. A. Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning (Paris: La Haya, 1975).
3.2 Preliminary Overview of the Method
59
“event,” and “relation/relationals.”⁵ For our part, we prefer to label these classes as “entity,” “attribute,” “event,” and “relation.” According to this classification, words or lexemes can be classified based on their meaning into semantic classes that differ from grammatical ones. However, Nida’s classification lacks the class “determination,”⁶TN which is used frequently in language and is necessary for the classification of terms and for the interpretation of texts. Nida also expresses uncertainty about how to classify the article and he does not deal with the different kinds of determination.⁷ One of Nida’s merits is his observation about the existence of terms that simultaneously relate to multiple semantic classes. Such are, for example, familial terms, like “son,” “father,” (they relate to the classes of entity and relation), terms that imply an entity and an attribute, an entity and an event, and even more complex terms that can include three classes (“teacher”: entity + attribute + event). At this point, however, Nida abandons the analysis of the terms to concentrate on the analysis of discourse. Although in Componential Analysis of Meaning he analyzes relevant terms from particular domains of language (kinship, verbs for whispering, verbs for singing, etc.), he does not connect this analysis with his theory of semantic classes. § 74. The method that we propose begins with the definition of semantic classes (and includes determination; cf. §§ 99 – 100, 139 – 47). On this foundation, the semantic formulas of terms are established based on whether they refer to one or more semantic classes. In this way, certain paradigms for determining semantic formulas can be reached. The semantic formula is the starting point for the development of the semic nucleus of a term. Introducing this step between the lexeme and its |3-M semic development presents two advantages. First, by accurately defining the elements that comprise the formula, one can identify the specific semantic domain where the cluster of semes are to be located while avoiding the dispersion of meaning into several domains and an incomplete analysis. Second, in order to arrive at paradigmatic formulas that apply to various lexemes, it is helpful to form semantic domains by substituting semes or by expanding the formula to integrate new elements.⁸TN To deduce the formula’s primary nuclear semes, the analysis continues from the semantic classes by finding semantic correspondence for the grammatical categories (i. e., gender, number, mode, tense, aspect, voice; §§ 174– 203). According to the con-
Nida, Componential Analysis, 37. In Nida’s terminology, these are called “semantic classes” and are contrasted with the “grammatical classes” or “parts of speech.” Cf. the discussion of L&N in § 48. Translator’s Note: The Spanish authors recognize the novelty of their use of the term “determination” and view it as a positive advance. Cf. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures, 154. Translator’s Note: this is discussed in sections §§ 71 and 74 of this chapter. In the latter of the two, the author states that by comparing semantic categories, “the first semes belonging to its nucleus appear. Together these constitute a generic nucleus, which is common to numerous lexemes.” See also § 298 and the examples in §§ 341 and 344.
60
Chapter 3: Introduction
text of the analysis, the semantic categories are applied to lexemic and morphemic levels, and also to contextual and syntagmatic levels. By applying the semantic categories to the elements that constitute the lexeme’s formula (lexemic level), the primary semes that belong to its nucleus appear. Together these primary semes constitute a generic nucleus, which is common to numerous lexemes. The addition of specific semes gives reason for composing generic, more or less limited semantic domains. The comparison of related lexemes makes it possible to determine each lexeme’s specific, distinct semes and to construct its complete semic nucleus fairly accurately. In this way, the elements that comprise the lexeme at the semiotic level (i. e., langue) are obtained, and based on these elements one is able to compose the definition(s) of meaning. The last step, proceeding to the semantic level (i. e., parole), consists of the analysis of each lexeme in context (cf. §§ 297– 306). If the focus is on a limited corpus like the New Testament, it is important (ideally) to examine every instance where a term is used and to establish its lexemic domain, that is to say, the various contextual meanings (sememes) that are formed from the semic nucleus based on the different contexts or syntagms in which it is interwoven. At this point, by applying the semantic categories to the morphemic level, one determines whether the contextual semes are categorical (classemes) or peripheral (occasional semes) based on the relations that the lexeme establishes with other aspects of the syntagm (see §§ 88 – 90). § 75. The method that we have outlined has the advantage of incorporating both componential and definitional (also called contextual) analysis. The method first identifies the semantic features that form and characterize a specific lexeme (semes). When the semes are identified by means of componential analysis, circular |4-M definitions are avoided. Also, since componential analysis does not depend on the syntagmatic contextual relations of lexemes, their various contextual meanings should be determined. Once the componential analysis has been completed, the definitional or contextual analysis may be performed. Sememes pertain only to linguistic reality (because lexemes are abstractions), making it necessary for componential analysis to be complemented by a contextual analysis. Definitional analysis takes the morphemic elements and the syntagmatic relations into account. If this aspect of the analysis worked in isolation from componential analysis, lexemes would be viewed as simple units, which would make it very difficult to explain synonyms and distinct elements accurately. By working in a complementary manner, contextual analysis enables a lexeme’s living reality to be captured while at the same time confirming, completing, or correcting the previous componential analysis. § 76. A method of analysis must meet three conditions if it is to be effective, namely, (1) clarity, (2) functionality, (3) efficiency. Clarity: If the purpose of the method is to explain the sense of a word or a text with accuracy, then a murky and complicated method is an obstacle rather than a help. Instead of facilitating the interpretation, the method itself would need to be interpreted. The concepts must therefore be clear, the steps of the analysis must be pre-
3.3 Concepts and Terminology
61
cise, practical, and well ordered, and the examples sufficient so that the person trying to apply the method is able to obtain results independently. Functionality: A method is functional if it complies with the principle of economy or profitability and achieves the purpose it set out to accomplish. Therefore (without claiming from the outset to resolve all problems), the selection of subjects treated, the theoretical exposition, the classifications and terminology, and the grades of abstraction that are used will be essential in order to fully understand the terms and their differences. Distinctions could be multiplied indefinitely and exceptions or particular cases could fill paragraph after paragraph. The intended goal must always be kept in focus, since it helps guide the theoretical systematization, which must be sufficient and ample, but not excessive. Efficiency: The model’s efficiency is its touchstone and the criterion for judging its validity. If the analysis obtains verifiable results from the text about the meaning of terms and the relations between them, then we have established an efficient method. This text will try to explain the steps that seem indispensable for accomplishing semantic analysis. The subject is not considered closed or |5-M exhausted. We are sure that this method of analysis will lead to greater precision and to a system that complements previous ones.
3.3 Concepts and Terminology § 77. Semantic analysis is concerned with the meaning of words or lexemes, with their semantic relations, and with the semantic structure of a text. The present method treats the first of these three aspects in particular.
3.3.1 Lexeme § 78. The term “lexeme” refers to lexical units that have an independent semantic nucleus. Not all words that constitute a text are lexemes. Some, although rare, lack an independent semantic nucleus: “I wish that you would come” “I take a break from reading.”
3.3.1.1 Morpholexeme § 79. A morpholexeme is a lexical unit (with a semantic nucleus) that is not used independently, but is always linked with a lexeme that could be used independently.⁹TN
Translator’s Note: It is helpful to observe that, according to paragraph § 79 of this chapter, morpholexemes are simply equated with prepositions and conjunctions.
62
Chapter 3: Introduction
This is the case with certain particles whose meaning partially depends on the accompanying autonomous lexeme. This can be observed in the following phrases: “leave me, since I have lots to do” “he has come from Paris.”
Here, the particles have meanings of cause and origin, and this situates them in the category of lexemes. To this class of lexemes (morpholexemes) belong the particles “for,” “to,” “without,” “but,” etc. The designation “morpholexeme” describes their nature: they are morphemes because they do not appear independently, and they are lexemes because they have a semantic content. In the semantic classes, the following lexemes or morpholexemes can be found: Entity: house, man, table (lexemes) Attribute: big, old, red (lexemes) Event: walking, going (lexemes) Relation: causality (lexeme), without, but (morpholexemes) Determination: name (lexeme); the, these (morpholexemes).
|6-M
3.3.1.2 Paralexeme § 80. Paralexemes (figures of speech/idiomatic expressions) are lexemes formed through an expression whose meaning does not result from adding each of the meanings of the components. They are, therefore, semantic units whose meaning transcends the particular components from which they are comprised, such as “red herring,” “kick the bucket,” “in full swing,”¹⁰TN υἱοὶ φωτός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
3.3.1.3 Lexeme and Root § 81. A lexeme differs from its root (an etymological concept rather than a semantic one) in that it has a broader scope. For example, in the series justice, just, judge, justifying, to justify or δίκη, δίκαιος, δικαιόω, δικαιοσύνη, all the terms, respectively, are derived from the same root but constitute different lexemes. The identification of a root will occur in most cases when the derivatives have common semantic elements, but the different elements in each case produce a distinct semantic nucleus for the particular lexemes.
Translator’s Note: These three English examples are drawn from Lyons (Semantics, 1:23), since the Spanish paralexemes carry no special significance in English. Lyons explains paralexemes, viz. phrasal lexemes as phrases which are defined as independent entries in dictionaries.
3.3 Concepts and Terminology
63
3.3.1.4 Lexemes and Cases of Inflection § 82. The cases of inflection (nominal or verbal) do not change a lexeme’s semantic nucleus. The forms that result from inflection do not, therefore, constitute different lexemes: I say, I was saying, I said, I have said, λέγω, ἔλεγον, εἶπον, εἴρηκα. These are forms of the same lexeme. In languages with nominal inflection, such as Greek, the same principle applies to nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles. For example, ἀγαθός, ἀγαθοῦ, and ἀγαθόν are forms of the same lexeme. Considered abstractly, it is unimportant whether a lexeme is designated by one or another of its forms. To be sure, Greek lexemes with nominal inflection (λευκός, ἀληθής) are customarily listed in the nominative singular, and those that have verbal inflection in the first person present indicative (e. g., ἵστημι, λαλέω, πληρόω). |7-M § 83. The so-called cases of nominal or verbal inflection associated with the lexeme produce contextual semes (classemes of gender, number, tense, aspect, and voice), thereby actualizing aspects of their semantic potential in context. We call these aspects that influence meaning “morphemes.”¹¹
3.3.2 Semes § 84. Semes can be defined as the elementary units of meaning into which a lexeme can be reduced. Although a lexeme is a single unit, in reality it results from the combination of a certain number of characteristic features, each of which is dissimilar from the other. For this reason, the definition of a lexeme is formulated in light of the set of the semes that comprise it. Each seme is a carrier of meaning, viz. is an elementary meaning-bearing unit that can take part in the composition of diverse lexemes. A lexeme’s meaning, therefore, is not comprised of isolated semes, but of semes that are conjoined, arranged, and pertain to a system of networks.
3.3.2.1 Semic Nucleus § 85. The cluster of semes that determines a lexeme’s identity is called “nuclear semes.” This cluster of semes constitutes the semic nucleus of the lexeme in question. For example, if we analyze the lexeme “person” in the context of classical philosophy, we would be able to break it down into the following semes: human being, living, animate, rational. This group of semes, which is inherent and exclusive to the lexeme “person,” constitutes its nuclear semes. In other words, these comprise the semic nucleus of the lexeme “person.”
Other authors define “morpheme” in strictly grammatical terms (as opposed to semantic ones). We will pass over this question, which does not have bearing on the present analysis.
64
Chapter 3: Introduction
3.3.2.2 Nuclear Configuration § 86. Considering the nuclear semes that belong to the lexeme “person,” it can be seen that they are not arranged randomly but in a specific order that forms a chain. The reason is that some semes presuppose others and there is a hierarchy among them: rationality presupposes animate, which presupposes living, etc. The hierarchical organization follows criteria of presupposition or implication (priority or dependence) and gives the semic nucleus (cluster |8-M of nuclear semes) a specific configuration, which can be called a nuclear configuration. The meaning of a lexeme does not depend solely on the semes (considered independently) that comprise it, nor solely on their particular cluster (their semic nucleus), but also on the particular manner in which the nuclear semes are organized (nuclear configuration).
3.3.2.3 Generic Contextual Semes (Classemes) § 87. Contextual semes that are called “classemes”¹² are defined according to their consistency, that is, based on their regular presence in context, and according to their iterative character, that is, not solely according to one lexeme but based on several lexemes, according to syntactic units that transcend single lexemes and therefore affect not only the lexeme but also the syntagms in which they occur.¹³TN Classemes are semantic categories that are derived from grammatical categories (i. e., mode, tense, aspect, voice, gender and number). The application of these categories is the first step for the analysis of a lexeme in context.
3.3.2.4 Occasional Contextual Semes § 88. There are contextual semes that do not depend on the semantic categories but on the relations that a lexeme establishes with other lexemes in a syntagm. Semes that can be systematized at least in part according to certain semantic axes are called occasional or peripheral semes, respectively.
So B. Pottier, Linguistique génerále (Paris: Klincksieck, 1974) and A. J. Greimas, Structural Semantics. Pottier’s book on general linguistics has been translated into Spanish but not English; cf. Lingüística general: teoría y descripción, Biblioteca románica hispánica 246 (Madrid: Gredos, 1977). Translator’s Note: This is a somewhat vague explanation. Essentially, classemes are semantic categories that are derived from grammatical categories, both of which are discussed in §§ 203 and 215. For example, the “gender” of the classemes is established based on its “iterative character” and “not solely according to one lexeme” (to quote the author’s terminology), since there are various ways to specify a lexeme’s gender.
3.4 Grammar and Semantics
65
3.3.3 Sememe § 89. A sememe, which corresponds to “contextual meaning” of classical lexicography, is the result of additions to the semic nucleus and/or of changes made in the lexeme’s nucleus or in its nuclear configuration by classemes and occasional semes. A sememe, however, is formed in theory by all or some of the nuclear semes that comprise a given lexeme plus its contextual semes. The sememe has a meaning that is more specific than that of the abstract lexeme. Occasionally, sememes have meanings that differ from their abstract lexemes. § 90. A clear example of modifications of a semic nucleus in context, caused by the omission of semes, is that which occurs in paralexemes (cf. § 80). If, for example, one considers animality a seme of “flesh,” then the seme of animality is neutralized in the expression “to flesh something out.” For this reason, the individual components of paralexemes cannot be analyzed separately. A lexeme situated in context, however, contains certain constants |9-M (at least relatively) and certain variables. The constants are the semes that belong to the nucleus and the variables are the semes produced by context. Thus, a lexeme’s meaning is only an abstraction and provides a basis for meaning in discourse. Even this basis can be modified by the impact of the syntagms in which the lexeme is used. |10-M
3.4 Grammar and Semantics § 91. As an introduction to the chapters that follow we shall succinctly compare grammatical and semantic principles and then establish a technical terminology. First of all, one must emphasize the distinction between grammatical structure, which is based on morphology and syntax, and semantic structure, which is based on meaning. The relationship between these two is complex. On the one hand, the same surface structure can express various semantic structures (principle of economy); on the other hand, the same semantic structure can be achieved in various ways on the surface level (principle of expressiveness).
3.4.1 Grammatical and Semantic Classes § 92. In my opinion, grammatical classes correspond to the so called “parts of speech,” which are distinguished as the main parts of speech (noun and verb), secondary parts of speech (adjective and adverb), by relations (prepositions and conjunctions) and by the auxiliaries (article and pronoun). From another point of view, they can be divided into syntactic classes (noun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, and conjunction), into semantic classes (pronoun), and into functional
66
Chapter 3: Introduction
classes (article).¹⁴ This division has the drawback of inserting the term “semantic” into the field of grammar and applying it exclusively to pronouns. § 93. Semantic classes (cf. § 102), however, are based on infra-linguistic concepts that break down a global, intuitive perception of reality. Individuals experience the world in which they find themselves. They express themselves from their point of view in order to orient and to situate themselves in it. For this they classify and name entities (things) and events (states, actions, processes), both of which are described by means of attributes (quality, quantity) rooted in established relations. These are actualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we use the term determination. § 94. “Denomination” and “classification,” therefore, refer to the |11-M entities (nameable persons or things: tree, house, store, cat, child, god, etc.). Entities can be described in three ways: a) with Attributes: properties, qualities, modalities that are attributed to the other classes (large, good, red); b) with Events: states, activities, or processes in which entities can actively or passively participate (to sleep, to be, to walk); c) with Relations: linkage that is established between the previous classes and affects the meaning (causality, instrumentality, finality, identity, similarity, possession, location, etc.). Determination serves to actualize, identify, situate, and objectify these in time and space (cf. § 73).
3.4.2 Semantic Classes § 95. The semantic classes do not correspond completely to the grammatical classes. Entity (Ent), for example, covers a narrower field than nouns, because some nouns do not refer to entities but to attributes. Thus, if nouns denote a quality (e. g., beauty, height), they belong to the class of attributes (A). If they denote a state or an action (e. g., stop, rest, walk, greeting, departure) they belong to the class of events (Ev). If they denote localization or possession (e. g., nearness, distance, allegiance) they belong to the class of relations (R). Other non-abstract nouns, such as “name” and “nickname,” could belong to the class of determination (D). The same occurs in the Greek of the New Testament, since many abstract nouns denote attributes or events. Examples of such attributes (A) might include καινότης, “newness” (Rom 6:4); ἀκαθαρσία, “impurity” (Rom 6:19); ἁπλότης, “simplicity,” “generosity” (Rom 12:8); κακία, “wickedness” (1Cor 5:8); δικαιοσύνη, “righteousness” (Matt 5:6). Abstract nouns denoting events (Ev) might include ἁμαρτία, “sin” (Mark 1:4);
Cf. Marcos Marín, Aproximación a la Gramática Española, 3rd ed. (Madrid: Cincel, 1978), 108, following Bello, Amado Alonso, Henríquez Ureña, and Gili Gaya.
3.4 Grammar and Semantics
67
μετάνοια, “repentance” (Mark 1:4); θάνατος, “death” (Rom 5:12); ἐπιθυμία, “desire” (Rom 7:8); ἀποκάλυψις, “revelation” (Rom 8:19); ἐλευθερία, “freedom”; φθορά, “ruin” (Rom 8:21); παράκλησις, “consolation” (Rom 12:8); φιλαδελφία, “brotherly love” (Rom 12:10); ὀργή, “wrath” (Rom 12:19); εἰρήνη, “peace” (Eph 2:15); νίκη, “victory” (1John 5:4); οἰκονομία, “administration” (Luke 16:31). § 96. Attributes (A) correspond grammatically to adjectives and adverbs; thus, ἀγαθός, “good”; πονηρός, “evil”; τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας, “the sick ones” (Mark 1:32); ἐσχάτως ἔχειν, “to be at the end” (Mark 5:23); νουνεχῶς ἀποκρίνεσθαι, “to respond intelligently” (Mark 12:34). |12-M In some languages, attributes appear as nominal or verbal expressions: “in a group,” “with gestures,” “without limit,” “full bodied,” “according to custom,” “about to die.” In Greek, this often occurs with the genitive (with or without the article): ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως, “powerful word” (Heb 1:3); τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, “the evil spiritual beings” (Eph 6:12); τέκνα ὑπακοῆς, “obedient children” (1Pet 1:14); ὁ κύριος … τῆς δόξης, “the glorious Lord” (Jas 2:1); γεέννα τοῦ πυρός, “fiery place” (Matt 18:9); τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως, “the lowly body” (Phil 3:21); τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, “the sinful body” (Rom 6:6); τὸ σῶμα τῆς σαρκός, “the carnal body” (Col 1:22); σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, “chosen instrument” (Acts 9:15); κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας, “unjust judge” (Luke 18:6); καρδία ἀπιστίας, “unbelieving/unfaithful heart” (Heb 3:12); πάθη ἀτιμίας, “dishonorable passions” (Rom 1:26); ῥίζα πικρίας, “embittered/poisonous root” (Heb 12:15). Sometimes this also occurs with nominal expressions: διδαχὴ … κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, “authoritative teaching” (Mark 1:27). § 97. Events (Ev) (states, activities, or processes) are normally expressed with verbs: ἔρχεται, “goes”; ποιεῖ, “does”; τρέχει, “runs”; καθεύδει, “sleeps”; but also with nouns (verbals or abstracts, see § 95); πίστις, “faith/faithfulness”; ὑπομονή, “endurance” (Luke 8:15); σεισμός, “earthquake” (Acts 6:12); εὐαγγέλιον, “good news” (Mark 1:1). § 98. Relations (R) are expressed with prepositions (in Greek also with nominal inflection): μετὰ τῶν θερίων, “among the animals” (Mark 1:13); πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν, “towards the sea” (Mark 4:1); χωρὶς νόμου, “without/apart from the law” (Rom 3:21); ἡ οἰκία τοῦ πατρός, “the house/family of the Father” (John 14:2). Relations are also communicated by means of prepositional phrases (equivalent to a preposition): “according to,” “in accordance with,” “in compliance with,” “by means of,” “with respect to,” “with regards to,” which are less common in Greek (but, cf. πρὸ προσώπου σου, “before/in front of you” [Mark 1:2]). Some compound prepositions occur in Greek: ἐναντίον, “facing” (Luke 1:6); κατέναντι, “before” (Mark 11:2). Relations are also communicated by conjunctions or conjunctional phrases: γάρ, “for”; δέ, ἀλλά, “but”; ὥστε, “so that”; ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ, “in order to accuse him” (Mark 3:2); ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν, “in order to destroy him” (Mark 11:18), εἰ καί “despite”; οὖν, “as a result”; οὕτως οὖν, “for this reason” (Luke 14:33), ἐφ’ ᾧ (causal) “therefore” (Rom 5:12); διὰ μέσου, “in between” (Luke 4:30), etc. In the Greek of the New Testament, compound conjunctions are quite common: διότι (Luke 1:13), καθώς (Mark 1:2), καθάπερ (Rom 3:4). |13-M Some abstract nouns express
68
Chapter 3: Introduction
a relation, and many of these clarify the semantic content of the morpholexemes (prepositions or conjunctions): “finality,” “causality,” “necessity,” “similarity,” “difference.” § 99. Determination or actualization serves to situate a lexeme in time and space and to specify the person being referred to. It ensures the possibility of referring unequivocally to the actual and particular.¹⁵ According to Coseriu,¹⁶ “situation” is the set of circumstances and spatial-temporal relations that are created by the very fact that someone speaks (with someone and about something) in a particular location and moment of time. This is achieved by using the determiners “here” and “now,” “this” and “that,” “now” and “then,” which enable an individual to be an “I” and others to become “you,” “he,” etc. This is the spatial and temporal dimension of discourse, created by the discourse itself and from the perspective of the speaker. Determination is frequently associated with other semantic classes and is therefore a critical part of the semantic analysis of lexemes. There are, moreover, lexemes or morpholexemes that are determiners, among them the definite article (“the”), the demonstrative adjectives (“this,” “these,” “that,” “those,” etc.) and other quantifiers (“very,” “all,” “none”), including the numerals (“one,” “two,” etc.). Given the frequency and importance of the definite article, it is helpful to make a few further remarks about it. In addition to actualizing it also distinguishes a person or thing from others. It is called “anaphoric” when it refers to a term that was already mentioned in the discourse. Nonetheless, without specifically appearing in the discourse, the article often refers to entities known in the situation or culture. Therefore, the concept “anaphoric” can be amplified and divided into textual, situational, or cultural anaphora. For example: they ascended to the temple; the observance of the law; the king (the specific temple, law, and king are all familiar in the culture); ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, “from the temple” (Mark 13:1); ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, “the high priest” (Mark 14:60); ἐν τῷ ναῷ, “in the sanctuary” (Matt 23:16); ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, “by the altar” (Matt 23:18); and cf. τὸ ἡδύοσμον, τὸ ἄνηθον, τὸ κύμινον, “mint, dill, cumin,” (Matt 23:23). § 100. A particularly important kind of determination or actualization for semantic analysis is the substantival adjective, according to which attributes, events, or relations are specified (entity). Such determiners gain semantic content since the connoted¹⁷TN subject becomes denoted (Ent); for example, “the young” (Ent + A); “those who rule” |14-M (Ent + Ev); “those from outside” (Ent + R), “the previous” (Ent + R); “those from Cadiz” (Ent + R). Objectification/determination can be individualized: ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the person” (referring to a particular human being); totalized: οἱ δώδεκα, “the twelve” / ὁ κόσμος, “the world”; generalized: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀγαθός
E. Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingüística General, ed. D. Alonso, Biblioteca Románica Hispánica (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1973; expanded version in 1990), 308. Translator’s Note: This text was never translated into English. Coseriu, Teoría del Lenguaje, 310. Translator’s Note: See the author’s definitions of “connote” and “denote” in paragraphs §§ 101– 02.
3.4 Grammar and Semantics
69
“the good person” (referring to the morally ideal person). The differences between these depend on context. In discourse, determination varies in a diverse manner both in grade and in form. Relation lexemes can specify or identify, which occurs with possessive lexemes: “the hat of the man”; with locating lexemes: “the man on the right”; with temporal lexemes: “the man of yesterday”; with lexemes of origin: “the man from Cordoba”; and with anaphoric lexemes: “Maria’s husband” (the previously mentioned Maria). The degree of determination varies significantly and depends on the kind of relations established by the context. |15–16-M
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula¹TN § 101. Grammatically, words or lexical units are classified according to the parts of speech already mentioned (cf. § 92), thus as verbs, nouns, pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Semantically, a word or lexeme (i. e., an independent lexical unit with a meaningful nucleus) can be classified according to the semantic classes (i. e., Entity, Attribute, Event, Relation, or Determination, cf. § 73). A lexeme, however, can denote more than one of these classes. It is therefore possible to distinguish between lexemes with simple structure (those that refer to one class) and those with complex structure (those that refer to two or more classes). In addition to the denoted class(es), lexemes can also connote necessary relations to one or several other semantic classes. § 102. We refer to a lexeme’s group of denoted and connoted semantic classes as the semantic formula. The semantic formula therefore depicts a lexeme’s basic structure, which is built on its semantic nucleus. The description of the semantic formula is of primary importance since it constitutes the starting point for semantic analysis. When it comes to an initial methodological approach, we consider the most obvious meaning of the lexemes (for the moment) without taking into account the less common meanings. We classify the most common meaning according to the five semantic classes explicated in the previous chapter (cf. § 73), generally distinguishing in each class between lexemes with simple and complex structures.
4.1 Entity Lexemes § 103. Entity lexemes are primarily those lexemes that denote nameable things, like ἵππος, “horse,” βιβλίον, “book,” and διδάσκαλος, “teacher.” In some instances, language-speakers identify certain things as if they were nameable things (and thus as entities or quasi-entities) even though they might not be, as is the case with χρόνος, “time”; λόγος, “word”; and φῶς, “light.” We will take this phenomenon into account,² and we shall proceed in the following analysis by distinguishing between entity lexemes with simple and complex structure. |17-M
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 17– 48 in the original text of Mateos. Cf. e. g., the fuller treatment of χρόνος in § 233, and of λόγος in § 266. The lexeme φῶς is not discussed further. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-010
4.1 Entity Lexemes
71
4.1.1 Entity Lexemes with Simple Structure § 104. Entity lexemes with simple structure only denote an entity (Ent). Their formula is composed of this one semantic class. Examples of these lexemes include λίθος, “rock”; κύων, “dog”; and ἄνθρωπος, “human being”:
Formula:
Ent
§ 105. There are, however, entity lexemes with simple structures that not only denote one semantic class, but necessarily connote other classes by implying cause or purpose. This class of lexemes is found in particular among lexemes that denote nonnatural entities, such as βίβλος, “book”; οἶκος, “house”; and καθέδρα, “chair”:³TN
Formula:
R1
Ev1
R2
Ev2
Ent
For example, as a nameable entity, οἶκος, “house,” necessarily connotes prior (R1) construction (Ev1) and the purpose (R2) of habitation (Ev2).⁴TN Whether or not the house is inhabited is not necessary. translator’s note: Although three lexemes are listed, only οἶκος is discussed in more detail in a later part of the text (cf. § 226). Translator’s Note: A word is in order concerning the arrows of the diagrams (i. e., of the formulas), and of the diagrams in general. Within the box of the diagrams are a lexeme’s denoted semantic classes. If there is just one denoted semantic class, then the formula is said to be simple, and if there are several denoted classes, then the formula is complex. According to the definition provided in the glossary, a lexeme’s denoted elements are “the features that are both necessary and sufficient for identifying a concept, according to the usage of a linguistic community.” A brief explanation of the arrows is given by Peláez in § 324. If, in addition to denoting semantic classes, a lexeme also connotes semantic classes, these are placed outside of the box. The authors distinguish between objective and subjective connotations: the glossary states, “Objective connotations are those which a concept necessarily requires due to conscious association. These connotations are identified by considering the relations implied by a lexeme, which can include presupposition, purpose, agent, recipient, etc. For example, the lexeme ‘to eat’ connotes (presupposes) ‘food.’ On the other hand, subjective connotations are emotive or associative, and can therefore neither be called ‘necessary connotations’ nor included in a semantic analysis.”
72
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
4.1.2 Entity Lexemes with Complex Structure § 106. Entity lexemes with complex structures primarily denote an entity (Ent) and, to the same degree, one or more semantic classes. In other words, the class of entity does not sufficiently express the basic structure of the lexeme, as can be seen with υἱός, “son”; βασιλεύς, “king”; and ἰατρός, “physician”:
Formula:
Ent + X
|18-M
In this formula, X represents the unspecified class or classes that become components of the formula, which are specified for each lexeme. The lexeme υἱός, “son,” provides a clear example: “son” commonly designates a human being and therefore expresses the class of entity.⁵ Nevertheless, this one class does not completely express the meaning of “son.” In this case, the X of the formula should be replaced by two elements: the class of event (Ev: reproduction) and the class of relation (R, to/of). The entity of the relation is connoted (Ent1: parent):⁶TN
Formula:
Ent + Ev + R
Ent1
In the case of βασιλεύς, “king,” the X is comprised of an attribute (kingship) and an event (rule). A relation (R) towards (→) the subjects (Ent1) is also expressed (cf. the full treatment of βασιλεύς in § 232):
Formula: βασιλεύς
Ent + A + Ev
R
Ent1
The arrows of the diagrams are generated only when the semantic classes of event or attribute are denoted or connoted. The arrows seek to explicate the implications of the relations between the classes. In the formula for οἶκος, “house,” for example (see above), the (prior) construction (Ev1) led to the house (Ent), whose purpose (→) is habitation (Ev2). Cf. the additional reference to υἱός in § 208. Translator’s Note: The arrow in this diagram is present because of the event, but the direction of the arrow is dictated by the nature of the relation. Thus, the arrow indicates that the son is related to (→) a parent, but the son’s production by (←) the parent is not indicated.
4.2 Attribute Lexemes
73
Similarly, for ἰατρός, “physician,” the X is comprised of quality/knowledge (A) and the activity (Ev) corresponding to the profession. The recipients of (→) the activity (Ent1) are connoted:
Formula: α ς
Ent + A + Ev
Ent1
R
4.2 Attribute Lexemes § 107. Attribute lexemes are lexemes that denote quality, form, dimension, or quantity. All attribute lexemes contain an attribute (A) in their basic structure but at the same time they can denote other classes, forming a complex structure.
4.2.1 Attribute Lexemes with Simple Structure § 108. There are attribute lexemes of intrinsic quality or form that do not denote a relation,⁷TN for example, λευκός, “white” (cf. §§ 149, 234); συνετός, “intelligent”; and τετράγωνος, “square.” Their attributive nature |19-M implies that they necessarily connote an entity (or sometimes an event):
Formula:
A
R
Ent
§ 109. There are also attribute lexemes of dimension, such as μέγας, “big” (cf. §§ 113, 235); μικρός, “small” (volume); ὑψηλός, “high” (vertical dimension); πλατύς, “wide”; στενός, “narrow” (lateral dimension); μακρός, “long” (in the New Testament, also “remote,” cf. Luke 15:13; 19:12); βραχύς, “short” (longitudinal dimension: in the New Testament, almost always in the adverbial sense; cf. John 6:7):
Translator’s Note: It is important to note that these abstract lexemes do not denote a relation, but they do connote relations. The arrows of these diagrams point in both directions (←R→) due to the nature of the attribution. For example, συνετός (A) is exhibited by (←R) an entity (Ent1), while at the same time συνετός (A) is attributed to (R→) an entity. This phenomenon accounts for each of the examples of attribute lexemes in these diagrams.
74
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
Formula:
A
R
X
In the formula, X represents an unspecified semantic class that will be specified by context. For example, in κραυγὴ μεγάλη, “great clamor” (Acts 23:9) the attribute “great” connotes a corresponding event:
Formula:
A
R
Ev
However, in μικρὸν ποίμνιον, “small flock” (Luke 12:32) the abstract “small” connotes a corresponding entity:⁸TN |20-M
Formula:
A
R
Ent
4.2.2 Attribute Lexemes with Complex Structure § 110. Other attribute lexemes do not refer to intrinsic quality but to the non-relational quality of a state (e. g., ὑγιής, “healthy,” cf. §§ 164, 236; ἀσθενής, “sick”; καθαρός, “clean,” cf. § 242). They denote, therefore, quality (A) and event (Ev) and they connote an object:⁹TN
Formula:
A + Ev
R
Ent
§ 111. There are attribute lexemes that primarily denote a personal quality that is manifested in action (relational quality) (e. g., δίκαιος, “just,” cf. § 238;¹⁰TN ἀγαθός, “good,” cf. §§ 166, 237; πονηρός, “evil”). These lexemes denote quality (A), event
Translator’s Note: smallness (A) is attributed to (R→) a flock; the attribute of smallness (A) is exhibited by (R←) a flock. Translator’s Note: sick (A) is attributed to (R→) an entity; the attribute/event of sick (Ev/A) is exhibited by (R←) an entity. Translator’s Note: It should be noted that the diagram of the formula for δίκαιος in § 238 differs from the diagram presented here.
4.2 Attribute Lexemes
75
(Ev), and the relation (R) that joins them, and they connote an acting subject, in this case personal (Ent1), and an occasional or habitual recipient of the action, also personal (Ent2):¹¹TN
Formula:
R
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
§ 112. Other attribute lexemes refer to the quality of relation (A + R) to an object. This is the case with lexemes describing quality of possession (e. g., πλούσιος, “rich,” cf. § 239; πτωχός, “poor,” cf. § 165). These attribute lexemes connote both the subject (Ent1) and the object (Ent2) of the relation (R):¹²TN
R1 Formula:
Ent1
R Ent2
|21-M
§ 113. Comparative attributes necessarily connote the subject (X1, polyvalent) of the attribution (R1) and an object of comparison (X2). They denote not only the quality/dimension (A), but also the relation (e. g., μείζων, “bigger”; μικρότερος, “smaller”)
Translator’s Note: “Good” denotes an abstract relational state (A + R+ Ev) attributed to (R1→) an entity and exhibited by (R1←) the same entity; “good” is expressed to (R2→) a recipient (Ent2). Translator’s Note: The lexemes in this diagram denote (R), which means that an R2 is not necessary. In the hopes that the arrows of the diagrams are somewhat clearer and to avoid unnecessary repetition, I will now offer fewer explanations of these.
76
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R1
1
R
Formula:
2 Quantifiers (e. g., πολύς, “many,” “big,” § 241; ὀλίγος, “few,” “small”) are attributes and thus connote the attributive relation to an object (X, polyvalent):
Formula:
A
R
X
Absolute superlatives, such as μέγιστος, “biggest,” and ἐλάχιστος, “smallest,” include a kind of determination (in this case degree). They omit the comparative relation and only connote the subject:
Formula:
A+D
R
X
§ 114. There are complex attribute lexemes (A, Ev) in which the internal relation between the attribute and event is negative or exclusive (–, for example, ἄρρητος, “unspeakable”; ἀλάλητος, “inexpressible”; ἄμωμος, “blameless”):
Formula:
A – Ev
R
X
|22-M
4.3 Event Lexemes § 115. Event lexemes primarily denote action or state. Grammatically, they most often appear as verbs but they can also be expressed by nouns. Event lexemes can be divided into lexemes of simple structure and complex structure, but we shall categorize them according to the number of their connotations. Doing so will elucidate the similarities and differences between the various event lexemes. Due to their nature,
4.3 Event Lexemes
77
event lexemes commonly connote other semantic classes that determine their structure and contribute to the overall complexity of this semantic class.
4.3.1 Event Lexemes without Connotation § 116. Event lexemes without connotations are comprised of impersonal lexemes. They denote events without connoting a subject or a complement, such as ὕει/ βρέχει, “it rains,” and ἀστράπτει, “it lightens”:
Formula:
Ev
4.3.2 Event Lexemes with One Connotation § 117. Event lexemes with simple structure that have only one connotation denote an event and connote the subject (Ent) of the action (e. g., καθεύδω, “to sleep”; πορεύομαι, “to go”; φαίνω, “to shine”). The subject can be explicit or implicit in the text:
Formula:
Ev
Ent
R
|23-M
§ 118. Verbal lexemes denoting a quality that is not relationally qualified have a complex structure comprised of an event (stative) and an attribute (quality) (cf. § 110). They connote an attributed subject (Ent) but not an object. These can be expressed with periphrastic attributes (“to be” + adjective/adverb; cf. ζάω, “to live/be alive”; ἰσχύω, “to be [permanently or temporarily] strong”; ἀσθενέω, “to be weak/sick”; ὑγιαίνω, “to be healthy”):¹³TN
Formula:
Ev + A
R
Ent
Translator’s Note: The arrows pointing in the two directions may be explained because, on the one hand, the attribute of sick is attributed to (R→) a being, but the event of sickness is experienced by (←R) the same being.
78
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
4.3.3 Event Lexemes with Two Connotations § 119. Transitive verbs (as they are grammatically called) belong to this category. They denote an event and connote both a subject (Ent1) and an object or recipient (Ent2). The connotations may or may not be specified in the text (e. g., ποιμαίνω, “to shepherd”; ποιέω, “to do”; ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”). For example, killing (Ev) is performed by (R1←) an entity (Ent1) to (R2→) another entity (Ent2):
Formula:
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
§ 120. Among event lexemes with two connotations, those whose second relation does not correspond to the grammatical object must be considered separately. For example, intransitive verbs with complex structure requiring two relations belong grammatically in this group, such as ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”; ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”; εἰσπορεύομαι, “to move into”; ἐκπορεύομαι, “to exit” (cf. the discussion in § 127). § 121. The dynamic lexeme βασιλεύω, “to rule” (cf. § 106) has a simple structure. It connotes a subject (Ent1) who is qualified (A, kingship) to perform (R1→) an activity (Ev) towards (R2→) subjects and a territory (Ent2): |24-M
Formula:
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
§ 122. Event lexemes that signify inward disposition have a complex structure (e. g., πιστεύω [εἰς], “to believe,” “to give credit to,” “to show allegiance to”).¹⁴ They denote
Cf. the discussion of πιστεύω in § 253.
4.3 Event Lexemes
79
a relational state (Ev + R) of an (R1→) entity (Ent), viz. exercised by an (← R1) entity (Ent) towards a (→) polyvalent X, which can be a person, a word, or a doctrine:
R1 Formula:
Ev
Ent
R
§ 123. There are event lexemes that indicate an inward disposition that manifests itself in action, such as ἀγαπάω, “to love”; and φιλέω, “to like.” These lexemes therefore denote a stative event (Ev1, which is a state of [→] Ent1) and a dynamic event (Ev2, which is an event performed by [←] Ent1) joined by a relation (R, of manifestation) to (R2→) an entity (Ent2):
Formula:
Ev1
R
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev2 |25-M
This formula shows that event lexemes with durative aspect denote a disposition, but when these lexemes have a punctiliar aspect they can denote the exterior manifestation of a disposition (cf. John 3:16, ἠγάπησεν, “showed his love”), which can be nominalized (cf. Luke 22:47, φιλῆσαι αὐτόν, “to kiss him”). § 124. Among lexemes that indicate a relational state by denoting both an event (Ev) and a relation (R) and connoting a subject (Ent1) and an object (Ent2) (cf. § 122) are lexemes that signify possession or localization (e. g., ἔχω, “to possess,” “to have”; οἰκέω, “to dwell”; κατοικέω, “to live in,” “to dwell in”; cf. § 255):¹⁵TN
Translator’s Note: The dual arrows of ←R1→ can be explained in light of the discussion in § 255, where R1 of ἔχω is specified as “attribution.” The event of “having” is thus attributed to (→) an entity and is at the same time performed by (←) this entity.
80
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R1 Formula:
Ev
Ent1
R Ent2
§ 125. As with attribute lexemes denoting the quality of a relational state to an object (e. g., “poor,” “rich,” § 112), a relation of possession can be qualified, which is the case with the verbal lexemes πλουτέω, “to be rich,” and πτωχεύω, “to be poor.” These are not only verbs of possession, but their formula adds the attribute that qualifies the relational state (cf. § 124):
R1 Formula:
Ev
Ent1
R Ent2
§ 126. Other lexemes with complex formulas are those that denote qualified actions or processes (Ev + A). Such lexemes have a double connotation, |26-M referring to both the subject (Ent1) and object (Ent2) of an action (e. g., εὐποιέω, “to do good”; ἀγαθοποιέω, “to do well” [§ 251]; κακοποιέω, “to do wrong”):
Formula:
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev + A
§ 127. We have already mentioned intransitive lexemes having complex formulas and two connotations (ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”; and ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”;
4.3 Event Lexemes
81
cf. §§ 120, 256). In addition to denoting an event (Ev), these also denote a dependent relation (which differs in each case). The object of the relation is connoted:
R1 Formula:
Ev
Ent1
R Ent2
4.3.4 Event Lexemes with Three Connotations § 128. There are event lexemes that primarily denote an event (Ev) that requires three connotations¹⁶TN: a subject (Ent1), a polyvalent object (X), and an object or recipient (Ent2). As with transitive lexemes, the connotations may or may not be explicit in context (e. g., δίδωμι, “to give”; χαρίζομαι, “to give generously”; διδάσκω, “to teach”; δείκνυμι, “to show”; λέγω, “to say”). All of these lexemes share |27-M the notion of a transmission or transfer (→) of a polyvalent object (X), which can be an entity, knowledge, or a message. The object is transmitted to (→) a recipient (Ent2), creating a new relation (R3) between both. In a certain way, therefore, these are causative lexemes. The formula with simple structure corresponds to δίδωμι and δείκνυμι (cf. §§ 263 – 65):
Translator’s Note: these event lexemes are sometimes given the grammatical name “ditransitives.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ditransitives are verbal constructions that take direct and indirect objects.
82
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
Formula:
Ev
R1
Ent1
R2
X R3
Ent2
The connotation of Ent2 by the event (Ev) is accomplished by means of X, since the action denoted by Ev consists in creating a relation (R3) between X and Ent2. § 129. The lexeme χαρίζομαι, “to give generously,” differs from δίδωμι, “to give” (cf. § 264) in that it connotes the favorable, benevolent disposition (Ev1 + A) of (←R4→) the subject (Ent1) who gives (→) the gift (X). At the same time (as with many other lexemes in this group) these lexemes connote a prior relation of possession (R′) between the giver (Ent1) and the gift (X):
R1
Ent1
R4
[Ev1 + A]
Rʹ Formula: α αι
Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
§ 130. The lexeme διδάσκω, “to teach,” is somewhat unique (cf. § 268). The activity (Ev) of teaching requires a qualification or competency (A) from a subject (Ent1). The formula, therefore, looks as follows: |28-M
4.3 Event Lexemes
R1
83
[Ent1 + A] Rʹ
Formula: ι σ
Ev
R2
X
R3 Ent2
§ 131. The lexeme λέγω, “to say,” has a simple formula (cf. § 266). It signifies the verbal transmission (Ev) of (R1←) a message that is conceived as the speaker’s (Ent1) own (R′→) noetic entity (Ent2). The lexeme therefore denotes the event (Ev) while connoting the subject (Ent1), the content of the message (Ent2), and its (R3→) recipient (Ent3):
R1
Ent1 Rʹ
Formula: λ
Ev
R2
Ent2
R3 Ent3
§ 132. Lexemes related to λέγω, “to say,” have complex structures. Thus, ἐρωτάω, “to ask,” is a qualified (A) kind of saying:
84
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R1
Ent1 Rʹ
Formula:
Ev + A
R2
Ent2
R3 Ent3
|29-M
Another example is ἀποκρίνομαι, “to answer,” “to respond,” which implies a verbal activity that relates to a question or previous event (X):
Formula:
αι
Ev + R
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2 R3
X
The verb ἀρνέομαι, “to deny,” can signify a qualified kind of saying, in which case its formula is the same as ἐρωτάω, “to ask.” It can also signify a qualified response, since it denotes the relation of “responding to” as well as the nature of (A) the response:
4.4 Relation Lexemes
Formula: ἀρνέομαι
Ev + R + A
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
85
R3 Ent3
§ 133. There are verbal and nominal lexemes that are semantically middle-passive. Their formula should express the semantic voice of the lexeme (e. g., μανθάνω, “to be taught”). In the formula, Ent1 represents the subject receiving (→) the teaching, X the teaching, and Ent2 the teacher:
Ent1 R1 Formula: μαν ν
Ev
R2
X Rʹ
R3
Ent2
|30-M
4.4 Relation Lexemes¹⁷ § 134. There are lexemes—and above all, many morpholexemes (i. e., adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions)—that indicate a variety of relations, including place, time, possession, cause, purpose, result, effect, condition, manner, and instrument. Addi-
Some examples of relation lexemes or morpholexemes shall be given. However, since the meanings of Greek prepositions and conjunctions are so varied, they can only be studied within context. Cf. §§ 273 ff. for a more thorough discussion of relation lexemes.
86
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
tionally, all of the anaphoric lexemes denote a relation. These lexemes can have simple or complex structures, which can be seen in the examples that follow. § 135. Lexemes and morpholexemes that denote relations of place or time can be stative or directional. Stative morpholexemes (ἐν, “in”; μετά, σύν, “with”; ἔσω, “within”; ἔξω, “outside”) and directional morpholexemes (εἰς, “to/into”; πρός, “towards”; ἐκ, “from”) connote an event (Ev) and its locally or temporally related object (X, entity or event). The diagrams contain fewer arrows due to the nature of relation lexemes:
Ev Formula:
R X
§ 136. Other relation lexemes or morpholexemes also connote two objects. This is the case with lexemes of local or temporal relation (e. g., πρό, “before,” “in front of”; μετά [+ acc], “after”), with lexemes of immediate succession (e. g., εὐθύς, “immediately”; εὐθέως, “then”; παραχρῆμα, “suddenly”), and with lexemes of proximity or distance (e. g., ἐγγύς, “near”; μακράν, “far”). For the moment, both objects of the relation are considered polyvalent (X1, X2). They will be further explained in the analysis of these lexemes and morpholexemes (cf. §§ 273 – 79):
1
Formula:
R 2
|31-M
§ 137. Lexemes or morpholexemes that denote cause (γάρ, ὅτι, “because”), connection and opposition (καί, “and”; δέ, ἀλλά, “but”), result (ὥστε, “therefore”), or purpose (ἵνα, “so that”) also connote two objects. The same is true for lexemes of comparison (ὡς, ὥσπερ, “as”; ὅμοιος, “like”; ἴσος, “equal”; διάφορος, “different”). Their formula is identical to the previous formula. § 138. The objects of the possessive series ἐμός/μου, σός/σου, αὐτοῦ, etc. (in contrast to τινός, “someone’s”) correspond to the series of personal pronouns (cf. § 284). The relation denotes possession and establishes the link between a personal subject (Ent)
4.5 Determination Lexemes
87
and that which is possessed (X). Such lexemes connote a statement (Ev) made by (R1) a speaker (Ent), which may or may not be identified with the possessing subject. The formula for ἐμός, “my,” looks as follows:
R2 Formula:
Ev
R1
Ent
R |32-M
4.5 Determination Lexemes¹⁸ § 139. Anaphoric and deictic lexemes or morpholexemes belong to the class of determination. Definite articles (e. g., ὁ, ἡ, τό, “the”) are morpholexemes of determination that precede entity lexemes (e. g., ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the human being”; ὁ οἶκος, “the house”). In contrast to indefinite articles,¹⁹ which generally introduce new information in a discourse, definite articles are commonly used in an anaphoric sense to refer to something previously mentioned in a text (cf. § 99). When this is the case, the formula includes the classes of determination and relation:
Formula:
D+R
X
§ 140. Sometimes cultural or situational factors determine the anaphoric sense of definite articles. In such a case, the entity or semantic class under consideration is known in the concrete situation or in the culture of the time (cf. § 99) (e. g., τὸ ἱερόν, “the temple”; ὁ βασιλεύς, “the king”; οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, “the Pharisees”). The semantic formula is identical to the previous formula. § 141. Deictic determination lexemes consist of personal pronouns (e. g., ἐγώ, “I”; σύ, “you”; αὐτός, “he”). As determination lexemes they identify and specify people. Two entities are thus implied in the formula: the entity (Ent1) who speaks (Ev) and a second entity (Ent), who may be identical to the speaker (i. e., “I”) or to another individual (i. e., “you,” “he”). The formula for ἐγώ is as follows:
Cf. §§ 285 – 96, 99 – 100. Indefinite articles are not present in Koine Greek, although the numeral εἷς and the indefinite τίς occasionally function in this manner.
88
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R2 Formula:
Ev
R1
Ent1
D + Ent + R
§ 142. Deictic determination morpholexemes consist of demonstratives (e. g., “this,” “that”), which in Greek consist of οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος. In a dependent sense (as opposed to a |33-M textual anaphoric sense) they denote not only the identifying determination but also a relation that differentiates them. This relation has two objects: on the one hand the relation refers to something polyvalent (X: Entity, Attribute, or Event) while on the other hand it establishes nearness or distance with regards to the subject who speaks (as in the previous case, an act of communication is connoted):
R2 Formula:
Ev
Ent1
R1
D+R
X If the deictic morpholexemes οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος are used as pronouns, the polyvalent X is denoted and not connoted:
R2
Formula:
Ev
R1
Ent
D+X+R
§ 143. Similar to the previous deictic morpholexemes are localizing lexemes (ὧδε, “here”; ἐκεῖ, “there”; in contrast to πού, “somewhere”) and temporalizing lexemes (νῦν, “now”; τότε, “then”; χθές, “yesterday”; σήμερον, “today”; αὔριον, “tomorrow”; in contrast to ποτέ, “sometime”). These lexemes denote the local or temporal determination of a situation based on a relation to a speaker (“close/not close” or “contemporaneous/non-contemporaneous”) and an object (X): |34-M
89
4.5 Determination Lexemes
R2 Formula:
Ev
R1
Ent
D+R X
§ 144. Determination lexemes also comprise maximizing terms (e. g., λίαν, σφόδρα, “very”), totalizing terms (e. g., πᾶς, “all”), distributives (ἕκαστος, “each”), and numerals (εἷς, “one”; δύο, “two”; etc.). They connote a relation to a specific thing (X):
Formula:
R
D
X
§ 145. Ordinal lexemes (e. g., πρῶτος, “first”; δεύτερος, “second”; ἔσχατος, “last”) denote a relation to a thing (X: Entity or Event) and to other elements of an ordinal series (Ent + R1):²⁰TN
Formula:
R 1
R1
§ 146. Determination lexemes that explicate a spatial or temporal range (e. g., ἀρχή, “beginning”; τέλος, “end”) denote a relation to a continuum:²¹TN
Translator’s Note: cf. e. g., ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, “the first man [came] from the dust of the earth; the second [came] from heaven” (1Cor 15:47). In this example, “the first” corresponds to D + R, “man” corresponds to X, and “the second” functions as Ent + R1. Translator’s Note: For the analysis of the range χρόνος, “time,” see § 233. For an example of the lexeme ἀρχή, cf. Mark 1:1 (ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “the beginning of the gospel”). “Beginning” is comprised of D + R, and “gospel” is the polyvalent X; cf. §§ 285 ff. for further examples.
90
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
Formula
D+R
X
|35-M
§ 147. The lexeme ὄνομα (in its most common contextual meaning of “name” or “title”) denotes a determination (D) and a relation (R). The connoted elements include the person (Ent1) who (R1→) communicates (Ev) the (R2) lexeme “name” to (D + R) a personal subject (Ent2):²²TN
R2 Formula
Ev
R1
Ent1
D+R Ent2
4.6 Abstract Lexemes § 148. Abstract lexemes (e. g., ἀγάπη, “love”; διδασκαλία, “teaching”; διδαχή, “doctrine”; μακρότης, “length”; δικαιοσύνη, “righteousness”) are unique and present new challenges. In this section we will seek to provide a method that will both facilitate the classification of abstract lexemes and clarify their semantic value. Two aspects must be considered, namely, (1) the classification of abstract lexemes according to semantic classes, and (2) the equivalence of some abstract lexemes with verbal forms of the infinitive. As was the case with other semantic classes, we must move beyond the grammatical categories by analyzing the various semantic classes that express abstract lexemes.
4.6.1 Classification of Abstract Lexemes according to Semantic Classes 4.6.1.1 Abstract Attribute Lexemes § 149. When abstract lexemes denote a non-relational intrinsic quality (e. g., λευκότης, “whiteness”) their semantic structure is simple and has no connotations.
Translator’s Note: For the discussion of ὄνομα, see § 296, where, e. g., Matt 10:2 is cited (τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστιν ταῦτα, “these are the names of the twelve apostles”). The implied narrator (Ent1) speaks (Ev) the names (D + R) of the disciples (Ent2).
4.6 Abstract Lexemes
91
Their formula is distinguished from adjectival attribute lexemes (in this case, from λευκός, “white,” §108) by the omission of a relation to a subject and object. The same is true with abstracts of dimension (e. g., ὕψος, “height”; μῆκος, “length,” § 109): |36-M
Formula:
A
§ 150. Abstract lexemes of quality manifested in action (e. g., ἀγαθότης, “goodness”; πονηρία, “badness,” § 111) only retain a relation to an object. For example, goodness (A + R + Ev) is expressed to (→) an entity (Ent):
Formula:
R
Ev
R
Ent
§ 151. Similarly, abstracts derived from attribute lexemes denoting the quality of a relation (πτωχός, “poor” → πτωχεία, “poverty”; πλούσιος, “rich” → πλοῦτος, “wealth,” § 112) have the same formula as adjectival attribute lexemes, but without a denoted relation to a subject. For example, wealth describes the quality of a relation (A + R) with respect to (→) possessions (Ent):
Formula:
A+R
Ent
4.6.1.2 Abstract Event Lexemes § 152. Abstract event lexemes of state or action are always events at the semantic level and, except for the subject, have the same connotations as verbal lexemes of the same class. The abstracts ὑγίεια, “health,” νόσος and ἀρρωστία, “sickness,” ἰσχύς and δύναμις, “strength,” and ἀσθένεια, “weakness,” denote a qualified state in which a relation and connoted subject are absent (cf. § 118):
Formula:
Ev + A
§ 153. Abstract lexemes designating a disposition or state of the soul (e. g., ἀγάπη, “love”; μῖσος, “hate”; ὀργή, “anger,” § 148) denote a stative event (Ev1) and a dynam-
92
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
ic event (Ev2) joined by a relation of manifestation (R) towards a (→) connoted recipient (Ent) of the action or manifested activity:²³TN
Formula:
Ev1
R
Ev2
R1
Ent
|37-M
§ 154. Transitive nominal lexemes are abstract when they denote an event (Ev; e. g., προσφορά, “offering,” “sacrifice”; cf. Heb 10:10, 14, 18). This is especially clear with the lexemes “government” = “the act of governing” and “meal” = “the act of eating.” The semantic formula of these abstract lexemes is identical to the corresponding verbal lexeme, but as abstracts the connotation of agent²⁴TN is omitted:
Formula:
R2
Ev
Ent2
§ 155. The transitive nominal lexemes we have just discussed can have a second usage. In some contexts, these lexemes denote one of the entities that were connoted by the verbal lexeme of origin, thus forming lexemes of agent and lexemes of object. A lexeme of agent can be illustrated with “government” = “those who govern,” which is the subject (Ent1) of “to govern.” A lexeme of object is illustrated by προσφορά = “offering,” “that which is offered” (cf. Acts 21:26); “meal” = “that which is eaten.” The lexemes “offering” and “meal” are direct complements (Ent2) of the corresponding verbal lexemes. The semantic formulas are derived from the event lexeme but differ for each noun. Context will specify which formula should be applied:
m o a nt:
Ent1
Ev
R
Ent2
Translator’s Note: The wording is somewhat awkward due to the use of the seme “manifestation.” The author is describing how the stative event (Ev1) is manifested in another event (Ev2), which occurs, for example, with “love”: the disposition of “love” (Ev1) is manifested (R) in acts of “love” (Ev2). Cf. the discussions in §§ 123, 274. Translator’s Note: Since the connotation of agent is omitted, the formula identifies the entity as Ent2 to specify that in the parallel formula there is a subject entity (i.e., Ent1).
93
4.6 Abstract Lexemes
m o o
t:
Ent2
R
Ev
Ent1
§ 156. As was the case with transitive lexemes, abstract lexemes that are grammatically ditransitives (cf. § 128) can denote an event, as is the case with δόσις, τὸ δοῦναι, “giving” = “the act of giving” (perhaps Phil 4:15). The semantic formula is identical to the verbal lexeme except that the connoted giver (Ent1) is omitted. Thus, δόσις refers to the giving (Ev) of a (R2) polyvalent object (X) to (R3) a recipient (Ent2):
Formula:
Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
§ 157. Abstract lexemes of agent that are ditransitives denote the subject and an event and connote two complements (e. g., δότης, “giver”; cf. 2Cor 9:7): |38-M
Formula:
Ent1 + Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
§ 158. The same is true for abstract lexemes of object, such as δῶρον, “gift” (Matt 2:11), δωρεά, “present” (John 4:10), δόσις, “gift” (Jas 1:17),²⁵TN which denote a direct complement (X) and an event and connote a recipient (Ent2):
Translator’s Note: Translational equivalents are offered in the Spanish text in an unclear man-
94
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
Formula:
X + Ev
R3
Ent2
4.6.2 The Correspondence of Abstract Lexemes with Verbal Forms of the Infinitive § 159. Abstract lexemes that denote events are closely related to the corresponding verbal lexemes, in particular with the infinitive forms. In Greek, infinitives are verbal nouns that can take definite articles. It is somewhat common in Greek for an abstract verbal noun to be an infinitive: Matt Mark Acts
Rom Cor Heb
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
τὸ καθίσαι τὸ ἐγερθῆναι τὸ παθεῖν τὸ ἀποθανεῖν τὸ ἀναστῆναι τὸ σιγῆσαι τοῦ σῷζεσθαι τὸ θέλειν τὸ λαλεῖν τὸ μένειν
“sitting” “rising” “suffering” “dying” “rising” “silencing” “rescuing” “wanting” “speaking” “remaining”
§ 160. Based on the relation of abstract lexemes to the verbal forms of the infinitive, the following three observations can be made: 1. Verbal abstracts denote an event (Ev) without connoting a subject. In context, however, an abstract lexeme (like an infinitive) can take a subject, which will be in the accusative for the infinitive and a subject genitive for the abstract: |39-M Infinitives: λέγουσιν αὐτὸν ζῆν, “they are saying that he is alive” (Luke 24:23). νομίζοντες αὐτὸν τεθνηκέναι, “thinking he was dead” (Acts 14:19). βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας, “I want men to pray” (1Tim 2:8). μετὰ τὸ ἐγερθῆναι με, “when I am raised” (Matt 26:32). Abstract lexemes: δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ, “righteousness [performed by] God” (Rom 1:17). ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ, “the peace [brought by] God” (Phil 4:7). δικαιοσύνη πίστεως, “righteousness [produced by] faith” (Rom 4:13). τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους, “that which darkness hid” (1Cor 4:5). διδασκαλία δαιμονίων, “demons’ teaching” (1Tim 4:1).
ner, namely, as “gift, donation/contribution” = that which is given. Since δόσις was treated in § 147 as an abstract event, but in this paragraph as an abstract object, the lexeme is polysemic.
4.6 Abstract Lexemes
95
2. Various complements can be expressed by infinitives or by abstract lexemes in the genitive: Infinitives: ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τὸ παιδίον, “when [they] brought in the child” (Luke 2:27). τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν με Τίτον, “because I did not find Titus” (2Cor 2:13). διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς (object) τινὰ (subject) τὰ στοιχεῖα (object), “that someone teach you the basics” (Heb 5:12). Abstracts: θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων, “worship of angels” (Col 2:18). ὀνειδισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “reproach [made] against the Anointed” (Heb 11:26). μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “witness [given] about the Messiah” (1Cor 1:6). ὑπακοὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “obedience to the Messiah” (2Cor 10:5). συνηθείᾳ τοῦ εἰδώλου, “accustomed to idols” (1Cor 8:7). φόβος θεοῦ “fear/respect²⁶TN towards God” (Rom 3:18).
3. In contrast to infinitives, abstract lexemes do not mark aspect, voice, or tense. Since Greek infinitives mark aspect they create relations of simultaneousness, |40-M priority, or posteriority, depending on which form of the infinitive is used. Infinitives also mark voice. Abstracts can be substituted with infinitives that contextually express voice, aspect, and tense, viz. by contextual semes that affect the abstract lexemes. The chart below illustrates the ways in which abstract event lexemes can correspond to infinitive forms: Εὐλογία Seme: simultaneousness τὸ εὐλογεῖν τὸ εὐλογεῖσθαι Seme: priority (temporal) τὸ εὐλογῆσαι τὸ εὐλογηθῆναι Semes: priority-simultaneousness τὸ ηὐλογηκέναι τὸ ηὐλογῆσθαι Seme: simultaneousness τὸ εὐλογημένον εἶναι
Blessing Aspect: punctiliar or durative to bless (active) to be blessed (passive) Aspect: perfective to have blessed to have been blessed Aspect: perfective to leave blessed to achieve blessing Aspect: stative to be blessed
Translator’s Note: The dual suggestion of “fear/respect” is made by Mateos.
96
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes § 161. Having examined different kinds of lexemes from each semantic class, it is possible to establish correspondence between lexemes of different classes. This will help specify the differences between the formulas and establish some of their general patterns.²⁷TN § 162. Attribute lexemes that denote intrinsic quality or form (e. g., λευκός, “white,” § 108) parallel the corresponding abstracts of quality (λευκότης, “whiteness”) as well as verbal lexemes of state (λευκαθίζω, “to be white”): |41-M
R
Ev
Ent
R
Ent
§ 163. Likewise, attribute lexemes denoting dimension (μέγας, “big,” § 109) parallel the corresponding abstract lexemes (e. g., μεγαλότης, “greatness”) as well as the verbal lexemes of state (e. g., μέγας εἶναι, “to be big”):
A
ας
ε αλ
ς
ας ε αι
R
X
R
X
A
Ev + A
Translator’s Note: Although not all of the lexemes discussed in this section are found in the New Testament, Mateos includes these to help clarify his theory.
4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes
97
§ 164. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of a non-relation state (e. g., ὑγιής, “healthy,” § 110) parallel event lexemes that denote the quality of a state (e. g., ὑγιαίνω, “to be healthy,” § 118) as well as abstract lexemes whose primary denotation is a state (e. g., ὑγίεια, “health,” § 152):
ι ς
A + Ev
R
Ent
ια
Ev + A
R
Ent
εια
Ev + A
§ 165. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of relation to an object (e.g., πτωχός, “poor,” § 112) parallel the corresponding abstract lexemes (e.g., πτωχεία, “poverty,” § 151) as well as event lexemes that denote state (e.g., πτωχεύω, “to be poor,” § 125): |42-M
R1
Ent1
R Ent2 εα
A+R
Ent2
98
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R1 Ev
Ent1
R Ent2
§ 166. Attribute lexemes that denote quality manifested in action (e. g., ἀγαθός, “good,” § 111) correspond with their respective abstract lexemes (e. g., ἀγαθότης/ ἀγαθωσύνη, “goodness,” § 150) and event lexemes (e. g., ἀγαθὸς εἶναι, “to be good”):
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
R2
Ent2
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
α
ς
A + Ev
Ev
|43-M
Ev
§ 167. In order to discuss the correspondence of event lexemes, it is preferable to treat them as a whole and to illustrate the particulars by means of examples. The following types of lexemes can be derived from the formula of stative event lexemes: (a) lexemes explicating the state of an entity (the entity-event will be one of the denoted elements), (b) attribute lexemes, and (c) abstract lexemes. The lexeme ζάω, “to live” (cf. § 118), which denotes a state that is not qualified by a relation, will serve as an
4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes
99
example. Parallel lexemes refer to the subject of the state (ζῷον, “living thing”), to an attribute (ζῶν, “living”), and to an abstract event (ζωή, “life”):
Ev + A
R
Ent
R
Ent
Ent + Ev + A A + Ev Ev + A § 168. In the case of dynamic intransitive lexemes, such as πορεύομαι, “to go,” “to walk” (cf. § 117), the diagram looks as follows: |44-M
Event lexeme
Ev
Lexeme of agent
Ent + Ev
R
Ent
§ 169. If the event lexeme is transitive, a lexeme of object can also be formed by denoting the corresponding entity (i. e., a direct object). For example, with ποιέω, “to do,” there will be a lexeme of agent (ποιητής, “doer”), a lexeme of object (ποίημα, “that which is done”), and an abstract lexeme (ποίησις, “doing”). The formula for ποίησις is constructed based on the event lexeme, but the relation to a subject (Ent1) is removed. If, as in the present case, the event lexeme is transitive, the relation to the object will be maintained:
100
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
ς
Ent1 + Ev
R2
Ent2
α
Ent2 + Ev
R1
Ent1
Ev
R2
Ent2
ι
σις
§ 170. Ditransitive event lexemes, such as δίδωμι, “to give,” can refer to three objects, including an agent (Ent1), an object (X), and a recipient (Ent2, passive). An abstract can also be formed. The lexemes related to δίδωμι are, respectively, that of agent (δότης, “giver,” § 157), that of object (δόμα/δῶρον, “gift,” § 158), and the abstract (δόσις, “giving,” § 158). The recipient lexeme (λήπτης, “receiver”) is nominalized from λαμβάνω, “to receive”: |45-M
ι
Ev
R1
Ent1
R2
X R3
Ent2
4.7 The Correspondence of Lexemes from Different Semantic Classes
ς
Ent1 + Ev
R2
101
X R3 Ent2 R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ev
λ
ς
Ent2 + Ev
R1
Ent
R3 R2
X σις
Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
|46-M
If the formulas of the event lexemes have complex structures, the procedure does not change.
102
Chapter 4: The Semantic Formula
§ 171. Determination lexemes with complex formulas designating the characters of the discourse (e. g., ἐγώ, “I”) are comparable to (a) relation lexemes that denote possession (e. g., ἐμός/μου, “my”), (b) to lexemes that denote local relation (e. g., ὧδε, “here”), and (c) to deictic determination lexemes (e. g., οὗτος, “this”).²⁸ |47-M
The corresponding formulas can be found in this chapter (cf. §§ 138, 141– 42). Other lexemes exhibit correspondence in a similar way to the event lexemes that we have just explicated.
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis¹TN § 172. The use of the semantic formula (cf. the previous chapter) as an intermediate step is one of the unique features of our method. This step offers two primary advantages. First, the formula provides guidance for identifying the semes, which will be the focus of this chapter. Instead of haphazardly identifying semes, which carries the risk of omitting many of them, the formula offers a pattern for the semic development based on the identification of the semantic classes (i. e., events, entities, attributes, relations, and determinations). Secondly, the formula serves as a paradigm, since the semic polyvalence of a formula’s elements allows |61-M the same formula to be used for various lexemes. Domains or groups of lexemes can thus be constructed that have the same structure. Additional formulas are derived from these based on the addition or substitution of elements. We shall now move to the second step of our method, which involves the identification of semes. Since we identify semes by means of semantic categories, it is first necessary to define the semantic categories.
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories § 173. Grammatical categories are symbols that affect words, similar to the way that positive and negative signs, coefficients, and exponents affect quantities in mathematics. The grammatical categories include gender and number (nominals and verbals), mode, tense, aspect, and voice (verbals), and degree (conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs). Semantic categories do not entirely correspond to grammatical categories, as is the case with the semantic classes (cf. §§ 73 – 75).
5.1.1 Gender § 174. Grammatical gender distinguishes between masculine, feminine, neuter, common, epicene, and ambiguous. Semantically, the following levels are highly important:²
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 49 – 68 in the original text of Mateos. In some texts, such as the New Testament, “angelic” and “demonic” can be included in contrast to “divine” and “human.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-011
104
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
an mat
nan mat non
r on vn
r on
uman mnn
ma ul n
5.1.2 Number § 175. The category of number includes not only singular and plural, but also the concept of collectivity. |49-M Depending on context, singular can be individual or generic/ universal.
n v ual n ular
non n v ual oll t v
non
n ular
lural
non uant a l
uant a l tr ut v
ual
non ual
art al total or orat v rtual r t
lo al
§ 176. The definite article gives the plural and the collective a sense of totality, which can be limited by the circumstances: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας , “the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17); οἱ μαθηταί, “the disciples” (Acts 20:1); οἱ περὶ αὐτόν, “those around him” (Mark 4:10); οἱ στρατιῶται, “the soldiers” (Acts 23:31); οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες, “those with me” (Acts 22:9); οἱ ἀπόστολοι, “the apostles” (Acts 15:22); οἱ ἀδελφοί, “the brothers” (Acts 17:10); ἡ πόλις, “the city” (Acts 17:5); ὁ δῆμος, “the people” (Acts 19:30); ὁ ὄχλος, “the crowd” (Acts 19:35); ἡ ἐκκλησία, “the church” (Acts 19:40). § 177. Non-quantifiable collectives include groups of objects (e. g., ὄχλος, “crowd”; ἀγέλη, “herd”; δῆμος, “populace”) or something’s volume (e. g., καρπός, “harvest”).³ In contrast to the unqualified lexeme ὄχλος, the lexemes λαός, “people,” and ἔθνος,
Cf. ὁ θερίζων … συνάγει καρπόν, “the reaper gathers fruit” (John 4:36), in contrast to πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς καλοὺς ποιεῖ, “every good tree brings good fruits” (Matt 7:18).
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories
105
“nation,” entail a distinctive feature that qualifies them. Quantifiable collectives can be illustrated by the lexeme σπεῖρα, “cohort” (John 18:3; Acts 27:1). § 178. Since there are two types of distributives, it is important to determine whether they are (a) distributives of actuality, such as ἕκαστος (“each one,” 1Cor 16:2); οἱ πάντες (“everyone,” Eph 4:13); καθ’ ἕν (“one by one,” John 21:25); κατὰ πόλιν (“in each city,” Acts 20:23), or (b) distributives of potentiality, such as ὅστις (“whoever/ whichever,” Matt 12:50); ὃς ἄν (“who/whoever,” Mark 3:35); πᾶς ὁ (“everyone who,” Matt 7:8). Distributives of potentiality can also be expressed with the article (e. g., ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς, “the one who receives you,” Matt 10:40). § 179. Some lexemes that denote a group of people holding a position or who have received an appointment have a (singular or plural) corporate sense. This is the case with τὸ συνέδριον, “the Sanhedrin” (Acts 23:1); οἱ ἀσιάρχαι, “provincial officials” (Acts 19:31); οἱ πολιτάρχαι, “civic magistrates” (Acts 17:8); οἱ δώδεκα, “the twelve” (Luke 8:1). |50-M § 180. The concept of totality can be specific (e. g., “all [of you]”) or comprehensive (e. g., “all”).⁴
5.1.3 Mode § 181. Grammatically, the verbal category of mode is related to syntax, but semantically mode transcends this formal criterion. Mode expresses a speaker’s actual experience of an event and is based on opposition, as the following diagram illustrates:
non
t n r al t a rmat on
t n unr al t n at on
§ 182. In and of itself mode does not affirm or deny something’s existence. It expresses a speaker’s degree of subjective certainty corresponding to his or her experience. Hence, in addition to the primary opposition of reality vs. unreality, there can also be an element of uncertainty:
r al t
o
lt
m o lt unr al t
Examples of specific totality might include πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες, “all of you drink from it” (Matt 26:27) and συνάξω τοὺς καρπούς μου, “I will gather my crops” (Luke 12:17). Comprehensive totality might include ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα, “he will restore all things” (Matt 17:11) and ἡ γῆ ἐβλάστησεν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῆς, “the earth bore its fruits” (Jas 5:18).
106
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
un rta nt
rta nt
ou t
rta nt
The uncertainty can be nuanced as probability ↔ improbability. The diagram for modality looks as follows:
ro a l
R al orl o al t
o
l
orl
nr al orl
m ro a l
rta nt o n on ou t rta nt
In this way people express their knowledge of something’s existence as real or unreal, their opinion about probability or improbability, and their uncertainty and doubt. § 183. Modal oppositions can be expressed semantically in several manners: 1. with attributes (i. e., with adjectives or adverbs): δυνατόν, “possible” |51-M (Mark 14:35; Acts 20:16; Rom 12:18; Gal 4:15); ἀδύνατον, “impossible” (Mark 10:37; Heb 6:18; 10:4; 11:6); οὐ δυνατόν, (Acts 2:24, equiv. οὐ δύναται, Matt 5:14); δῆλον, “manifest,” “evident” (Gal 3:11); ἴσως, “perhaps,” “equally” (Luke 20:13); τάχα, “perhaps” (Rom 5:7; Phlm 15); πῶς οὐχί, “will he not?” (Rom 8:32; 2Cor 3:8); 2. with events (especially with verbs of opinion, and sometimes with auxiliaries of mode): δοκέω, “I think” (1Cor 4:9); ἡγέομαι, “I consider” (2Pet 1:13); νομίζω, “I suppose” (1Cor 7:26); οἶμαι, “I suppose” (John 21:25); πέπεισμαι, “I am convinced of” (2Tim 1:12); πέποιθα, “I am convinced/sure,” “to trust” (Phil 1:6); ὑπολαμβάνω, “I understand” (Luke 7:43); 3. with conditional expressions: εἴ γε, “if it is that” (2Cor 5:3; Gal 3:4; Eph 4:21; Col 1:23); εἴ πως, “if perhaps” (Rom 1:10; 11:14; Phil 3:11); εἰ θέλοι, “if [God] wills” (1Pet 3:17); εἰ ἄρα, “if perhaps” (Acts 8:22); 4. with interrogatives: εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες; “did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2); εἰ ἔξεστίν μοι εἰπεῖν τι πρός σε; “will you allow me to tell you something?” (Acts 21:37). § 184. The semantic category of mode can convey affirmation and negation. In the statements “run / do not run,” the event of running is specified in the first case as existing (real) and in the second as non-existing (unreal). Mode, therefore, applies in the first place to the contents of expression and secondarily to the form of expression. § 185. Contrasting opposition (existence / non-existence), which characterizes mode, is sometimes found at the lexemic level (e. g., “to learn” / “to ignore”; “to acknowledge” / “to disown”). Sometimes this also occurs with lexemes that include the class of entity: “deceased” = Ent (person) / Ev (not living, i. e., no longer existing, viz. with
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories
107
a mode of non-existence). Additionally, contrasting opposition can be noted in phrases such as “ex-minister,” which would be expressed in Greek by the aorist participle (cf. Mark 5:18, ὁ δαιμονισθείς, “the one who was previously demon-possessed”; conveying a situation that was real in the past but unreal in the present). When mode changes from existence to non-existence, this is expressed (a) if the change is indicated by verbal lexemes of destruction, suppression, elimination, neutralization (e. g., ἀπόλλυμι, καταργέω, θανατόω, λύω, καταλύω, ἀποκτεῖνω, ἀναιρέω), or (b) if the cause of the change is not indicated, simply with lexemes that denote disappearance (e. g., παρέρχομαι, “I pass by”). § 186. On the other hand, a change of mode from non-existence to existence is indicated with the lexemes γεννάω, “I reproduce/give birth”; κτίζω, “I create”; and ποιέω, “I make”; but most commonly with the lexeme γίνομαι, “I become.” |52-M
5.1.4 Tense § 187. The grammatical category of tense distinguishes morphologically between present, past, and future to specify absolute time, and between imperfect, pluperfect, future perfect to specify relative time. Verbal tense thus offers two pieces of information about temporality, namely, a verb’s relation to the present and its relation to the past or future.⁵ The semantic category of tense transcends the grammatical category of tense, since it is based on a broader hierarchical opposition:
t m oral t
non t m oral t
at m oral t
In other words, there are statements that are situated in the time in which the event takes place (“he walks”) and others that are independent of an event’s time (“man is mortal”). § 188. Atemporal statements include: 1. Statements of essence: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστίν, “God is light” (1John 1:5); ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν, “God is love” (1John 4:16). 2. Gnomic lexemes that state principles: ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, “the one who receives you receives me” (Matt 10:40); ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν ἐμοῦ ἀκούει, “he who listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). 3. Empirical lexemes, which express habitually experienced events: [οἰκοδεσπότης] … ἐκβάλλει ἐκ τοῦ θησαυροῦ αὐτοῦ καινὰ καὶ παλαιά, “[a house master]
Cf. A. J. Greimas, Maupassant: La sémiotique du texte, exercices pratiques (Paris: Le Seuil, 1976), 70 (ET Maupassant: The Semiotics of Text. trans. Paul Perron [Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, 1988]).
108
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
… draws from his storeroom new things and old things” (Matt 13:52); ὁ σπείρων φειδομένως φειδομένως καὶ θερίσει, “whoever sows sparingly will reap sparingly” (2Cor 9:6); ἄνθρωποι κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσιν, “people swear by something greater than themselves” (Heb 6:16). 4. General hypotheticals: εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, “if someone wants to come with me” (Mark 8:34). § 189. Temporality is indicated by graded oppositions. If events portray the presence of the speaker or narrator as the chronological starting point, the absolute tense is used. The following examples and diagram illustrate this point: ὑμεῖς ἐστε (present tense) τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς, “you are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13); ἀνέβη (past tense) εἰς τὸ ὄρος, “he went up on the mountain” (Matt 5:1); αὐτοὶ παρακληθήσονται (future tense), “Those will be comforted” (Matt 5:4).
non-contemporaneousness
contemporaneousness (present)
retrospective (past)
prospective (future)
|53-M § 190. On the other hand, if temporal relations are established with reference to a statement situated outside of the present (in the past or future), the relative tense is used:
simultaneousness
non-simultaneousness
anterior
posterior
Two examples of relative tense are illustrated as follows: 1. Absolute past tense: γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας / ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι / ἀνεθεμάτισμαν ἑαυτοὺς / λέγοντες / μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πίειν / ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον, “when it was day (simultaneous) / the Jews made a pact (simultaneous) / and swore (absolute, past) / not to eat or to drink (posterior) until they killed Paul (posterior-anterior) (Acts 23:12). 2. Absolute future tense: ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται, “the one who endures to the end (anterior) will be saved (absolute, future) (Mark 13:13b). § 183. Apart from the temporal relative determinations (e. g., ὅτε, ὅταν, “when”; τότε, “then”; πρό, “before,” μετά, “after”), which specifically denote relative tense, some relations also include a temporal relative feature:
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories
109
1. A situation can indicate simultaneousness: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας … ἦλθεν, “he was still speaking (simultaneous) when Judas arrived” (Matt 26:47). 2. Motivation and causality have a relation of priority to the action or result. Motive is illustrated in Mark 3:21, οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν, ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη, “his parents went to seize him since they were saying that he had lost his mind.” Cause is seen in Mark 4:6, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξεράνθη, “because it did not have roots it dried up.” The difference between cause and motive is that the latter possesses a seme of intention. Cause produces an event or action, while motive is the purpose or reason for the action, for example, “In order to avoid a pedestrian (motive), the driver pressed the brake and the car stopped (cause-effect).” |54-M 3. Conditional statements also assume an anterior relation to the completion/realization of the conditioned event: ἐὰν σκανδαλίζῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου, ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν, “if your hand puts you in danger, cut it off” (Mark 9:43). 4. The semes of cause and effect mark a posterior relation to the subject’s action or behavior: παρητέρουν αὐτόν … ἵνα κατεγορήσωσιν αὐτόν, “they were watching him in order to accuse him” (Mark 3:2); συμβούλιον ἐδίδουν … ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν, “they began to plot in order to accuse him” (Mark 3:6); ἐξῆλθεν ἔμπροσθεν πάντων, ὥστε ἐξίστασθαι πάντας, “he withdrew from everyone, leaving them amazed” (Mark 2:12). § 191. For the relations implied in verbal lexemes, lexemes of knowing presuppose the existence of the known subject or event: ἐπιγνόντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου, “when the men of that place recognized him” (Matt 14:35). Verbal lexemes of will, desire, etc., include a relation of purpose with the corresponding posterior feature: εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, “if someone wants to come after / follow me” (Matt 16:24). The content of imperatives, jussives, warnings, and optative expressions are related posteriorly with the tense of the expression: ἀκολούθει μοι, “follow me” (Mark 2:14). § 192. Semantic tense can be independent from the grammatical tense and is often marked by non-verbal elements, as in the following expressions, “tomorrow I go to Paris” (grammatically present, semantically future); “then he goes and says” (grammatically present, semantically past); “what am I to do?” (grammatically present, semantically future).
5.1.5 Aspect § 193. Grammatically, aspect is connected with verbal forms (morphemic aspect) and classifies these as punctiliar, durative, and resultative. Punctiliar aspect is divided into semes of inchoative, terminative, and complexive. Furthermore, extrinsic occasional aspect includes the semes of desiderative, volitional, and conative. Semantically, aspect is based on an opposition at a higher level, subdivided into secondary oppositions: |55-M
110
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
stativity relative (with relation to an object)
dynamism
non-relative (without relation to an object)
resultative
aoristic (not a process)
non-resultative
non-aoristic (a process, resultative)
§ 194. Unlike mode and tense, which are not usually represented at the lexemic level, aspect is predominantly lexemic. Independent from context, every event entails an aspectual seme so that lexemes can be classified in the following manner:
Stativity
Dynamism
For the purpose of semantic analysis, the distinction between imperfective and aoristic lexemes is the most important. § 195. Just as the semantic class of event can appear in the nominal form (cf. e. g., §§ 164, 166), nominal events also have lexemic aspect: Stativity: “existence,” “love,” “possession” Dynamic imperfective: “conversation,” “dialogue,” “walk” Dynamic aoristic: “launch,” “homicide,” “gift”
§ 196. When attributive events qualify entities, they mark the imperfective lexemic aspect as habitual (e. g., “studious boy”). When these are applied to events they have aspect, such as a “timely call” (punctiliar), in contrast to “punctual man” (habitual). |56-M
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories
111
5.1.6 Voice § 197. As in the previous categories, voice should be distinguished grammatically and semantically. As a grammatical category it highlights a subject or an action and is divided morphemically into the active voice and the middle/passive voice. Voice is an expressive, stylistic way of emphasizing one relation of an event. Occasionally, voice does not carry this nuance, which is the case with deponent verbs. Semantically, the category of voice (like aspect) comes into play at the lexemic level and is based on opposition:
agentivity
non-agentivity
This opposition does not coincide with aspect (stativity ↔ dynamism), since lexemic aspect affects events while lexemic voice depicts the relation that exists between an entity and an event. § 198. Having established the primary opposition for voice, subordinate oppositions can be determined:
agentivity affecting non-subjective (active voice)
affecting subjective (middle voice)
non-agentivity receptive (passive voice)
non-receptive (neutral voice)
The non-subjective affecting category (i. e., lexemic active voice) has an agent as its subject and its action affects an external object (e. g., βάλλω, “to throw”; κρατέω, “to grasp”; ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”; ἁγιάζω, “to make holy”). The subjective affecting category (i. e., lexemic middle voice, often with morphemic active voice) has an agent as its subject and the action affects this subject (e. g., ἀναγινώσκω, “to read”; ἐσθίω, “to eat”; πορεύομαι, “to go”; περιπατέω, “to walk”; ὑπομένω, “to endure”; εἰσακούω, “to listen”; ἀτενίζω, “to look at”; ζητέω, “to seek”). For the receptive category (i. e., lexemic passive voice), there is an externally agent, but this is not the subject of the action. The lexemes can have the morphemic active voice (e. g., ἀκούω, “to hear”; ὁράω, “to see”; λαμβάνω, “to receive”; πάσχω, “to suffer”). Lexemes of the non-receptive category (i. e., lexemic neutral voice) have a subject that is not acting and lack an external agent. The morphemic voice is often active (e. g., |57-M ἀσθενέω, “to be weak/sick”; λυπέομαι, “to be sad”; κάθημαι, “to be seated”; ῥέω, “to flow”; καθεύδω, “to sleep”; ἀποθνῄσκω, “to die”; οἰκέω, “to dwell”; εἰμί, “to be”; κτάομαι, “to possess”).
112
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
§ 199. Some Greek lexemes exceed the categories of voice that have just been introduced. Voice can be ambiguous and can be specified by the context. In the New Testament, for example, ἀκούω can mean “to hear” (passively, not voluntarily; cf. Acts 22:9) and “to listen” (middle; cf. Mark 4:3, 9; John 5:25). In the middle voice, λαμβάνω can mean “to pick,” “to take” (voluntarily, initiative; cf. Matt 21:39; 26:26) and with the passive voice it can mean “to receive” (cf. John 1:16). § 200. The lexemic middle voice, as has been seen, denotes the seme of subjectivity. This seme can be divided into spontaneity,⁶ personal benefit,⁷ and reflexive-action.⁸ § 201. In addition to the connotation of agent/non-agent between an entity and an event, there are two other kinds of connotations, namely, connotations of object and of finality. For event lexemes with two connotations (transitive lexemes and others) there is a second connotation with another entity (or with a polyvalent X) that can be affected (connotation of finality) or non-affected (connotation of object) (cf. e. g., §§ 119 – 20). An event lexeme that has connotations with an object and towards another is an event lexeme with three connotations (i. e., a ditransitive): connotation of agent connotation of object connotation of finality
origin mediation purpose
agent object (passive) recipient (patient)
§ 202. Voice, like aspect, is present in event lexemes and therefore in nominal event lexemes: active lexemes: middle lexemes: passive lexemes: neutral lexemes:
“assassination,” “gift” (ditransitive), “launch” “study,” “walk,” “reflection,” “seating” “reception,” “audition,” “vision” “death,” “dream,” “stream”
5.1.7 Hierarchy of Semantic Categories § 203. We have shown how semantic categories can be derived from grammatical categories, and how these semantic categories contribute to a lexeme’s semes. We shall now clarify how these semantic categories are ordered hierarchically, since they follow a pattern that is helpful to have ready at hand during the analysis. |58-M 1. First comes the category of mode, which produces the classemes of existence/ reality – non-existence/unreality and subordinate oppositions. Every text and any part in it affect one of these oppositions.
Cf. e. g., ἐγείρομαι, “to rise” (Matt 9:19; 17:7); αἰσχύνομαι, “to be ashamed” (Luke 16:3), φοβέομαι, “to fear” (Matt 14:5), ταράσσομαι, “to be disturbed” (Luke 24:38). Cf. e. g., κτάομαι, “to buy” (Acts 1:18; 8:20; 22:28). Cf. e. g., νίπτομαι, “to bathe oneself” (John 9:11, 15).
5.1 Grammatical and Semantic Categories
113
2. Subordinated to mode is tense, which can include absolute chronological tense (cf. §§ 187– 89) or relative tense (cf. § 190). The combination of mode and absolute tense can be diagrammed as:
ttemporal
present past future
temporal non-existence/ unreality
existence/ reality aatemporal
eessential ggnomic eempirical h hypothetical
aatemporal
This combination can produce classemes of becoming and of causality. Although existence and non-existence cannot coexist in the same tense, context can indicate a change from one of these states to the other by means of successive tenses. The change of states will be indicated by verbal lexemes of becoming if there is no indication of a cause, and by causative lexemes if there is (cf. §§ 187– 88). 3. Semantic aspect introduces the nuclear semes of stativity or dynamism. At the morpho-syntactic level, aspect semes will be punctiliar, inchoative, resultative, or intensifying. 4. As a semantic category, voice introduces nuclear semes of activity/non-activity. At the morphemic level, voice provides classemes that indicate agentivity/non-agentivity, objectivity, purpose, etc. These prepare the way for the actancial analysis⁹TN of passages. 5. If an agent, an object, or a recipient are features of a lexeme they will also include the dependent classemes of gender and number applied contextually. |59-M We have thus described how semantic categories can be constructed from the grammatical categories of mode, tense, aspect, voice, gender, and number. This is a key
Translator’s Note: Actantial analysis was introduced by Greimas in A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, “Actante,” In Semiótica. Diccionario razonado de la teoría del lenguaje (Madrid: Gredos, 1990). [A. J. Greimas and J. Courtés, Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage, trans. Joseph Courtés (Hachette: Supérieur, 1979); A. J. Greimas and J. Courte´s, Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982)]. The term refers to roles in a discourse, similar to the roles in a play. In theater the roles might include a hero and villain and in semiotics they might include roles such as subject, object, and recipient.
114
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
point of our analysis, since these categories will form the basis of the various semes, which will now be discussed.
5.2 Semic Development § 204. Semantic analysis can be conducted in several ways. Lexemes can be analyzed in isolation (i. e., langue), in context (i. e., parole), or in conjunction with other lexemes. The final goal of our method is the analysis of lexemes in context, but a necessary prerequisite for this is the examination of lexemes in langue. In our estimation, semes provide the key for analyzing lexemes in langue. The identification of the semes of a lexeme enables the lexeme’s basic features (i. e., its semic nucleus) to be explicated. The lexeme can then be examined in context, which enables its variables (i. e., its contextual meanings) to be determined.
5.2.1. Semes § 205. When possible, we refer to semes as abstract nouns. Since semes are rendered in a technical metalanguage, it can be helpful to coin new terms if these are necessary for expressing the nature of the semes. Semes are often defined as elemental, indivisible semantic units.¹⁰ For the sake of practicality, we do not apply this definition strictly, implying that some of the semes in our analysis can actually be broken down into smaller units. Given that a method must be functional, the degree of abstraction that we use remains proportionate to the purpose of the method. For example, the seme “humanity” can be clearly broken down into smaller features, including entity, corporeality, vitality, sensitivity, and rationality, but to mention these semes each time “humanity” appears would lead to endless, unintelligible lists of semic nuclei. Therefore, we seek to simplify the lists of semes without compromising their accuracy. Thus, the semes of animality, humanity, and divinity do not require explanation. Other related issues will be explained as they appear.
5.2.2 The Semic Nucleus: A Methodological Option § 206. The semic nucleus (cf. § 85) is an abstraction based on the uses of a lexeme in a select corpus. Concordances provide the passages in which a lexeme is used, and these usages are systematized and grouped based on contextual meanings (cf. §§ 89 – 90). The common features of a lexeme’s contextual meanings, which are iden-
According to E. Coseriu, semes are the minimal distinctive features of meaning and the basis of opposition; cf. E. Coseriu, “Lexikalische Solidaritäten,” Poetica 1.293 – 303.
5.2 Semic Development
115
tified by means of comparison, serve (at least provisionally) to establish the semantic formula and the specific nuclear semes. § 207. At this point in the analysis, the heterogeneous nature of many lexemes’ meanings presents a problem. Such heterogeneousness normally results from semes that are added by context. These additions, however, can also change the structure of the semic nucleus, which occurs in three ways: |62-M 1. By causing the nuclear semes to link in different ways. Context may emphasize one of the semes or place a seme in a specific semic group, which will be the dominant group under which others are subordinated. Thus, although the lexeme’s nuclear semes remain constant, they can change their organization. The semic structure will begin in each case with the seme or the group made dominant by context. New structures of the semic nucleus are thus produced that generate different nuclear configurations (i. e., various hierarchies of the nucleus’s semes; cf. § 86) and therefore new meanings; 2. When a contextual seme substitutes or neutralizes a nuclear seme, causing it to disappear. Neutralization or suspension of the nuclear semes is the basis for transformed, metaphorical, and symbolic senses; 3. By constructing a new nucleus using elements from the context, and subordinating older nuclear semes to the new nucleus. § 208. When in certain contexts a lexeme’s meanings differ greatly from the more common contextual meaning(s), there are two ways to establish the semic nucleus: (1) reduce all the contextual meanings to the common semes, or (2) consider some contextual meanings as viable meanings of the lexeme and others as the result of the restructured nucleus and its semes. The first procedure can be helpful when preparing a mechanical translation, but the second is better suited for linguistic description and for understanding a term’s transformed sense. The second option is more feasible methodologically. Consider, for example, the Spanish lexeme “gato” (cat), which can refer to a domestic animal, to a mechanical instrument, and (colloquially) to a person born in Madrid. If the goal is to determine a semic nucleus that accounts for the development of these three contextual meanings, the lexeme “gato” would be reduced to so few generic semes (among them the basic feature of animality would not even appear) that the lexeme becomes nearly unintelligible to the reader. The method loses its functionality. Something similar occurs with the Greek lexeme υἱός in the New Testament. Besides the normal meaning “son,” which denotes a person and his relation with another based on the event of reproduction, there are (among others) the following expressions: υἱοὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, “sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36); υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας, “sons of the kingdom” (Matt 8:12; 13:38); υἱοὶ [τοῦ] φωτός, “sons of the light” (Luke 16:8; |63-M John 12:36), υἱὸς παρακλήσεως “son of exhortation” (Acts 4:36); υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, “son of destruction” (John 17:12); υἱοὶ βροντῆς “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). The only common seme for υἱός in each of these expressions, besides the seme “human being,” is that of relation. Nothing more is specified. Hence, the cited phrases would thus mean “the resurrected
116
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
ones,” “the citizens of the kingdom,” “those who live illuminated,” “the exhorter,” “the one who is destroyed,” “the thunderous ones.” In reality, these are paralexemes. § 209. To establish the semic nucleus we shall therefore seek greater clarity and utility by temporarily omitting the somewhat heterogeneous contextual meanings. This enables us to establish a provisional semic nucleus, which is then augmented and revised by a contextual analysis that accounts for possible changes in meaning. The semantic construction of the contextual meanings is tested by the coherency of their form and structure. Having established these premises, the methodological steps of our analysis can now be explained.
5.3 The Lexeme in Isolation: Determining the Constants § 210. The preliminary step for the semic development of lexemes consists in establishing the semantic formula (cf. the previous chapter). The semantic formula consists of a lexeme’s denoted class or classes as well as its connoted relations. Once the semantic formula is established, the lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear semes can be determined (i. e., its semic development).
5.3.1 Generic Nuclear Semes § 211. To determine a lexeme’s generic nuclear semes, the semantic categories are applied (cf. §§ 173 – 202) at the lexemic level to each element of the formula. If an element is classified as an entity, the relevant categories will be gender and number. Events are explicated with the categories of aspect, voice and sometimes mode. The semic development is then constructed by determining the nuclear semes of each relation. In this way a list of generic nuclear semes common to many lexemes is obtained, enabling semantic domains to be formed. |64-M We define a semantic domain as a group of lexemes that have common generic semes at different levels. Thus, for example, the generic seme of dynamism includes the whole domain of activity. If the seme of mobility is added (dynamism + mobility), then the domain of movement is included. If the seme of horizontality is also added (dynamism + mobility + horizontality), the domain becomes one of horizontal movement.
5.3.2 Specific Semes § 212. Specific nuclear semes are identified by looking at the meaning of the lexeme, enabling semes such as imperfectivity, aoristic, effectivity, purpose, verbality, factuality, and harmfulness to be determined. Attention should also be given to oppositions and differences from other lexemes within the same semantic domain.
5.4 Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes and Occasional Semes)
117
5.3.3 The Semic Nucleus § 213. Once a lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear semes are identified, these are placed in a hierarchical order by following the criteria of implication, presupposition, and consequence. In this way a lexeme’s structured semic nucleus (i. e., its nuclear configuration) is established. This configuration is normally established when the formula’s denoted and connoted elements are first developed. The nuclear configuration is of decisive importance when there are various semes or semic groups in a lexeme that, depending on context, can become dominant when the nucleus’s structure changes, giving rise to various nuclear configurations for the same lexeme (cf. chap. 7).
5.3.4 Definition of the Lexeme § 214. Once the semic nucleus is determined, the lexeme can be defined. The definition should integrate all the data that has been gathered. The definition will confirm the accuracy of the analysis by showing whether the definition describes the specific lexeme. If the definition can be applied to other lexemes, one is either dealing with synonyms or a specific seme has been overlooked in the analysis. |65-M
5.4 Lexemes in Context: Determining the Variables (Classemes and Occasional Semes) § 215. Once the defined lexeme is considered in context, the next step is to determine and define the sememes (i. e., contextual meanings) that are formed in context. To do so, the contextual semes must be identified, beginning with the classemes (i. e., common contextual semes). Classemes appear when the semantic categories of gender, number, mode, tense, aspect, and voice are applied at the morphemic and syntagmatic levels. § 216. Occasional contextual semes are then identified. This is accomplished in context by identifying: (1) the recipients of the connoted relations in the semantic formula, and (2) the recipients of the relations that are not necessarily offered by the context. To establish the nuclear semes, the relational semes (but not their objects) have been integrated into the semic nucleus. This points to a certain generic nature required by the lexeme.¹¹ Context will augment the semic development. If a nuclear seme is ambiguous (e. g., whether “testimony” is used in a favorable or unfavorable sense), this is often explained by contextual clues.
For example, the seme of humanity may be generic when actions like “construction” or “fabrication” are discussed.
118
Chapter 5: Semic Analysis
§ 217. By adding the contextual semes (i. e., classemes and occasional semes) to the semes that constitute the lexeme’s semic nucleus, the sememe (i. e., contextual meaning) is obtained. This leads to the lexeme’s definition, which should square exactly with the details of the text. However, contextual semes sometimes contradict one or several nuclear semes—neutralizing or negating them. In this way, both the derived and the metaphorical senses of the lexeme are formed (cf. chap. 7). A specific lexeme’s group of contextual meanings that are found within a selected corpus can be called the lexemic domain. |66-M
5.5 Lexeme, Formula, and Semic Development § 218. As has been shown, this method adds determination to the semantic formula as a step between the lexeme and the identification of its semic nucleus. The formula is comprised of denoted and connoted elements that are classified according to semantic classes. To proceed from the formula to the semic nucleus, the semantic categories are applied to the elements of the formula, marking the start of the semic development. Once the generic semes are obtained, these can be compared with other lexemes that share the same generic semes. In doing so, the specific semes that complete the nucleus and characterize the lexeme are specified. Each element of a lexeme’s formula includes a series of semes or semantic features. The same seme can be found in the development of several elements. Just as lexemes are generalities that can be subdivided into elements arranged by classes, so also are elements generalities that are subdivided into semes. There are therefore two steps in our analysis: (1) The lexeme is subdivided into denoted and connoted elements, arranged by semantic classes; (2) Each element is subdivided into generic or specific semes, viz. semantic features. The formulas do not become excessively complicated, but the group of semes is systematized.
5.6 Summary § 219. In summary of what has been explained, the steps of the analysis can be presented as follows: 1. Semantic Formula: determine a lexeme’s semantic class or classes and their required relations 2. Development of the semantic formula 2.1. Determine the nuclear semes: the constants A. Generic semes a. Apply the semantic categories to the lexeme b. Identify the relational semes B. Specific semes a. Identify specific semes in the semantic categories
5.6 Summary
b. Identify specific semes in the relations |67-M C. Organization of the semic nucleus D. Definition of the lexeme 2.2. Determine the contextual semes: the variables A. Classemes a. Apply the semantic categories morphemically and syntagmatically B. Occasional semes a. Identify the necessary relations and the contextual relations b. Determine the nature of the relations C. Definition of the sememe(s) |68-M
119
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis¹TN 6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes § 220. According to what was explained in the previous chapter, our first methodological step consists in analyzing a lexeme abstractly in langue in order to establish its semic nucleus and its nuclear configuration. This enables us to determine the hierarchy and structure of a lexeme’s semes.
6.1.1 Entity Lexemes § 221. We begin with the lexeme ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” which only denotes the semantic class of entity and does not connote a relation. Its formula, therefore, is simple:
Ent To determine the semes of ἄνθρωπος that do not connote other entities, the semantic categories of number and gender should be applied:
ν ρ
ο
individuality (= number) humanity (= gender)
The seme of individuality does not affect the morphemic number, i. e., singular or plural, which will be clear in context. Based on the semic analysis, the lexeme ἄνθρωπος can be defined as “human being.” § 222. Like ἄνθρωπος, the lexeme ἀκρίς, “locust” (Mark 1:6), only denotes the semantic class of entity. Its formula is therefore the same, but the development will have different semes:
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 69 – 148 in the original text of Mateos. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-012
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
ἀ ρ
121
individuality (= number) animality (= gender)
These generic semes must be supplemented with the characteristic features that distinguish locusts from other animals (e. g., “insect,” “flying”). In this way, the specific semes that |69-M comprise the semic nucleus of ἀκρίς can be identified. § 223. The lexeme ἀνήρ, “adult male,” has more semantic content than ἄνθρωπος, “human being.” The seme “adulthood” is a denoted qualification. The formula, therefore, will be complex:
Ent + A The development will be as follows:
Ent ἀν ρ
A
individuality humanity masculinity adulthood
(number)
(gender)
Definition: “Adult (A) human male (Ent).” § 224. The lexeme ὄχλος, “multitude” (cf. § 367) also has a complex formula, since it denotes three semantic classes, namely, an entity (“people”), a local relation (“in the same place”), and an attribute (“quantity,” “great number”):
Ent + R + A If the attribute is specified and the corresponding semantic categories are applied to the entity and the relation, the following semes can be established:
122
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ent ο
R A
plurality (number) humanity (gender) location simultaneousness quantity
Definition: “A large (A) group of human beings (Ent) in the same place (R).” § 225. The lexeme λαός, “people,” adds to ὄχλος the idea of a people’s historical identity, which can be considered a relation (R). The local relation is external to the denotation, |70-M since it connotes the territory or native land (R1) inhabited by the people (Ent1). The attribute (A) of quantity is present, resulting in the following formula:
Ent + A + R
R1
Ent1
By applying the categories of number and gender to the entity and by specifying the other elements, the resulting semic development is:
Ent α
A R
plurality humanity quantity identity historicity
R1 Ent1
location territory
Definition: “A large group (A) of human beings (Ent) with a historical identity (R) who inhabit (R1) a territory (Ent1).” § 226. The lexeme οἶκος (“house” in its most common contextual meaning) denotes an entity. Its formula therefore has a simple structure. Nevertheless, οἶκος has a double connotation of origin (event, construction) and purpose (event, habitation), each of which are connected with personal subjects (Ent1 and Ent2):
123
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
R1
Ev1
R1
Ent1
R2
Ev2
2
Ent2
Ent
To determine the nuclear semes, the semes of Ent as well as the semes of the connoted relations (R1, R2) must be determined. The semes of Ent1 and Ent2 come into play only when they can be determined at the lexemic level. For |71-M οἶκος, the builder of the house (Ent1) is necessarily a human entity. The one for whom the house is built (Ent2) can be of human or divine gender, such as when οἶκος refers to the house of God (cf. Mark 11:17 par.). The specific semes of οἶκος are developed in opposition to other entities from the same semantic domain. Thus, the seme of demarcation must be accompanied by the seme of coveredness, in order to differentiate “house” from “fence.” The seme of suitability will also be present, since this distinguishes houses from buildings not suitable for habitation. The seme of self-containment distinguishes a house from one of its rooms. The semic development of οἶκος is as follows:
ο ο
Ent
Generic semes individuality (number) inanimateness (gender) Specific semes building location demarcation coveredness self-containment suitability
R1 Ev1
Ent1 R2 Ev2
Ent2
transitivity dynamism resultativity construction agentivity personhood humanity purpose stativity habitation utilization personhood (human/divine)
Definition: “A covered building demarcating a self-contained and suitable space (Ent), constructed (R1, Ev1) by (R′1←) people (Ent1) for (R2→) the habitation (Ev2) of (←R′2→)²TN people (Ent2).”
Translator’s Note: The habitation is for (→) people, and the house is inhabited by (←) people. Cf. the explanations of double arrows in chap. 4, note 4.
124
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
§ 227. The preceding analysis and definition of οἶκος have accounted for the most common contextual meaning of οἶκος. Nevertheless, our analysis does not explain all the occurrences of this term |72-M in the New Testament. For example, John 2:16 contains the phrase οἶκος ἐμπορίου, “house of commerce/business.” In this verse the relation of purpose changes from habitation to commerce, and the corresponding semes cannot be considered nuclei of the lexeme. If this contextual meaning were integrated into the formula, the seme of purpose R2 becomes unspecified and the semes of habitation and personhood in Ev2 and Ent2 would be omitted. Only context can specify the proper contextual meaning of οἶκος. Thus, in order to establish a lexeme’s semic nucleus in a specific corpus, it is necessary to examine the various uses of the lexeme. Sometimes it is also necessary to examine the lexeme outside of the corpus in order to identify other possible meanings and to remove elements that do not comprise the lexemic meaning. § 228. It should be noted that in our analysis of οἶκος we incorporate the common contextual seme of purpose, even though this seme does not belong to the lexeme in langue. Our analysis of οἶκος, however, is not misguided, since we develop the semes of οἶκος by means of a constructed sememe.³ A constructed sememe broadens the scope of the analysis, which often enables us to determine the nuclear semes more accurately. This modus operandi relates to what was previously said (cf. §§ 207– 08) about the heterogeneous contextual meanings of lexemes. Sometimes, especially if the lexeme is used figuratively, it is nearly impossible to determine a semic nucleus that is shared by all the contextual meanings. The best strategy is to establish the semic nucleus from the most common contextual meaning and to consider the other meanings as the result of the influence of context on the semic nucleus. § 229. The lexeme οἶκος denotes a constructed entity that serves a specific purpose for humans. Lexemes that denote entities of the same gender (i. e., lexemes of instrument in the broadest sense, e. g., τράπεζα, “table”; πλοῖον, “boat”; ἱμάτιον, “cloak”; ἅρμα, “chariot”) will have the same semantic formula as οἶκος and parallel semic developments. § 230. The lexeme οἶκος can refer to the house of God (i. e., to the temple),⁴ but |73-M this contextual meaning is dependent on context and depends on how the relation of purpose is specified. By contrast, the lexeme ἱερόν, “temple,” adds the seme of sacredness (A), which specifies a dual sense of purpose (R2), namely, the habitation of a god and the exercise of divine worship:
Greimas, Sémantique structurale, 85. A constructed sememe refers to the praxis of supplementing the analysis of a lexeme in langue with one or several contextual semes from parole. Cf. ὁ οἶκός μου, “my house” (Mark 11:17); τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου, “my Father’s house” (John 2:16).
125
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
R1
Ev1
R1
Ent1
R2
Ev2
2
Ent2
Ent + A
As can be seen, the formula of ἱερόν is similar to that of οἶκος. However, in the development the attribute of sacredness (A) is added and the purpose (R2) is specified as location and exercise of sacred activity in honor of (Ev2) a god (Ent2). In this case, the sequence Ev2←R′2→Ent2 could be repeated twice in the formula. § 231. The lexeme ναός, “sanctuary” (which is considered the dwelling of a god within a temple and is inaccessible to the faithful) will have the same formula as ἱερόν. However, its development lacks the seme of self-containment (cf. § 226), since a sanctuary is part of a larger complex (i. e., the temple). The seme of accessibility will be replaced by restriction, since entrance is restricted in the Jewish culture to priests, and the interior is restricted to the High Priest once a year. § 232. The lexeme βασιλεύς, “king” (cf. § 106) has a complex formula comprised of an entity (man or God), an attribute (kingship), and an event (government). It connotes the subjects and the territory over which the governance is exercised (Ent1). The formula and development are as follows:
Ent + A + Ev
Ent α ι
A Ev
R
Ent1
individuality (= number) personhood (= gender) quality royalty dynamism imperfectivity resultativity governance
|74-M
R Ent1
transitivity plurality humanity location
Definition: “A person (Ent) who, by virtue of the kingship attributed to him (A), exercises an activity of governance (Ev) over (R) a group of human individuals in a given territory (Ent1).”
126
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
§ 233. Quasi-entities present challenges in the domain of entity lexemes, since these are not actual entities, but are often perceived as entities (cf. § 103). One example is χρόνος, “time.”⁵ In the formula for χρόνος there is an event alongside an entity. The event expresses the temporal succession of the entity. In order to indicate the nature of a quasi-entity in another manner, the symbol (+) can be added in the box, which expresses the addition of elements, or the symbol (=), which indicates identification. The formula, semic development, and definition of χρόνος are as follows:
Ent = Ev ρ νο
Ent Ev
entity dynamism imperfectivity succession temporality
Definition: “An entity (Ent) that represents continual temporal succession (Ev).” |75-M
6.1.2 Attribute Lexemes § 234. Attribute lexemes appear in adjectival, adverbial, and abstract forms (cf. § 107 ff.). Those with adjectival or adverbial forms always connote an object. We first identify attribute lexemes that express an intrinsic non-relative quality, as is the case with λευκός, “white”:
A
R
Ent
The lexeme λόγος, “word,” “message,” presents a similar example and will be examined with event lexemes that have three connotations (cf. § 266).
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
A R Ent
127
quality coloration whiteness attribution entity
Definition: “White coloration (A) attributed to (R) an entity (Ent).” The specific semes of color (e. g., whiteness, blackness) are data of immediate experience and cannot be analyzed. The generic semes apply to each lexeme of quality. § 235. Attribute lexemes, such as μέγας, “big,” that denote dimension (cf. § 109) have the same formula as λευκός. The object is polyvalent (X), since “big” can be attributed to an entity,⁶ to an attribute,⁷ or to an event:⁸ |76-M
A A μέ α
R X
R
X
dimensionality largeness attribution reality [Ent/A/Ev]
Definition: “A large dimension (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).” The physical or metaphorical nature of the attribute μέγας will be determined by context. Lexemes like μικρός, “small,” share the same formula as μέγας but change the seme of largeness in the development. § 236. Attribute lexemes that denote the quality of a non-relational state (cf. § 110), such as ὑγιής, “healthy,” or ἀσθενής “weak,” “sick,” have a complex formula, since they not only denote quality but also state. This is due to the fact that they do not refer to an entity’s intrinsic quality, but to a state that is not necessarily viewed as permanent. The semantic formula of ὑγιής, “healthy,” is therefore as follows: Cf. e. g., λίθος, “stone” (Matt 27:60); κλάδος, “branch” (Mark 4:32); οἰκοδομή, “building” (Mark 13:2); ἰχθύς, “fish” (John 21:11); ἱερεύς, “priest” (Heb 10:21). Cf. e. g., ἐξουσία, “authority” (Rev 18:1). Cf. e. g., χαρά, “joy” (Matt 2:10); πτῶσις, “fall” (Matt 7:27); φόβος, “fear” (Luke 2:10); διωγμός, “persecution” (Acts 8:1).
128
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
A + Ev
Ent
R
To explicate the development, it is necessary to identify the specific semes of the attribute and event. The event semes should specify the characteristics of the state of health. The attribute (A) includes a seme of euphoria:
A ι Ev
quality excellence duration euphoria stativity vitality dynamism activity having organs corporeality
R Ent
attribution individuality humanity
|77-M
Definition: “An enduring, euphoric state of excellent (A) vitality and function of the bodily organs (Ev) attributed to (R) a human individual (Ent).” The abstract state of ὑγίεια, “health” (absent in the New Testament) reverses the order of the formula’s elements and omits the relation to a subject:
Ev + A The development is the same as ὑγιής, except that the order of the elements is reversed and the reference to R and Ent is absent. Definition: “An enduring, euphoric state of excellent (A) vitality and function of the bodily organs (Ev).” § 237. Attribute lexemes that primarily denote a personal quality manifested in action, such as ἀγαθός, “good,” or πονηρός, “wicked” (cf. § 111), denote a quality (A) and an event (Ev) and connote (R1) a subject (X) and a personal recipient (Ent) of (R2) the action. By considering the attribute lexeme ἀγαθός, “good,” it becomes clear that in the New Testament this adjective can refer to people (ἀγαθός ἐστιν, “he is good,” John 7:12), to inanimate objects (δένδρον ἀγαθόν, “good tree,” Matt 17:17), to things (ἀγαθὸς θησαυρός, “good treasure,” Matt 12:35), and to events (λόγος ἀγαθός, “good word,” 2Thess 2:17). Each of these has to do with something
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
129
that brings about positive effects for people.⁹ In the formula, the subject is given a polyvalent X. A relation (R) joins the quality (A) and the action (Ev).
R1
X
R2
Ent
A + R + Ev
A ἀ α
R Ev
quality advantageousness manifestation dynamism activity habituality
R1 X R2 Ent
|78-M
attribution reality transitivity humanity
Definition: “A beneficial quality (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X), which is manifested in (R) the habitual expression of goodness (Ev) towards (R2) a human being (Ent).” Other attribute lexemes of quality manifested in action (e. g., κακός, “bad”; πονηρός, “wicked”; μακρόθυμος, “patient”) will have the same formula and a semic development that parallels that of ἀγαθός. § 238. Although it belongs to the same category as ἀγαθός, the lexeme δίκαιος, “righteous,” is unique because the quality (A) consists in faithfulness to a rule, which is perceived as an entity (Ent′ = Ev1 + A1). The event is dynamic and denotes a habitual action that manifests (R) faithfulness (A). For the moment, we consider δίκαιος when it is applied to persons and takes a personal object. The formula and development are as follows:
An exception, however, is συνείδησις ἀγαθή, “good conscience” (Acts 23:1), which has a contextual meaning that differs from the common one. According to our previous discussion (cf. §§ 207– 09), we can leave this example aside for the moment, viewing it as a byproduct of the ordinary sense.
130
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
R1
Ent1 [Ent + Ev1 + A1]
A + R + Ev
Ent2
R2 A αιο
R Ev
quality faithfulness manifestation dynamism activity habituality
R1 Ent1 R2 Ent2
Ev1 A1
|79-M
attribution personhood (divine/human) transitivity personhood (human/divine) quasi-entity regulation rightness
Definition: “Faithfulness (A) to a just rule (Ent′) that is attributed to (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) and is manifested in (R) a habitual manner of acting (Ev) towards (R2) one or several human beings (Ent2).” We have considered the most common use of δίκαιος in which the lexeme is applied to people. This implies that we are dealing with a constructed sememe, since δίκαιος is also applied in the New Testament to αἷμα, “blood” (Matt 23:35); κρίσις, “judgment” (John 5:30); ἐντολή, “commandment” (Rom 7:12); and ὁδός, “way” (Rev 15:3). One must consider the various subjects in order to determine the formula and its semic development (in similar fashion to our discussion of ἀγαθός above). § 239. Attribute lexemes that specify the quality of a relation by means of an object, such as πλούσιος, “rich” (cf. § 112), denote an attribute (A) and a relation (R) and connote a subject (Ent, human or divine) and an object, which is polyvalent (X) because it occasionally does not consist of material things (cf. πλούσιος ἐν ἐλέει, “rich in mercy,” Eph 2:4; πλούσιοι ἐν πίστει, “rich in faith,” Jas 2:5):
R1
Ent
A+R
[X + A1]
|80-M
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
ο
A R R1 Ent
ιο
abundance possession attribution individuality personhood
X A1
131
reality valuability
Definition: “An abundant (A) possession of (R) something valuable (X + A1) that is attributed (R1) to a person (Ent).” § 240. Comparative attribute lexemes denote an attribute (A) and a relation (R) and connote a polyvalent subject (X1) and a polyvalent object of comparison (X2) (cf. § 113). The formula and development for μείζων, “greater,” are:
R1
X1
A+R X2
μ
ν
A R
dimensionality largeness comparison superiority
R1 X1 X2
attribution reality (subject) reality (object)
Definition: “A dimension (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X1) which surpasses (R) that of another reality (X2).” |81-M § 241. The quantifying lexemes πολύς, “many,” “big,” and ὀλίγος, “few,” “small,” are attributes that relate to objects (cf. § 113). The lexeme πολύς is applied to entities,¹⁰ events,¹¹ and relations.¹² The object, therefore, is polyvalent (X), as depicted in the following formula and development:
Cf. e. g., ὁ θερισμὸς πολύς, “the harvest [is] great” (Matt 9:37); ὄχλος πολύς, “a great multitude” (Matt 26:47). Cf. e. g., μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, “with great power and great glory” (Matt 24:30); ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλά [adverbial], “he began to proclaim [it] much” (Mark 1:45). Cf. e. g., πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν, “he [instead] shouted [even] more/louder” (Mark 10:48).
132
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
A A ο
R X
R
X
quantity largeness attribution reality
Definition: “A large quantity (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).” Absolute superlatives like μέγιστος, “biggest,” do not include a comparative relation. Instead, they denote an attribute and a determination (degree) and only connote a subject:
A+D
μέ ι ο
A D
dimensionality largeness maximality
R
X R X
attribution reality
Definition: “A dimension of maximum (D) size (A) attributed to (R) a reality (X).” § 242. The lexeme καθαρός, “clean,” “pure”—an attribute lexeme that designates the quality of a state (cf. § 110)—presents challenges. This lexeme is applied to people or things and has different meanings depending on context. It has a physical contextual meaning |82-M (“clean,” as opposed to “dirty”)¹³ and a religious contextual meaning (“legally or morally pure,” “one who has access to God”).¹⁴ Both contextual meanings refer to an opinion (Ev2) given by a competent (A1) individual (Ent3) about conformity (R2) to a rule (Ev1), which is viewed as an entity (Ent2) and establishes the required conditions for applying the attribute (A). The formula and development are:
Cf. e. g., ἐν σινδόνι καθαρᾷ, “in a clean cloth” (Matt 27:59); ὕδατι καθαρῷ, “with clean water” (Heb 10:22). It can be noted that καθαρός sometimes includes an opposition to “a skin disease”; cf. Mark 1:40 – 45. Cf. e. g., οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, “the pure in heart” (Matt 5:8); ὑμεῖς καθαροί ἐστε, “you are clean” (John 15:13); καθαροί is the contrast to “legal or moral impurity,” “excluded from access to God.”
6.1 Analysis of Entity and Attribute Lexemes
R1 A + Ev
A
Ev α α ς
Ent1 R3
Ev2 R2
R1 Ent1 R2 Ent2 Ev1
133
[Ent3 = A1]
[Ent2 = Ev1]
qualification cleanness stativity condition attribution entity conformity quasi-entity regulation
Ev2 R3 Ent3 A1
dynamism resultativity assessment agentivity personhood adequacy |83-M
Definition: “A state (Ev) of cleanness (A) attributed to (R1) an entity (Ent1) because of its conformity (R2) to a rule (Ent2 = Ev1), which can be declared (Ev2) by (R3) a person (Ent3) competent in the matter (A1).” § 243. The lexeme κοινός, “common,” “ordinary,” is another example of an attribute lexeme with unique features. Its formula denotes not only an attribute but also a relation to entities that have the same characteristics. The lexeme has two primary contextual meanings, which stem from the lexeme’s application (1) to a feature or situation that is common to many,¹⁵ and (2) to an entity that is common to many.¹⁶ The attributed subject is therefore polyvalent (X) and the relation always has (personal or impersonal) entities as the object:
R1
X
A+R Ent + A1
Cf. e. g., κοινὴ πίστις, “common faith” (Tit 1:4); τὴν κοινὴν ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν, “our common salvation” (Jude 3). Cf. e. g., εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά, “they were sharing all things in common” (Acts 2:44).
134
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
A ι ς
R R1 X
qualification externality reference attribution reality
Ent A1
entity plurality numerosity/totality
Definition: “An extrinsic qualification (A) attributed to (R1) a reality (X) because of its similarity to or possession by (R) a certain number (A1) of entities (Ent).”¹⁷ |84–86-M
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes § 244. According to our discussion of the semantic formula in §§ 115 ff., various groups of event lexemes can be constructed based on their number of necessary connotations. The following analysis will therefore proceed in three parts by examining lexemes with one connotation (subject), lexemes with two connotations (subject and object), and lexemes with three connotations (subject, object, and recipient). In each of these sections, lexemes with simple and with complex formulas will be discussed. Semantic aspect must be considered in the analysis of event lexemes, since it can change the meaning of a lexeme. Occasionally, morphemic aspect, which is part of contextual analysis, should also be considered (when the lexicographer deems this necessary).
6.2.1 Event Lexemes with One Connotation § 245. The verb πορεύομαι serves as an example of an event lexeme that has a simple formula and one connotation (cf. § 117). Its connotation specifies the subject of the action:
Ev
R
Ent
By examining this lexeme’s use in the New Testament, it becomes clear that πορεύομαι is always used with reference to people. The entity, therefore, represents
The pejorative sense of “ordinary” that κοινός frequently acquires in context is noteworthy, making it virtually synonymous with ἀκάθαρτος, “impure” (cf. Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Rom 14:14; Heb 10:29; Rev 21:27).
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
135
a human subject. In the development of the formula, the generic semes are specified by applying the verbal and nominal semantic categories:
Ev
ορ ομαι R Ent
dynamism activity imperfectivity activity subjectivity spontaneity
( (lexemic aspect n non-resultative)
( (lexemic voice, middle) m
agentivity individuality (number) humanity (gender)
|87-M
The specific semes of πορεύομαι will be determined by comparing other lexemes that have the same generic semes: In opposition to νοέω, “to think,” the semes of πορεύομαι specify mobility and location; in opposition to ἀναβαίνω, “to go up/ascend,” it specifies horizontality; in opposition to περιπατέω, “to walk,” it specifies directionality; in opposition to ἱππηλατέω, “to ride” (not in the New Testament), it specifies autonomy; in opposition to νέω, “to swim” (not in the New Testament), it specifies land. Contrasting πορεύομαι with ἔρχομαι, “to come to,” “to go to,” can also be helpful, since ἔρχομαι not only includes the seme of directionality, but also of towardness, which is not expressed by πορεύομαι. Thus, the specific event semes of πορεύομαι would be:
εύ
αι
Ev
mobility location landness horizontality directionality aimlessness self-sufficiency
Definition: “An activity of movement on solid-ground in a horizontal direction, although without a precise goal (Ev), exercised by (R) a human individual (Ent).”¹⁸TN
Peláez has suggested a slightly different definition, namely, “Horizontal movement on solid ground in a certain direction by (R) a human individual (Ent) by his or her own means without a specific end (Ev).”
136
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
§ 246. Another example of a dynamic lexeme with one connotation is φαίνω, in the sense of “to shine” (figuratively), which is viewed as a continuing activity.¹⁹ The formula for φαίνω can be developed by differentiating between the generic (g) and specific (s) semes:
Ev α R X
dynamism (g) (aspect) imperfectivity (g) activity (g) (voice) radiation (s) luminosity (s) agentivity reality [Ent/Ev]
Definition: “A continuing activity of shining light (Ev) by (R) a reality (X).”²⁰TN |88-M When φαίνω acquires a second connotation by adding an object or recipient, which occurs primarily in the middle voice, it can be translated as “to appear,” “to show,” or “to seem.”²¹ In such cases, the semes of radiating and luminosity are replaced by the semes of presence and display. § 247. The verb καθεύδω, “to sleep,” is another example of a dynamic lexeme with one connotation (cf. § 117). The formula shows the passivity and the non-receptiveness that correspond to the lexemic neuter voice (←R→) (cf. § 174):
Ev
R
Ent
The event is developed based on the semantic categories, and the generic (g) and specific (s) semes are identified. The seme of normality distinguishes the state of sleep from other possible states of unconsciousness caused by sickness or other external causes:
Cf. e. g., τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, “the light shines in [sc. the midst of] the darkness” (John 1:5); ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει, “as the sun shines” (Rev 1:16). Translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “Continual radiation of light (Ev) by (R) a reality (X).” Cf. e. g., ἄγγελος Κυρίου … ἐφάνη αὐτῷ, “an angel of the Lord appeared to him” (Matt 1:20); ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “so that they may be seen by people” (Matt 6:5); τί ὑμῖν φαίνεται; “how does it seem to you?” (Mark 14:64).
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
α εύ
Ev
stativity (g) (aspect) passivity (g) non-receptiveness (g) transitoriness (s) inactivity (s) unconsciousness (s) normality (s)
R Ent
137
predication individuality humanity
Definition: “A normal, transitory state (Ev) ascribed to (R) a human being (Ent) whose conscious activity is suspended (Ev).”²²TN Context can add a relation of place.²³ Context can also produce figurative senses by (1) employing semes of inactivity and unconsciousness, which, for example, may result in sleep as a metaphor for death,²⁴ or (2) by omitting the seme of unconsciousness and relying on inactivity, which may result in the metaphorical sense of unfaithfulness to an accepted obligation.²⁵ |89-M
6.2.2 Event Lexemes with Two Connotations § 248. Event lexemes with two connotations (i. e., a subject and an object) are comprised of grammatically transitive lexemes as well as intransitive lexemes that connote another reality in addition to the subject. With transitive lexemes, the activity denoted by the event may or may not affect an object. If these lexemes do affect objects, they do so in a productive, modifying, or annulling manner:
affective transitivity non-affective
p productive: m modifying: aannulling:
to construct to hurt / to sanctify to destroy / to kill to read / to skim (a book)
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A normal, transitory state in which the conscious activity (Ev) of (R) a human being (Ent) is suspended (Ev).” Cf. e. g., ἦν ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων, “he was in the stern sleeping on the cushion” (Mark 4:38). Cf. e. g., τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει, “the girl has not died, she is sleeping” (Mark 5:39; cf. 1Thess 5:10; Eph 5:14). Cf. e. g., μὴ ἐλθὼν ἐξαίφνης εὕρῃ ὐμᾶς καθεύδοντας, “[so that] if he suddenly comes, he may not find you sleeping” (Mark 13:36).
138
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Event lexemes that affect an object in an annulling manner can relate to an entity (ἀπόλλυμι, “to destroy”), to a state (ἀποκτείνω, “to kill”; σβέννυμι, “to extinguish”), or to something’s validity (καταργέω, “invalidate”). § 249. Although sometimes the object is not explicit in context, ἐργάζομαι offers an example of an event lexeme that produces or affects a polyvalent object (e. g., σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι, “work today in the vineyard,” Matt 21:28). Its formula has two connotations, which is a characteristic feature of lexemes in this group:
R1
Ent
R2
X
Ev
The generic semes of ἐργάζομαι are developed by applying the semantic categories to the lexemic level. As with many other Greek verbs, the lexemic verbal aspect of ἐργάζομαι is |90-M ambiguous. According to the contextual morphemic aspect, it can mean “to work” or “to bring about/produce.” The present tense emphasizes a process, and the aorist tense emphasizes completion. These two possibilities must be left open in the semic nucleus. In the New Testament, ἐργάζομαι can have God or people as its subject (cf. John 5:17). The entity (Ent) must therefore include a seme of gender (person, divine or human). The object is polyvalent (X) since this can be an entity²⁶ or an event that is already-realized²⁷ or regularly practiced.²⁸ The generic semes of ἐργάζομαι are as follows:
Cf. e. g., κοπιῶμεν ἐργαζόμενοι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν, “we labor tirelessly [sc. producing tents, cf. Acts 18:3] with our own hands” (1Cor 4:12). Cf. e. g., ἔργον καλὸν ἠργάσατο εἰς ἐμέ, “she has done something excellent [sc. anointing with perfume] for/to me” (Matt 26:10). Cf. e. g., οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν, “those who do iniquity” (Matt 7:23); ὁ … ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην, “the one doing righteousness” (Acts 10:35).
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
αι Ev
dynamism processuality resultativity activity non-subjectivity
R1 (aspect) Ent (voice) R2 (v X
139
agentivity individuality personhood transitivity affectivity reality [Ent/Ev]
The specific semes of ἐργάζομαι can be identified by considering other lexemes with similar meanings. For example, ποιέω, “to do,” is used far more commonly, and at the lexemic level its meanings is much less specific than ἐργάζομαι, since it omits the seme of process and instead emphasizes completion.²⁹ The specific semes of ἐργάζομαι include:
Ev
industriousness productivity
Definition: “Production (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent) of (R2) something (X).”³⁰TN |91-M The lexeme’s aspect will be specified in context. Although causative, ἐργάζομαι can emphasize the imperfective aspect of the activity, meaning “to work” (cf. 1Cor 4:12), or the result of the activity, meaning “to produce,” “to construct” (cf. John 6:28) or “to make” (cf. Matt 26:10). § 250. An example of a transitive event lexeme that modifies an object is βάλλω, “to throw,” “to pitch,” “to cast.” Its semantic formula is the same as ἐργάζομαι (see the formula above). Its aspect is aoristic resultative, which naturally excludes a process seme. The generic semes include:
β λλ
Ev
dynamism resultativity aoristic activity non-subjectivity
(aspect) ( (voice)
R1 Ent R2 X
agentivity personhood transitivity affectivity entity
Cf. e. g., ὁ ποιήσας με ὑγιῆ, “the one who made me well” (i. e., the creation of a state, John 5:11); ἐὰν τί αἰτήσητέ με … τοῦτο ποιήσω, “whatever you ask me, I will do” (John 14:14). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The production (Ev) of (R2) something (X) by (R1) a personal subject (R1).”
140
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
The specific semes of βάλλω can be derived from its uses in the New Testament, where it denotes an action that causes the movement of an object,³¹ of a human being,³² or of an entity or quasi-entity³³ by changing its position without |92-M the use of a material object. A seme of violence is not constant so that it cannot be included in the semic nucleus.³⁴ The same is true for the seme of separation, since individuals can throw themselves (cf. Luke 4:9, σεαυτόν, “yourself). By removing the seme of throw, βάλλω εἰς means to “to put [a finger] in [the ear],” (cf. Mark 7:33; John 20:25, 27). However, this example causes little trouble, since it constitutes a contextual seme formed by the influence of the termination of movement. The specific semes of βάλλω, therefore, are:
Ev
impulse modification location non-contact
(dynamism)
(r (resultative)
Definition: “An act of throwing (Ev) by (R1) a person (Ent1), who, without use of another object, causes (R2) an entity (Ent2) to change its location (Ev).”³⁵TN Lexemes in the same domain (i. e., transitive event lexemes that modify their object) include ἐκβάλλω (cf. Matt 7:4– 5, 22), which, unlike βάλλω, contains a seme of movement from a point (ἐκ‐). This movement is expressed by a denoted relation. Another lexeme in the same domain is ῥίπτω/ῥιπτέω (cf. Matt 15:30; 27:5; Luke 4:35; Acts 27:19, 29), which in context can be synonymous with βάλλω. § 251. Among the transitive event lexemes that affect a state and have two connotations are lexemes that denote qualified actions or processes (cf. § 126), such as ἀγαθοποιέω, “to do good” (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9, 32, 35; cf. ἀγαθουργέω, Acts 14:17). Their formula is complex, since an attribute (goodness) is associated with the event (action or process). The formula and development are:
Cf. e. g., χόρτον, “grass” (Matt 6:30); ἄρτον, “bread” (Mark 7:27). Cf. e. g., αὐτόν, the epileptic boy (Mark 9:22); με, the paralytic (John 5:7). Cf. e. g., εἰρήνη, “peace” (Matt 10:34); πῦρ, “fire” (Luke 12:49). Cf. e. g., βάλῃ τὸν σπόρον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “if he throws the seed to the earth” (Mark 4:26). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The throwing (Ev) of (R2) an entity (Ent2) by (R1) a person (Ent1), who changes its location without the use of an object (Ev).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
141
Ev + A
Ev ι
α
A Ent1
|93-M
R1 R2
dynamism activity beneficiality individuality humanity
Ent2
agentivity transitivity affectivity individuality humanity
Definition: “A beneficial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) for (R2) another individual (Ent2).”³⁶TN § 252. The verb ἀποκτείνω, “to kill,” is another transitive event lexeme that annuls a state. Its semantic formula is similar to the previous transitive lexemes (cf. § 251), but the complement of the action is a qualified state (of life) (Ev1 + A):
R1
Ent1
R2
[Ev1 + A]
Ev
Ev
ε R1 Ent1
dynamism affectivity activity privation agentivity entity
((aspect)
R2
(voice)
Ev1 A R3 Ent2
R3 transitivity affectivity stativity vitality attribution humanity
Ent2
|94-M
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The accomplishment of a beneficial (A) action (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) on behalf of (R2) another individual (Ent2).”
142
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Comparable to ἀποκτείνω is the verb ἀπόλλυμι, “to cause to perish,” “to destroy,” “to eliminate.” The difference between the two lexemes is that, whereas ἀποκτείνω denotes the termination of an object’s current state of life (cf. Mark 9:31, where ἀποκτείνω is compatible with ἀνίσταμαι, “to rise”), ἀπόλλυμι simply denotes the destruction of an object (cf. John 6:39, where ἀπόλλυμι is contrasted with ἀνίστημι, “to raise”; and Matt 10:28, where ἀποκτείνω is contrasted with ἀπόλλυμι). Definition (ἀποκτείνω): “An action (Ev) by which (R1) an animate or inanimate agent (Ent1) causes (R2) a human being’s (Ent2, R3) state of being alive (Ev1 + A) to end (Ev).”³⁷TN Context can specify the nuclear semes of ἀποκτείνω by clarifying (a) whether the agent is inanimate (cf. ὁ πύργος ἐν τῷ Σιλωάμ, “the tower in Siloam,” Luke 13:4), figurative (cf. ἡ ἁμπαρτία, “sin,” Rom 7:11) or human (cf. ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, “the Jews were trying to kill him,” John 7:1); (b) if the state of being alive is terminated physically (cf. μαστιγώσουσιν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀποτκενοῦσιν, “they will flog him and kill him,” Mark 10:34) or spiritually (cf. ἡ ἁμαρτία … ἐξηπάτησέν με καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν, “sin deceived me and killed me through it [sc. the commandment],” Rom 7:11). The semantic formula for ἀπόλλυμι is the same as ἀποκτείνω and its development is parallel.³⁸ § 253. There are other event lexemes with two connotations, such as those that refer to interior disposition (cf. πιστεύω, “to believe,” “to trust,” “to assent to,” “to attest”; § 122). In the formula, X represents a person,³⁹ a word,⁴⁰ or an event.⁴¹ The verb πιστεύω often refers to an inner attitude instead of an explicit object.⁴² We classify certain meanings of πιστεύω, such as “to entrust something to someone” (Luke 16:11; John 2:24), as contextual meanings. The formula and development of πιστεύω can be depicted as follows: |95-M
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The ending (Ev) by (R1) an animate or inanimate agent (Ent1) of (R2) a human individual’s (Ent2, R3) state of being alive (Ev1 + A).” Another example of a transitive lexeme that affects an event/state is σβέννυμι, “to put out,” “to quench” (cf. Matt 12:20; 25:8; Eph 6:16). Cf. e. g., οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ, “they did not believe him [sc. John the Baptist]” (Matt 21:32). Cf. e. g., οὐκ ἐπίστευσας τοῖς λόγοις μου, “you did not believe my words” (Luke 1:20); ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ ὅν εἶπεν, “they believed that Scripture and the word that he spoke” (John 2:22). Cf. e. g., πιστεύτε ὅτι δύναμαι τοῦτο ποιῆσαι; “do you believe that I can do this?” (Matt 9:28); πιστεύτε ὅτι ἐλάβετε, “believe that you have received it” (Mark 11:29). Cf. e. g., μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε, “do not fear, only believe” (Mark 5:36); πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι, “anything is possible for the one who believes” (Mark 9:23).
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
R1
Ent
R2
X
143
Ev
Ev
ισ εύ R1
stativity disposition interiority subjectivity commitment attribution
Ent
R2 X
individuality humanity towardness reality (entity/event)
Definition: “An interior disposition of commitment (Ev) by (R1) a human being (Ent) to (R2) a person, word, or deed (X).”⁴³TN § 254. The lexeme κάθημαι, “to sit,” is a grammatically intransitive event lexeme that necessarily connotes a subject and an object. Although it functions as a stative lexeme (Ev) of bodily position, κάθημαι denotes a relation (R) to a place where the subject rests. The formula, therefore, is:
R1
Ent1
Ev + R
Ent2
|96-M
In the New Testament the subject of κάθημαι can be a person (Mark 2:14), an angel (Matt 28:2), other celestial beings (Rev 4:4), or God (Rev 5:1). Hence, the gender of Ent1 is specified as personhood. The development is:
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A human being (Ent, R1) who commits (Ev) to (R2) a person, word, or deed (X).”
144
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
αι
Ev
R Ent1
stativity position corporeality stability contact posteriority
R1 Ent2
support individuality personhood predication entity materiality solidness
Definition: “An established position of contact by the body’s posterior (Ev) on (R) a supporting material (Ent2), predicated about (R1) a personal being (Ent1).”⁴⁴, ⁴⁵TN § 255. Other lexemes of state with two connotations are those that denote a relational state of possession, such as ἔχω, “to have,” “to possess,” or a relational state of location, such as οἰκέω, “to dwell” (cf. § 124). The formula of such lexemes would be:
R1
Ent
Ev + R X With regards to ἔχω, the polyvalent X is explained by the variety of terms that serve as objects of possession, such as τιμήν, “honor” |97-M (John 4:44), and ζωὴν αἰώνιον, “eternal life” (John 5:24). In the case of John 5:5 (τριάκοντα ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ, “who has been sick for thirty-eight years”), ἔχω acquires a secondary sense. The same occurs with the expressions κακῶς ἔχειν, “to be sick” and ἐσχάτως ἔχειν, “to be at the point of death” (Mark 5:23). Leaving these usages aside for the moment, the development of the formula for ἔχω is as follows (possible contextual semes are indicated in brackets):
Contextually, the seme of stability can be emphasized, causing κάθημαι to mean “to be seated,” “to be situated” (cf. Mark 2:6; 13:3; 14:62). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “An established position of contact (Ev) of (R1) the posterior portion of the human body (Ent1) on (R) a supporting material (Ent2).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
Ev R R1 Ent X
145
stativity possession [utilization/accessibility/availability] attribution individuality personhood reality (entity/event)
Definition: “A state (Ev) of possession (R) by (R1) an individual person (Ent) of a reality (X) [contextually: which enables that person to use, enjoy, or dispose of this reality] (R).”⁴⁶TN The relation of possession can be qualified, as is the case with πλουτέω, “to be rich” (cf. § 125). The denoted elements of the formula and the development will include the qualification of abundance (A). If the relation denoted by the lexeme is local, as is the case with οἰκέω, “to dwell,” then the object of the relation will be an entity (Ent2, location) and the relation will be a seme of habitation. It is noteworthy, however, that among the nine times this lexeme appears in the New Testament, it only has a genuine local sense in 1Cor 7:12– 13. The compound verb κατοικέω adds a seme of permanence, viz. “to be situated” in a city (Matt 2:23; 4:13), “to live in,” “to dwell in” (Matt 12:45; 23:21; Luke 11:26; 13:4; Acts 1:29; 2:5, 9). § 256. There are also grammatically intransitive lexemes⁴⁷ that require a second connotation, since they denote local movement in relation to an object. These lexemes have semes of directionality and towardness (cf. § 127, πορεύω). The formula of ἔρχομαι is similar to that of κάθημαι, but the denoted event is dynamic/active: |98-M
R1
Ent1
Ev + R Ent2
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The possession (Ev, R) of a reality (X) by (R1) an individual person (Ent) [contextually: which enables this person to use, enjoy, or dispose of this reality (R)].” Cf. e. g., ἔρχομαι, “to go”; εἰσέρχομαι, “to enter”; ἐξέρχομαι, “to leave”; εἰσπορεύομαι, “to go into,” “to enter”; ἐκπορεύομαι, “to make to leave,” “to go out.”
146
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ev
αι R
dynamism resultativity activity mobility location directionality towardness
Ent1 R1 Ent2
individuality humanity agentivity entity location
Definition: “An activity of local movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards (R) a specific place (Ent2).”⁴⁸TN Contextually, the aorist and the present punctiliar forms highlight the seme of towardness and indicate the end of the movement. On the other hand, the present (if durative) and imperfect forms (ἤρχετο) highlight the seme of directionality. The lexemes εἰσέρχομαι, “to go in,” and ἐξέρχομαι, “to go out,” denote movement into a closed or demarcated space (cf. Matt 2:21; 8:26), or vice versa (cf. Mark 13:1; John 18:29). Their formula is the same as ἔρχομαι but with a minor change in the relation.⁴⁹ Thus, εἰσέρχομαι and ἐξέρχομαι have a similar development in that they specify the seme of towardness with a seme of interiority or exteriority. |99-M
Ev εσ
αι αι
R
dynamism resultativity activity mobility location directionality towardness interiority/exteriority
Ent1 R1 Ent2
individuality humanity agentivity entity location demarcation
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “Movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards (R) a concrete place (Ent2).” The contextual difference between the aorist and present forms of ἔρχομαι also applies to εἰσέρχομαι and ἐξέρχομαι. Regarding εἰσπορεύομαι (cf. Mark 1:21a; Luke 22:11) and ἐκπορεύομαι (cf. Mark 6:11; 11:19)—which never appear in the aorist in the New Testament—the seme of towardness remains.
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
147
Definition (εἰσέρχομαι): “An activity of local movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards the interior (R) of an enclosed place (Ent2).”⁵⁰TN § 257. Grammatically intransitive stative lexemes, such as γρηγορέω, “to be awake,” connote a second relation in the New Testament, namely, the state of wakefulness that is part of readiness for action (e. g., Mark 13:33; cf. καθεύδω, § 247). The formula and the corresponding development are:
R1
Ent
R2
Ev1
Ev
Ev Ent
stativity consciousness readiness individuality humanity
R1 R2 Ev1
|100-M
predication purpose dynamism activity
Definition: “A state of consciousness and readiness (Ev) for (R2) an action (Ev1), which is predicated of (R1) a human individual (Ent).”⁵¹TN § 258. Among grammatically intransitive stative lexemes, lexemes that refer to “wanting” present unique challenges (cf. e. g., πεινάω, “to have hunger,” “to be hungry”; διψάω, “to thirst,” “to be thirsty”). These lexemes denote a subjective dysphoric⁵²TN state resulting from the lack of an entity that would end this state. In the New Testament, lexemes of this domain have both a literal and figurative sense.⁵³ If the literal sense is considered to be the primary sense, πεινάω denotes an intensely (D) dissatisfying dysphoric (A) state of bodily sensation (Ev). In the New Testament, πεινάω translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “Movement (Ev) performed by (R1) a human individual (Ent1) towards the interior of (R) a specific place (Ent2).” translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A state of consciousness and readiness (Ev) for (R2) an action (Ev1) by (R1) a human individual (Ent).” translator’s Note: dysphoric is used in contrast to euphoric. It is derived from the Greek δύσφορος, “hard to bear,” from δύσ-, “hard,” “bad” + φέρειν, “to bear.” Dysphoric refers to a state of feeling unwell or unhappy (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). For the literal sense see Matt 25:35; for the figurative sense see Matt 5:6 (οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “those hungering and thirsting for righteousness”).
148
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
connotes the human subject (Ent1) to whom the state is attributed (R1). This state is caused by the lack (R4) of resources (Ent2) that are necessary for survival (A1) and provokes a continual and intense (D1) longing (Ev1) to obtain (R3) these resources (Ent2 + A1).
Ent1
R1
R4
Ev + A + D
R2 Ev
ει A D
stativity sensitivity corporeality dissatisfaction dysphoria intensity
[Ev1 + D1] R1 Ent1 R4 Ent2
attribution individuality humanity privation entity materiality edibility
R3
[Ent2 + A1] A1 R2 Ev1
D1 R3
|101-M
indispensability causality dynamism tendency intensity appropriation
Two semic groups can be distinguished in such a lexeme. The first group of semes is stative and highlights the denoted elements (Ev + A + D) and the subject’s (Ent1) lack of (R4) necessities (Ent2 + A1). The second group of semes is dynamic and highlights the strong longing (Ev1 + D1) caused by (R2) the dysphoric state of dissatisfaction to procure (R3) the necessary goods (Ent2 + A1). Definition: “An intensely (D) dysphoric and lasting bodily (A) sensation of dissatisfaction (Ev), attributed to (R1) a human subject (Ent1) who lacks (R4) the nourishment (Ent2) necessary for life (A1), which causes (R2) a strong (D1) longing to obtain (Ev1) this for oneself (R3).”⁵⁴TN § 259. Lexemes that denote some kind of service (cf. διακονέω, δουλεύω, λατρεύω, λειτουργέω) are event lexemes with simple structures and two connotations, and their formula—in its most basic form—may be constructed as: |102-M
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “An intensely (D) dysphoric (A) lasting sensation of intense bodily dissatisfaction (Ev) of (R1) a human subject (Ent1) who lacks (R4) the nourishment (Ent2) necessary for life (A1), which provokes (R2) a strong (D1) desire to obtain (Ev1) this for oneself (R3).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
149
Ev
The differences between lexemes that denote a kind of service, at least in their more common usage in the New Testament, are as follows: 1. The verb διακονέω denotes service done out of personal love or commitment to one or several people. It can mean “to collaborate,” “to cooperate” (cf. John 12:26). Along with a dynamic activity (Ev), the lexeme also incorporates a stative event of commitment (Ev′), linked together by a relation (R) of causality. 2. The verb δουλεύω denotes service that presumes submission (e. g., of a servant or slave) and can have God or people as an object (cf. Matt 6:24; Luke 15:29; John 8:23). Figuratively, δουλεύω can take a personified reality as its object (cf. Rom 6:6; τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ). The lexeme includes a relation of inferiority to the one receiving the service (Ev + R). 3. The verb λατρεύω refers to the cult (Ent2 = God), and the subject (Ent1) is often the group of the faithful. 4. The verb λειτουργέω, which also denotes the cult (Ent2 = God), preserves LXX usage, which restricts the subject (Ent1) to the priestly group (Heb 11:10). However, the Letter to the Hebrews sometimes assimilates λατρεύω and λειτουργέω (cf. Heb 8:5; 13:10). The lexeme διακονέω can take ἄγγελοι, “angels” (Matt 4:11) and “people” (Matt 8:15 par.; 25:44) as its subject. The object is always human (Jesus: Matt 4:11; 8:15; John 12:26; other people: Mark 1:31; Luke 4:39; Rom 15:25). In one instance the human object is connoted (cf. διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, “to serve tables,” Acts 6:2). We consider the more common usage as the primary sense. The internal relation (R) can be interpreted as cause or manifestation. Given that the service (dynamic event) is primary and the commitment (stative event) is secondary (contrary to lexemes of interior disposition manifested in action, cf. § 123), we interpret the commitment as causal. |103-M Context can specify the activity in focus, such as the writing of a letter (2Cor 3:3), prophetic activity (1Pet 1:12), or the exercise of spiritual gifts (1Pet 4:10):
150
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ev
ια
R Ev R1
dynamism activity causality stativity commitment agentivity
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ent1 R2 Ent2
individuality personhood towardness beneficiality individuality humanity
Definition: “An activity (Ev) that a personal subject (Ent1) carries out (R1) because of (R) commitment to (Ev′) and to the benefit of (R2) a human subject (Ent2).”⁵⁵TN § 260. Lexemes of psychological response⁵⁶ constitute another group of intransitive stative lexemes. Such lexemes imply the perception (Ev1) of (R2) an event (Ev2) as (R3) pleasant or unpleasant (A1), provoking (R4) a reaction. We shall use λυπέομαι, “to be sad” (the deponent of λυπέω, “grieve,” “cause pain/grief”) as our model, since it is commonly used in the New Testament.⁵⁷ The cause of sadness can be a request (Matt 14:9), a harsh attitude |104-M (Matt 18:31), betrayal (Mark 14:19), the content of a letter (2Cor 7:8), someone’s death (1Thess 4:13), and trials of the faith (1Pet 1:6). The formula for lexemes of psychological response is:
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The carrying out of an activity (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) because of (R) a commitment to (Ev′) and to the benefit of (R2) a human subject (Ent2).” Cf. e. g., λυπέομαι, “to be sad” (Matt 26:22); φοβέομαι, “to fear” (Mark 10:32); χαίρω, “to be glad” (Luke 10:20); ἀγανακτέω, “to be outraged” (Mark 14:4); αἰσχύνομαι, “to be ashamed,” “to feel shame” (Phil 1:20). Of the 26 occurrences of λυπέομαι in the New Testament, the lexeme appears five times in the active voice; cf. 2Cor 2:2, 5; 7:8 (2x); Eph 4:30.
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
151
Ent
R1
R2 Ev + A
Ev1 + A1
R4
R3 Ev2 In the development, the generic (g) and specific (s) semes of the denoted elements (Ev, A) are distinguished. The seme of emotionality includes the seme of interiority:
Ev λ
αι
A
R1
stativity (g) subjectivity (s) emotionality (s) quality (g) dysphoria (s) attribution
Ent R2 Ev1
individuality humanity agentivity dynamism cognition experience
A1 R3 Ev2 R4
unpleasantness towardness occurrence causality
Definition: “A subjective emotional state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) that is attributed to (R1) a human subject (Ent) due to (R4) an occurrence (Ev2) that he or she (R2) perceives or experiences (Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”⁵⁸TN |105-M § 261. Other lexemes of psychological response add a seme of intensity that provokes the outward expression of emotion. One such lexeme is πενθέω, which can be translated as “to suffer intensely” (Matt 5:4) or “to mourn” (Matt 9:15). The emotion can be expressed outwardly in mourning (1Cor 5:2; 2Cor 12:21) or crying (cf. the pairing of πενθέω and κλαίω in Mark 16:10; Luke 6:25; Jas 4:9; Rev 18:15, 19). The formula is similar to that of λυπάω, but adds determinations of intensity (D, D1) and an event of manifestation (Ev3):
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A human subject (R1, Ent) who finds himself or herself in a subjective emotional state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) due to (R4) an occurrence that he or she (R2) perceives or experiences (Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”
152
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
R1
Ent
R2 R4
Ev + A + D
Ev
ε
A D R1
Ev1 + A1 + D1
R5
R3
Ev3
Ev2
stativity subjectivity emotionality dysphoria intensity attribution
Ent
R4 R2 Ev1
individuality humanity causality perceptivity dynamism cognitivity experience
A1 D1 R3 Ev2 R5 Ev3
unpleasantness intensity towardness factuality manifestation dynamism activity |106-M
Definition: “A subjective emotional state (Ev) of intense (D) dysphoria (A) that is attributed to (R1) a human subject (Ent) and caused by (R4) an incident or situation (Ev2) that he or she perceives (R3) and experiences (R2, Ev1) as intensely (D1) unpleasant (A1), manifesting itself (R5) in actions or gestures (Ev3).”⁵⁹TN
6.2.3 Event Lexemes with Three Connotations § 262. Event lexemes with three connotations (cf. § 128) connote an agent, an object, and a recipient. Their generic semantic formula looks as follows:
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A human subject (R1, Ent) who finds himself or herself in a subjective emotional state (Ev) of dysphoria (A) due to (R4) an occurrence that he or she (R2) perceives or experiences (Ev1, R3) as unpleasant (A1).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
Ev
R1
Ent1
R2
X
153
R3 Ent2 The action (Ev) is performed by (R1) an individual (Ent1), who transfers (Ev) something (R2, X: object/knowledge) to (R3) an object or recipient (Ent2). The action creates a relation of possession (R3) between X and Ent2, implying that these lexemes are causative lexemes.
6.2.3.1 Lexemes of Giving § 263. The most common contextual meaning of δίδωμι, “to give,” offers an example of lexemes of giving.⁶⁰ The object that is given (X) varies greatly.⁶¹ |107-M The seme of personhood includes several possibilities, since the giver (Ent1) and the one receiving the gift (Ent2) can be of divine or human gender. Between Ent1 and X there is a relation of (prior) possession (R′). The formula and development of the generic semes are:
Cf. e. g., ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, “I will give you all this” (Matt 4:9); δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον, “let him give her a statement of divorce” (Matt 5:31); ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν, “he gave them the right/ authority” (John 1:12); ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμπψασιν ἡμᾶς, “so that we may give an answer to those who sent us” (John 1:22). Cf. e. g., ἄρτον, “bread” (Matt 6:11); κῆνσον, “tax” (Matt 22:17); τὸ καθίσαι, “the [right] to sit” (Mark 10:40); ἀμπελῶνα, “vineyard” (Mark 12:9); σύσσημον, “sign” (Mark 14:44); ὕδωρ, “water” (Luke 7:44); φίλημα, “kiss” (Luke 7:45); νόμον, “law” (John 1:17); ζωήν, “life” (John 6:33); φωνήν “sound [of a musical instrument]” (1Cor 14:7); ἀποκάλυψις, “revelation” (Rev 1:1).
154
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
R1
Ent1 R
R2
Ev
X R3 Ent2
Ev ι Ent1
dynamism resultativity activity individuality personhood
R1 R2 X
agentivity transitivity reality
R R3 Ent2
possession towardness individuality personhood
Definition: “An act (Ev) by which (R1) a person (Ent1) causes (Ev) a reality (X) that he or she possesses (R′) to become (R2) the possession of (R3) a personal recipient (Ent2).” Two observations can be made about δίδωμι in context, depending on whether or not R′ is annulled: (a) the annulment of R′ creates the relation R3 (possession of X by Ent2), in which case δίδωμι means “to give,” “to deliver,” “to hand over”;⁶² (b) if R’ is not annulled, X is possessed by both Ent1 and Ent2. In such a case, |108-M δίδωμι means “to impart,” “to cause to participate in.”⁶³ § 264. The formula of χαρίζομαι is similar to the formula of δίδωμι, except that it adds a qualified state of benevolence to the agent (Ev1 + A). The benevolence is manifested in two ways: (1) by a gift, in which case χαρίζομαι can be translated as “to grant,” “to give at no cost,” “to gift”;⁶⁴ (2) by a pardon, in which case χαρίζομαι can be translat-
Cf. φόρους Καίσαρι διδόναι, “to give taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2). Cf. ὁ πατήρ … δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν, “the Father will impart the Holy Spirit to those who ask him” (Luke 11:13). The nature of the gift can vary: cf. βλέπειν, “eyesight/vision” (Luke 7:21); ἄνδρα φονέα, “[sc. the pardon of] a murderer” (Acts 3:14); οὐδείς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρισθῆναι, “no one can deliver me to them” (Acts 25:11, as a demonstration of benevolence, or generosity/gratification/appeasement); πάντας τοὺς πλέοντας μετὰ σοῦ, “[sc. the lives of] all those who sail with you” (Acts 27:24); τὰ πάντα, “everything” (Rom 8:32); τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, “the name that is above every name/title” (Phil 2:9).
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
155
ed as “to show favor,” “to grant grace,” “to forgive,” “to pardon.”⁶⁵ For both options the formula is complex, since it denotes the manifestation of (R) benevolence in the gift or action (Ev). The seme of possession (R′) in δίδωμι becomes a seme of property or availability for χαρίζομαι:
R1
Ent1
R4
Ev1+ A
R Ev + R + A
R2
X R3 Ent2
The specific semes of χαρίζομαι are: R R A
manifestation property/availability benevolence
|109-M
Definition: “A person’s (Ent 1) decision to give (Ev) something (X), which in a certain sense belongs to (R2) him or her, to another (R3) individual (Ent2) as a sign of (R) his or her benevolence (A).”⁶⁶TN § 265. The verb ζωοποιέω, “to give life,” “to bring to life,” is a lexeme of participatory giving (cf. §§ 128 – 29). Its semantic formula follows the previous lexemes of giving, except that the object of giving (ζωή, “life”) is not polyvalent but is rather a stative event (Ev1 + A). The semes for ζωοποιέω include:
Cf. a debt (Luke 7:42); an offense (2Cor 2:10); πάντα τὰ παραπτώματα, “all the transgressions” (Col 2:13). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A person’s (Ent 1, R1) decision to give (Ev) something (X), which in a certain sense belongs to him or her (R2), to another (R3) individual (Ent2) as a sign of (R) his or her benevolence (A).”
156
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ev R1 Ent1 R
dynamism resultativity agentivity individuality personhood possession
R2 Ev1 A R3 Ent2
transitivity stativity condition vitality towardness individuality humanity
Definition: “An act (Ev) by which a personal (Ent1) agent (R1) imparts (R2) a state (Ev1) of life (A) that he or she possesses (R′) to (R3) a human individual (Ent2).”⁶⁷TN In the New Testament, ζωοποιέω never means “to beget,” “to bring into existence” (cf. γεννάω). It thus refers to making alive/bringing back to life someone who is physically dead (1Pet 3:18) or to giving a special quality of life to someone whose situation is regarded as death (cf. John 5:21). |110-M
6.2.3.2 Lexemes of Verbal Communication § 266. For the lexeme λέγω, “to say,” whose formula is the same as the previous formulas (cf. § 265), the dynamic, resultative event (Ev) has a specific seme of verbality. X represents the content of the communication with semes of cognition, meaningfulness, and communicability. The relation R2 will be one of expressivity. The development is as follows:
Ev λ R2
dynamism activity verbality resultativity expression
X Ent2
cognitivity meaningfulness communicability individuality personhood
Ent1 R1 R R3
individuality personhood agentivity possession towardness
Definition: “A verbal activity (Ev) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) by which he or she expresses (R2) his or her own (R′) meaningful and communicable mental content (X) to (R3) another personal subject (Ent2).”⁶⁸TN
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The communication (Ev) of a state (Ev1) of life (A) that a personal agent (Ent1, R1) possesses (R′) to (R3) a human individual (Ent2).” translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “A complete verbal expression (Ev) of (R2) a person’s own (R′) thoughtful, meaningful, communicable content (X) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to (R3) another personal subject (Ent2).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
157
The noun λόγος, “word,” “message,” constitutes a quasi-entity (Ent) comprised of the event of verbality (Ev) and the content of the word or message (X) (cf. what was said about “signifier” and “signified” in chap 1, note 15):
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ent = [Ev + X] |111-M
Definition: “A meaningful (X) and complete verbal act (Ev) that can be viewed as an entity (Ent) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to communicate with (R2) another subject (Ent2).” When λόγος is viewed as an object or a being,⁶⁹ its status as an entity is emphasized and the relation to (R1) the acting subject (Ent1) is removed or put to the side. The noun λόγος can be translated in terms of its content if this can be concisely formulated. For example, in Mark 4:14, λόγος represents a set of teachings and can be translated as “message”; in John 1:1, the content of the word is the divine plan for humanity, so that the best translation of the phrase is “the plan was from God.”⁷⁰TN § 267. The lexeme λαλέω, “to speak,” “to talk,” is similar to λέγω. It can denote: (1) the ability to speak, in opposition to muteness;⁷¹ (2) the ability to communicate;⁷² (3) the communication of content;⁷³ (4) verbal activity, specifying the recipient but not the content;⁷⁴ (5) verbal activity, specifying both the content and the recipient.⁷⁵ The main difference between λαλέω and λέγω is that λαλέω is used in an imperfective sense, denoting a verbal activity without relating to its completion. Aside from contextual meanings (1) and (2), λαλέω always connotes a speaker and transmitted content, which is also true of λέγω. The semantic formula must account for the most
The λόγος is viewed as an object in Mark 4:14 (ὁ σπείρων τὸν λόγον σπείρει, “the sower sows the message”) and as a being in John 1:1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, “God was the word”). translator’s Note: I am puzzled by this translation of John 1:1. Peláez, however, assures me that this translation is correct. Cf. e. g., ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός, “the mute spoke” (Matt 9:33; cf. Matt 12:22; 15:31). Cf. e. g., ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, “they began to speak/communicate in various languages” (Acts 2:4). Cf. e. g., μὴ προμεριμνᾶτε τί λαλήσητε, “do not worry beforehand about what you will say” (Mark 13:11; cf. Matt 10:19; 12:34, 36; Mark 2:7; 12:50; Acts 6:10). Cf. e. g., ζητοῦντές σοι λαλῆσαι, “seeking to speak with you” (Matt 12:47). Cf. e. g., ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, “while he was saying these things to them” (Matt 9:18; cf. Matt 13:3, 34; Mark 2:2; John 6:63).
158
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
common uses of λαλέω (i. e., the ability to speak or communicate), which can be called the intransitive contextual meaning:
Ev λαλ
1
Ev
Ent
R
|112-M
R E
dynamism activity verbality
capability individuality humanity
Definition: “Verbal activity (Ev) that can be produced by (R) a human subject (Ent).”⁷⁶TN Other contextual meanings of λαλέω can be seen as derivatives of this usage and add elements to the formula that produce two connotations, similar to λέγω:
R1
Ent1 R
Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “Expression by means of words (Ev) by (R) a human individual (Ent).”
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
159
The development of the event (Ev) and of R2 will be:
Ev λαλ
2 R2
dynamism activity imperfectivity verbality expositoriness
Definition: “A verbal activity (Ev) of (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) about (R2) his or her own (R′) meaningful and communicable mental concept (X) to (R3) another personal subject (Ent2).”⁷⁷TN |113-M § 268. Teaching is a particular mode of communication⁷⁸ for which a particular ability or competency (A) from a subject (Ent1) is assumed. This is the case with διδάσκω:
R1
[Ent1 + A] R
Ev
R2
X R3 Ent2
The formula’s development is similar to the preceding lexemes of verbal communication. In context and with the present tense, διδάσκω denotes the act teaching without reference to a particular content (cf. Matt 26:55; Mark 4:1; Luke 4:15; Rom 12:7; 1Tim 2:12). In such a case, the dynamism of the event (Ev) will be specified as imperfective rather than resultative.
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “Verbal expression (Ev) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) to (R3) another personal subject (Ent2) about (R2) his or her own (R′) meaningful and communicable mental concept (X).” Cf. e. g., ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς … πολλά, “he was teaching them many things” (Mark 4:2); ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα, “he will teach you all things” (John 14:26).
160
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
6.2.3.3 Other Event Lexemes § 269. The verb χορτάζω, “to feed,” is a lexeme with three connotations and can be considered a lexeme of proportionate action. The verb is a mode of “to give” in which the object given adequately meets a need of the recipient. In the New Testament, χορτάζω is used literally (cf. Matt 14:20; 15:33, 37) and figuratively (cf. Matt 5:6). We examine the literal sense because the figurative sense is likely derived from it. In addition to an action (Ev) by (R1) a subject (Ent1), the formula includes a transmitted object (Ent2), its edible quality (A1), and the quantity (D) proportionate to (R4) the need (A2) of the recipient (Ent3). |114-M
R1
Ent1 R
Ev
R2
[Ent2 + A1 + D] R3
R4
[Ent3 + Ev1 + A2] Ev
Ent1 R1 R2
dynamism resultativity activity individuality humanity agentivity transitivity
Ent2 A1 D
R3 Ent3
entity materiality edibility quantity sufficiency towardness individuality humanity
Ev1 A2
R4
stativity situation necessity entity materiality edibility adequacy
Definition: “An action (Ev) by which a human (Ent1) agent (R1) gives (Ev) nourishment (Ent2 + A1) in sufficient quantity (D) to satisfy (R3) adequately (R4) the need (Ev1) of a human being (Ent3) for nourishment (A2).”⁷⁹TN |115-M
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The giving (Ev) of nourishment (Ent2, A1) by (R1) a human being (Ent1) in sufficient quantity (D) to (R3) satisfy adequately (R4) the need (Ev1) for food (A2) of another human being (Ent3).”
161
6.2 Analysis of Event Lexemes
The figurative sense in Matt 5:6 (μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται, “happy are those who hunger and thirst for justice, because they will be filled”) results from substituting elements in the formula related to necessity (τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “righteousness”). In this case, χορτάζω is a response to this necessity and does not focus on material nourishment, but with acting to change an unrighteous situation into a righteous one. Ent2 becomes an event. The situation described as Ev1 + A2 is a situation of unrighteousness. R4 becomes the solution for this situation. § 270. Causative event lexemes can be divided into two general groups: 1. There are event lexemes that not only express quality but also the result of a causative action. The result can be a state (i. e., “to cause to be”)⁸⁰ or an action (i. e., “to cause to do”).⁸¹ Many verbs can be causatives based on context, such as μαστιγόω, “to beat, to cause to beat” (cf. John 19:1) and περιτέμνω, “to circumcise, to cause to circumcise” (cf. Acts 16:3). Causative lexemes of state or action denote two events (Ev, Ev′), the second of which will be specified in the development as stative or dynamic. R2 will be a relation of attribution with a stative event, and a relation of agent with a dynamic event. The events are joined by a relation (R) of causality. The agent (Ent1) and the recipient of the action (Ent2) are connoted:
Ev R Ev
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
dynamism resultativity activity causality stativity/dynamism
Ent1 R1 R2 Ent2
|116-M
entity agentivity attribution/agentivity entity
Cf. e. g., ἁγιάζω, “to sanctify,” “to consecrate” (cf. Matt 23:7; 1Cor 7:14; 1Tim 4:5; Heb 2:11); μαθητεύω, “to cause [another person to become] a disciple” (cf. Matt 28:19; Acts 14:21); σκληρύνω, “to harden” (cf. Rom 9:18; Heb 3:8, 15); καταδουλόω, “to make a slave” (cf. 2Cor 11:20; Gal 2:4); λυπέω, “to cause sadness” (cf. 2Cor 2:2, 5; Eph 4:30); δέω, “to bind” (cf. Luke 13:16), φιμόω, “to cause to be silent” (cf. Matt 22:12, 34; 1Pet 2:15). Cf. e. g., ἀνατέλλω, “to cause to rise up”; τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει, “[he] causes his sun to rise” (Matt 5:45); ποτίζω, “to cause someone to drink/to give drink” (Mark 9:41; Luke 13:15; Rom 12:20).
162
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
2. The second group of causative lexemes is comprised of terms that denote commands and requests (and that can thereby be characterized as conative with regard to causation).⁸² Both the command and the request imply an influence over a possible agent. These lexemes intend to cause an action to be executed that can have one, two, or three connotations. Contrary to the lexemes in the previous group, the lexemes in this group do not denote the action that must be completed. Therefore, the second event will simply be connoted (Ev1). The denoted action (Ev) is performed (R1) directly to (R) a subject (Ent2), who in turn will (hopefully) become an agent (R2→)⁸³TN of another action (Ev1). The development does not require its own explanation, and the formula will be:
R1
Ent1
Ent2
R2
Ev + R
Ev1
|117-M
§ 271. The verb σφραγίζω, “to seal,” “to mark,” can be included in the first group of causative lexemes above (cf. § 270). At the same time, certain features of σφραγίζω should be taken into account. In a literal sense, σφραγίζω denotes an action, namely, the application of an object or instrument (i. e., of a seal or mark), and connotes the object that is sealed and the result of the action (sealed or marked). Therefore, the formula has several denoted elements, including an action (Ev), an object/instrument (Ent), and a relation of instrumentality that unites the two (R). The relation between the acting subject (Ent1) and the denoted elements is twofold: the relation to the action (Ev) is agent (R1) while the relation to the instrument (Ent) is exclusive possession (R′), in such a manner that the sealed (Ev1) entity (Ent2) can be visibly (A) recognized (Ev2) as the property of (R3) the agent (Ent1) by a witness (Ent3) who observes (R4, Ev2) the seal/mark (Ev1). Hence:
Cf. e. g., ἐντέλλομαι, “to command,” “to give a command/task” (cf. Mark 10:3; John 15:14); διαστέλλομαι, “to order” (cf. Matt 16:20; Mark 5:43); διατάσσω, “to give instructions” (cf. Matt 11:1; Luke 8:55); ἐπιτάσσω, “to order,” “to give an order” (cf. Mark 1:27; 6:27, 39), αἰτέω, “to ask” (cf. Matt 5:42; Luke 1:63); δέομαι, “to request” (cf. Luke 8:28; 10:2); παρακαλέω, “to exhort,” “to beseech” (cf. Matt 8:34; Mark 7:32); προσεύχομαι, “to pray,” “to ask” (cf. Mark 14:38; Heb 13:18). translator’s Note: It should be noted that Mateos omits arrows in the lower half of this diagram. I assume there should be an arrow after R2.
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
R1/R
Ent1
R3
Ev + R + Ent
σ
α
R Ent R1
dynamism resultativity instrumentality entity materiality imprintability agentivity
Ev2
R4
[Ent2 + Ev1 + A]
R2 Ev
163
R Ent1 R2 Ent2 Ev1
possession exclusivity individuality humanity towardness materiality stativity impression
Ent3
|118-M A R3 Ev2 R4 Ent3
visibility connection exclusivity dynamism perception agentivity humanity
Definition: “An action (Ev) performed by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1), who, by means of (R) an instrument (Ent) of his or her exclusive possession (R′) applied to (R2) an entity (Ent2), marks it permanently (Ev1) in a visible manner (A), connecting it to himself or herself (R3) in a perceptible manner (Ev2) as (R4) a human testimony (Ent3).”⁸⁴TN, ⁸⁵ |119–20-M
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes § 272. The domain of relation and determination lexemes is quite extensive, since it contains the majority of a language’s morpholexemes (in particular the prepositions and conjunctions). Greek prepositions require certain cases, which affect their mean-
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The giving (Ev) of nourishment (Ent2, A1) by (R1) a human being (Ent1) in sufficient quantity (D) to (R3) satisfy adequately (R4) the need (Ev1) for food (A2) of another human being (Ent3).” In the New Testament, σφραγίζω is used (1) in a literal sense: σφραγίσαντες τὸν λίθον, “sealed the stone [sc. of the grave]” (Matt 27:66); (2) in a figurative sense to indicate the confirming of a testimony: ὁ λαβὼν αὐτοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐσφράγισεν, “whoever has accepted his testimony has placed his seal (i.e., has certified/confirmed this)” (John 3:33); the delivery of an intact monetary collection: σφραγισάμενος αὐτοῖς τὸν καρπὸν τοῦτον, “[after I] have delivered this fruit [sc. the final collection] to them intact” (Rom 15:28); or those who have received the Spirit/seal (whose effects are visible for others) as belonging to God: τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός, “for God the Father has marked this one with his seal” (John 6:27; cf. 2Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30); (3) with various meanings—symbolic or figurative—in Rev 7:3 ff.; 10:4; 20:3; 22:10.
164
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
ings. As in the previous sections we will not attempt to analyze lexemes or morpholexemes exhaustively, but to provide a method for conducting their analysis.
6.3.1 Relation Lexemes § 273. We begin by examining relation lexemes that indicate relations of place or time. As has been seen (cf. § 135), such lexemes can denote a stative (non-directional) relation⁸⁶ or a directional relation.⁸⁷ § 274. The semantic formula of ἐν accounts for the denoted class of relation and the two connoted objects (cf. § 135). 1. The particle ἐν is used in a literal and figurative local sense in one of three manners: (a) with the seme of interiority, translated as “in,” “within”⁸⁸ or as “among,” “in the presence of” a specific circle;⁸⁹ (b) with semes of contact, translated as “in,” “upon”;⁹⁰ |121-M (c) with a seme of proximity, translated as “with,” “beside.”⁹¹ 2. On the other hand, ἐν can denote a temporal relation by indicating: (a) a date or moment, “on,” “at”;⁹² (b) a span of time during which something occurs, “in,” “during”;⁹³ (c) the maximum span of time during which something must occur, “in,” “during the span of.”⁹⁴ The generic formula accounts for the connoted local or temporal object (X) of the relation and the event, state, or process (Ev) that exists in relation to a place or time:
Cf. e. g., ἐν, “in”; and πρός (with dative), “beside”; or πρό, “in front of”; μετά (with dative) and σύν, “with”; ἔσω, “inside”; and ἔξω, “outside.” Cf. e. g., εἰς/πρός + acc., “toward”; ἐκ, “from”; ἐκεῖθεν, “from there”; ἄνωθεν, “from above”; μακρόθεν, “from far.” Cf. e. g., γυνὴ ἥτις ἦν ἐν τῇ πόλει ἁμαρτωλός, “a woman who was a sinner in the city” (Luke 7:37); ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν, “they died in the water” (Matt 8:32). Cf. e. g., σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, “we speak a wisdom among the mature/completed/ perfected” (1Cor 2:6); τί διαλογίζετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς; “what are you discussing amongst yourselves?” (Matt 16:8); τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις, “that which is said in the Prophets” (Acts 13:40). Cf. e. g., ἐν τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ προσεκύνησαν, “they worshiped upon this mountain” (John 4:20); κατασκενοῦν ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις αὐτοῦ, “to rest in its branches” (Matt 13:32). Cf. e. g., ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐλάλησεν ἐν τῷ γαζοφυλακίῳ, “he spoke these words beside/by the treasury” (John 8:20). Cf. e. g., ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ, “that which is forbidden to do on the Sabbath” (Matt 12:2); ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ ὤρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, “the servant was healed in that hour/at that moment” (Matt 8:13). Cf. e. g., ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, “if one walks during the day” (John 11:9); μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, “lest they tire on the way/during the journey” (Matt 15:32); βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει, “the queen of the south will rise at/during the judgment” (Luke 11:31). Cf. e. g., ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν, “in three days I will raise him” (John 2:19).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
165
Ev R
X
The diverse contextual meanings that have already been described are sememes produced by context. In each case the features of the sememe should be added to the nuclear semes that appear in the following development (for example, the semes of interior and duration could be added):
R Ev X
stativity (non-directional) position occurrence location/time
Definition: “A stative position (R) in space or time (X) in relation to an event (Ev).”⁹⁵TN |122-M 3. Contextually, ἐν has many other meanings. It can indicate an instrument,⁹⁶ which is a denoted contextual meaning that joins two objects, namely, an instrument and an action:
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a stative position (R) in space or time (X) in relation to an event (Ev).” Cf. e. g., ἐν μαχαίρῃ πατάσσειν, “to strike/wound with the sword” (Luke 22:49); ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀπόλλυσθαι, “to die by the sword” (Matt 26:52); ἐν αἵματι καθαρίζειν, “to purify with blood” (Heb 9:22); ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς, “he told them many things with/by means of parables” (Matt 13:3); ὑμῖν ἐρῶ ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ, “I will tell you by what authority I do these things” (Matt 21:24).
166
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ent R
Ev
R Ent Ev
instrumentality entity dynamism activity
Definition: “A relation of instrumentality (R) between an object (Ent) and the action or process (Ev) which is performed with it.”⁹⁷TN With regard to a transitive dynamic lexeme, an instrumental relation (R) is inserted in the formula, affecting the subject’s (Ent1) mode of action (R1) by means of (R) the instrument (Ent):
R
Ent
R2
Ent2
R1
Ent1
Ev
|123-M
Thus, Ent1 is the acting subject, R1 represents the activity, Ent is the instrument, R is a relation of instrumentality, Ev is an action or process, R2 represents transitivity, and Ent2 is an object. All other contextual meanings of ἐν must be analyzed in the same way.
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a relation of instrumentality (R) between an object (Ent) and the action or process (Ev) which is performed with it.”
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
167
§ 275. The morpholexeme πρό, which requires the genitive case, can denote (1) stative local priority, “before,” “in front of”;⁹⁸ (2) temporal priority, “before”;⁹⁹ or (3) priority/precedence in relation to something’s importance.¹⁰⁰ The Semitic expression πρὸ προσώπου τινός, “before someone” (lit. “before someone’s face”; cf. Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76) includes a local and temporal sense. As the previous examples demonstrate, the relation is connected to an event in each case. The semantic formula for πρό, therefore, has two connotations:
X R Ev The development that follows adds the symbol [ ] to indicate possible contextual semes belonging to the various contextual meanings:
R X Ev
priority [location/temporality/importance] reality (Ent/Ev) occurrence activity
|124-M
Definition: “The status of an event (Ev) as prior (in place, time, or importance) to (R) another entity or event (X).”¹⁰¹TN § 276. The morpholexeme εἰς denotes a local or temporal relation, but with a directional sense (“to,” “towards”). Its formula is the same as ἐν.
Cf. e. g., φύλακες πρὸ τῆς θύρας ἐτήρουν τὴν φυλακήν, “sentinels in front of the door were guarding the prison” (Acts 12:6); ἑστάναι τὸν Πέτρον πρὸ τοῦ πυλῶνος, “that Peter was at the door [sc. in front of the gate]” (Acts 12:14; cf. Acts 14:13; Jas 5:9). Cf. e. g., οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη πρὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου, “he had not first washed himself before the meal” (Luke 11:38); πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, “before the world existed” (John 17:5; cf. Matt 5:12; 6:8; 8:29; Luke 22:15; 2Cor 12:2). Cf. e. g., πρὸ πάντων … μὴ ὀμνύετε, “above all do not swear” (Jas 5:12; cf. 1Pet 4:8). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The indication that an event occurred (Ev) prior (in place, time, or importance) to (R) another entity or event (X).”
168
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
1. In a local sense εἰς indicates: (a) direction “towards” a place or recipient,¹⁰² sometimes with a contextual seme of hostility (e. g., ταῦτα πάντα ποιήσουσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου, “they will do all this to you on my account,” John 15:21); (b) point of arrival, “to,” “unto”;¹⁰³ (c) sometimes with stative verbal lexemes, εἰς denotes a location resulting from a previous movement (constructio pregnans) (cf. καθημένου αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ὄρος, “as he was sitting on the mountain,” Mark 13:3, implying the way to the mountain). 2. The temporal sense of εἰς indicates: (a) continuance (of an action or condition) to a specified time, “until” (cf. εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν, “until that day,” 2Tim 1:12); (b) duration, “for” (cf. εἰς ἔτη πολλά, “for many years,” Luke 12:19); (c) the expression εἰς τέλος can have a temporal sense (cf. ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, “the one who endures until the end,” Matt 10:22) or can indicate degree (cf. ἔφθασεν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος, “wrath/punishment has come upon them until the end/completely,” 1Thess 2:16). Thus, in a local sense, in a temporal sense, and in a sense of degree, the development of εἰς is as follows:
ες
R X
directionality towardness reality [location/temporality/intensity]
Definition: “Direction towards or arrival at (R) a point (local, temporal, or of degree) (X).”¹⁰⁴TN |125-M § 277. The morpholexeme ἐκ indicates direction in an opposite sense than εἰς. In its more common local and temporal contextual meanings, ἐκ is developed as:
Cf. e. g., ἀναστὰς πορεύου εἰς Δαμασκόν, “get up and go to Damascus” (Acts 22:10); ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, “lifting up the gaze toward heaven” (Mark 6:41); λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον, “I speak to the world” (John 8:26). Cf. e. g., ἦλθον εἰς Δαμασκόν, “I came to Damascus” (Acts 22:11); εἶδεν … τὸ πμεῦμα … καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν, “he saw the Spirit descend on him” (Mark 1:10). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of direction towards or arrival at (R) a point (local, temporal, or of degree) (X).” There are other contextual meanings for εἰς that must be analyzed in context.
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
R X
169
directionality initiality reality [location/temporality]
Definition: “Direction from (R) a local or temporal point (X).”¹⁰⁵TN § 278. The morpholexeme διά requires the genitive and accusative cases, each of which must be analyzed separately. 1. With the genitive, διά can have three senses: (a) a local sense of “through”;¹⁰⁶ (b) a temporal sense of “through,” “for,” “during,”¹⁰⁷ or “in the span of”;¹⁰⁸ (c) an instrumental sense of “through,” “by means of.”¹⁰⁹ In these and other possible contextual meanings, διά denotes a relation and connotes an action (Ev) as well as a place, time, or instrument (X):
X R Ev
ι + gen
R X Ev
|126-M
mediation reality [location/temporality/instrumentality] dynamism activity
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of direction from (R) a local or temporal point (X).” Cf. e. g., ἀπελεύσομαι δι’ ὑμῶν εἰς Σπανίαν, “I will go to Spain via you [sc. passing through your city]” (Rom 15:28); ὡς διὰ πυρός, “as through fire” (1Cor 3:15); πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον, “they all passed through the sea” (1Cor 10:1). Cf. e. g., δι’ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα, “for forty days” (Acts 1:3). Cf. e. g., διὰ νυκτὸς ἤνοιξεν τὴν θύραν τῆς φυλακῆς, “during the night he opened the door of the prison” (Acts 5:19). Cf. e. g., γράφειν διὰ χάρτου καὶ μέλανος, “to write with paper/papyrus and ink” (2John 12); διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα, “by means of the gospel I have begotten you” (1Cor 4:15).
170
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Definition: “A relation of instrumentality (R) between a local, temporal, or material reality (X) and an action or process (Ev).” 2. With the accusative, διά indicates reason/cause and can be translated as “for,” “because,” “for the purpose of,” “due to.”¹¹⁰ The lexeme denotes a relation between a reality (X) and a subsequent action (Ev). The formula is the same as the previous but its development is:
ι + acc
R X Ev
dependence reality causality dynamism resultativity
Definition: “The dependence (R) of an action (Ev) on a reason or cause (X).”¹¹¹TN § 279. Similar to διά, the morpholexeme μετά takes the genitive and accusative. 1. With the genitive μετά has a local sense, signifying: (a) location, “among,” “with”;¹¹² (b) company, “with,” “together with,” without connoting activity;¹¹³ (c) the recipient of an activity of speech or of help;¹¹⁴ |127-M (d) association together in a common activity, “with”;¹¹⁵ (e) the connection or association of a human subject and an object, “with”;¹¹⁶ (f) the simultaneousness of two actions by the same subject or of an action and an emotion, “with.”¹¹⁷
Cf. e. g., διὰ φθόνον, “because of envy” (Matt 27:18); διὰ τὸν θόρυβον, “because of the uproar” (Acts 21:34); διὰ τί; “for what reason?” (Matt 2:18); οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, “man was not created for the sake of woman” (1Cor 11:9). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of dependence (R) of an action (Ev) on a reason or cause (X).” Cf. e. g., ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων, “he was among the beasts” (Mark 1:13); τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; “why are you looking for the living one among the dead?” (Luke 24:5); ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, “he comes in the clouds” (Rev 1:7). Cf. e. g., καὶ ἐκεῖ ἔμεινεν μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν, “and he stayed there with the disciples” (John 11:54); ἔτι μικρὸν μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμί, “I am still with you a little while” (John 13:33). For recipients of speech, see e. g., ἐλάλησεν μετ’ αὐτῶν, “he spoke with them” (Mark 6:50); τί λαλεῖς μετ’ αὐτῆς; “why/what are you discussing with her?” (John 4:27). For recipients of help, see e. g., μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός, “God with us” (Matt 1:23); χεὶρ Κυρίου ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ, “The Lord’s hand was with him” (Luke 1:66); ὁ πέμψας με μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν, “the one who sent me is with me” (John 8:29). Cf. e. g., πρὸς σὲ ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν μου, “I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples in your house” (Matt 26:18); γρηγορεῖτε μετ’ ἐμου, “keep watch/stay awake with me” (Matt 26:38); ὁ τρώγων μετ’ ἐμοῦ τὸν ἄρτον, “the one who eats bread with me” (John 13:18). Cf. e. g., ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν, “a crowd with swords” (Mark 14:43); ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων καὶ ὅπλων, “he arrives there with lanterns, torches, and weapons” (John 18:3).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
171
With the genitive μετά has two connotations in the semantic formula, namely, the subject, object, state or activity (X1) prompted by μετά and the object (X2) that is associated with it:
X1 R X2 The development will account for the common semes of presence and simultaneousness, which will be accompanied in context by semes of centrality, speech, help, or association. Additionally, each object of the relation is polyvalent, referring to a human subject or to an activity of this subject (X1; cf. Mark 3:5; 4:16; Acts 20:31) and to a human subject, to an object, or to an activity or emotion (X2). |128-M
ε + gen
R X1
presence simultaneousness reality (Ent/Ev) reality (Ent/Ev)
Definition: “The simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).”¹¹⁸TN 2. In the New Testament, μετά with the accusative often denotes temporal subsequence and can be translated as “after.”¹¹⁹ The local sense of “after,” “behind,” is
Cf. e. g., πάλιν ἡρνήσατο μετὰ ὄρκου, “again he denied it with an oath” (Matt 26:72); μετὰ δακρύων νουθετῶν ἕνα ἕκαστον, “admonishing each one individually with tears” (Acts 20:31); περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ’ ὀργῆς, “looking around at them with anger” (Mark 3:5); μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνουσιν αὐτόν, “they receive it (sc., the word/message [λόγος]) with joy” (Mark 4:16); ἀπελθοὐσαι ταχύ … μετὰ φόβου καὶ χαρὰς μεγάλης, “they left quickly with fear and great joy” (Matt 28:8). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).” Cf. e. g., μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἱουδαίων, “after this/sometime later it was the feast of the Jews” (John 5:4); εἰσελεύσονται μετὰ τὴν ἄφιξίν μου λύκοι βαρεῖς, “after my departure fierce wolves will come in [among you]” (Acts 20:29); ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, “after eating, he did the same with the cup” (1Cor 11:27).
172
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
not common.¹²⁰ The formula for μετά with the accusative is identical to μετά with the genitive. The two connotations required by the relation will take objects designated with X1 and X2, which stand for possible senses these objects receive in context. If the sense is temporal, the object will be specified as an event; with a local sense the object is an entity. The development can be:
ε + acc
R X1 X2
subsequence [temporal/location] reality (Ent/Ev) reality (Ent/Ev)
Definition: “The temporal subsequence of (R) a reality (i. e., of an event) with regards to another reality (X1, X2)”; or: “The local position of a reality (i. e., an entity) as being further back (R) than another reality (i. e., entity).”¹²¹TN § 280. Lexemes that indicate local or temporal distance have a similar development (e. g., ἐγγύς, “near”; μακράν, “far”; cf. § 136). The lexeme ἐγγύς can carry a sense of local proximity ¹²² or temporal proximity.¹²³ |129-M These two senses make the two connoted objects in the formula polyvalent:
X1 R X2
However, see Heb 9:3, μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα σκηνὴ ἡ λεγομένη ἅγια ἁγίων, “after/ behind the second curtain is the tabernacle called the most holy place.” translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a simultaneous presence (R) of two or more realities (X1, X2).” Cf. e. g., διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτόν, “because he was close to Jerusalem” (Luke 19:11); ἐγγὺς ἦν ὁ τόπος τῆς πόλεως, “the place was near the city” (John 19:20); ἦν δὲ ἡ βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων, “Bethany was near Jerusalem” (John 11:18). Cf. e. g., ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα, ἡ ἐορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “The Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near” (John 6:4); γινώσκετε ὅτι ἐγγυς τὸ θέρος ἐστίν, “you know that summer is near” (Mark 13:28); ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς, “because the time is near” (Rev 1:3).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
R ύς
X1
X2
173
proximity [location/temporality] reality [entity/event] reality [entity/event]
The lexeme μακράν, “far,” only has a local sense, which is sometimes used metaphorically.¹²⁴ The formula is similar to the formula of ἐγγύς, but X1 and X2 will be changed to Ent1 and Ent2. In the development, the seme of distance will be specified by a seme of location. § 281. Lexemes that denote a relation of temporal immediacy, such as εὐθύς, εὐθέως, and παραχρῆμα (cf. § 136), connect two events (Ev1, Ev2): |130-M
Ev1 R Ev2 R ε ύς
Ev1 Ev2
immediacy temporality dynamism resultativity dynamism resultativity
For the local sense of μακράν, cf. ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων, “far from them was a herd of pigs” (Matt 8:30); ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ μακρὰν ἀπέχοντος, “while he was still far off” (Luke 15:20). For a metaphorical translation of μακράν, cf. οὐ μακρὰν εἶ ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, “you are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34).
174
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Definition: “An immediate temporal succession (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”¹²⁵TN Contextually, εὐθύς can indicate “narrative immediacy” when it connects two events that imply movement and when it merely indicates that nothing worthy of mention occurred between them.¹²⁶ § 282. Morpholexemes like ὥσπερ, “as” (cf. § 136), which indicate similarity or correspondence, connote two events (Ev1, Ev2).¹²⁷
Ev1 R Ev2
σ ε
R Ev1 Ev2
|131-M
similarity/correspondence stativity/dynamism stativity/dynamism
Definition: “Similarity or correspondence (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”¹²⁸TN § 283. The causal use of ὅτι, which is similar to διά with the accusative (cf. § 278), precedes clauses rather than lexemes. It should be noted, however, that the causal relation established by ὅτι between the two events does not determine which event is the cause or the effect. In John 20:29 (ὅτι ἑώρακάς με πεπίστευκας, “because you have seen me, you believe”), ὅτι introduces the cause. In other texts, ὅτι introduces the perceptible result that shows the existence of the cause.¹²⁹ The causal re-
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of immediate temporal succession (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).” Cf. e. g., καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦλθον εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Σίμωνος, “when they left the synagogue, they arrived immediately/came directly to Simon’s house” (Mark 1:29). For ὥσπερ with a stative event, see ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικός, “let [sc. this one] be to you as a pagan” (Matt 18:17); with a dynamic event, see μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, “do not babble like the pagans” (Matt 6:7); ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ὥσπερ λέων μυκᾶται, “he cried out in a great voice, as a lion roars” (Rev 10:3). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of similarity or correspondence (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).” Cf. e. g., ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, “… in as much as/given that/the evidence is that from his fullness we have all received” (John 1:16); ἡμεῖς προσκυνοῦμεν ὃ οἴδαμεν, ὅτι
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
175
lation between the events appears in the formula for ὅτι, but without specifying the sense of the relation:
Ev1 R Ev2 The development can be as follows, taking into account that at least one of the connoted events must be a dynamic result:
ι
R Ev1 Ev2
causality occurrence occurrence (result)
|132-M
Definition: “A cause-effect relation (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).”¹³⁰TN The completive ὅτι (“that” in indirect speech) and the recitative ὅτι (introducing a quotation in direct speech), which bring together two propositions, omit the causal seme in its development and replace it with a transitive relation.¹³¹ § 284. The possessive lexemes ἐμός/μου, “my/mine”; σός/σου, “your/yours”; αὐτοῦ/ αὐτῆς, “his” (cf. § 138), denote a relation of possession (R) between a personal subject and the possessed reality (X). Possessive lexemes connote a speaker (Ev–R1–Ent) who may or may not be the possessing subject (R). The formula for ἐμός and its development is as follows:
ἡ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐστίν, “we worship that which we know, because salvation comes from the Jews” (John 4:22); ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, “the evidence that you are sons is that God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts” (Gal 4:6). translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a cause-effect relation (R) between two events (Ev1, Ev2).” Cf. e. g., θεασάμενος ὅτι πολὺς ὄχλος ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτόν, “seeing that a large crowd was approaching him” (John 6:5); ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι οὐ πρῶτον ἐβαπτίσθη, “he was surprised that he did not first wash himself” (Luke 11:38); λέγετε ὅτι βλασφημεῖς, “you say, ‘you are blaspheming’” (John 10:36).
176
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
R2
Ev
Ent
R1
R
X R ς Ent
possession identity reference (to X) individuality personhood
R1 Ev
R2 X
agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality transitivity reality (polyvalent)
|133-M
Definition: “A relation of possession (R) that a personal subject (Ent) expresses (Ev) about himself or herself (R) with regards to a reality (X).”¹³²TN With the lexemes σός/σου there is a third connotation, namely, the subject (Ent2) to whom the possession is attributed:
R2 R
Ev
R1
Ent1
Ent2 X
In the development, the identity seme in R is substituted with the semes of otherness and interlocutivity, while the semes of individuality and personhood are added to Ent2.
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The signal of a relation of a possession (R) that a personal subject (Ent) expresses (Ev) about himself or herself (R) with regards to a reality (X).”
177
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
6.3.2 Determination Lexemes § 285. Definite articles in Greek (ὁ, ἡ, τό; cf. § 139) are morpholexemes of determination that identify (D) an entity, attribute, or event (X) by means of a textual or situational anaphoric reference:
D+R D R X
X identification anaphoricity reality (Ent/A/Ev)
Definition: “Identification (D) of a reality (X) that is related to a previous reference or knowledge of this reality (R).” |134-M § 286. Deictic determinative lexemes include ἐγώ, “I”; σύ, “you”; and αὐτός, “he.” In such cases, they designate and identify a person (Ent) and his or her relation (R) of sameness (“I”) or otherness (“you,” “he”) to the speaker (cf. § 141). Like the possessive lexemes (cf. § 284), deictic determinative lexemes connote an act of speech (Ev) made by an individual or a group (Ent1). Thus, the formula and development for ἐγώ are:¹³³
R2
Ev
R1
Ent1
D + Ent + R
For the formulas of σύ, αὐτός, etc., see the discussion of possessive lexemes in § 286.
178
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
D
designation identification individuality personhood singularity identity (between Ent and Ent1)
Ent R
Ent1 R2 Ev R2
individuality personhood singularity agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality objectivity
Definition: “A designation and identification (D) about (R) oneself (Ent) made by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1) in (R2) a verbal expression (Ev).” § 287. Like personal deictic lexemes (cf. § 286), the deictic identifiers οὗτος, “this,” and ἐκεῖνος, “that” (cf. § 142) connote an act of speech (Ent, R1, Ev). In a local or temporal sense, these lexemes denote not only a designating and identifying determination (D), but also a relation (R) that marks the difference between them. The relation (R) has |135-M two objects, namely, a polyvalent reality (X, Ent/A/Ev) and this reality’s proximity to or distance from the speaking subject (Ent).
R2
Ev
R1
Ent
D+R X D
ο ο
R Ent
designation identification proximity subjectivity reference individuality personhood
R1 Ev
(to Ent) (to X)
R2 X
agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality transitivity reality (Ent/Ev)
Definition: “A specifying designation (D) expressed verbally (R2, Ev) by (R1) a person (Ent) about his or her proximity (R) to an entity or an event (X).” With ἐκεῖνος, the seme of proximity is changed to non-proximity. If these deictic lexemes function as pronouns or substantival adjectives (e. g., “this,” “that”), the polyvalent X becomes denoted rather than connoted: |136-M
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
R2
Ev
R1
179
Ent
D+X+R These deictic lexemes can have a textual or situational anaphoric function (cf. § 287). When this occurs, the relation of proximity does not have the speaker as its object, but rather a previously mentioned X. § 288. Local and temporal deictic lexemes are parallel to personal and identifying deictics (cf. § 143). Among the local deictics are ὧδε, “here,” and ἐκεῖ, “there.” These also connote a speaking (R1, Ev) subject (Ent1) and denote a determination and a relation. The determination (D) designates and identifies a place (Ent2). The relation of proximity or non-proximity (R) is viewed from the perspective of the speaker (Ent1) and refers to a designated place (Ent2):
R2
Ev
R1
Ent1
D+R
Ent2 D
ε ε
R Ent1
designation identification proximity/non-proximity subjectivity individuality personhood
R1 Ev
R2 Ent2
agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality transitivity entity location
|137-M
Definition: “A designation that identifies (D) a place (Ent2) based on its proximity (R) to the subject (Ent1) who (R1) verbalizes it (Ev, R2).”
180
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
In contrast to local deictic lexemes, the lexemes ποῦ, “where?” and the enclitic πού, “anywhere, somewhere,” belong to the same domain. The interrogative ποῦ has a (direct or indirect) interrogative sense and a stative seme of location¹³⁴ or direction.¹³⁵ Its formula is similar to the formula of ὧδε and ἐκεῖ except that it joins the determination (D) with an attribute of unknown (A) and omits the proximity/nonproximity seme in the relation (R):
D A Ent1
identification non-cognition individuality personhood
R1 Ev
agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality
R2 Ent2 R
transitivity entity location towardness
Definition: “The identification (D) of a place (Ent2) that is unknown (A) to (R) a speaking (Ev) subject (Ent1).” The indefinite lexeme πού can have a local sense, i. e., “somewhere.”¹³⁶ Other times the lexeme has a limiting sense, i. e., “more or less” and “somehow.”¹³⁷ In both cases, the formula and its development are the same as with ποῦ, except that Ent2 is substituted with a polyvalent X. § 289. The temporal deictic lexemes νῦν, “now,” and τότε, “then,” have a formula that parallels the local deictic lexemes. They denote a relation of simultaneousness or non-simultaneousness |138-M with the narrator’s present.¹³⁸ Other meanings of these deictics can be examined contextually. The temporal interrogative lexeme πότε; “when?” and the indefinite ποτέ, “sometime” (past or future) behave as temporal deictics like the local lexemes ποῦ and πού. § 290. The maximizing morpholexemes λίαν, “very,” and σφόδρα, “great,” “in large measure,” “exceedingly” (cf. § 144) are determination lexemes that are used in four
Cf. e. g., ποῦ ἐστὶν ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; “where is the king of the Jews who is born?” (Matt 2:2); οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνῃ, “he does not have anywhere to lay his head” (Matt 8:20). Cf. e. g., οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει, “you do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (John 3:8). Cf. e. g., διεμαρτύρατο δέ πού τις, “someone testifies somewhere” (Heb 2:6); εἴρηκεν γάρ που περὶ τῆς ἑβδόμης, “for some passage has said about the seventh day” (Heb 4:4). Cf. e. g., ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, “when he was about 100 years old” (Rom 4:19); φοβούμενοι δὲ μή που κατὰ τραχεῖς τόπους ἐκπέσωμεν, “fearing that somehow we might run against rough shores/rocks/cliffs” (Acts 27:29). Cf. e. g., νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται, “now I feel troubled” (John 12:27); εἰς ἣν ὑμεῖς νῦν κατοικεῖτε, “in which you now dwell” (Acts 7:4); εἶχον τότε δέσμιον ἐπίσημον, “at that time they had a notorious prisoner” (Matt 27:16); τότε οἰ δίκαιοι ἐκλάμψουσιν, “then the righteous will shine” (Matt 13:43).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
181
possible ways: (1) with attribute lexemes of dimension;¹³⁹ (2) with temporal lexemes;¹⁴⁰ (3) with event lexemes related to the state of the soul;¹⁴¹ and (4) with dynamic event lexemes.¹⁴² The following formula and development applies for each of these:
D
σ
λα
α
D R X
R
X
maximality specification reality (Ent/A/Ev)
Definition: “A maximizing-determination (D) that specifies (R) a reality (X) (i. e., a dimension, time, emotion, action, or process).” |139-M § 291. Other lexemes or morpholexemes, like πᾶς, “all,” and ἕκαστος, “each” (cf. § 144), also denote a determination. For its part, πᾶς is applied to personal global collectives and to specific groups,¹⁴³ as well as to events.¹⁴⁴ It can have a distributive sense and can be used with temporal lexemes.¹⁴⁵ The formula for πᾶς and its primary contextual semes are as follows:
Cf. e. g., εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, “to a very high mountain” (Matt 4:8); ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα, “because [sc. the stone] was very big” (Mark 16:4); ἦν γὰρ πλούσιος σφόδρα, “because he was very rich” (Luke 18:23). Cf. λίαν πρωΐ, “very early” (Mark 16:2). Cf. e. g., Ἡρῷδης … ἐθυμώθη λίαν, “Herod was exceedingly angry” (Matt 2:16); ἐχάρην λίαν, “I rejoiced greatly” (2John 4); ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα, “they were very afraid” (Matt 17:6). Cf. e. g., λίαν γὰρ ἀντέστη τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις, “for he greatly opposed our words” (2Tim 4:15); ἐπληθύνετο ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν μαθητῶν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ σφόδρα, “the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased drastically” (Acts 6:7). For πᾶς with personal collectives, cf. πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα, “all of Jerusalem” (Matt 2:3); πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος, “all the crowd” (Matt 13:2); for πᾶς with specific groups, cf. πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς, “all the High Priests” (Matt 2:4). Cf. e. g., πάντα τᾶ ἔργα αὐτῶν, “all of their actions” (Matt 23:5); πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους, “all these words” (Matt 26:1); ἐκ πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας, “with full expectation” (Acts 12:11); μετὰ πάσης παρρησίας, “with all freedom” (Acts 28:31); ἐν παντὶ λόγῳ καὶ πάσῃ γνώσει, “in every [sc. gift of] speech and knowledge” (1Cor 1:5). For πᾶς with a distributive sense, cf. πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος, “everyone who is angry” (Matt 5:22); πᾶς ὁ πίνων, “everyone who drinks” (John 4:13); for πᾶς with temporal lexemes, cf. ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, “on every occasion/in each moment” (Luke 21:36).
182
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
D D ς
R X
R
X
totality [numerosity/globality] predication/specification reality (Ent/A/Ev)
Definition: “Totality (D) predicated about (R) a reality (X).” When accompanied by a definite article (cf. 1Cor 15:28; 2Cor 5:5), the formula also denotes an entity:
D + Ent The substantival use of ἕκαστος applies it to people and as an adjective to things.¹⁴⁶ The substantival usage causes the entity (Ent) to be denoted. The relation (R) refers to the group (Ent1) in which each of the individuals is included. |140-M
D + Ent D
ασ ς Ent
R
designation totality distribution singularity individuality singularity
Ent1 R Ent1
inclusivity individuality plurality collectivity
For ἕκαστος with people, cf. e. g., ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, “each one to his brother” (Matt 18:35); ἵνα ἕκαστος βραχὺ λάβῃ, “so that each one might receive some” (John 6:7); ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει, “each of you says” (1Cor 1:12). For ἕκαστος with things, cf. ἕκαστον δένδρον, “each tree” (Luke 6:44).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
183
Definition: “A designation about each (D) of the individuals (Ent) included in (R) a group (Ent1).” § 292. Cardinal numerical lexemes (cf. εἷς, “one,” δύο, “two”; cf. § 144) are specifying quantifiers that denote a determination:¹⁴⁷
D D ε ς, etc.
R X
R
X
quantification numerosity [unity/duality, etc.] predication/specification reality (Ent/Ev)
Definition: “A numerical quantification (D) about (R) a reality (X).” § 293. Ordinal lexemes (e. g., πρῶτος, “first”; δεύτερος, “second”; cf. § 145) denote a relation to a reality (X: Ent/Ev) whose place they determine, and to an ordinal series, which constitutes a group of related elements (Ent + R1). |141-M In the New Testament, πρῶτος can denote (1) temporal priority;¹⁴⁸ (2) priority in reference;¹⁴⁹ (3) priority in excellence or importance;¹⁵⁰ and (4) the local position of an entity in a series relative to the other members of the series, i. e., being the first of several entities, viz. priority of place.¹⁵¹ The formula of ordinal lexemes should account for these contextual meanings: the determination (D) indicates a reality’s priority (X) in relation (R) to other components of a series or group (Ent + R1).
Cf. e. g., ἓν τάλαντον, “one talent” (Matt 25:24); εἷς ἄνθρωπος, “one [sc. single] person” (John 11:50); δύο ἀδελφούς, “two brothers” (Matt 4:18); ἔτη τρία καὶ μῆνας ἕξ, “three years and six months” (Luke 4:25); δώδεκα ὧραι, “twelve hours” (John 11:9). Cf. e. g., ἡ πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων, “the first [sc. day] of the feast of unleavened bread” (Matt 26:17); ὁ πρῶτος γήμας ἐτελεύτησεν, “after the first [sc. of seven brothers] married, he died” (Matt 22:25); ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ᾿Aδάμ, “Adam, the first man” (1Cor 15:45). This contextual meaning specifies Ent as a numerical series of elements that are progressively organized and related (Ent + R1). Cf. e. g., προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν, “when he approached the first [sc. of those previously mentioned], he said to him …” (Matt 21:28). Cf. e. g., ὃς ἂν θέλῃ ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρῶτος, “the one who wants to be first among you” (Matt 20:27); ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων, “the first commandment of all” (Mark 12:28). Cf. e. g., σκηνὴ κατεσκευάσθη ἡ πρώτη, “a tabernacle was built, [sc. when entering] the first” (Heb 9:2).
184
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
X D+R Ent + R1
ς
D R X Ent
priority reference reality (Ent/Ev) entity plurality
Definition: “The priority (D) of a reality (X) in relation to (R) other elements of a series or group (Ent + R1).” |142-M § 294. Lexemes such as ἀρχή, “beginning,”¹⁵² and τέλος, “end,” denote a determination or demarcation within a temporal local continuum, within an action, or within a series (cf. § 146). For example, ἀρχή denotes a determination (D) from the initial point of a continuum or series (X) and a relation (R) to this:
D+R
X
The lexeme ἀρχή in its most common contextual meaning (derived from ἄρχομαι, “to commence,” “to begin”) can be translated as “start,” “beginning,” “origin”; cf. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς κόσμου ἕως τοῦ νῦν, “from the beginning of the world until now” (Matt 24:21); ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “start [sc. origins] of the good news/gospel” (Mark 1:1); ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, “the beginning of the pains” [series] (Mark 13:8); ἀρχὴν τῶν σημεῖων, “beginning of the signs” [series] (John 2:11); τηλικαύτης σωτηρίας, ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, “so exceptional a salvation, which was declared in the beginning by the Lord” [action] (Heb 2:3). Other contextual meanings appear in the New Testament that are related to ἀρχή, such as ἄρχων (“master,” “ruler”; from ἄρχω, “to command”). The lexeme can refer to human beings (Luke 12:11) or to spiritual beings in authority (cf. Eph 1:21; 3:10; Col 1:16). In this case, an entity is present in the denotation. The lexeme τέλος has a development that parallels ἀρχή.
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
D R X
185
initiality inclusivity reality [continuum/series] [temporality/occurrence]
Definition: “The initial point (D) of (R) a continuum or series (X).” § 295. The lexeme ἡμέρα, “day,” is another determination or demarcation in a temporal continuum. As in modern languages, ἡμέρα can mean: (1) a span of 24 hours;¹⁵³ (2) in opposition to night, the period of light within the span of 24 hours;¹⁵⁴ |143-M (3) due to Semitic influence, ἡμέρα can mean a period of time.¹⁵⁵ There are two ways to construct the common formula of these three contextual meanings. The limitation in the time affecting the lexeme can be expressed simply as a period of time whose duration will be specified by context. The other possibility is to consider the period of 24 hours as the main contextual meaning from which the other two meanings arise, based on context, by changing semes. In both cases, the temporal continuum (χρόνος) is viewed as an entity (Ent) that substantivizes a temporal action (Ev; cf. § 233). By adopting the first contextual meaning, the formula and development can be constructed as follows:
D+R D
α
R Ent Ev
[Ent = Ev] demarcation duration inclusivity quasi-entity dynamism imperfectivity temporality
Cf. e. g., μεθ’ ἡμέρας ἕξ, “after six days” (Matt 17:1); προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα, “they will prophesy for one thousand two hundred and seventy days” (Rev 11:3). Cf. e. g., τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, “three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40); οὐχὶ δώδεκα ὧραί εἰσιν τῆς ἡμέρας; “are there not twelve hours in a day?” (John 11:9). Cf. e. g., ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῷδου, “in the days [sc. during the reign] of Herod” (Matt 2:1); τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, “my day [sc. the time of Jesus’s activity]” (John 8:56); ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, “in the time of the [sc. divine] visit” (1Pet 2:12).
186
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Definition: “A demarcated period (D) within (R) a temporal continuum (Ent = Ev).” Contextual meaning 1 will specify the demarcation as “24 hours” (i. e., as the duration of the earth’s rotation on its axis). Contextual meaning 2 will add an attribute (A) of luminosity:
D+A+R
Ent
§ 296. The lexeme ὄνομα (cf. § 169) also denotes a determination. Its primary contextual meanings are: (1) the proper name of a person or place, |144-M or a person’s nickname;¹⁵⁶ (2) a title that corresponds to a person and describes (a) his or her condition, or (b) the quality of his or her being;¹⁵⁷ (3) renown, reputation;¹⁵⁸ (4) by metonymy, a person or individual.¹⁵⁹ Contextual meaning 1 can be considered primary. Both the determination (D) and the relation (R) to the named person or thing (Ent2) will be denoted elements. The two connotations include the named entity (Ent2) and the act of communication (Ev) by a subject (Ent1):
Cf. e. g., τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τὰ ὀνόματά ἐστιν ταῦτα, “these are the names of the twelve apostles” (Matt 10:2); ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, “with the name Jairus” (Mark 5:22); ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης, “his name was John” (John 1:6); χωρίον οὗ τὸ ὄνομα Γεθσημανί, “a place called Gethsemane” (Mark 14:32); εἰς πόλιν … ᾗ ὄνομα Ναζαρέτ, “to a city with the name Nazareth” (Luke 1:26). For a nickname, cf. ἐπέθηκεν τὸ ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, “he gave Simon the nickname Peter/Rock” (Mark 3:16). For ὄνομα as a title, cf. ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα, “gave him the title [‘Lord’], which is above every title” (Phil 2:9); εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου, “for/because of the name/title ‘prophet’” (Matt 10:41). For ὄνομα describing the quality of being, cf. ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου, “may your name [sc. the name/title ‘Father’] be hallowed/kept sacred” (Matt 6:9); διαφορότερον παρ’ αὐτῶν κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα, “he has inherited a more excellent title [sc. that of ‘Son’] than theirs” (Heb 1:4). Cf. e. g., φανερὸν γὰρ ἐγένετο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, “for his reputation has been made public” (Mark 6:14); ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς, “you have a reputation of being alive” [or also, “you supposedly are alive”] (Rev 3:1). Cf. e. g., ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων διὰ τὸ ὄνομα μου, “you will be hated by everyone because of me” (Mark 13:13); ἦν τε ὄχλος ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτῷ, “and the multitude of individuals was/were [gathered together] at the same place” (Acts 1:15); παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, “they ordered them not to speak about the person of Jesus” (Acts 5:40); ἀσπάζου τοὺς φίλους κατ’ ὄνομα, “greet each of the friends personally” (3John 15); ἔχεις ὀλίγα ὀνόματα ἐν Σάρδεσιν, “you have a few people in Sardis” (Rev 3:4).
6.3 Analysis of Relation Lexemes and of Determination Lexemes
R2
Ev
R1
187
Ent1
D+R
Ent2 D
α1
R Ent1
|145-M
designation exclusivity identification reference individuality personhood
R1 Ev
R2 Ent2
agentivity dynamism resultativity verbality transitivity entity singularity
Definition: “An exclusive designation (D) that points out (R) a singular entity (Ent2) and is spoken (Ev, R2) by (R1) a personal subject (Ent1).” Contextual meaning 2 (“title”) adds a quality to its semes. Contextual meaning 3 (“renown,” “reputation”) can be viewed as the frequent communication of a person’s name. The seme of frequency specifies Ev, and the seme of plurality specifies Ent1, which is qualified by an attribute (A) of numerosity. Contextual meaning 4 (“individual,” “person”) includes Ent2 as a denoted element in the box. The class of determination becomes a connoted element, since it is referred to by the relation. The event (Ev) is interpreted as cognitive rather than as communicative:
R2
Ev
R1
Ent1
Ent + R D
|146-M
188
Chapter 6: Lexemic Analysis
Ent α4
R Ent1
individuality personhood reference individuality personhood
R1 Ev
R2 D
agentivity dynamism resultativity cognition objectivity nameability identifiability
Definition: “A person (Ent) who is (R2) recognized (Ev) by (R1) another person (Ent1) and can be referred to (R) with a name that designates and identifies him or her (D).” |147–48-M
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)¹TN § 297. This chapter presents examples of changes that can occur to the semic nucleus of lexemes because of the influence of context. Such changes in the nucleus lead to changes in the nuclear configuration, which give rise to different sememes (i. e., contextual meanings). As has been seen (cf. §§ 86, 207), “nuclear configuration” refers to the structure and organization of the nuclear semes of a lexeme. The semes are structured based on relations of presupposition and implication. In many cases the nuclear semes are organized into various semic groups. Context can modify the semic structure of a lexeme’s nucleus—for example, by altering the semes by means of a figurative usage, which makes it possible for each semic group to occupy a central position. Nuclear semes can also be identified by developing the semantic formula (cf. the previous chapter regarding the denoted and connoted elements of lexemes). In what follows, we will examine the semantic formulas of several lexemes, the development of these formulas, and the manner in which context can produce various configurations of the semic nuclei of these formulas.
7.1 Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία § 298. The lexeme καρδία, “heart,” provides an example of an entity lexeme whose meaning varies in context. In the New Testament, καρδία is used almost exclusively with reference to human beings. The lexeme’s common meaning denotes an organ of the body, which constitutes sememe 1, a somatic domain. According to dictionaries of the New Testament,² this lexeme (in opposition to the Semitic understanding of πνεῦμα, “spirit,” in the Gospels) denotes the inner-parts of a person, including the intellect, the will, and the emotions when these are viewed in their permanent and established nature (i. e., convictions, attitudes and choices, fears, and loves). The figurative sense of the lexeme is not difficult to grasp, since καρδία is used in various contexts as the seat of a person’s inward |149-M purity and cleanliness,³ as the location of a mental capacity,⁴ or as a favorable disposition towards the gospel.⁵ These usages constitute sememe 2, a psychological domain. There are also passages in the New Testament and LXX in which καρδία is applied to inanimate things.⁶ This
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 149 – 64 in the original text of Mateos. Cf. BDAG, 508 – 09; BAA 818 – 21; L&N § 26.3. Cf. e. g., μακάριοι οἱ καθαροὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ, “blessed are the pure of heart [sc. those inwardly pure]” (Matt 5:7; cf. 15:8, 18; 18:35; 22:37). Cf. e. g., συλλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, “grieved by the stubbornness of their mind” (Mark 3:5; cf. 2:6, 8; 6:52). Cf. e. g., οἵτινες ἐν καρδίᾳ καλῇ καὶ ἀγαθῇ ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον, “those who have heard the message with a noble and good heart [sc. disposition]” (Luke 8:15; cf. 1:17, 51; John 12:40; 13:2). Cf. e. g., ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, “in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-013
190
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
constitutes sememe 3, a domain of location. In light of these three possible sememes, καρδία is an example of a lexeme with heterogeneous meanings, suggesting that one of the sememes should be seen as primary and the others as derivatives that emerge when the nuclear configuration changes or when semes are substituted, neutralized, or omitted (cf. §§ 86, 207– 08). § 299. Sememe 1 of καρδία has a complex formula. In this usage, καρδία denotes the classes of entity (Ent) and relation (R), since καρδία is located in human beings. The lexeme necessarily connotes a living (Ev1 + A) human subject (Ent1) for whom the heart is an integral part, as well as an activity (Ev2) that both enables and manifests (R3) the “life” and “vitality” (Ev1 + A) of the subject:
Ent1
R1
[Ev1 + A]
R3
Ent + R R2
Ev2
Both in the formula and in the development that follows, three semic groups can be observed, including (1) the “organ” (Ent + R), |150-M related (by belonging) to (2) a “living human being” (Ent 1, R1, Ev1 + A), and to (3) the “characteristic activity” of the organ (R2, Ev2). There is also a transverse relation (R3) linking semic groups 2 and 3 by designating the activity enabled by Ev2 and revealing the presence of vitality Ev1 + A (group 2). The formula’s development comprises the following semes: α
α, sememe 1
Semic group 1 (entity) Ent entity corporeality (s) having organs (s) R possession location interiority (s) centrality (s)
semic group 2 (stativity) Ent1 individuality humanity (s) R1 attribution Ev1 stativity duration A vitality corporeality (s)
Semic group 3 (dynamism) R2 agentivity Ev2 dynamism activity (s) R3 potentiality manifestation
Definition of sememe 1: “A bodily organ (Ent) located in (R) a human being (Ent1) that sustains (R2) activity (Ev2), which makes possible the manifestation of (R3) the physical life (Ev1 + A) of (R1) the human being (Ent1).”
7.1 Lexemes with Figurative Meanings: καρδία
191
§ 300. In the New Testament, καρδία frequently has a figurative sense that parallels the anthropology of certain texts in the LXX and translates or serves as an equivalent for the Hebrew term leb. ⁷ In such cases καρδία denotes the interior of human beings, their mental life, and their stative or permanent condition, in contrast to πνεῦμα, which denotes cognitive acts, decisions, or manifestations of feeling that proceed from this |151-M inward part. Thus, πνεῦμα refers to the mental life in its active and occasional aspects. This particular meaning of καρδία constitutes sememe 2. It is derived from sememe 1 by modifying the nuclear configuration and by substituting semes: a part of semic group 2—represented as [Ev1 + A] and translated as “life,” “vitality”—becomes denoted and replaces the denoted entity, resulting in the following formula:
Ent [Ev + A] + R
R2 R1
Ev1
In the development of this sememe, semic group 1 (entity) disappears and is replaced by semic group 2 (stativity). The following substitution of semes occurs: the denoted event (Ev) is a durative, permanent state (like Ev1 in sememe 1). The attribute (A), which in sememe 1 was developed with the semes of vitality and corporeality, is now developed with the semes of vitality and intellectuality, and represents the human being as a subject with regular and steady attitudes and dispositions. The relation (R) loses the seme of location but it keeps the semes of possession and interiority. Interiority is specified with a seme of subjectivity. The seme of centrality is substituted with essentiality, since the interior is a component of the human person (Ent). In the connoted relations, R2 (now R1) replaces the seme of agent with source. R3 (now R2) loses the seme of potentiality but keeps the seme of manifestation. The development of the formula for sememe 2 is thus: |152-M
Cf. BDAG, 509.
192
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
α
α, sememe 2
Semic group 1 (stative) Ev stativity duration A vitality intellectuality (s) R possession interiority (s) subjectivity (s) essentiality (s)
Semic group 2 (dynamic) Ent individuality humanity (s) R1 origin Ev1 dynamism activity habituality intellectuality (s) R2 manifestation (s)
Definition of sememe 2: “The permanent state (Ev) of mental capacity (A) of (R) a human being (Ent) [i. e., the joining of his or her faculties, attitudes, and interior dispositions (A)], giving rise to (R1) mental activity (Ev1), which is indicative of (R2) this being’s humanity.” § 301. In sememe 3, καρδία is applied to inanimate beings. This attribution causes all the semes relating to life and its activity to disappear. Referring to an entity (Ent), the lexeme only denotes a relation (R), which is specified with the semes of location, interiority, and depth:
Ent
R R Ent
location interiority depth entity inanimateness
|153-M
Definition: “A location deep in the interior of (R) an inanimate entity (Ent).” § 302. Thus far, we have identified what we believe to be the primary sememe of καρδία as well as two further semes. However, another option would be to establish a common semic nucleus shared by all three sememes of καρδία, which would result in a formula like that of sememe 3. The semic development, however, would be narrower than our development of sememe 3, since the seme of location would be eliminated because of sememe 2, and the seme of depth would be absent because of sememes 1 and 2:
7.2 Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω
R Ent
193
interiority entity
This formula and its development would be unrecognizable in most cases where the lexeme καρδία, “heart,” is discussed (cf. §§ 207– 09).
7.2 Lexemes with Stative and Dynamic Aspect: σῷζω § 303. The verb σῷζω, “to save,” presents different challenges. In the perfect tense (σεσωκέναι, σέσωσθαι), this verbal lexeme has a stative aspect, denoting a situation of security or “salvation,” and connoting the act by which a negative situation has become a positive one.⁸ In the aorist tense (σῶσαι, σωθῆναι), the aspect of σῷζω is dynamic, denoting the act by which someone ends a negative, dysphoric situation and connoting the resulting state of security/salvation.⁹ The present and imperfect tense(s) are used primarily to denote the repetition of a salvific act.¹⁰ Therefore, σῷζω has three semic groups, two of which are stative and one dynamic. The connoted stative group refers to the negative situation (Ev1 + A1) from which someone is saved. It can denote: (1) the dynamic semic group (aorist), indicating the saving action (Ev), or (2) the stative semic group (perfect), signaling the resulting state (Ev2 + A2). According to context, one of these denoted groups is predominant. Depending on which tense is used (aorist or perfect), σῷζω will have two nuclear configurations: the dominant group will be denoted and the other connoted. |154-M The aspect is combined with a temporal sequence, since the duration of the initial negative state gives way to the moment of “liberating, saving” action, which causes the negative state to end and the positive resulting state to commence. In the formula, three boxes account for the dynamic event (Ev), the negative state (Ev1 + A1), and the positive state (Ev2 + A2) resulting from the saving action (Ev). The first formula depicts the dynamic event as predominant:
Cf. e. g., ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε, “your faith has saved you/has healed you” (Matt 9:22 par.; cf. Acts 4:9; Eph 2:5, 8). Cf. e. g., Κύριε, σῶσον, ἀπολλύμεθα, “Lord, save us, we are perishing” (Matt 8:25; cf. 14:30; 16:25). The same is true of the future tense (cf. Matt 9:21; 10:22; and once in the present punctiliar, 1Pet 4:18). Cf. e. g., ὅσοι ἂν ἥψαντο αὐτοῦ ἐσῴζοντο, “all who touched him/it were healed” (Mark 6:56; cf. Acts 2:47; 27:40; 1Cor 1:18; 1Pet 3:21; Jude 23).
194
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
R1
Ent1
Ev
Ev1 + A1
R2
Ev2 + A2
R3
R
R
Ent2
In the second formula the stative group is predominant:
Ev2 + A2
R3
R
Ent2
Ev1 + A1
R2
Ev
R1
Ent1
R
The formula is developed by explicating the composition of the semic groups that comprise the nuclear configurations. |155-M
Stative group 1 Ev1 stativity situation endangerment A1 dysphoria Ent2 individuality humanity R attribution
Dynamic group Ev dynamism resultativity Ent1 R1 R2 R3
individuality personhood agentivity transitivity elimination transference
Stative group 2 Ev2 stativity situation security A2 euphoria Ent2 individuality humanity R attribution
Definitions: Configuration 1, σῶσαι, predominance of figure 1 in the dynamic group: “An action (Ev) by which (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) eliminates (Ev, R2) a dysphoric (A1) situation of danger (Ev1) in which (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2) find them-
7.3 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action: φιλέω
195
selves (R′); this is accomplished by bringing about (R3) a secure, euphoric (A2) situation (Ev2).”¹¹TN Configuration 2, σεσωκέναι, predominance in the stative group: “The secure, euphoric (A2) situation (Ev2) of (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2), which is brought about by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) who (R2) eliminates (Ev) a previously dangerous, dysphoric (A1) situation (Ev1).”¹²TN
7.3 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of a State in Action: φιλέω § 304. The verb φιλέω, “to like,” is an event lexeme that denotes a disposition of the soul which manifests itself in action. Its formula, therefore, denotes two events: a durative stative event (Ev) which expresses a steady disposition (A, benevolence), and a resultative dynamic event (Ev′) which represents an occasional activity in which the durative stative event ([Ev + A]) is manifested. Therefore, φιλέω also denotes a relation (R) between the two events that can be determined as manifestation. Since this relation is located between the two events and is the point of manifestation for the two denoted events, we take it as the point of departure for the construction of the nuclear configurations. In contrast to σῷζω (cf. § 303), where the two events are not simultaneous but rather successive, the disposition ([Ev + A]) in φιλέω coexists with its manifestation (R), the resultative dynamic event (Ev′). Therefore, both events are denoted and included in the box. There are two connoted relations: one (R1) to the subject of the disposition and possibly also of the activity (Ent1), and the other (R2) to the object of |156-M the disposition and possible receptor of the activity (Ent2). The formula and development are:
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The elimination (Ev) by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) of a dysphoric (A1) situation of danger (Ev1) in which (R′) one or more human individuals (Ent2) find themselves (Ev1); this is accomplished by bringing about (R3) a secure, euphoric (A2) situation (Ev2).” translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “One or more human individuals (Ent2) who (R′) find themselves in a secure, euphoric (A2) situation (Ev2), which is brought about by (R1) a personal agent (Ent1) who (R2) eliminates (Ev) a previously dangerous, dysphoric (A1) situation (Ev1).”
196
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
ι έ Stative group stativity Ev duration disposition subjectivity A benevolence Axis R
manifestation
Dynamic group dynamism resultativity occasion
Receptor group R2 towardness Ent2 individuality personhood
Agent group R1 attribution agentivity Ent1 individuality personhood
Definition: “A benevolent (A) interior disposition (Ev) of a (R1) personal subject (Ent1) towards (R2) another subject (Ent2), manifested in (R) an action or process (Ev′) performed by (R′) the subject (Ent1).” As a lexeme, φιλέω can also have a non-personal object¹³ and can be translated “to take pleasure in,” “to be fond of.” To account for the two contextual meanings under the same formula, |157-M it is necessary to substitute the personal object Ent2 with X, which represents an entity or event. If φιλέω and other verbs of interior disposition occur in context with a punctiliar aspect, (e. g., ἀγαπάω, μισέω), they can emphasize manifestation instead of disposition.¹⁴ In such cases, the dynamic group occupies the first position in the nuclear configuration. The denoted elements will be:
Ev + R + [Ev + A]
Cf. e. g., φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς … ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, “they love to pray standing in the synagogues” (Matt 6:5; cf. 23:6; Luke 20:46; Rev 22:15). Cf. e. g., ὃν ἂν φιλήσω, “the one I kiss” (Matt 26:48; cf. Mark 14:44; Luke 22:47, in these three instances with a seme of deceit).
7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: δικαιοσύνη
197
Definition: “An action (Ev′) that reveals (R) the benevolent (A) interior disposition (Ev) of (R1) a human subject (Ent1) towards (R2) another (Ent2).”¹⁵TN
7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: δικαιοσύνη § 305. The abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη denotes a quality (A: “straight,” “upright,” “righteous,” “just”) that is manifested in action (cf. §§ 148, 160). It is similar to φιλέω but has unique characteristics because of its diverse subjects. We shall now consider several examples of δικαιοσύνη in the New Testament, taking particular notice of two details, namely, (1) whether the stative or dynamic character is predominant, and (2) the quality of its implied subjects. As an abstract lexeme, δικαιοσύνη connotes neither an attributed subject nor an action. In context the subject can be explicit or implicit. 1. Subjects: people → people Matt 5:6: οἱ πεινῶντες … τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “those who hunger for this justice.” The anaphoric article τήν refers to the situation in vv. 5:4– 5 created by the overthrow of unjust situations. Thus, a state of righteousness between two people is discussed, which is the result of people treating one another fairly. This righteousness proceeds from faithfulness (quality/attitude) to a just rule that regulates human relationships. Two verses illustrate this meaning. Paul admonishes the Roman believers to παραστήσατε … τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ, “present your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom 6:13). Here, an activity (“presenting members as instruments”) proceeds from inward faithfulness to a rule, which establishes proper human relationships. |158-M A second example can be seen in the phrase ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, “the one who does righteousness” (1John 3:7). The verb ποιέω gives the abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνην the sense of just action towards other people. 2. Subjects: God → people Rom 1:17: δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ [τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ] ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, “for God’s righteousness is revealed in it (sc. the gospel) from faith to faith, as is written, ‘The righteous will live by faith.’”
translator’s Note: Peláez suggests a definition that slightly differs from the definition of Mateos, namely, “The manifestation (R) in action (Ev′) of a benevolent (A) interior disposition (Ev) of (R1) a human subject (Ent1) towards (R2) another (Ent2).”
198
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
The parallel established in the text between this phrase and the preceding verse¹⁶ shows that the gospel is a saving power for everyone who believes, because by it (instrumental ἐν, i. e., by its proclamation), a divine action becomes visible, making people “righteous” and granting them life (= salvation), on the one condition that they have faith. The sense of δικαιοσύνη therefore is primarily dynamic, designating a divine action towards people who believe. It is a sovereign and gracious act (cf. 3:21: χωρὶς νόμου, “apart from law”) that frees the guilty (cf. 3:22: πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον, “because everyone has sinned”) from the penalty of death (1:17: ζήσεται, “[he] will live). In a forensic context, δικαιοσύνη can be translated as “amnesty” (cf. Rom 3:21– 22, 26). 3. Subjects: people → God Luke 1:75: λατρεύειν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ, “to serve him in holiness and righteousness.” The parallel usage of δικαιοσύνῃ and ὁσιότητι indicates a stative sense, viz. a person’s proper attitude towards God, being true to his right standard. An example is seen in Rom 9:30, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, “righteousness by faith.” Here, δικαιοσύνη denotes a person’s state towards God, while it also connotes that this state can be obtained (by this person) through faith as the instrument or condition (cf. Gal 2:21; Phil 3:6, 9). 4. Subjects: people → God/people Sometimes a person’s attitude towards God cannot be separated from his or her attitude towards other people: cf. Matt 6:33, ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν καὶ τὴν δικαοσύνην αὐτοῦ, “but seek first his reign and righteousness.” The audience’s first concern should be that God reigns and that their attitude towards God and each other corresponds to his reign. The single possessive αὐτοῦ in 6:33 indicates the intimate connection between the objects (hendiadys). To establish the semantic formula of the abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη, it is necessary to note that the attribute (δίκαιος) becomes a composite ([Ev + A]), which denotes a qualified state, viz. an interior attitude. As with φιλέω there is an axis of manifestation (R) that can give rise to two nuclear configurations: in one the stative aspect ([Ev + A]) will be predominant, but in the other the dynamic aspect (Ev′) will be predominant. As an abstract lexeme δικαιοσύνη forgoes the connotation of a subject at the lexemic level. The denoted quality is faithfulness (A) to (R1) a right standard (Ev1), which is conceived of as an entity (Ent = [Ev1 + A1]). The denoted dynamic event (Ev′) indicates the manner of |159-M habitual behavior towards (R2) others (Ent2),
Cf. δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν [τὸ εὐαγγέλιον] εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τὸ πιστεύοντι, “for it (sc. the gospel) is a power for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16).
7.4 Lexemes Signifying the Manifestation of an Abstract Quality in Action: δικαιοσύνη
199
which manifests (R) faithfulness. If the stative group is predominant, the formula’s structure and development are:
ι αι σύ , sememe 1 Stative group Ev stativity duration attitude subjectivity A quality faithfulness Axis R
manifestation
R1
[Ent1 = Ev1 + A1]
R2
Ent2
Dynamic group Ev dynamism resultativity habituality
Receptor group R2 transitivity Ent2 individuality personhood
Regulation group R1 attribution Ent1 quasi-entity Ev1 regulation A1 integrity
Definitions Sememe 1: “A disposition (Ev) of faithfulness (A) to (R1) a right standard (Ent1 = Ev1 + A1), which is manifested by (R) habitual conduct (Ev′) towards (R2) a personal subject (Ent2).” If the dynamic group is contextually predominant, the denoted elements of the formula and development will look as follows: |160-M
Ev + R + [Ev + A]
200
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
ι αι σύ , sememe 2
Dynamic group Ev dynamism resultativity habituality Axis R
manifestation
Stative group stativity Ev duration disposition subjectivity A quality faithfulness
Sememe 2: “A manner of habitual conduct (Ev′) towards a personal human subject (Ent2) that manifests (R) a disposition (Ev) of faithfulness (A) to a right standard (Ent1 = [Ev + A]).”¹⁷
7.5 Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία § 306. The noun βασιλεία is an abstract lexeme that forms three characteristic sememes in context. Of the numerous instances in which it appears (162 times in the New Testament), we choose representative examples that allow us to establish the semantic formula in its distinct configurations. 1. When βασιλεία is presented as a demarcated space, it means “kingdom.”¹⁸ 2. When its arrival is announced, βασιλεία means God’s “reign” over humanity.¹⁹ |161-M 3. When an attribute of a person is in view, βασιλεία means “royalty,” “kingship.”²⁰
Context can specify the law to which faithfulness is professed; cf. e. g., μὴ ἔχων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, “not having my own righteousness, which comes from [sc. faithfulness to] the law” (Phil 3:9); δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom 9:30); χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην Θεοῦ πεφανέρωται, “without the law [sc. apart from the law] the righteousness [sc. pardon] of God [sc. which God gives] is manifested” (Rom 3:21). Cf. e. g., οὐ δύναται εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, “he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5; cf. also Matt 5:19 – 20; 8:11; 12:25 – 26; 13:41, 43; 16:19; 19:23 – 24; 21:31; 23:13; 26:29; Mark 6:23; 12:34; Luke 4:5; 11:29; 1Thess 2:12; Heb 12:28; Rev 16:10). Cf. e. g., ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, “God’s reign is/has come near” (Mark 1:15); ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, “may your reign come” (Matt 6:10). See also Mark 11:10; Luke 1:33; 4:43; 9:2, 11, 60; Rom 14:17; 1Cor 4:20. Cf. e. g., τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ, “the Son of Man who comes in his royalty/as a king” (Matt 16:28); ἄνθρωπός τις εὐγενὴς ἐπορεύθη εἰς χὼραν μακρὰν λαβεῖν ἑαυτῷ βασιλείαν, “a noble man journeyed to a far/distant land to obtain royalty/the title of king for himself” (Luke 19:12). See also Luke 19:15; 23:42; John 18:36.
7.5 Abstract Lexemes with Three Semic Groups: βασιλεία
201
These three contextual meanings indicate a stative attribute of kingship (A), an activity of ruling (Ev), and, third, both the subjects (Ent1) and the territory (Ent2, kingdom) over which the rule is exercised. Three semic groups proceed from these elements. The dynamic element is always denoted. A semantic formula can be established, which will have three configurations: Configuration 1: βασιλεία, “royalty.” The denoted elements include a stative element (A), which is dominant, and a dynamic element (Ev). These are joined together by a relation (R) of implication. The second stative element is connoted (Ent1 + Ent2):
R1
A + R + Ev
[Ent1 + Ent2]
Configuration 2: βασιλεία, “reign.” The same elements from the previous formula are denoted, but the dynamic element is primary in the formula.
[Ent1 + Ent2]
R1
Ev + R + A
Configuration 3: βασιλεία, “kingdom.” The previously connoted elements (Ent1 + Ent2) become dominant and occupy the first position in the denotation.
[Ent1 + Ent2] + R1 + Ev
R
A
The development of the distinct elements form the following semic groups: |162-M
Stative group 1 A quality dignity kingliness
Dynamic group
Stative group 2
Ev
Ent1
R
R1
competency
dynamism activity domain governance transitivity
Ent2
collectivity humanity location extension
202
Chapter 7: Contextual Meaning (Semic Analysis)
Definitions: Configuration 1: “Kingliness (A) that proves competence (R) to rule (Ev) over (R1) subjects (Ent1) and a territory (Ent2)”: royalty. ²¹TN Configuration 2: “An action of ruling (Ev) with (R) kingliness (A) over (R1) subjects (Ent1) and a territory (Ent2)”: rule, reign. Configuration 3: “The subjects and territory ([Ent1 + Ent2]) over which (R1) the activity of ruling is exercised (Ev), which is qualified by (R) kingliness (A)”: kingdom. In context, βασιλεία often takes a genitive subject.²² In Revelation 1:6 (cp. 1:9 and 5:10), βασιλεία is applied to a group of people who are designated as ἱερεῖς, “priests” (ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν, ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ, “he made us into a kingdom [that is, he made us] priests to/for/[and yes, even] of God”). The juxtaposition of the entities βασιλείαν and ἱερεῖς implies identification, and both designate the new personal condition brought about by the work of Christ. Thus, when viewed alongside ἱερεῖς, βασιλεία acquires a distributive character, making it equivalent to βασιλεῖς, “kings.” So, for example, καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, “and they will rule over the earth” (Rev 5:10). When βασιλεία is used in opposition to ἱερεῖς (plural), it means a collective royalty in which each person participates, a “royal lineage.” |163–64-M
translator’s Note: Beginning at this point, Mateos offers translational equivalents after his definitions. I indicate these equivalents in italics in order to differentiate them from the definitions. Cf. e. g., τῶν οὐρανῶν, “of heaven” (Matt 3:2). See also Matt 21:31, 43.
PART III Method. A Methodology of the Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (J. Peláez)
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes¹TN § 307. In chapter 2, we took a detailed look at three important dictionaries of the New Testament. Zorell’s dictionary, due to the time in which it was composed, does not make use of criteria for semantic classification and lacks the extensive information available in the Bauer dictionaries. Nevertheless, Zorell’s dictionary presents the various lexemes’ diverse contextual meanings in a clear manner and frequently shows a keen sense for lexicography. Although Bauer masterfully classifies the meanings of lexemes based on syntactical and contextual criteria, his dictionary squarely conforms to the traditional model of bilingual dictionaries. Modern advances in semantics are not incorporated. The sixth edition, overseen by K. and B. Aland and their team of collaborators, has neither changed the dictionary’s methodology nor conducted a fresh evaluation of meanings. The dictionary of Louw and Nida provides a qualitatively different approach when it comes to lexicography, since, for example, the entries are not ordered alphabetically and a lexeme’s different contextual meanings are placed in various entries. In L&N’s introductory pages, the authors explain the basic principles that guide their semantic analysis. As we argued, however, these principles were not applied in a systematic manner, especially with regards to componential (semic) analysis.² It should be noted that the dictionary we are preparing does not seek to adapt or revise an already existing dictionary. Linguistic advances in recent years, particularly in the area of semantics, make it possible to approach the task with new insights. Choosing a limited corpus like the writings of the New Testament enables a complete analysis and a thorough examination of every lexeme in every context in which it occurs. In this manner the usages of various New Testament authors can be identified in a more accurate manner. |65-P Before beginning, it is important to indicate the methodological approach we have used in composing DGENT. A semantic analysis can proceed from various perspectives. First, a lexeme can be analyzed by means of a semiological analysis, which examines lexemes abstractly in langue in order to determine their nuclear semes and semic nucleus. Secondly, semantic analysis can focus on the usage of a lexeme in parole in order to identify a lexeme’s various contextual meanings, which are produced by the addition, neutralization, or substitution of semes in the semic nucleus. A third option is to conduct a semiotic analysis, which examines lexemes in parole in
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 65 – 85 in the original text of Peláez. We feel it necessary to include this thorough summary of Mateos’s theory for several reasons. First, it shows how Mateos’s colleague understood and applied his theory. Secondly, it establishes the theory that was applied to DGENT. Lastly, it shows the aspects of agreement and possible disharmony among the interpreters. Cf. also Louw and Nida, Lexical Semantics, which we discussed in chapter 2. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-014
206
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
order to discover the mutual relations between lexemes in a discourse that provide the key for reading the text.³ We make use of the first two options for DGENT.
8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class § 308. The first step for composing DGENT consists in grouping the lexemes of the New Testament into semantic classes, rather than grammatical classes. This step distinguishes DGENT from the three dictionaries discussed in chapter 2. Bauer and Zorell examine the lexicon of the New Testament based on grammatical classes. Louw and Nida do so by dividing the lexicon into semantic domains. Our dictionary, however, is structured based on semantic classes. Since semantic classes provide the basis for our dictionary, we shall clarify how these differ from the grammatical classes.
8.1.1 Grammatical Classes § 309. Grammatical classes⁴ correspond to the so called “parts of |66-P speech.” Although there have been various methods proposed for classifying and naming grammatical classes, we follow the traditional classification used in grammars of the Greek New Testament, which refer to main parts of speech (nouns and verbs), to secondary parts of speech (adjectives and adverbs), to relations (prepositions, conjunctions, and particles), and to auxiliaries (articles and pronouns). Although this approach is widely used, it does not follow a consistent semantic criterion. Nouns, for example, include words that signify entities (e. g., ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; ζῷον, “animal”; οἶκος, “house”), attributes (e. g., ἀγαθωσύνη, “goodness”), events (e. g., ἀγγελία, “message”), relations (e. g., ὁμοιότης, “likeness”), and determinations (e. g., ἐνιαυτόν, “year”). Adjectives are traditionally thought to indicate proximity or dependence (criterion of collocation without reference to semantic content). Adjectives can be considered modifiers without specifying which class of word they modify or the sense in which they do so. Grammatically, verbs are used to express the main point of a sentence. Adverbs are said to augment verbs. Adverbs, like adjectives, can be considered modifiers, except that they specify the sense of verbs. Prepositions are said to mark the start of a syntagm. Conjunctions have syntactic functions, while interjections (which are particles) emphasize an expression or an intermediate position. Articles also have syntactic functions, while pronouns function as substitutes for nouns.
We analyze the lexicon of the New Testament by applying the semantic theory of Mateos. Cf. the discussion about grammatical classes in § 92.
8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class
207
8.1.2 Semantic Classes⁵ § 310. A semantic class is a set of |67-P words that have the same dominant semantic feature (i. e., the same dominant seme). Accordingly, semantic classes categorize words based on the nature of their conceptual content. Semantic classes are based on infra-linguistic concepts that break down an intuitive perception of reality. People have an experience of the world in which they find themselves, which serves as their point of view in order to orient and situate themselves: “For this they classify and name entities (things) and events (states, actions, processes), both of which are described by means of attributes (quality, quantity) rooted in established relations. These are actualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we use the term determination” (§ 93). Thus, building on the theory of E. A. Nida,⁶ we make use of five semantic classes, which include entity (Ent), attribute (A), event (Ev), relation (R), and determination (D). § 311. Entity lexemes classify and name concepts. These lexemes also refer to concepts with unnamable referents (e. g., θεός, “God”; ἄγγελος, “angel”) and to concepts without referents (e. g., fictional things, such as δράκων, “dragon”). There are also quasi-entity lexemes, which are lexemes that do not denote entities themselves (real or fictional), but other realities that are thought of as entities although they are not, because, by being a usual source of an activity, process, or action, or a result of these, they seem to have a particular permanence and can be designated as perceivable objects. These events or results of events, viewed by means of an entity, are represented as [Ent = Ev]. Examples of quasi-entities include nouns that denote a person’s interior (e. g., καρδία, “heart,” used metaphorically in the New Testament), faculties from which actions or activities originate (e. g., νοῦς, “mind”), the action or process of verbal expression (e. g., λόγος, “word”; εὐαγγέλιον, “gospel”) of writing (e. g., γράμμα, “letter”; νόμος, “law”) or of volition (e. g., δόγμα, “opinion”; θέλημα, “will”). |68-P As a result of a process of mental abstraction, some quasi-entities denote a duration (e. g., ἡλικία, “age”), a designation (e. g., ὄνομα, “name”) or a quantity (e. g., ἀριθμός, “number”). Quasi-entities sometimes include entities that express result. The result can be from a physical activity that changes another entity (e. g., μίασμα, “blemish”; ἴχνος, “footprint”), from a relational activity between two or more personal subjects (e. g., διαθήκη, “alliance”), or from a repeated and habitual activity of a human subject or group (e. g., ἦθος, “custom”). § 312. Attribute lexemes name qualities or modalities attributed to things (e. g., ἀγαθός, “good”; μέγας, “big”) or to action (e. g., ἀκριβῶς, “exactly”). § 313. Event lexemes refer to states (e. g., κάθημαι, “to be seated,” “to sit”; καθεύδω, “to sleep”) and activities—i. e., processes (e. g., ποιέω, “to make”) and actions (e. g., Cf. the discussion about semantic classes in § 93. Before J. Mateos (§ 73), Nida had established the existence of four semantic categories in opposition to the grammatical classes or parts of speech, namely “Object,” “Abstract,” “Event,” and “Relation/ Relational”; cf. Nida, Exploring Semantic Structures, 154.
208
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
βάλλω, “to throw”)—that affect entities or are accomplished by them. Event lexemes can also affect attributes (cf. ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία, “the patience of God was waiting,” 1Pet 3:20), other events (cf. γνωστὸν σημεῖον, “known sign,” Acts 4:16), and relations (cf. ἵνα γένηται ἰσότης, “so that there might be equality,” 2Cor 8:14). § 314. Relation lexemes and morpholexemes identify various types of connections, including familial connections (e. g., πατρικός, “paternal”), temporal connections (e. g., εὐθύς, “immediately”), and local connections (e. g., πανταχόθεν, “from all parts”; πρός + acc., “towards”). Relation lexemes also specify connections between objects and/or events, such as causality (e. g., ὅτι, διότι “because”), consequence (e. g., ὥστε, “so that”), purpose (ἵνα, “in order that,” “with the goal that”), and likeness (ὁμοιότης, “likeness”). § 315. Determination lexemes and morpholexemes demarcate and specify other lexemes. Demarcation is accomplished by numeric quantifiers (e. g., δύο μαθηταί, “two disciples”), by generic quantity (e. g., θερισμὸς πολύς, “plentiful harvest”), and by lexemes that indicate moments or extensions in space or time (e. g., τέλος, “end”; μίλιον, “mile”; ἡμέρα, “day”). Specification or naming presupposes an act of communication: a speaking subject creates the space-time of discourse. In this context, determination lexemes actualize, objectify, identify, and situate in time and space: 1. Determination lexemes actualize and objectify by transferring a lexeme from the abstract sphere of langue to the concrete sphere of parole. Objectifying determination can individualize,⁷ totalize,⁸ or generalize.⁹ 2. Determination lexemes identify proper names and personal pronouns.¹⁰ |69-P 3. Determination lexemes situate lexemes in time and space by means of demonstratives,¹¹ by adverbs of time,¹² and by adverbs of place.¹³ The substantival article is an important kind of determination, since it locates a subject within an attribute, event, or relation (lexeme).¹⁴ § 316. As this summary suggests, grammatical and semantic classes do not coincide. The grammatical class of noun can express any of the five semantic classes. This implies that there are entity nouns, such as ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” attribute nouns, such as ἀγαθοσύνη, “goodness,” event nouns, such as μετάνοια, “repentance,” relation nouns, such as ἰσότης, “equality,” and determination nouns, such as ἡμέρα, “day.” The grammatical classes are thus broader than the semantic classes
E. g., ὁ ἄνθρωπος, “the human being” (who was previously mentioned, anaphoric). E. g., οἱ δώδεκα, “the twelve”; ὁ κόσμος, “the world.” E. g., ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος, “the (completely) good man.” E. g., Ἰωάννης, “John”; ἐγώ “I”; σύ, “you”; ἡμεῖς, “we.” E. g., ὅδε, “this,” “here”; οὖτος, “this”; ἐκεῖνος, “that.” E. g., νῦν, “now”; σήμερον, “today”; αὔριον, “tomorrow.” E. g., ὧδε, “here”; ἐκεῖ, “there.” E. g., ὁ ἀγαθός, “the good one” (Ent + A); οἱ ἄρχοντες, “those who rule” (Ent + Ev); οἱ ἔξω, “those from outside” (Ent + R).
8.1 Classifying Lexemes according to Semantic Class
209
(cf. §§ 73 – 74). Having shown the differences between nouns and semantic entities, we can now consider how the other semantic classes relate to grammatical classes: 1. Attributes are expressed grammatically by adjectives and adverbs,¹⁵ by the genitive case (with or without an article),¹⁶ and sometimes with prepositional phrases.¹⁷ 2. Events are expressed by verbs,¹⁸ nouns,¹⁹ and sometimes by adjectives.²⁰ 3. Relations are expressed by prepositions²¹ and by nouns and verbs.²² 4. Determination is expressed by definite articles, demonstratives and other quantifiers (e. g., μάλιστα, “very”; πᾶς “all”), including numerals (e. g., εἷς, “one”; δύο, “two”). Common nouns, such as ὥρα, “hour,” and μίλιον, “mile,” as well as proper names of person and place, such as Παῦλος, “Paul,” and Γαλιλαία, “Galilee,” also denote the class of determination. § 317. The differences between grammatical and semantic classes have now been explained. Since the grammatical classes are broader than the semantic classes, a preliminary step |70-P for preparing DGENT will be the thorough categorization of the lexicon of the New Testament into grammatical classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.). This will enable the semantic class(es) of each lexeme to be determined, which will then enable the lexicon of the New Testament to be organized based on the semantic classes. The semantic methodology of our dictionary (DGENT) is thus practical, since the lexicon of the New Testament is categorized into semantic classes based on the familiar terrain of grammatical classes. In order to begin this work, we have chosen to focus on nouns, since these provide numerous examples for each of the semantic classes and can serve as a pattern for the classification of the rest of the grammatical classes. In another monograph, the classification of all the nouns in the New Testament will be undertaken in detail.²³TN § 318. We shall now present some examples of nouns categorized according to the five semantic classes. Each Greek lexeme is accompanied by a translational equivalent, which usually corresponds to the lexeme’s first Latin equivalent in Zorell’s dictionary.
E. g., ἀγαθός, “good”; κακῶς ἔχειν, “to feel bad.” E. g., τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, “the sinful body.” E. g., διδαχή κατ’ ἐξουσίαν, “teaching with authority.” E. g., ἀγγέλλω, “to announce”; γελάω, “to laugh”; φοβέομαι, “to fear.” E. g., ἀγγελία, “announcement”; γέλως, “laughter”; φόβος, “fear.” E. g., ἀγαθοποιός, “beneficent,” “doing good.” E. g., ἀπό, “from”; σύν, “with”; ἐπί “over.” E. g., ἰσότης, “equality,” and οἰκέω, “to dwell.” Translator’s Note: Due to constraints in time and finances, this monograph has not yet been completed.
210
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
Entity nouns (Ent): ἄνθρωπος βίβλος βουνός δαιμόνιον ἐκκλησία ἰχθύς κλέπτης κόφινος μάστιξ νόμισμα
“human being” “book” “hill” “demon” “assembly” “fish” “thief” “basket” “whip” “coin”
Once the classification of entity nouns is achieved, “connecting-entities” will refer to those nouns that designate (1) the part of a whole to which a noun belongs and apart from which it cannot be conceived, such as ἀγκάλη, “arm”; or (2) whose existence is a result of a previous process, such as σποδός, “ash,” which is included in the group “earth” and is the result of the combustion of a solid. Other examples of connectingentities include: ἀκροβυστία ἁρμός κεφαλή χρώς
“foreskin” “joint,” “junction” “head” “skin,” “fleshy part of the body”
|-P
Polyvalent nouns are those nouns whose semantic class can only be determined in context: βδέλυγμα ἐγκοπή περίσσευμα ὑπογραμμός
“an abominable action or thing” “impediment,” “hindrance” “that which remains over,” “surplus” “model,” “outline”
Quasi-entity nouns include: διαθήκη δόγμα ἐντολή ἔπος καιρός μίασμα νοῦς
“testament,” “covenant,” “alliance” “opinion,” “verdict,” “decree,” “order” “command” “word,” “speech” “time,” “moment,” “occasion” “blemish” “mind”
Attribute nouns (A) include: ἀγαθοσύνη ἀτιμία εὐπρέπεια μακροθυμία
“goodness” “dishonor” “beauty” “long-suffering,” “patience”
8.2 The Semantic Formula
211
Event nouns (Ev) include: ἀδικία ἀνάκρισις ἐπαγγελία λατρεία προσευχή προφητεία
“injustice” “interrogation,” “inquiry,” “examination” “announcement,” “promise” “worship” “prayer” “prophecy”
Relation nouns (R) include: ἀναλογία διαστολή ἰσότης ὁμοιότης
“analogy,” “proportion” “distinction” “equality” “similarity”
Determination nouns (D) include: ἑσπέρα ἔτος ἡμέρα μερίς
“evening” “year” “day” “part,” “portion”
Proper names of person and place also belong to the class of determination. |72-P Arriving at a classification by means of this procedure provides a first step towards a semantic classification of lexemes in the New Testament. By organizing nouns into semantic classes, their semantic formulas can be determined, which then makes it possible to group together lexemes with similar formulas.
8.2 The Semantic Formula § 319. The first step for the production of our dictionary is the classification and grouping of the lexemes based on semantic classes (cf. § 93). The second step is to establish each lexeme’s semantic formula (cf. § 74). The structures of the formulas differ depending on whether a lexeme denotes one or several semantic classes. Lexemes that denote one class have simple structures, and lexemes that denote several classes have complex formulas. In addition to the denoted class(es), lexemes sometimes connote necessary relations with one or more semantic classes. We understand the semantic formula to be comprised of the semantic class(es) denoted by a lexeme plus the relations necessarily connoted by it. Therefore, the semantic formula (i. e., the elemental structure of a lexeme) is based on a lexeme’s semantic nucleus. Establishing the semantic formula is of primary importance, since it constitutes a starting point for the analysis (cf. § 74).
212
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
8.2.1 Denotation and Connotation § 320. Denotation refers to the features that are necessary and sufficient for identifying a concept according to its use in a linguistic community. Some lexemes, such as ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; γή, “earth”; κάμηλος, “camel”; and πῦρ, “fire” only denote one class, namely, the semantic class of entity:
Ent
|73-P
§ 321. Other lexemes denote two or more semantic classes and therefore have complex structures. For example, the lexemes παρθένος, “virgin,” and στεῖρα, “sterile,” both denote an entity (Ent, woman) and a state (Ev, virginity/sterility). Their formula, therefore, is:
Ent + Ev § 322. Other lexemes, such as ἀγέλη, “herd,” and κτῆνος, “flock,” denote three semantic classes, since they denote a plural or collective entity (Ent), togetherness (R), and a certain quantity (D). “Herd” and “cattle” denote a large group (D) of animals (Ent) gathered in the same place (R):
Ent + R + D § 323. In addition to denoting one or several classes, lexemes sometimes connote a necessary relation to one or several semantic classes. Connotation can be objective or subjective. Objective connotation is constituted by the relations necessarily required by the concept that are more or less consciously associated with it (although not directly integrated in it) and are discovered by reflection. There can be relations of presupposition, purpose, agent, completion, etc. Subjective connotations, which include associations and emotions of individuals or groups, are not considered in semantic analysis. These belong to narrative analysis. § 324. Entity lexemes take various numbers of connotations. Entity lexemes with one connotation denote a subject (Ent) which brings about an activity (Ev) in regards to (R) an object (Ent1).²⁴ In the formula, the connoted elements (R and Ent1) are placed Cf. e. g., βαπτιστής, “one who baptizes”; κατάσκοπος, “spy”; ὁδηγός, “guide.”
213
8.2 The Semantic Formula
outside the box and the relation of towardness (R) is indicated with an arrow (→) directed toward the recipient of the activity (Ent1). Its formula is represented in the following manner: |74-P
Ent + Ev
Ent1
R
§ 325. Some entity lexemes require two connotations, such as those that designate man-made entities. These lexemes connote a person (Ent1) who took part in a process of fabrication (Ev1, primary connotation) and are differentiated by their intended (R2) usage (Ev2, second connotation):²⁵
R1
Ev1
R2
Ev2
R1
Ent1
Ent
The arrow’s direction in the upper branch indicates the sense of the action: for example, a house (Ent) built by (R1←Ev1) a person (R′1−Ent1). The arrow in the lower branch indicates the purpose (R2→Ev2, habitation). § 326. Lexemes such as ἔγγυος, “one who provides security,” and μεσίτης, “mediator,” specify a personal subject (Ent) whose activity (Ev) relates to (R1/R2) two subjects (Ent1/Ent2) distinct from itself:
R1
Ent1
R2
Ent2
Ent + Ev
Cf. e. g., objects such as κλίνη, “couch”; τράπεζα, “table”; or buildings, such as οἰκία, “house”; σκηνή, “tent.”
214
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
§ 327. Lexemes such as δότης, “giver,” and μεριστής, “distributor,” designate a personal subject (Ent) whose activity (Ev) transfers (R1) an object (Ent1) to (R2) a recipient (Ent2): |75-P
R1
Ent + Ev
Ent1 R2 Ent2
§ 328. Some lexemes, including ἄγγελος, “messenger”; ἀπόστολος, “apostle,” “sent one,” “messenger”; κῆρυξ, “herald”; and προφήτης, “prophet,” have three connotations, namely, an acting subject (Ent1), a recipient of the activity (Ent3), and the verbal message, which is an event viewed as a quasi-entity (Ent2 = Ev2) because of its enduring nature. In each case, these lexemes designate a subject (Ent) sent by (R1←Ev1) another subject (R′−Ent1, primary connotation) to transmit (Ev) a message (R2→ [Ent2 = Ev2], second connotation) of the subject (R3) to (→R4) an individual or group (Ent3, third connotation):
R1
Ev1
R
Ent1
R3 Ent + Ev
R2
Ent2 = Ev2 R4 Ent3
These formulas depict entity lexemes with up to three connotations. Semantic formulas can be more complex than those we have illustrated, for example, by requiring more than three connotations or by altering the configurations. The examples we have offered should suffice to demonstrate our semantic methodology. |76-P
8.2 The Semantic Formula
215
8.2.2 From Formula to Meaning § 329. Once the formulas have been established, lexemes with identical formulas can be grouped together. This, however, does not complete the process of classification, since one single formula is able to encompass lexemes with very diverse meanings. Entity lexemes with simple structure can be taken as an example. In their formula, the entity is denoted without a connotation:
Ent This formula comprises lexemes as diverse as ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; κύων, “dog”; and γῆ “earth.” § 330. The same occurs with entity lexemes that have complex structures that denote, for example, a relation of belonging (R):
Ent + R
Ent1
This formula accounts for diverse lexemes, including κέρας, “horn”; κρέας, “flesh”; καρπός, “fruit”; στάχυς, “ear” (of corn), κάλαμος, “reed.” To produce a more specific classification, it will therefore be necessary to develop the formula by adding one more step. For this (as explained in what follows), the semantic categories will be applied to each of the classes contained in the formula. In this way, the generic semes will be identified so that the semic development can be completed. The semic development enables lexemes to be distinguished and is the step that precedes their definition. § 331. In summary, the following steps are necessary to classify lexemes and to determine their diverse meanings (the first two steps have already been discussed): 1. Organizing the lexemes into semantic classes based on the grammatical classes. 2. Establishing the formulas by distinguishing the denoted and connoted elements. |77-P 3. Developing the semic structure. For this, when relevant, the semantic categories must be applied to each element in the formula. In this way the generic semes are obtained. The specific semes will be obtained by the development of the generic semes and by comparison with other lexemes that have similar meanings (cf. §§ 86 – 90). 4. Formulating definitions that accounts for steps 1– 3 (cf. § 214).
216
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
5. Contexts will give rise to a lexeme’s distinct sememes (i. e., contextual meanings), which result from the addition of occasional semes or from the omission or substitution of nuclear semes (cf. §§ 215 – 17). In the case of the latter, derived or metaphorical meanings are created (cf. §§ 87– 88). 6. Once each of the lexemes has been analyzed and before the dictionary-entry is composed, lexemes with similar meanings should be compared with the goal of qualifying and further specifying the meanings. The entries of our dictionary, therefore, will not ultimately be composed until the lexicon of the entire New Testament has been comprehensively analyzed. Hence, the preparatory publications of DGENT ought to be viewed as materials for the dictionary’s production. Having illustrated steps 1 and 2 (above), the next task is to complete the semic development of the lexemes (step 3).
8.3 Semic Development of the Formula § 332. Establishing the semantic formula is an intermediate step between the classification of the lexemes and their semic development. Proceeding in this manner offers two advantages: 1. The formula helps guide the specification of the semes. Instead of haphazardly identifying the semes, which carries the risk of overlooking some, the formula offers a pattern for the semic development: the various |78-P elements that comprise a formula are identified by being categorized into denoted and connoted elements. 2. The formula can serve as a paradigm. The semic polyvalence of the elements that comprise a formula allows the same formula to be used for various lexemes, which makes it possible to construct semantic domains (i. e., groups of lexemes with the same structure) and to derive formulas from other formulas by the addition or substitution of elements. Thus far we have illustrated how to construct semantic formulas based on a lexeme’s denoted and connoted elements. We have also noted that the semantic formula is not a sufficient criterion for structuring a lexicon, since lexemes with very different meanings can share the same formula. It is necessary, therefore, to turn to the semantic categories of gender and number (for entity nouns), and aspect and voice (for event nouns and verbs). Applying the semantic categories to the elements of the formula produces the semic development of lexemes. At this point it is important to determine the difference between semantic and grammatical categories. § 333. Just as we described the difference between grammatical classes (noun, adjective, etc.) and semantic classes (entity, attribute, etc.; cf. §§ 308 – 09), we now explain the difference between grammatical and semantic categories. Grammatical categories refer to specific markers that—like the symbols used in mathematics of plus and minus, coefficients, exponents—affect items/units, viz. words already given, and are normally expressed with morphemes. Grammatical categories include gen-
217
8.3 Semic Development of the Formula
der and number (nominals and verbals), mode, tense, aspect, and voice (verbals) and degree²⁶ (of conjunctives, adjectives, and adverbs). § 334. As was the case with semantic classes, semantic categories parallel the grammatical categories. By applying the semantic categories to the semantic classes |79-P of entity (Ent) and event (Ev), classemes are obtained. Following Pottier and Greimas, we use “classemes” to refer to certain generic contextual semes that are defined by their consistency (i. e., by their presence in every context) and by their iterative character (i. e., by affecting not only one lexeme, but rather a certain number of lexemes— affecting syntagmatic units that are broader than just one simple lexeme; cf. § 87). Thus, in similar fashion to the grammatical categories, semantic categories include gender, number, aspect, voice, mode, and tense. We shall now consider these categories in more detail in order to understand how to complete the semic development.
8.3.1 Gender § 335. Grammatically, gender can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. Semantically, the opposition of animate/inanimate serves as the starting point for the category of gender:
animate
non-personal (animal) nnatural
personal non-human/divine, angelic, demonic masc.
fem.
inanimate artificial
human
masc. fem.
masc.
fem.
Examples of entities with animate gender would be ἄνθρωπος, “human being”; νεανίας, “young man”; εὐαγγελιστής, “preacher of the gospel”; μιμητής, “imitator”; τροφός, “nurse”; ἀσπίς, “shield”; λέων, “lion”; and βάτραχος, “frog.” For purposes of classification, it is necessary to subdivide animate gender into personal/non-personal. Within the animate-personal-gender, it is necessary to distinguish between personal non-human beings (that belong to the supernatural world) and human beings. The opposition non-human/human is important in Greek and in the New Testament, since the existence and action of gods, angels, and demons is assumed. Hence, |80-P the gender of non-human personal beings contains three different
Degree is not a semantic category but is part of the relation and determination classes.
218
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
groups, namely, divine (θεός, “God”; θεά, “goddess”), angelic (ἀρχάγγελος, “archangel”), and demonic (δαιμόνιον/δαίμων, “demon”; διάβολος, “devil”). Nouns with an animate-personal-human gender have diverse formulas, including: (1) personal agents of an activity relating to an object (e. g., βαπτιστής, “baptizer”; βασανιστής, “torturer”); (2) agents of an activity that affects the individual who performs it (e. g., ἀκροατής, “hearer”; μαθητής, “disciple”); (3) agents of a habitual activity or occupation (e. g., δανειστής, “moneylender”; τραπεζίτης, “moneychanger”; φύλαξ, “guard”); (4) subjects qualified to carry out a habitual activity (γραμματεύς, “lawyer,” “Torah scholar”; διδάσκαλος, “teacher”). The animate-personal-human/non-human gender includes masculine nouns (e. g., θεός, “God”; ἰατρός, “physician”) and feminine nouns (e. g., θεά, “goddess”; βασίλισσα, “queen”), for which the morphological and semantic gender agree. The noun παιδίον, “child,” is morphologically neuter but semantically masculine (Matt 2:8) or feminine (Mark 5:39), and in the plural includes both sexes (Matt 11:16). Non-personal animate beings (i. e., animals) are also specified by their masculine or feminine gender, although sometimes their gender is determined solely by the article that accompanies them, as is the case with ὁ/ἡ ἄρκος, “bear,” and ὁ/ἡ ὄνος, “donkey.” With animals, moreover, a particular case involving gender is presented, namely, the epicene gender (from the Greek ἐπίκοινος, “common”), which refers to the practice of assigning a single name to masculine and feminine animals²⁷ (cf. e. g., βάτραχος, “frog”; λύκος, “wolf”; σκορπίος, “scorpion”; ἀετός, “eagle”; σκώληξ, “worm”). The inanimate gender comprises objects and things that are lifeless, including natural objects (e. g., ὕδωρ, “water”; ἀήρ, “air”; ἥλιος, “sun”; λίθος, “stone”) and objects which humans either manufacture (e. g., τράπεζα, “table”; βίβλος, “book”; σανδάλιον, “sandal”) or construct (e. g., ἀγορά, “market”; ἄμφοδον, “street”; ὑπολήνιον, “wine vat”).
8.3.2 Number § 336. After determining the semantic gender of noun-lexemes, |81-P their semantic number should be considered. The semantic category of number is derived from the grammatical number. Grammatically, number applies to verbs, pronouns, and nouns. Grammatical number must be clearly distinguished from the quantity expressed by cardinal numbers. The grammatical number of nouns indicates how the noun’s referent is represented, i. e., whether the referent must be viewed as a single group or as a member of this group … In this way, ἄνθρωπος not only means “one [sin-
Carreter, Terminos filológicos, 164.
8.3 Semic Development of the Formula
219
gle] human being,” but also “human beings” in general, or “the totality of human beings.” Context specifies whether a concrete human or “humanity in general” is being discussed.²⁸
Semantically, number is not based on an opposition between singular and plural, but on the opposition between individual and non-individual/collective (cf. §§ 91– 100).
individual singular
non-individual/collective
non-singular plural
quantifiable
distributive
non-quantifiable qualified
non-qualified
partial/total/corporate/virtual specific
global
This diagram presumes that number is studied in context. For purposes of classifying the entity nouns (i. e., the field of our investigation), we present only those divisions that can be deduced from the lexemes apart from context, resulting in an abbreviated diagram that looks as follows:
individual
non-individual/collective quantifiable
non-quantifiable
Accordingly, the application of the semantic category of number to the formula of entity lexemes begins with the opposition of individual and non-individual/collective. |82-P “Individual” can distinguish nouns with simple formulas, such as ἄνθρωπος, “human being,” and γυνή, “woman.” Most often, however, lexemes with the semantic number “individual” have complex formulas that can be organized into three groups, namely, (1) lexemes that denote the subject of an activity or state;²⁹ (2) lexemes that denote the subject of a quality or attitude that is manifested in action;³⁰ and (3) lexemes that denote a subject joined to other subjects based on family connections or by association with a group.³¹ “Non-individual/collective” can be speci-
I. R. Alfagame, Nueva Gramática griega (Madrid: Coloquio, 1988), 119 – 20, 205 – 06. In 210 – 19, Alfagame discusses the meaning of the singular, neuter plural, and plural. Cf. e. g., σωτήρ, “savior”; φονεύς, “murderer”; ἀρσενοκοίτης, “male homosexual”; προσαίτης, “beggar”; μεσίτης, “mediator.” Cf. e. g., ζηλωτής, “enthusiast,” “zealot”; ὑποκριτής, “hypocrite.” Cf. e. g., ἀδελφός, “brother”; δίδυμος, “twin”; προπάτωρ, “forefather”; φαρισαῖος, “Pharisee.”
220
Chapter 8: Retrospect: The Classification of Lexemes
fied as quantifiable³² or non-quantifiable³³ collectives (cf. §§ 175 – 80 for a more comprehensive discussion of number).
8.3.3 Aspect and Voice § 337. By applying the semantic categories of gender and number, it is possible to classify and differentiate between entity lexemes with simple structure that have the same formula (i. e., between personal, non-personal and inanimate lexemes). However, this is not the case with personal animate entity lexemes that denote an entity and an event [Ent + Ev]. Lexemes of this group denote subjects that perform or are recipients of a specific action or are found in a specific state. For their classification, the semantic categories of aspect and voice must be applied to the semantic event.³⁴
8.3.3.1 Aspect § 338. Aspect is linked grammatically to verbs |83-P and is used most commonly in an aoristic, imperfective, or resultative sense. Aoristic aspect can be divided into inchoative, terminative, and complexive senses. Extrinsic occasional aspect can be desiderative, volitional, or conative.³⁵ Semantically, aspect is analyzed in parole and is not confined to verbal lexemes, but can also have significance for nominal lexemes. This implies that event-nouns (Ev) and entity nouns that have an event in their formula (i. e., Ent + Ev) both have aspectual semes. Lexemic aspect is based on stative-dynamic opposition, subdivided into secondary oppositions:³⁶
Cf. e. g., γερουσία, “senate,” “council of elders”; λεγιών, “legion”; σπεῖρα, “cohort”; συνέδριον, “Sanhedrin.” Cf. e. g., κλισία, “a group of people eating together”; πρεσβεία, “an embassy,” “a group of ambassadors”; χορός, “a group of singers and dancers”; ἐκκλησία, “assembly”; λαός, “people.” It is important to note that the grammatical categories of mode and tense are not applied semantically, since these categories cannot be applied to event-nouns, but only to verbal lexemes. Cf. §§ 193 – 96. For other discussions of aspect, see S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York/Bern/Frankfurt/Paris: Peter Lang, 1989) (review in FNT 4 [1991]: 73 – 76) and B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) (review in FNT 4 [1991]: 217– 22); cf. also S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, eds., Biblical Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, JSNTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) (review in FNT 7 [1994]: 215 – 22). Stative event lexemes include ἀγνωσία, “ignorance”; ἀγρυπνία, “vigil,” “sleeplessness”; ἀδηλότης, “incertitude”; ἀθανασία, “immortality”; αἰχμαλωσία, “captivity.” Dynamic event lexemes with imperfective aspect include ἀγωγή, “way of living”; ἀναστροφή, “conduct”; ὁμιλία, “conversation”; αἴνησις, “praise.” Dynamic event lexemes with aoristic aspect include φίλημα, “kiss”; φανέρωσις, “manifestation”; ὑπάντησις, “encounter”; ῥιπή, “swing.” There are also dynamic event lexemes with resultative aspect, such as ἄθλησις, “athletic contest”; ἁγιασμός, “sanctification”; ἁγνισμός, “purification”; ἀγγελία, “announcement”; φθορά, “decay.”
8.3 Semic Development of the Formula
stativity
221
dynamism imperfective-aoristic-resultative
8.3.3.2 Voice § 339. Nouns that denote an event in addition to an entity contain dynamic or stative elements (that take on the function of verbs) in their formulas. To classify these lexemes, the semantic category of voice must also be applied |84-P in order to determine whom or what is affected by the acting subject or his or her condition. As a grammatical category, a morphological distinction is made between the active and middlepassive voice. Voice is an expressive, stylistic way of emphasizing a specific relation of an event. Occasionally, voice does not carry this nuance, which is the case with deponent verbs (cf. § 197). Semantically, the category of voice is based on the opposition of agent/non-agent. This opposition does not overlap with the field covered by aspect (stative/dynamic), since lexemic aspect directly affects the event, while lexemic voice concerns the relation between the agent-entity and the event. The primary opposition for voice of agent/non-agent and its subordinate oppositions are as follows (cf. §§ 197– 202).
agent
affecting non-subjective (active voice)
non-agent
affecting subjective (middle voice)
receptive (passive voice)
non-receptive (neutral voice)
Nouns that function as event lexemes sometimes have an ambiguous active-passive voice. Based on their voice, lexemes can be: 1. active: σφαγή, “slaughter”; τεκνογονία, “procreation”; ἄγρα, “hunting”; 2. middle: γέλως, “laughter”; ἀναστροφή, “conduct”; βλέμμα, “glance”; βίωσις, “way of life”; 3. passive: πάθος, “passion”; ὅραμα, “vision”; 4. neuter: ῥῆγμα, “ruin”; θάνατος, “death.” We have enough elements to conduct a semantic classification of the entitynouns and event-nouns in the New Testament. Mode and tense are not discussed, since these categories are applied almost exclusively in context, rather than in langue. Nouns that denote attributes, relations, or determinations will be classified according to their formula and semic development. The semantic categories of gender, number, aspect, and voice cannot be applied to them. |85-P
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development¹TN § 340. The preceding chapter explained the necessary steps for classifying entity lexemes: After identifying the semantic formula (i. e., the denoted and connoted elements), the semantic categories of gender and number are applied to the entity in the formula. In this manner the generic semes that are necessary for completing the classification are obtained. The semic development of the lexeme thus begins with the application of semantic categories to the class of entity (Ent). By applying the semantic categories, the elements of the formula can be fully developed so that a definition can then be articulated. Since the Greek language is well-researched, the task of defining the meaning of lexemes does not begin from scratch. Even before examining the different contexts in which lexemes appear, there is already an idea—perhaps not always a completely accurate one—of their meanings. Concordances and dictionaries provide a starting point for explaining the meanings of lexemes based on their semantic content.
9.1 Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning Different criteria can be used for determining lexical meaning: § 341. When a term has only one contextual meaning, this can be taken as its lexical meaning. If this contextual meaning, however, appears solely in the figurative sense in a specific corpus, it is better to adopt the literal sense as the lexical meaning and then to mention the figurative meaning. The term κανών, for example, does not appear in the New Testament with the literal sense of “a straight wooden stick,” but only in the figurative sense as “standard of life,” “rule,” “measure” (Gal 6:16; 2Cor 10:13). To explain the figurative sense semantically, it is helpful to take the literal sense as the lexical meaning. In the same way, δάκνω, “to bite,” is only used figuratively in the New Testament to express the injuries caused by hostility (cf. Gal 5:15). § 342. When a lexeme has several contextual meanings and one can be identified as unmarked (i. e., as having less semantic content) and others as marked (i. e., as having more semantic content or a |86-P more specific meaning),² the unmarked contex-
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 86 – 112 in the original text of Peláez. Thematically it corresponds to ch. 6 in this book and illustrates the practice of semic development of entity with particular reference to entities. A marked term is one that has the mark of correlation (quality or distinct trait), as opposed to unmarked, which lacks it; cf. Carreter, Terminos filológicos, 272. For J. Dubois, Dictionnaire de linguistique, 413, “A lexeme is said to be marked when it possesses a phonological, morphological, syntactical, or semantic particularity that distinguishes it from other lexemes of the same nature in the same language. The marked lexeme constitutes the marked case of a binary opposition in which the opposite term, deprived of this particularity, is called unmarked.” Semantically, a marked lexeme refers to https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-015
9.1 Determining Lexical and Contextual Meaning
223
tual meaning is taken as the lexical meaning, and the other meanings can be explained by the addition of semes or by a change in the semic configuration.³ § 343. If all the contextual meanings are marked and differ from each other, the lexical meaning is obtained by abstraction, and in each case the occasional semes that give rise to the sememe are to be omitted. The meaning of the lexeme may not appear in the contexts, although it can be found in other texts outside of the chosen corpus. In the New Testament this occurs with δῆμος (cf. §§ 413 – 16) and with ὑπακούω. By denoting a person’s response to a question about his or her conduct, ὑπακούω is always marked, since, according to the nature of the question, the response is specified as assent or as obedience. § 344. When a lexeme has various meanings due primarily to metaphorical usage, which removes one or several of the nuclear semes, there are two ways to establish its semic nucleus: (1) the basic meaning can be reduced to the features that are common to all the contextual meanings (including the metaphorical meanings); or (2) one contextual meaning can be considered the primary meaning, and the less frequent meanings can be explained semantically by their connection to the primary meaning. The first option leads to a dead end. The term καρδία, for example, whose obvious meaning is “heart” (an organ of the human body; cf. §§ 298 – 302), is only used in the New Testament in a figurative sense, meaning the interior mental state of a person (i. e., intellect). Additionally, the expression ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, “in the heart of the earth” (Matt 12:40), applies καρδία to an inanimate entity (i. e., location). If the first option is followed, where the lexical meaning is constructed with |87-P the features common to all the contextual meanings, then the second contextual meaning (intellect) eliminates the semes of “corporeality” and “having organs” from the first meaning of καρδία, since it now designates an aspect of the human being’s mental life. At most, “intellect” will include the semes of inwardness, possession (by a human being), vitality, and many others. This would cause the definition of καρδία to become noticeably vague, since it could not explicate the alternatives between entity (organ) and event (state), nor between body and intellect. The confusion would only worsen if the third sememe were also integrated (i. e., “in the heart of the earth”), since the seme of vitality could not be retained, because it (i. e., the third sememe) simply denotes a local determination. With the lexeme καρδία, therefore, the three contextual meanings would only share the semes of inwardness and possession, which would lead to a fuzzy definition of the lexeme: “something that belongs to an entity and is found in its interior.” It seems clear that no one would recognize the term καρδία in this definition. Although it is not found in the New Testament, a simpler and more efficient alternative is to take the somatic contextual meaning as
a lexeme with a seme or semantic feature that distinguishes it in binary opposition from another lexeme. Cf. our analysis of ἀγρός and ἄνεμος in chapter 10.
224
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
the lexical meaning, and, based on this, to explain the metaphorical sense (i. e., intellect) as a change of the nuclear configuration, which is caused by a substitution of semes. The same applies to the local contextual meaning. As another example, the term ἀδελφός is used in some New Testament contexts to address citizens or fellow countrymen and in other contexts to address members of the Christian community. If the lexical meaning were determined based on these contextual meanings, semes of solidarity and of common interests would be identified, but there would be no seme relating to a blood relationship. The resulting definition of ἀδελφός would be hard to distinguish from other lexemes with similar meanings, making it nearly impossible to link the definition with the lexeme. § 345. In summary: When a lexeme has a meaning from which its other meanings can be deduced, whether by the addition, substitution, or elimination of semes, it is more practical to take this meaning as the lexical meaning and the others as sememes derived from it. In this way, the analysis relates to the question about lexemes having a Grundbedeutung, a base meaning, whose existence is presumed in the various contextual meanings. The intended meaning must be clarified by using one of the following rules, namely: 1. the base meaning cannot be altered and as a result, it must remain intact in all of the contextual meanings, or |88-P 2. the base meaning is the primary meaning because it is simple, obvious, or common, but it is not necessarily preserved in all of the contextual meanings, although it provides a starting point for explaining them. The first of these statements cannot be maintained (except in a nuanced manner). To discern the features that are common to all of a lexeme’s contextual meanings, each feature must be utilized. Next, one must identify the features that do not proceed from the contexts in which the term is found. As a result, the difference between lexical meaning and contextual meanings emerges. If a lexical meaning is identified whose semes are found in every one of the contextual meanings, this could be described as a base meaning. As has been seen, however, when there are figurative senses, this procedure leads to such unintelligible base meanings that they are not useful. § 346. In light of this discussion, we refer to the meaning that is taken as a base in each case as the “lexical meaning.” The other meanings, which we call “sememes” or “contextual meanings,” are derived from the lexical meaning when the definition is changed because of context.
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities § 347. To illustrate how a lexeme’s complete semic development is identified, we have chosen a specific group of nouns in the New Testament, namely, a group of nouns with a personal animate gender and a collective number (regardless of whether or not this collective can be quantified). The semic development is presented for each noun and then definitions are composed. Since classemes of gender and number
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
225
are common to all these nouns, these nouns can only be differentiated by their specific semes or by the development of the remaining semantic classes. In what follows, we present the classification of the nouns that will serve as a basis for illustrating the semic development and definition of lexemes.
9.2.1 Types of Collective Entities § 348. The entity nouns analyzed here also denote a relation (R), because they will always designate a group of individuals or members of a collective who maintain connections with each other. Some of these nouns also denote an activity or state (Ev). Although all have a collective number, this can be non-quantifiable, |89-P such as κλισία, “group of eaters” (§ 356) or quantifiable, such as τετράδιον, “squad of four soldiers” (§ 371). There are two groups of nouns with the number “non-quantifiable collective.” One group is composed of lexemes that denote an entity (Ent), a relation (R), and an event (Ev).⁴ The other group includes lexemes that denote an entity (Ent) and a relation (R).⁵ We shall first discuss the lexemes that denote three elements with the goal of shedding further light on our method. § 349. Collective entities that denote a relation (R) and an event (Ev): There are nouns that denote a dynamic or stative event (Ev) in addition to an entity (Ent) and a relation (R). Some also denote two events (stative and dynamic). The event is dynamic when the focus is on a group of people who perform an activity. To this group belong the following, in alphabetical order:⁶TN κλισία κουστωδία πρεσβεία συνοδία στρατιά χορός
“group of eaters” “guard,” “group of guards” “embassy,” “group of ambassadors” “caravan of people” “army” “choir,” “group of singers who dance”
The event is stative when it denotes the state of a group: αἵρεσις διασπορά λεῖμμα ὑπόλειμμα
“sect,” “faction” “dispersion,” “dispersed people” “remnant,” “remainder of people” “remainder of people”
Cf. e. g., κλισία, “group of eaters”; κουστωδία, “group of guards.” Cf. e. g., γενέα, “generation”; ἐκκλησία, “assembly”; ἀδελφότης, “brotherhood.” Translator’s Note: The Spanish text includes the definite articles and genitive endings for the lexemes that are listed in this chapter. Since this was not the case in the previous chapter, I have opted to omit the article and genitive from the lists, but to include them in the more detailed analyses in §§ 354– 76.
226
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Stative and dynamic events are present when a state and an action are simultaneously denoted. This occurs with οἰκετεία, |90-P “(group of) slaves in a household,” which denotes residence (state) and service (activity). § 350. Collective entities that only denote a relation (R): When collective entities only denote a relation (R), the relation can be of three kinds: 1. Relation of descent: πατριά φυλή
“family/nation” “tribe”
2. Relation of location and simultaneousness ἐκκλησία ὄχλος συναγωγή
“assembly” “crowd,” “multitude” “congregation,” “synagogue”
3. Relation of ownership and connection ἀδελφότης δῆμος ἔθνος λαός
“familial relationship” “populace” “nation” “town,” “people”
§ 351. “Quantifiable Human Collective”: Among the nouns with the number “quantifiable collective,” two groups can be established, namely, collective entities with explicit and implicit quantification. Collective entities with explicit quantification indicate the number of members which comprise the collective, for example, τετράδιον, “a squad of four soldiers.” Collective entities with implicit quantification describes lexemes whose number is not determined by the lexeme, but rather by the cultural context in which it is used. Since the members of the group accomplish a specific activity, these lexemes denote a dynamic event: |91-P γερουσία ἐφημερία λεγιών πρεσβυτήριον σπεῖρα συνέδριον
“senate,” “group of old men” “division of priests” “legion” “senate,” “group of old men” “cohort” “Sanhedrin,” “council”
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
227
9.2.2 Semic Development and Definition of Meaning § 352. This section presents examples of collective entities in order to illustrate the semic development and the composition of definitions. In chapter 10 the lexemes δῆμος, ἔθνος, λαός, πατριά, and φυλή will illustrate how the semic development makes it possible to distinguish the meanings of similar lexemes. In order to determine the semic development, it is first necessary to apply the semantic categories of number and gender to the class of entity in the formula. When a noun also denotes an event (Ev), aspect and voice are also applied.⁷TN § 353. Excursus: Semes One point that needs clarification is the concept of “seme” or semantic feature, on which our method is based. “Seme” is often defined as a “minimal or elemental semantic feature,” which means that it cannot be broken down into more basic units (cf. § 205). In the actual analysis, however, this theoretical definition is not always practical. Such a definition corresponds with the goal of “mechanical translation,” which, with the help of computers, seeks to break down and reorganize the semes in order to find the equivalent words between two languages. The amount of information and the speed of processing with which these computers operate makes it possible to gather, utilize, and combine a level of information that would have been otherwise impossible for the human mind. This method, although it might be useful for mechanical translation, does not suit the goals of linguistic description. Furthermore, it strives for conclusions that differ from those of a dictionary such as ours, since we do not seek to give the |92-P the translational equivalents shared by two languages, but rather to construct the definition of the lexemes and their corresponding sememes. Therefore, since the method must be functional, semic precision must be proportionate with the stated goals. For example, the seme “humanity” can be broken down into more specific semes, such as entity, corporateness, vitality, sensibility, and rationality. Continually cataloging each of these semes that appear with humanity would lead to semic developments with unending, repetitive, intelligible lists. Therefore, with the goal of simplifying the expression without compromising accuracy, words that are really groups of elemental semes are used as if they were semes. Thus, the seme of entity designates animate or inanimate material things; the semes animality, humanity, and divinity do not require explanation. Other terms are used in similar fashion.
This procedure can be compared with how natural elements are described. Science has demonstrated that each natural element is an accumulation of particles of different masses and electric charges. If instead of saying “cobalt” or “sulfur,” it was always necessary to describe all the minimal components of these elements, the lists
Translator’s Note: At this point it was necessary to change the original Spanish text. In contrast to Mateos, Peláez opted to put the semantic formulas and semic developments in the footnotes. This created difficulties, including the presentation of two definitions for each lexeme. In order to clarify how I have changed the text at this point, I place my translation of the original passage in this footnote: “The exposition would be very long and repetitive if we tried to explain the complete semic development of each lexeme that we analyze. It will suffice to present the first example (χορός, ‘choir’) in toto and for the rest to place the diagrams and remarks in the footnotes, given that the procedure for completing the semic development and for constructing the definition of the lexeme is the same for all of these nouns.”
228
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
would be unending and intelligible. The terms “cobalt” and “sulfur” are convenient signs that encompass numerous components. “Semes” function in a similar way when used in the manner we suggest: they are also signs that enable us to avoid long, confusing, and repetitive lists.
9.2.2.1 Non-quantifiable Collective Entities with a Dynamic Event (Activity) § 354. These lexemes denote an action or process (dynamic Ev). Because this event relates to a collective (Ent), the action is common, which implies an intrinsic relation (R). (1.) χορός, -οῦ, ὁ § 355. The term χορός (once in the New Testament) denotes a human collective (Ent) that performs an activity |93-P (Ev) together (R):
Ent + Ev + R Based on this formula, the semic development can be determined. This is accomplished by identifying the generic semes of the semantic classes. For Ent, the semantic categories of number and gender (explained in the previous chapter) are applied:
Ent
collectivity (number) humanity (gender)
These generic semes are common to groups of lexemes. The second denoted element is an event (Ev), which in this case is dynamic, since χορός implies singing and movement. By applying the semantic categories of aspect and voice, the following generic semes are obtained:
Ev
dynamism (aspect) activity (voice)
The action can be broken down into the specific semes of rhythmic movement and vocal musicality. The lexeme also denotes a simultaneous relation (R) between the members of the human collective, since the activity is performed at the same time
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
229
by all the members together. The semes of the relation are simultaneousness/union. The complete semic development of this lexeme is as follows: |94-P
Ent Ev
R
collectivity (number) (g) humanity (gender) (g) dynamism (aspect) (g) activity (voice) (g) rhythmic movement (s) musical vocality (s) simultaneousness/union (s)
In this semic development, the generic semes and specific semes have been indicated by means of (g) and (s), respectively. Together these various semes constitute the semic nucleus, viz. the group of nuclear semes that comprise the lexeme χορός and distinguish it from similar lexemes.⁸ Once the denoted and connoted semes of each semantic class in the formula have been identified, we are able to define the lexeme. The definition integrates the semes of the semic development in a hierarchical fashion. Thus, χορός can be defined as “a group of individuals (Ent) who dance and sing (Ev) together (R)”: dancing choir, choir. Luke :
ὡς ἐρχόμενος ἤγγισεν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, ἤκουσεν συμφωνίας καὶ χορῶν, “as he was returning and came near the house, he heard the music and the dancing.”⁹TN
To facilitate the semic development of the formulas, the Catalogue of Semes can be consulted. As has been seen, the semic development involves the identification of a lexeme’s generic and specific semes. The semes are designated as abstract nouns. These constitute a metalanguage so that one should not be surprised if terms that do not actually exist in the language are constructed. Translator’s Note: As Peláez mentioned in the beginning of this section, χορός appears once in the New Testament. The author thus cites the New Testament passage in which χορός appears. This illustrates a key aspect for the author, who in chap. 2 criticized Louw and Nida for citing a few examples of lexemes that are commonly used in the New Testament. By citing each passage in which a lexeme appears, Peláez seeks to offer a more comprehensive and accurate semantic analysis that will avoid omitting important evidence. This practice is followed strictly in DGENT. An important question, however, might be whether the citation of a single verse provides enough context for grasping a lexeme’s web of connections. In this text, however, Peláez does not consistently list all of the uses of a word, especially when a word is used commonly in the New Testament; cf. e. g., translator’s note 11 in this chapter.
230
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
The action of χορῶν in Luke 15:25 is related to ἤκουσεν, indicating that the dancers were singing.¹⁰TN We proceed by identifying various generic and specific semes of various lexemes after identifying their semantic formulas. |95-P (2.) κλισία, -ας, ἡ § 356. Like χορός, the lexeme κλισία (once in the New Testament) also denotes a common and simultaneous activity of a human collective. The collective is an entity, the activity is eating (Ev), which necessarily connotes food (Ent1) that is consumed (R1→). At the same time, the lexeme denotes a relation of togetherness between the eaters (R). The formula and semic development are thus:
Ent + Ev + R Ent Ev R
R1
R1 plurality Ent1 humanity activity self-sustenance simultaneousness/union
Ent1 towardness materiality edibility
Thus, κλισία refers to a group that shares a meal together and can be defined as “a group of human beings (Ent) who eat (Ev) a (R1) meal (Ent1) together (R)”: a group of eaters. Luke :
καταλκίνατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα, “have them recline in groups of fifty.”
(3.) πρεσβεία, -ας, ἡ § 357. The lexeme πρεσβεία (twice in the New Testament) designates a human group tasked with carrying out an activity of representation before another individual or group. In addition to denoting a group (Ent) that performs a common (R) activity (Ev) (outside of the New Testament it can designate an individual), this lexeme has a double connotation: first, it connotes the event of delegation (Ev1) by (←R1)
Translator’s Note: It may be assuming too much to assert that the parallel between χορός and the aorist verb ἤκουσεν indicates singing. Lively dancing can be heard, and the text does not indicate that the dancers were those responsible for the music.
231
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
a personal subject (Ent1). Secondly, it connotes the recipient (R3→Ent2) of the activity of representation. The formula and semic development are as follows:
R1
R2
Ev1
R3
Ent2
Ent1
Ent + Ev + R
Ent Ev R Ent1
plurality humanity representation simultaneousness individuality / corporativity humanity
R1 Ev1 R2 R3 Ent2
|96-P
agentivity delegation transitivity towardness individuality / corporativity humanity
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who are jointly (R) tasked (Ev1) by (R1) a person or group (Ent1) to (R2) represent them (Ev) before (R3) others (Ent2)”: embassy, delegation, legation. Luke : Luke :
πρεσβείαν ἀποστείλας ἐρωτᾷ τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην, “he will send representatives/a legation to request conditions of peace.” οἱ δὲ πολῖται αὐτοῦ … ἀπέστειλαν πρεσβείαν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, “his fellow countrymen sent a delegation after him.”
In cases where πρεσβεία is comprised of one individual, the relation of simultaneousness disappears from the formula and development, and the seme of plurality in the entity (Ent) will become a seme of individuality. (4.) συνοδία, -ας, ἡ § 358. The lexeme συνοδία (once in the New Testament) designates a human group whose joint activity is a local movement in the direction of an object. Because it refers to a human group, it denotes an entity (Ent) and also the group’s common (R) movement (Ev) across the ground. It connotes a direction towards (R1→) a place (Ent1).
232
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Ent + Ev + R Ent
Ev
R
plurality humanity dynamism movement displacement territory simultaneousness
R1 R1 Ent1
Ent1 direction location
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who go (Ev) together (R) across the ground towards (R1) a place (Ent1)”: caravan. |97-P Luke :
νομίσαντες αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ, “supposing that he was with the caravan.”
(5.) κουστωδία, -ας, ἡ § 359. The lexeme κουστωδία (three times in the New Testament) designates a group of individuals who belong to a military that is charged with guarding or custody. In addition to the denoted group (Ent), an activity (Ev), and a simultaneous relation (R), κουστωδία connotes a place (Ent1), which is the object of (R1→) the activity of guarding (Ev).
Ent + Ev + R Ent Ev R
humanity plurality military dynamism activity vigilance simultaneousness
R1 R1 Ent1
Ent1 transitivity location
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
233
Definition: “A group of soldiers (Ent) who simultaneously (R) guard (Ev) a place (R1→Ent1)”: guard, guards. Matt :
ἔφη αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος· ἔχετε κουστωδίαν, “Pilate said to them, ‘take a guard/some guards’” (cf. v. ). ἰδού τινες τῆς κουστωδίας … ἀπήγγειλαν τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι, “some of the guards informed the high priests.”
Matt :
(6.) στρατιά, -ᾶς, ἡ § 360. In its most common meaning, στρατιά (twice in the New Testament) is a military term which denotes a numerous (D) and hierarchical (R) human collective (Ent) that is prepared for the activity of war (Ev). It connotes the presence of (R1→) a real or potential enemy (Ent + Ev1).
[Ent + D] + R + Ev Ent D R
Ev
R1
collectivity humanity military numerosity simultaneousness hierarchy dynamism activity combativeness
[Ent + Ev1] R1 Ent1 Ev1
|98-P
towardness collectivity humanity hostility
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of soldiers (Ent) organized hierarchically (R) who fight or are prepared to fight (Ev) together (R) against (R1) an enemy (Ent1 + Ev1)”: army. This meaning is not found in the New Testament, where στρατιά is used metaphorically for angels (Luke 2:13) and for stars (Acts 7:42), viz. for non-human beings. These metaphorical senses modify the formula and its development: the semes of humanity and military disappear from the entity. The activity (Ev) and the connotation of an enemy (Ent1 + Ev1) are also removed. Only the features of numerosity (D) and hierarchy/structure (R) remain. The formula is simplified:
[Ent + D] + R
234
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Ent D R
collectivity angel/astrality numerosity organization/order
Definition: “A numerous (D) and structured (R) group of angelic beings or of celestial bodies (Ent)”: heavenly hosts. Luke :
ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου, “the angel was joined by a multitude of heavenly hosts (i. e., celestial armies).” |-P παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς λατρεύειν τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, “he handed them over to worship the heavenly army/the stars.”
Acts :
9.2.2.2 Non-Quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event § 361. These lexemes denote a state (Ev). Because this event also relates to a collective (Ent), the state is also common, which implies an intrinsic relation (R). (1.) διασπορά, -ᾶς, ἡ § 362. The term διασπορά (three times in the New Testament) denotes the dispersion of a human collective into foreign territories. When used as a terminus technicus it designates the dispersion of Israel (i. e., “the diaspora”). The lexeme is classified as an event (Ev), which will be dynamic if it denotes an action and stative if it denotes a result. It connotes the suffering of (R1→) a numerous (D) human collective (Ent1). It also connotes the place (Ent2) in which (R2→) the dispersion occurs or where the dispersed are located. The formula and development are:
R1
[Ent1 + D]
R2
Ent2
Ev
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
dynamism/stativity transfer multi-directionality
Ev
R1 Ent1 R2 Ent2
235
transitivity/resultativity collectivity humanity directionality location multiplicity foreignness
Definition: “An action or a result of transferring (Ev) a (R1) numerous (D) human collective (Ent1) to (R2) different places in a foreign territory (Ent2).” In the New Testament, however, this meaning is absent. Instead, two distinct metonyms appear. In each case the metonymy causes the elements that were connoted to become denoted: |100-P John :
μὴ εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων μέλλει πορεύεσθαι; “he is not about to go to the dispersion among the Greeks, is he?”
Here, the dispersed (Ev) numerous human collective (Ent + D) becomes the dominant element in the formula. The foreign (D1) territory (Ent1) where (R) the dispersion has occurred becomes connoted.
[Ent + D] + Ev Ent D Ev
collectivity humanity numerosity stativity transfer
R
[Ent1 + D1] R Ent1 D1
location territory multiplicity foreignness
Definition: “A numerous (D) collective of human individuals (Ent) who have been transferred (Ev) to (R) different parts of a foreign (D1) territory (Ent1).” In James 1:1 and 1Peter 1:1, the term denotes the territory where the dispersed are located. The formula is identical, and the semic development is as follows:
236
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
territory multiplicity foreignness stativity transfer multi-directionality
Ent D Ev
R Ent1
D1
resultativity residence collectivity humanity numerosity
Definition: “Foreign (D) territories (Ent) to which (R) the members of a numerous (D1) human collective (Ent1) have been transported (Ev).” James :
Ἰάκωβος … ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “James, to the twelve tribes that are in the dispersion.” Πέτρος … παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου, Γαλατίας … καὶ Βιθυνίας, “Peter, to the dispersed sojourners (lit. the sojourners of the dispersion) from Pontus, Galatia, and Bithynia.” |-P
Peter :
(2.) λεῖμμα, -ατος, τό § 363. The lexeme λεῖμμα (once in the New Testament) denotes a human collective that survives the destruction or ruin suffered by its people. The human collective is a semantic entity (Ent) and the survival is an event (Ev). The collective is not heterogeneous, since its members belong to (R→) the same people or nation (Ent1) that has suffered ruin (Ev1), which are connoted elements and thus outside the box.
Ent + Ev + R Ent Ev R
plurality humanity survival possession
[Ent1 + Ev1] Ent1 Ev1
cf. λα ς (§§ 416–20) disappearance ruin
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) belonging to (R) a people or nation (Ent1) who survive (Ev) its (Ent1) ruin or disappearance (Ev1)”: remnant, rest. Rom : Rom :
τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σωθήσεται, “the rest will be saved” (see Isa : LXX, κατάλειμμα). καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ λεῖμμα κατ’ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν, “also in the present time, a graciously chosen remnant has survived (lit. according to a choice of grace).”
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
237
(3.) αἵρεσις, -εως, ἡ § 364. The term αἵρεσις (nine times in the New Testament) occurs in the New Testament with three different contextual meanings: (1) “faction,” “school,” “sect”; (2) by metonymy, the “doctrine that gives identity to a school or sect”; and (3) in a narrow sense, “dissensions or factions within the Christian community.” We consider the first contextual meaning as primary. The lexeme denotes a group of individuals (Ent) who are separated or distinct (Ev, stative) from (←R1→) others (Ent1) because of their common (R) adherence (Ev′, stative) to (R2→) certain beliefs or doctrines. The connotations, therefore, refer to the groups from which they are distinguished (Ent1) and to the doctrines they profess (Ent2 = Ev1, quasi-entity). |102-P
Ent
Ev Ev
R
collectivity humanity stativity separation stativity commitment connection
R1
Ent1
R2
[Ent2 = Ev1]
R1 Ent1
opposition collectivity humanity R2 towardness [Ent2 = Ev1] doctrine
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) that is separate (Ev) from (R1) others (Ent1) by its common (R) adherence (Ev′) to (R2) certain creeds or doctrines (Ent2 = Ev1)”: sect, school, faction. Acts : Acts :
ἡ αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, “the sect of the Sadducees.” τινὲς ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρεσέως τῶν Φαρισαίων, “some from the sect of the Pharisees.”
Metonymy causes what was previously connoted (Ent2 = Ev1, the doctrine) to become denoted and the previously denoted human collective (Ent) to become connoted. This causes αἵρεσις to be defined as “professed doctrine held in common by a human group and which separates or distinguishes it from other groups.”
238
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Acts :
κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἣν λέγουσιν αἵρεσιν, “according to the way (sc. the doctrine), which they call a sect.”¹¹TN
9.2.2.3 Non-quantifiable Collective Entities that Denote a Stative Event and a Dynamic Event § 365. This group of lexemes denotes the state (stative event) of a human collective that performs an activity (dynamic event). The lexeme οἰκετεία (once in the New Testament; Matt 24:45) denotes a human collective that dwells in a house or family where service is given. The lexeme thus denotes both a stative event (Ev + R, residence in → a house or family [Ent1]) and a dynamic event (Ev′, service). R1 is explicated by a seme of towardness to (→) the recipient of service (Ent2). |103-P
Ent1 Ent + [Ev + R] + Ev R1 Ent
Ev R Ev
humanity collectivity stativity (residence) location dynamism (service)
Ent1
R1 Ent2
Ent2 habitation residence towardness humanity individuality property
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) who reside (Ev) in (R) a house (Ent1) and are at the service (Ev′) of (R1) the owner (Ent2)”: household of servants/slaves. Matt :
ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος … ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ, “the faithful servant whom the master put in charge of his servants.”
Translator’s Note: I can only assume that the author illustrates three of the nine passages in the New Testament in which αἵρεσις occurs for reasons of space and clarity. This occurs with several lexemes in the remainder of this chapter and with lexemes in chapters 10 – 11.
239
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
9.2.2.4 Collective Entities that only Denote a Relation § 366. Lexemes of this group denote some type of relation (R) between the members of the collective (Ent). According to the kind of relation, the following groups can be established. There are two broad types: Relation of Simultaneousness of Location: (1.) ὄχλος, -ου, ὁ § 367. The term ὄχλος (175 times in the New Testament) is always applied to human collectives. In its unmarked contextual meaning it refers to a crowd of gathered people.
[Ent + D] + R Ent
collectivity humanity numerosity location simultaneousness
D Ev
|104-P
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who are present in the same place (R)”: multitude, throng, crowd of people. Matt : Mark :
ἰδὼν Ἰησοῦς ὄχλον περὶ αὐτόν, “when Jesus saw a multitude around him.” ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων, “a crowd with swords and clubs.”
(2.) ἐκκλησία, -ας, ἡ § 368. The lexeme ἐκκλησία (114 times in the New Testament) refers primarily to a numerous group of citizens gathered with a purpose. We take this unmarked meaning as the lexical meaning. The lexeme therefore denotes a certain number (D) of citizens (Ent) and their common location (R). It connotes an activity (Ev) of civil or religious character as the purpose of (R1→) the assembly.
[Ent + D] + R
R1
Ev
240
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
collectivity humanity citizenship numerosity location simultaneousness
Ent
D R
R1 Ev
purpose activity civility/religious
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of citizens (Ent) gathered together (R) to (R1) perform a civil or religious act (Ev)”: assembly. Acts :
ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἀπέλυσεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, “having said this, he dismissed the assembly.”¹² |-P
(3.) συναγωγή, -ῆς, ἡ § 369. The term συναγωγή (56 times in the New Testament) is nearly synonymous with ἐκκλησία. However, it adds the connotation of the building where the gathering is held. Moreover, the activity performed by the collective is always of a religious nature, and it omits the concept of “citizenship.” The local relation (R) that constitutes the collective (Ent) adds the connotation of a building (Ent1). The activity (Ev) that the collective performs is always of a religious character. The number of participants is not necessarily large, although never less than ten.
Ent1 Ent + R
R1
Ev
Here the ἐκκλησία consists of citizens (cf. δῆμος, §§ 415 – 17). In light of δῆμος in 19:33 (ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense to the people”), ἐκκλησία in 19:41 is comprised of citizens.
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
Ent R
plurality humanity location simultaneousness
Ent1 R1 Ev
241
building purpose activity religious
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) gathered (R) in a building (Ent1) to (R1) perform a religious activity (Ev)”: congregation, synagogual assembly. Acts :
ᾐτήσατο … ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρός τὰς συναγωγάς, “he asked for letters addressed to the synagogues in Damascus (i. e., to the synagogual assemblies).” λυθείσης δὲ τῆς συναγωγῆς, “when the assembly was dispersed.”
Acts :
As with Acts 9:2 and including its translation as “synagogue,” the term often does not denote the building, but the congregation that is gathered within it: Mark :
ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, “in their synagogue/congregation was a man with an unclean spirit.”¹³ |-P
Relation of Belonging or Connection: (1.) ἀδελφότης, -ητος, ἡ § 370. The term ἀδελφότης (twice in the New Testament) denotes a group or human collective (Ent) in which there are bonds of affection and solidarity (R), which originate from a relation (R1) to the same father (Ent1), who is not necessarily biological.
Ent + R Ent R
collectivity humanity solidarity affection
R1 R1 Ent1
Ent1 brotherhood personhood paternality
The term αὐτῶν is translated as a subject genitive: “they were gathered.”
242
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Definition: “A group of individuals (Ent) united by solidarity and affection (R) based on their real or figurative filial relation (R1) to a common father (Ent1)”: familial relationship. Pet : Pet :
τὴν ἀδελφότητα ἀγαπᾶτε, “love the family of believers/the brothers.” τῇ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὑμῶν ἀδελφότητι, “to your believing family in the [sc. entire] world.”
9.2.2.5 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Explicit Quantification: τετράδιον, -ου, τό § 371. The term τετράδιον (once in the New Testament) designates a group of four individuals, viz. soldiers. The quantification (D) is part of the lexeme’s denotation. |107-P
Ent + D Ent D
plurality humanity military quantification (four)
Definition: “A group (Ent) of four (D) soldiers (Ent)”: squad of four soldiers. Acts :
παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιοτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, “handing him over to four squads having four soldiers [sc. per squad] to guard him.”
9.2.2.6 Quantifiable Collective Entities with Implicit Quantification that Denote a Dynamic Event (1.) γερουσία, -ας, ἡ § 372. The term γερουσία (once in the New Testament) denotes a council of elders and in the New Testament designates the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. Many of the details regarding γερουσία, including its quantification, are cultural data. The old age attributed to its members is more of an honorific title (senior, senator) than actual data. The senate is a human collective (Ent). The determination (D) refers to the numerus clausus of the members of this institution. The recipients (R→Ent1) of the activity (Ev) are connoted.
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
[Ent + D] + Ev Ent D Ev
collectivity humanity oldness quantification dynamism activity regulation
R R Ent1
243
Ent1 towardness collectivity humanity Judaism
Definition: “A council (Ent) formed by a specific number (D) of elders or seniors (Ent) who exercise a judicial function (Ev) in (R) the Jewish community (Ent1)”: senate, council of elders. Acts :
συνεκάλεσαν τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν |-P γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, “they called together the Sanhedrin (i. e., the council of elders) and all the elders of Israel.”
(2.) πρεσβυτέριον, -ου, τό § 373. The term πρεσβυτέριον (three times in the New Testament) designates a council of elders or seniors. As was the case with γερουσία, it is an honorific title. In the New Testament this term is applied twice to the Jewish Sanhedrin and once to the group responsible for a Christian assembly. The lexical meaning is obtained by omitting these specifications. The collective (Ent) is composed of a specific number (D) of members. Although not specified, the activity (Ev) is denoted, while the community (Ent1) which is the object of (R→) this activity is connoted.
[Ent + D] + Ev
R
Ent1
244
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Ent
D Ev
collectivity humanity oldness quantification dynamism activity
R Ent1
towardness collectivity humanity
Definition: “A group of (D) elders or seniors (Ent) that exercises certain functions (Ev) in (R) a community (Ent1)”: council of elders, senate. In a Jewish context, πρεσβυτέριον is a term for the Sanhedrin: Luke : Acts :
συνήχθη τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ, “the council of elders of the people were gathered.” καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς μαρτυρεῖ μοι καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, “and the High Priest and the whole council of elders of the people (can) testify in my favor/about me/for me.”
In a Christian context, the term designates a group that exercises certain functions in the community: Tim :
ἐδόθη σοι … μετὰ ἐπιθήσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου, “which was given to you by the laying on of hands by the group of elders.”¹⁴ |-P
(3.) λεγιών, -ῶνος, ἡ § 374. The lexeme λεγιών (four times in the New Testament) in its literal sense designates a Roman military unit. This meaning can be considered the lexical meaning. Like the term στρατιά (cf. § 360), λεγιών denotes a hierarchical human collective that is prepared for the act of war. The soldiers who comprise this group range from 4,000 to 6,000 in number. Like στρατιά, λεγιών connotes the existence of enemies. The formula denotes a hierarchical (R) numerous (D) human collective (Ent) that is prepared for the activity of war (Ev). The term connotes the existence of real or potential enemies (Ent1 + Ev1).
[Ent + D] + R + Ev
R1
Ent1 + Ev1
Regarding the term συνέδριον, -ου, τό in the New Testament, it is a synonym of γερουσία and of πρεσβυτέριον.
9.2 Illustration: The Semic Development of Collective Entities
Ent
collectivity humanity military quantification (4,000 to 6,000) hierarchy dynamism activity combativeness
D R Ev
R1 Ent1 Ev1
245
towardness collectivity humanity hostility
Definition: “A group of 4,000 to 6,000 (D) soldiers (Ent) organized hierarchically (R) who fight or are prepared for combat (Ev) against (R1) an enemy (Ent 1 + Ev1)”: legion. In the New Testament, the term is applied solely to non-human beings: Matt :
δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων, “twelve legions of angels.”
In Mark 5:9, 15 and Luke 8:30, λεγιών is applied figuratively to the demon-possessed man from the region of the Gerasenes and the spirits that possess him. (4.) σπεῖρα, -ης, ἡ § 375. The difference between σπεῖρα and λεγιών lies in the number of soldiers, since σπεῖρα is a smaller group comprised of 500 or 600 men. Taking this into account, the formula, semic development, and definition are the same as for λεγιών. In the New Testament it refers to the cohort, the tenth part of a legion. |110-P (5.) ἐφημερία, -ας, ἡ § 376. The term ἐφημερία (twice in the New Testament) refers to the weekly rotation of the priests in their daily service in the Jerusalem temple. It thus refers to a human collective (Ent) qualified by its sacerdotal character (A) and comprised of a specific number of individuals (D) who exercise their activity (Ev) in a specific time (D′).
[Ent + A] + D + [Ev + D ]
246
Chapter 9: Method: Semic Development
Ent A
humanity plurality priestliness
D Ev D
quantification activity temporality simultaneousness
Definition: “A specific (D) group (Ent) of priests (A) who perform their function (Ev) during the same time period (D′)”: priestly division, section. Luke :
ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας A ᾿ βιά, “a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah” (cf. :). |–-P
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)¹TN § 377. The previous chapter explained how to establish a lexeme’s semic development, which precedes the composition of definitions. Once the lexeme is defined, its translational equivalents are given. In this way the concepts of meaning(s) (described by definition[s]) and translational equivalents (an equivalent word or words in the target language) are clearly differentiated. The next step is to consider different contexts in which the lexeme is found. Doing so clarifies whether the proposed meaning (i. e., definition) is present in all the contexts in which the term appears or whether it is necessary to distinguish between various contextual meanings or semenes. Context often alters the formula and semic development of lexemes, thus bringing about new meanings. In this way, our theory accounts for the influence of context on the formation of new contextual meanings. This is one of the novelties of our dictionary, since other dictionaries do not explain how meaning is produced in context. Instead, other dictionaries simply observe the existence of diverse contextual meanings without indicating how context influences meaning. Our dictionary not only seeks to identify the various contextual meanings of lexemes, but also to determine the influence of context in each case. This is done by identifying the contextual factors that affect the meaning, which will be the focus of this chapter. We identify two criteria for distinguishing the sememes of lexemes: (1) a change of definition, which corresponds to a change in the semantic formula due to a new semic configuration, and (2) in cases when the semantic formula is not altered, changes of semes in the semic development can produce new contextual meanings. To illustrate how context gives rise to distinct sememes, we shall now examine four nouns, namely, ἀγρός (cf. §§ 378 – 383), ᾅδης (cf. §§ 383 – 388), ἄνεμος (§§ 389 – 394), and αὐλή (§§ 395 – 399). |113-P 10.1. ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ § 378. In its unmarked contextual meaning, which can be taken as the lexical meaning, ἀγρός (35 times in the New Testament) denotes an extension of land without precise demarcation that is not intended for human habitation. Therefore, ἀγρός is represented by the semantic class of entity (Ent):
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 113 – 32 in the original text of Peláez. Thematically it corresponds to chapter 7 and illustrates how context gives rise to distinct sememes. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-016
248
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
Ent Ent
materiality landness extension non-demarcation non-inhabitation
Definition: “An extension of non-demarcated, non-inhabited land (Ent)”: field. The meaning of ἀγρός is narrowed in various contexts depending on the presence or absence of a connection to humans or human activity, giving rise to diverse contextual meanings. Various types of relations can be identified. § 379. Sememe 1: No relation to a human being or a human activity. In this case, ἀγρός, which does not denote a particular field, appears with the definite article in the singular: Matt : Matt :
καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “consider the lilies of the field.” εἰ δὲ τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ … ὁ Θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν, “if God so clothes the grass of the field,” cf. Luke :.
§ 380. Sememe 2: Relation of possession, sometimes acquired by purchase, which implies an extension of land with defined limits. The plural also implies demarcation and thus possession. To develop the formula of this sememe, it is necessary to note that the demarcation is the resulting state of an activity (“to demarcate,” Ev). The human individual (Ent1) to whom the ἀγρός belongs (R) is connoted.
Ent + Ev Ent
Ev
materiality landness extension non-inhabitation stativity demarcation
R R Ent1
Ent1 possession individuality humanity
Definition: “An extension of demarcated (Ev) land (Ent) owned by (R) an individual (Ent1)”: field, plot of land, farm. |114-P
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
Mark : Matt :
Matt : Luke : Acts :
249
ἄλλοι δὲ στοιβάδας κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν, “others cut branches from the fields.” ὁμοία … θησαυρῷ κεκρυμμένῳ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, ὃν εὑρὼν ἄνθρωπος … πωλεῖ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀγοράζει τὸν ἀγρὸν ἐκεῖνον, “like a hidden treasure in a field, which, when a person finds it, he sells all that he has and buys that field.” ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν τοῦ κεραμέως, “with them (sc. the coins) they purchased the potter’s field”; cf. :, . ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ A ᾿ γρὸν ἠγόρασα, “the first said to him, ‘I have bought a plot of land.’” ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῷ ἀγροῦ, “who had a plot of land.”
§ 381. Sememe 3: An activity of cultivation (and in one instance of cattle breeding) is frequently added to the relation of possession. In this case the sememe denotes both the demarcation (Ev) and the activity of cultivation (Ev). It connotes the relation (R) to an owner (Ent1). Its formula and development are:
Ent + Ev + Ev Ent Ev Ev
R materiality Ent1 territory extension stativity demarcation dynamism activity (agricultural/livestock)
R
Ent1
possession individuality humanity
|115-P
Definition: “A demarcated (Ev) extension of land (Ent) owned by (R) an individual (Ent1) and intended for an agricultural activity (Ev′)”: estate, farm, field. Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt :
Matt :
ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “to a person who sowed good seed in his field.” οὐχὶ καλὸν σπέρμα ἔσπειρας ἐν τῷ σῷ ἀγρῷ; “did you sow good seed in your field?” ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “[sc. to a mustard seed] that a person took and sowed in his field.” διασάφησον ἡμῖν τὴν παραβολὴν τῶν ζιζανίων τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “explain to us the parable about the weeds of the field”; cf. :. ὁ δὲ ἀγρός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, “the field is the world”; cf. :. πᾶς ὅστις ἀφῆκεν οἰκίας … ἢ τέκνα ἢ ἀγρούς, “whoever has left houses … or children, or fields”; cf. Mark : – (to leave presumes ownership). ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν τὸν ἰδίον ἀγρόν, “they left, each to his own field.”
250
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
Matt :
καὶ ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω ὀπίσω ἆραι τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ, “the one who is in the field should not turn back to grab his mantle” (the field as the place of work, in opposition to the roof of the house, v. ); cf. Mark :; Luke :. τότε ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, “then two people will be in the field” (in opposition to the two women who are grinding on the mill, v. , it is understood that the first two are working); cf. Luke :. παράγοντα τινα Σίμωνα Κυρηναῖον ἐρχόμενον ἀπ’ ἀγροῦ, “one who was passing by, Simon of Cyrene, returning from the field” (without doubt, from work); cf. Luke :. ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους, “he sent him to his fields to tend pigs.” ἦν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐν ἀγρῷ, “his oldest son was in the field/ in the estate.”
Matt :
Mark :
Luke : Luke :
§ 382. Sememe 4: Finally, the relation can be one of habitation. Thus, ἀγρός can refer to a place in the country suitable for human habitation. In the plural, ἀγρός is used in opposition to other terms that refer to rural or urban towns, small towns (i. e., villages or rural communities). The formula and development are thus:
Ent + [Ev + R] Ent
Ev R
materiality territory extension ruralness stativity habitation
[Ent1 + D] Ent1 D
collectivity humanity non-numerosity
Definition: “An extension of rural land (Ent) inhabited by (Ev + R) a small number (D) of people (Ent1)”: village, community, farm, manor, farmhouse. |116-P Mark : Mark :
Mark :
ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς, “they reported it in the city and in the farmhouses” (reporting presumes inhabitants); cf. Luke :. ἵνα ἀπελθόντες εἰς τοὺς κύκλῳ ἀγροὺς καὶ κώμας ἀγοράσωσιν, “so that they might go into the surrounding communities and villages to buy”; cf. Luke :. ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγροὺς, ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς ἐτίθεσαν τοὺς ἀσθενοὺντας, “wherever he went, whether to villages, cities, or farmhouses, they were placing the sick in the public squares.”
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
Mark :
251
δυσὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν περιπατοῦσιν ἐφανερώθη … πορευομένοις εἰς ἀγρόν, “he appeared to two of them who were on the way to a farm” (where they share a meal).
§ 383. Summary of Sememes: ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ 1. Without relation to a person or activity: “An extension of land without precise boundaries or towns”: field; cf. τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “the lilies of the field” (Matt 6:28; cf. Matt 6:30). 2. Relation of possession: “A demarcated extension of land that belongs to an individual”: field, plot of land, farm; cf. ὑπάρχοντος αὐτῷ ἀγροῦ, “who had a plot of land” (Acts 4:37). 3. Relation of possession, farming: “A demarcated extension of land, owned by an individual, intended for an agricultural activity”: estate, farm, field; cf. ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι καλὸν σπέρμα ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, “to a man who sowed good seed in his land/field” (Matt 13:24); ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους, “he sent him to his fields to tend pigs” (Luke 15:15). |117-P 4. Relation of habitation: “An extension of rural land where a small number of people live”: village, farm, manor, farmhouse; cf. ὅπου ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο εἰς κώμας ἢ εἰς πόλεις ἢ εἰς ἀγρούς, “wherever he went, into villages, cities, farms” (Mark 6:56). 10.2. ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ § 384. The term ᾅδης (ten times in the New Testament) in Greek antiquity referred to the dwelling or kingdom of the dead. Normally it was viewed as a place, a territory, or specifically as a city situated in the depths of the earth. As a city, ᾅδης denotes an entity (Ent), and since the city is located in the depths, it denotes a determination (D). It connotes the deceased (Ent1 + Ev) that are in it (R), specified (D) as a totality. Thus,
Ent + D
Ent D
spatiality territory/city depth
[Ent1 + Ev] + D1
R
R Ent1
Ev D1
location habitation collectivity humanity stativity death totality
252
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
Definition: “A lower (D) place (Ent) where (R) the (D1) dead live (Ent1 + Ev)”: abyss. § 385. If context does not influence the lexical meaning, ᾅδης corresponds to Sememe 1, which is the lexical meaning, referring to a place that contains the just and the unjust (Ezek 32:18 – 32; Ps 89/88:49): Acts :
οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, “you will not abandon me to the abyss/to the place of the dead”; cf. :.
It can also appear alongside θάνατος: Rev :
ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου, “I have the keys of death and of the abyss.”
Death and the abyss are probably thought of as a city (the place where death reigns). If the genitive is a possessive, “death” and “abyss” are personified. |118-P Occasionally, ᾅδης appears in opposition to οὐρανός; e. g., to descend from “heaven” to ᾅδης, that is, from the highest to the lowest, expressing the greatest humiliation: Matt :
μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ, “will you be exalted to heaven? You will be lowered to the abyss”; cf. Luke :.
In the expression πύλαι ᾅδου, “the gates of the abyss” (Matt 16:18, cf. Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3Macc 5:51; Ps Sol 16:2), “the gates” are the most noble, busiest, and fortified place of an ancient walled city. By means of metonymy they denote the city itself and represent its hostile and belligerent power (cf. κατισχύσουσιν): Matt :
πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς, “the gates/the power of the abyss will not defeat it [τὴν ἐκκλησίαν].”
§ 386. Sememe 2: Context can narrow the meaning of ᾅδης. In such a case it does not refer to the dwelling of all the dead (just and unjust), but only of those who have been unjust in their mortal lives. In such contexts, ᾅδης is used in opposition to a place situated up high (ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, “he lifted his eyes,” Luke 16:23) where certain individuals live after their earthly existence. The narrowing of this sememe affects the connoted subjects, which are only those who have been unjust (A) in their mortal lives. Other details of the text, like the torment (Luke 16:23 – 25), do not affect ᾅδης as a place. The semantic formula, therefore, is:
Ent + D
R
[Ent1 + Ev] + A
In the semic development, two elements change from sememe 1: the determination of totality (D1) disappears, and an attribute is added to the collective [Ent1 + Ev].
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
253
Definition: “A lower (D) place (Ent) inhabited by (R) the dead (Ent1 + Ev) who have been unjust (A) in their mortal lives”: abyss, hades. Luke :
ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, “lifting up his eyes from the abyss”; cf. :.
It is possible that author of the Gospel of Luke does not consider Abraham and those with him (Lazarus) as dead, but living.² § 387. Sememe 3: Grammatical structure is a contextual factor that affects ᾅδης, |119-P which can be used as the subject and object of an activity. In such a case, ᾅδης is personified and takes on the function of a proper name rather than a territory. This implies that the formula’s configuration changes, since the name (D) and the entity (Ent) are denoted. As in the lexical meaning, the collective of dead (Ev) individuals (Ent1) is connoted, which are seen as the possession of (R) Hades (D + Ent):
D + Ent
[Ent1 + Ev]
R
The following semes are changed in the semic development:
D
designation nominality personhood
Ent
location lowerness
R
possession
Definition: “The name (D) of a lower place (Ent) that contains (R) the dead (Ent1 + Ev) and is viewed as a personal being”: The Abyss. Rev :
καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἠκολούθει μετ’ αὐτοῦ, “and the Abyss followed him.”
When used alongside θάνατος, it is also personified: Cor : Rev : Rev :
ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ νῖκος, “where, Abyss, is your victory?” (v.l.). ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἔδωκεν τοὺς νεκροὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς, “Death and the Abyss gave over the dead that were in them.” ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός, “Death and the Abyss were thrown into the lake of fire.”
§ 388. Summary of Sememes: ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ
Cf. τὸν θεὸν ᾿Aβραάμ … θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν, “the God of Abraham is not a God of the dead but of the living, since with him all are living” (Luke 20:37– 38).
254
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
1. “A lower place where all the dead live”: abyss, hades; cf. οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην, “you will not abandon me to the abyss/to the place of the dead” (Acts 2:17; cf. 2:31). 2. In a narrowed sense: “A lower place where those who have been unjust in their mortal lives dwell after their death”: abyss, hades; cf. ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, “looking up from the abyss” (Luke 16:23; cf. v. 24). 3. Personification: “A name for the lower place where the dead are located, which is viewed as a personal being”: the Abyss; cf. καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἠκολούθει μετ’ αὐτοῦ, “and Hades followed him” (Rev 6:8). |120-P 10.3. ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ § 389. In its unmarked contextual meaning, which functions as the lexical meaning, ἄνεμος, “wind” (31 times in the New Testament) denotes an invisible material entity (Ent) that is perceptible by its movement and effects (Ev). Its formula and development are:
Ent + Ev Ent
materiality invisibility perceptibility
Ev
dynamism movement impulse
Definition: “Air (Ent) that moves and affects (Ev)”: wind. The different contexts in which the lexeme is used cause diverse contextual meanings. The contextual factors vary and shall be indicated in each sememe. § 390. Sememe 1: This contextual meaning functions as the lexical meaning. In the passages in which it is used, ἄνεμος may or may not be accompanied by a qualification. 1. Non-qualified: Matt :
Matt : Matt : Matt :
ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι, “the floods came and the winds blew”; cf. :. To describe the wind’s effects, context adds a characteristic of intensity. ἐπετίμησεν τοῖς ἀνέμοις, “he rebuked the winds”; cf. Mark :; Luke :. καὶ οἱ ἄνεμοι … αὐτῷ ὑποκούουσιν, “even the winds obey him”; cf. Mark :. κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; “a reed shaken by the wind?” cf. Luke :.
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
Matt : Matt : Luke : Jude
255
βλέπων δὲ τὸν ἄνεμον ἐφοβήθη, “when he saw the wind, he was afraid.” ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος, “the wind ceased”; cf. Mark :; :. καὶ τοῖς ἀνέμοις ἐπιτάσσει, “he gives orders even to the winds.” νεφέλαι ἄνυδροι ὑπὸ ἀνέμων παραφερόμεναι, “clouds without water that are carried by the wind” (applied metaphorically to certain individuals).
2. Qualified: |121-P Matt : Mark : John : Acts : Acts : Jas : Rev :
ἦν γὰρ ἐναντίος ὁ ἄνεμος, “because the wind was contrary”; cf. Mark :, Acts :. γίνεται λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου, “a strong wind-storm came”; cf. Luke :. ἥ τε θάλασσα ἀνέμου μεγάλου πνέοντος διεγείρετο, “the sea became choppy because a strong wind was blowing.” μὴ προσεῶντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ ἀνέμου, “since the wind was against us.” ἔβαλεν κατ’ αὐτῆς ἄνεμος τυφωνικός, “a tempestuous wind was launched against it [sc. the boat]”; cf. :. τὰ πλοῖα … ὑπὸ ἀνέμων σκληρῶν ἐλαυνόμενα, “boats driven by harsh winds.” ὡς συκῆ … ὑπὸ ἀνέμου μεγάλου σειομένη, “like a fig shaken by a strong wind.”
§ 391. Sememe 2: In one passage, ἄνεμος is used in the plural in the expression “the four winds.” Semantic number gives rise to this sememe. To distinguish the winds, the connotation of a point of origin is added to the lexeme. The formula and semic development are as follows:
Ent + Ev Ent
Ev
materiality invisibility perceptibility dynamism movement impulse
Ent1
R R Ent1
origin location
Definition: “Air (Ent) that moves and affects (Ev) and originates from (R) a specific place (Ent1)”: wind. Rev :a
τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους … κρατοῦντας τοὺς τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τῆς γῆς, “to the four angels who hold the four winds of the earth”; cf. :b.
256
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
§ 392. Sememe 3: In another passage, context affects ἄνεμος because of the |122-P preposition ἐκ (relation of origin, [place] from where). This changes the configuration of sememe 2, because the phrase οἱ τέσσαρες ἄνεμοι, “the four winds,” does not refer to the four main winds but to their points of origin (the points on the compass). Metonymy causes the “point of origin” to become denoted and dominant. Semantically, the metonym is caused by a reconfiguration of the formula: the elements that were previously denoted become connoted and vice versa. In this case, the “point of origin” (which was connoted in sememe 2 as Ent1) is now denoted and dominant (now Ent). Moreover, it has a narrowed sense, since the detail about its extremity (D) on the face of the earth (Ent1, new connotation) is added. “Wind,” which was denoted in sememe 2 (Ent + Ev), becomes connoted ([Ent2 + Ev]). The formula and development are:
Ent1 Ent + D + R R1 Ent D R
location extremity possession
Ent1 R1 [Ent2 + Ev]
Ent2 + Ev
extension (of earth) origin wind
Definition: “An extreme (D) point (Ent) on (R) the surface of the earth (Ent1) from which the wind ([Ent2 + Ev]) has its origin (R1)”: as an idiom: the four winds/the four cardinal points. Matt :
ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, “they will gather his elect from the four cardinal points/from the four winds”; cf. Mark :.
§ 393. Sememe 4: Finally, ἄνεμος appears in a figurative or metaphorical sense. The only thing linking this sense to the lexical meaning is the seme of “impulse,” which is now expressed as “influence” and is the only denoted element. The figurative sense changes the semantic formula in other ways. A metaphor arises by the suppression or suspension of one or several semes in the development of the dominant element in the formula. In this case, the seme of materiality disappears from the entity (Ent). As a result, in the place of Ent there is an undetermined, polyvalent reality (X), whose character will be clarified by context. |123-P Metonymy arises because the
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
257
element X becomes connoted (corresponding to the denoted Ent in the lexical meaning), leaving the event (Ev) as the only denoted element. The seme of movement is no longer present in the development. Only “impulse” remains, expressed now as “influence.” Thus, a different configuration of the formula produces a complex figure of speech, which is both a metaphor (wind = influence/impulse, by removing the seme of materiality) and a metonym. Additionally, a second connotation is noted, which indicates the recipient of the impulse/influence as a human individual (R2 – Ent2). The formula and semic development are thus:
R1
X
R2
Ent1
Ev
Ev R1 X
dynamism activity impulse/influence agentivity reality
R2 Ent1
towardness individuality humanity
Definition: “An impulse (Ev) that can affect (R1) something external (X) about (R2) an individual (Ent1)”: influence, impulse, metaph. wind, gust. In context, the undetermined reality (X) is identified as a doctrine that is semantically classified as a quasi-entity (Ent = Ev). The human individuals who are affected by the influence are qualified as “immature” (νήπιοι, “infants,” “children”). Eph :
ἵνα μηκέτι ὦμεν νήπιοι … περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, “so that we will no longer be children tossed around by every gust of doctrine.”
§ 394. Summary of Semes: ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ 1. “Air that moves and affects”: wind; cf. κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; “a reed shaken by the wind?” (Matt 11:7; cf. Luke 7:24). 2. In the idiom “the four winds,” semantic number produces the connotation “point of origin,” i. e., one of the points on the compass: “Air that moves and affects, proceeding from a specific place”: wind; cf. τέσσαρας ἀγγέλους … κρατοῦντας τοὺς
258
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
τέσσαρας ἀνέμους τῆς γῆς, “to the four angels who hold back the four winds of the earth” (Rev 7:1a). 3. In the same phrase the preposition ἐκ produces a metonym, since the dominant element is the place of |124-P the wind’s origin: “An extreme point on the face of the earth where the wind originates”: the four winds, the four cardinal points; cf. ἐπισυνάξουσιν τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, “they will gather his elect from the four cardinal points/from the four winds” (Matt 24:31; cf. Mark 13:27). 4. By metaphor coupled with metonymy, “An influence that can affect something external about an individual”: influence, impulse, metaphorical, wind, gust; cf. περιφερόμενοι παντὶ ἀνέμῳ τῆς διδασκαλίας, “tossed around by every gust of doctrine” (Eph 4:14). 10.4. αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ § 395. The lexeme αὐλή (12 times in the New Testament) denotes an enclosure without a roof encircled by walls or fences, normally a courtyard or atrium forming part of a large building. Because it denotes an extension or an enclosure, the lexeme αὐλή denotes an entity (Ent). It also denotes a relation (R) to a large building (Ent1), of which it is a part.
Ent1 Ent + R R1 Ent
R
spatiality extension enclosure opening possession integration
Ent1 R1 Ev
Ev building purpose activity
Definition: “An enclosed, uncovered space (Ent) that forms part of (R) a building (Ent1) and is used for (R1) certain activities (Ev)”: courtyard, atrium.
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
259
The sememes of αὐλή result from the intended purpose of the αὐλή or its opposition to the closed part of a building. § 396. Sememe 1: This contextual meaning of αὐλή functions as the lexical meaning. It presupposes an uncovered space, viz. the αὐλή is in opposition to the covered portion of a building. |125-P Luke : Matt :
Rev :
περιαψάντων δὲ πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς, “when they had lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard.” ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἐκάθητο ἔξω ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “Peter was seated outside in the courtyard/atrium” (‘outside’ in relation to the palace where Jesus was; cf. : – ). τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξωθεν, “leave out the courtyard (sc. the uncovered space) that is outside the sanctuary (sc. roofed space).”
§ 397. Sememe 2: Reunions were celebrated in the αὐλή and weapons or household goods were stored there. A metonym is produced that applies the meaning of αὐλή to the building of which it is part (part for the whole). The metonymy is reflected in the formula by a change of configuration: the building that was previously connoted now becomes denoted (i. e., Ent1 becomes Ent). The dependent or integrated courtyard in it, which was previously denoted now becomes connoted (i. e., Ent + R becomes R1 – Ent1). The purpose is specified (R2), which is habitation or the celebration of certain official events (Ev). The semantic formula will be:
Ent
Ent
building coveredness
R1
Ent1
R1
Ent1
R2
Ev
possession integration spatiality extension enclosure opening
R2 Ev
purpose habitation activity officiality
Definition: “A building (Ent) intended for (R2) habitation and/or for official acts (Ev), whose perimeter consists of (R1) an enclosed, uncovered space (Ent1)”: palace, mansion. Matt :
τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς … εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “then the chief priests were gathered in the palace of the high priest”; cf. :.
260
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
Mark :a
Mark :
Luke :a John :
ὁ Πέτρος ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ἕως ἔσω εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “Peter followed him at a distance to the interior of the high priest’s palace.” Jesus enters the palace where the members of the Sanhedrin have gathered (:). Peter also enters the palace, but in fact stays in the courtyard, seated with the servants and warming himself by the fire (:b). |-P οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον, “the soldiers led him to the interior of the palace, that is, to the praetorium.” Jesus is in the exterior part with Pilate, who was speaking to the multitude (: – ). ὅταν ὁ ἰσχθρός … φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλὴν, “when the strong man guards his palace/home” (i. e., the place where his possessions are kept, :b). συνεισῆλθεν τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “he entered with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.” Jesus is going to be questioned by Annas (:).
§ 398. Sememe 3: In John 10:1, 16 (probably alluding to the temple courtyard) the figurative sense of “fold” of sheep (also with a figurative sense) is used (the only use of this sememe in the New Testament).³ In this case, the relation is not towards a building and the relation of purpose (R→Ev1: confinement) changes, as does the quality of the subjects (Ent1, now metaphorical for animals) for whom the enclosure is intended. The semantic formula and semic development are thus:
Ent Ent
R1 spatiality extension enclosure opening
Ev R1 Ev R2 Ent1
R2
Ent1
purpose confinement towardness collectivity animality
Definition: “An enclosed place without a roof (Ent) used for (R1) confining (Ev) sheep (Ent1)”: enclosure, fold. |127-P
The term αὐλή is found in Homer (cf. Il. 5.138; Od. 14:5) with the meaning of “fold.” In later times other terms were used for “fold,” including αὔλιον, ἔπαυλα, σηκός (also a temple courtyard), and σταθμός. Beginning in Exod 27:9 ff. LXX, αὐλαί refers to one or several “courtyards,” “atriums” of the tabernacle or temple; cf. Ps 28/29:2; 83/84:3, 11; 91/92:14, etc.; Jer 19:14; Ezek 8:16; cf. also 1Macc 9:54. The “courtyard/atrium of the guards” appears in Jer 39/32:2, which is specified as being in the king’s palace; cf. 39/32:8, 12; 40/33:1.
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
John : John :
261
ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων, “the one who does not enter through the door into the sheepfold.” ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold.”
§ 399. Summary of Sememes: αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ 1. When the use requires an uncovered space in opposition to the roofed portion of a building, it can be defined as “the enclosed, uncovered space that forms part of a building”: courtyard, atrium; cf. περιαψάντων δὲ πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ τῆς αὐλῆς, “having lit a fire in the midst of the courtyard” (Luke 22:55); τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ, “the courtyard/atrium that is outside the sanctuary” (Rev 11:2). 2. By metonymy, when the usage requires a covered space: “A building, part of which includes an enclosed and uncovered space (i. e., a courtyard or atrium), that is intended for habitation and/or for official acts”: palace, mansion; cf. τότε συνήχθησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς … εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, “then the chief priests were gathered in the palace of the high priest” (Matt 26:3; cf. 26:58). 3. Figuratively: “An enclosed and uncovered space used for holding sheep”: fold, enclosure; cf. ὁ μὴ εἰσερχόμενος διὰ τῆς θύρας εἰς τὴν αὐλὴν τῶν προβάτων, “the one who does not enter the sheepfold through the door” (John 10:1). 10.5. Summary In what follows, the lexemes that have just been examined are now briefly summarized from the dictionaries of Zorell, BAA, and L&N. In this way, if the reader desires he or she can compare the results of our analysis with these other dictionaries. ἀγρός, -οῦ, ὁ § 400. Zorell begins with a marked contextual meaning that combines the meaning of ownership and cultivation: (1) “field,” “ground,” “agricultural land” (campus, arvum, ager) that someone owns; cf. Matt 13:24; 19:29; Mark 10:29; Acts 4:37. The second contextual meaning is unmarked: (2) |128-P more generally, “ground,” “meadows,” “fields” (arva, prata, campi); cf. Matt 6:28, 30; Luke 12:28 [Zorell puts the equivalents in the plural, although in the three cited texts it is in the singular]⁴TN; (3) “fields” (rus, agricultural land); cf. Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26; 15:25; Mark 16:12. Finally, Zorell considers the sense of habitation: (4) in the Synoptics, οἱ ἀγροί are “farms,” “properties,” “villages” (praedia, villae, viculi); cf. Luke 9:12; Mark 5:14; 6:36, 56; Luke 8:34.
Translator’s Note: In the paragraphs that follow, Peláez inserts his comments and observations within brackets.
262
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)
§ 401. BAA: (1) “field,” “land” (das Feld, das Land), in contrast to a city or village; cf. Matt 24:18; Luke 17:31; Mark 13:16 [the cited passages would imply human labor]; (2) in the plural it can mean “properties” or “villages”; cf. Mark 5:14; Luke 8:34; Mark 6:36, 56; Luke 9:12; (3) “agricultural land” (der Acker); cf. Matt 13:24, 27, 31; Luke 14:18; Acts 4:37; “soil” where plants grow; cf. Matt 6:28, 30 [this would be the more general contextual meaning, without reference to the human labor; BAA adds Matt 13:36 (“tares”), which should be integrated in the agricultural land]; οἱ ἀγροί “plots of land” (die Ackerstücke), “farm property” (d. Grundbesitz); cf. Matt 19:29; Mark 10:29 f.; Luke 15:15. § 402. L&N: (a) (1.95) “land under cultivation or used for pasture”—field, land; cf. Mark 13:16; (b) (1.87) “fields,” “rural area,” in contrast to centers of population; cf. Mark 5:14 [the text presumes inhabitants]; (c) (1.93) “a relatively small village, possibly merely a cluster of farms”: farm settlement, hamlet; cf. Mark 6:56. [The authors do not discuss the unmarked meaning of “field” without relation to human activity or habitation; Matt 6:28, 30]. ᾅδης, -ου, ὁ § 403. Zorell defines ᾅδης in the following manner: “In the New Testament, the dwelling of the dead before the resurrection of Christ”; cf. Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31. Christ has the keys of death and of hades; cf. Rev 1:18; 20:13, 1Cor 15:55 v.l. πύλαι ᾅδου that will not prevail against the church; cf. Matt 16:18; also in Rev 6:8 because in Rev 20:14 it will be hurled into the lake of fire. Hades is viewed as the deepest/lowest part, thus metaphorically in Matt 11:23 for supreme humiliation. § 404. BAA offers “Hades,” “the netherworld” as translational equivalents and identifies two contextual meanings: (1) place of the dead; cf. Acts 2:27, 31 (cf. Ps 15:10); opposite to heaven; cf. Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15 (cf. Isa 14:11, 15). Accessible by means of gates, hence “the gates of Hades”; cf. Matt 16:18 (cf. Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3Macc 5:51; Ps Sol 16:2); closed Rev 1:18 [the authors do not account for the change in meaning in Luke 16:23]; (2) personified, together with θάνατος; cf. (Isa 28:15; Job 38:17), Rev 6:8; 20:13 f.; 1Cor 15:55 v.l. |129-P § 405. L&N defines ᾅδης as: (1.19) (a) “a place or abode of the dead, including both the righteous and the unrighteous”: the world of the dead, Hades; Acts 2:31. In Luke 16:23, torment and punishment are implied [L&N does not indicate the narrower meaning]; (23.108) (b) personification for the place of the dead, “the power of death”; cf. 1Cor 15:55 (apparatus θάνατε) [L&N cites the dubious text in 1Cor instead of those in Rev]; (12.50) πύλαι ᾅδου, death as an impersonal and supernatural power, “the gates of Hades will not prevail against her” or “death will not be able to conquer it”; cf. Matt 16:18. ἄνεμος, -ου, ὁ
Chapter 10: Method: Identifying Contextual Meaning (Sememes)TN
263
§ 406. Zorell identifies three meanings: (1) wind; cf. Matt 11:7; Luke 7:24; above all, a strong and tempestuous wind; cf. e. g., Matt 7:25, 27; the four winds; cf. Rev 7:1 (Jer 49:36 / 25:35 LXX; Dan 7:2); (2) area in the sky (plaga coeli); “from the four winds,” from the four zones, that is, from all parts of the earth; cf. Matt 24:31; Mark 13:27 [Zorell indicates neither the contextual factor nor metonymy]; (3) metaphor; something inconsistent, vain, or futile, Eph 4:14 [without explanation, Zorell considers τῆς διδασκαλίας an epexegetical genitive]. § 407. BAA identifies a literal and a figurative sense: (1) When used literally, (a) the wind itself; cf. e. g., Rev 7:1; Matt 11:7; Luke 7:24; gust of wind; cf. Mark 4:37; Luke 8:23; Matt 7:25, 27; 8:26 – 27; Acts 27:4; the four winds of the earth; cf. Rev 7:1; (b) “the four winds” can also be the four directions of the wind or of the sky; cf. Matt 24:31; Mark 13:27 [BAA does not mention the preposition ἐκ as a contextual factor, nor metonymy]; (2) Fig. (cf. 4Macc 15:32) of spiritual fads or trends, Eph 4:14 (translated Luftzug der Lehre). § 408. In the same section as ἄνεμος, πνεῦμα, πνοή and πνέω (14.4), L&N gives the same definition for nouns and verbs, namely “air in relatively rapid movement, but without specification as to the force of the movement”: wind, blowing, to blow. For ἄνεμος L&N only cites one text (Rev 7:1). Additionally, if the biblical index is consulted, one finds the expression “from the four winds” in 60.13 (under τέσσαρες, “four”) and the figurative sense of Eph 4:14 in 16.12 (under κλυδωνίζομαι, “to be tossed by the waves”). αὐλή, -ῆς, ἡ § 409. Zorell: (1) a place that is not covered: “courtyard,” (a) “fold”; cf. John 10:1, 16 [Zorell puts the term’s rarest usage first]; (b) a courtyard of a large building: outer court of the temple; cf. Rev 11:2 (Exod 27:9), of the palace of the |130-P high priest; cf. e. g., Matt 26:69; Mark 14:66; (2) palace, thus probably Matt 26:3, 58; Mark 14:54; Luke 11:21. § 410. BAA: (1) “courtyard,” an uncovered and enclosed place in a house; cf. e. g., Matt 26:58, 60 [this has to do with the courtyard or atrium of the high priest’s palace]. This courtyard also serves as a fold for sheep; cf. John 10:1, 16 [it does not seem logical to place “fold” in the same contextual meaning as the previous “atrium”]; (2) “mansion” (Gehöft); cf. Luke 11:21; (3) “atrium” of the temple; cf. Rev 11:2; (4) “palace” of officials; cf. Matt 26:3; Mark 15:16 [it seems unnecessary to distinguish between contextual meanings 2 and 4]. § 411. L&N: (7.56) (a) “a walled enclosure either to enclose human activity or to protect livestock”: courtyard, sheepfold; cf. Rev 11:2; John 10:16 [the result is somewhat convoluted, since in the same example the authors mention the “atrium or courtyard” of the temple and then the “sheepfold”]; (7.6) (b) “any dwelling having an interior courtyard (often a relatively elaborate structure)”: dwelling, palace, mansion; in the palace of the high priest; cf. Matt 26:3; “of the strong man”; cf. Luke 11:21 [L&N does not distinguish between passages in which αὐλή refers to the palace of the high priest or specifically to the courtyard]. |131–32-P
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions¹TN § 412. Having shown that context gives rise to a lexeme’s sememes, we shall now analyze terms with similar meanings that seem to be—and sometimes really are—synonyms. This will give us the opportunity to verify the accuracy of our proposed method of analysis. For each of the terms that we analyze, the lexical meaning is established by composing a definition and by providing translational equivalents as well. We then show how different semes, which lead to new definitions, are caused by the influence of context. This chapter culminates in the formulation of summaries that function as snap-shots of future entries in DGENT. These summaries assemble the results of the analysis in an abbreviated form. In this way, the reader can appreciate the shared and distinct features of the various terms. The terms we consider in this chapter consist of δῆμος (cf. §§ 413 – 415), λαός (cf. §§ 416 – 420), ἔθνος (cf. §§ 425 – 430), φυλή (cf. §§ 421– 424)²TN, and πατριά (cf. § 431). (1.) δῆμος, -ου, ὁ § 413. Because it refers to a human collective, δῆμος denotes an entity (Ent). The semantic formula of the lexeme denotes all of (D) the citizens (Ent) (but not the inhabitants, since slaves are excluded) and its connection to (R) a territory (Ent1), which is connoted:
[Ent + D] + R Ent D
collectivity humanity citizenship numerosity totality
Ent1 R Ent1
connection location
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 133 – 58 in the original text of Peláez. Translator’s Note: There seems to be confusion on Peláez’s part, since ἔθνος precedes φυλή here, but in the discussion below, he discusses φυλή and then ἔθνος, while in his summary of his section he reverts to the order listed here. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-017
265
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
In its unmarked contextual meaning, the term δῆμος (four times in the New Testament, always in the Acts) can be defined as “a group of citizens (Ent + D) from (R) a territory (Ent1)”: populace, people. |133-P Although in the New Testament, δῆμος always comes into view as the gathered populace (a contextual factor that excludes totality), two sememes can be identified. In the first (Acts 12:22), δῆμος is a multitude of the populace from Tyre and Sidon that hails King Herod. In the second sememe (Acts 17:5; 19:30, 33), δῆμος has the role of a collective actor/entity, namely, as an institutional assembly that must make a decision. § 414. Sememe 1: δῆμος as a crowd of people who are citizens. In the semantic formula of this sememe, the contextual element of a common location (R′) is added:
[Ent + D] + R + R
Ent1
Two new features appear in the formula’s semic development, namely, the changed content of the determination (D, “partiality” instead of “totality”) and the semes corresponding to the common location (R′):
D
numerosity partiality
R
location simultaneousness
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of citizens (Ent) from (R) a common (R′) place (Ent1)”: people who are citizens. Acts :
ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει, “and the people were shouting (out).”
§ 415. Sememe 2: In the remainder of Acts, δῆμος refers to a gathered crowd with the concrete purpose of deliberating about something. The formula thus adds an event of deliberation (Ev) and its official character. It acquires a new connotation, namely, the subjects (Ent2) about whom (R′) the others must deliberate and make a decision: |134-P
Ent1 [Ent + D] + R + R + Ev R1
Ent2
266
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
The semic development contains the semes of R′ (simultaneousness, as in sememe 1) and also those of the activity (Ev) and of the individuals (Ent2) that are affected (R1):
D
numerosity partiality location simultaneousness activity officiality deliberation decision
R
Ev
R1 Ent2
affectation individuality/plurality humanity
Definition: “A numerous group of citizens (Ent + D) from (R) a place (Ent1), gathered (R′) to make an official decision (Ev) about (R1) other people (Ent2)”: assembly of citizens. Acts :
ἐζήτουν αὐτοὺς προαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “they intended to bring them before the assembly.” εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “to enter the assembly” (i. e., the ἐκκλησία in :). ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense before the assembly.”
Acts : Acts :
(2.) λαός, -οῦ, ὁ § 416. The term λαός (142 times in the New Testament) appears with different contextual meanings. In its unmarked meaning, λαός is always applied to specific human collectives. The denoted elements include the human collective (Ent), specified as an organized (Ev) numerous totality (D), related by (R) a past that gives it a historical identity and connected to (R′) a (connoted) territory (Ent1):
[Ent + D] + Ev + R + R Ent D
Ev
collectivity humanity numerosity totality organization
Ent1 R R Ent1
identity connection territory
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
267
Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) human collective (Ent) with a historical identity (R) and a connection to (R′) a territory (Ent1)”: people. |135-P Context sometimes modifies and narrows the semantic content of λαός. The following sememes are noted: § 417. Sememe 1 (specified above): With the totalizer πᾶς or specified in the plural: all peoples/[the] peoples. Luke : Rom : Rev : Rev :
κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν, “in the sight of all the peoples.” ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί, “let all the peoples praise him”; cf. Ps /:b. ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation”; cf. :; :; :; :; :. ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.”
§ 418. Sememe 2: In the singular, λαός is applied exclusively to the Jewish people. Contextually, the connection does not solely refer to their territory but also to their religious belief. The formula is identical to that of sememe 1. New semes, however, appear in the development that correspond to the double connection:
Ent1
territory religion Judaism
Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) human collective (Ent) with a historic identity (R) and connected to (R′) the land of the Jews and their religion (Ent1)”: [the Jewish] people. Matt : Matt : Matt : Luke : Luke : Luke : Luke : John : Acts : Acts :
ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει, “the people who were sitting in darkness”; cf. Mark :; Luke :; :; John :. |-P θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, “for this people’s heart has been made dull”; cf. (Isa :); Matt :; Mark : (Isa :). χαρὰν μεγάλην … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, “a great joy for all the people”; cf. Acts :; :; Heb : (twice). ἔσται γὰρ … ὀργὴ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, “for there will be wrath for this people.” ἀνασείει τὸν λαόν, “he stirs up the people”; cf. :. ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, “before God and all the people.” ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, “that one man might die for the people”; cf. :. ἔχοντες χάριν πρὸς ὅλον τὸν λαόν, “enjoying the goodwill of all the people.” πᾶσα ψυχή … ἐξολεθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ, “every individual will be destroyed from the people”; cf. Deut :.
268
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Rom : Cor : Heb :
Heb :
γνωστὸν ἔστω … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ Ἰσραήλ, “let it be known to all the people of Israel.” λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ (v.l. λαὸς Ἰ.), “people(s) of Israel” (because of the allusion to Ps : in :, the plural refers to Israel). ἐγίνετο σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πολλὰ ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “many signs and wonders were occurring in the midst of the people”; cf. :; :. ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ, “giving many generous gifts to the people.” παρέγγειλεν ἡμῖν κηρύξαι τῷ λαῷ, “he commanded us to preach to the people”; cf. :; :. ἐκ … πάσης τῆς προσδοκίας τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “from all that the Jewish people were expecting.” μάρτυρες αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “his witnesses before the people”; cf. : (Isa :); : (Isa :). ὁ κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τοῦ νόμου … διδάσκων, “the one teaching against the people and the law.” οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ποιήσας τῷ λαῷ, “without having done anything against the people.” ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα, “I extended my hands to a disobedient people.” ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ, “I will speak to this people in a foreign language” (lit. with lips of foreigners; cf. Isa :). ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, |-P “he is required to offer [sacrifices], both for his own sins and also for the people”; cf. :; :. ἀποδεκατοῦν τὸν λαὸν κατὰ τὸν νόμον, “to collect a tithe from the people according to the law”; cf. :.
1. The mention of leaders indicates the hierarchical organization of the people: Matt : Matt : Matt : Luke : Luke : Acts : Acts :
συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, “gathering all the chief priests and scribes of the people.” οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ, “the elders of the people”; cf. :. ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων τοῦ λαοῦ, “from the chief priests and elders of the people”; cf. :. οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ, “the leaders of the people.” τὸ πρεσβυτήριον τοῦ λαοῦ, “the council of the elders of the people.” ἄρχοντες τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ πρεσβύτεροι, “rulers of the people and elders”; cf. :. ἄρχοντα τοῦ λαοῦ σου οὐκ ἐρεῖς κακῶς, “you will not speak badly about a leader of your people”; cf. Exod :.
2. Contrasted with [τὰ] ἔθνη, the Gentile nations: Acts : Acts :
ἐξαιρούμενος σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “rescuing you from your people and from the nations/Gentiles.” φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a light both for the people and for the nations.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
Rom :
269
εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations, with his people”; cf. Deut : LXX.
3. Recalling events that belong to the history of the people shows their identity or a length of time: Acts : Acts :a Cor : Pet : Jude
ηὔξησεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἐπληθύνθη ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “the people increased and multiplied in Egypt”; cf. :. ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου Ἰσραὴλ ἐξελέξατο τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν, “the God of this people Israel chose our fathers”; cf. :b. ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν, “the people sat down to eat and drink”; cf. Exod :. ἐγένοντο δὲ καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “but false prophets also arose among the people.” Κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, “the Lord, having once and for all brought (lit. saved) the people from Egypt.” |-P
4. Israel as the people of God: Matt : Luke : Luke : Rom : Heb :
ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ, “who will shepherd my people Israel.” δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ, “glory of your people Israel.” ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “God has visited his people.” μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; “has God rejected his people?” cf. Ps /:; Rom :. συγκακουχεῖσθαι τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “to be mistreated with the people of God.”
5. Israel as the focus of messianic salvation (including the future Christian community): Matt : Luke : Luke : Heb : Heb :
αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, “because he will save his people from their sins.” ἑτοιμάσαι Κυρίῳ λαὸν κατασκευασμένον, “to make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared.” ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, “he has redeemed his people”; cf. :. ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεὸν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται μοι εἰς λαόν, “I will be their God and they will be my people”; cf. Jer :. Ἰησοῦς, ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος τὸν λαόν, “Jesus, to consecrate the people with his own blood.”
§ 419. Sememe 3: Within the Jewish λαός, there are particular cases in which, in opposition to the leading class, the term designates the rest of the people. The formula is the same as sememe 2, but two semes are added to the determination (D), namely, “partialness” in opposition to the totality of the people, and “non-authority” in opposition to the leading class:
270
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
D
numerosity partiality non-authority
The definition can be simplified in this manner: “A numerous (D) part of the Jewish people (Ent + R + Ent1) without a leadership role (D)”: people, mass/multitude of the people. 1. The people viewed as a whole: Matt : Matt :
θόρυβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “a tumult among the people”; cf. Mark :; Heb :. |-P συγκαλεσάμενος τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ τὸν λαόν, “calling the chief priest, the leaders, and the people.”
2. The people gathered in the temple or synagogue: Luke : Luke : Luke : Luke : Luke : Acts : Acts : Acts :
πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ προσευχόμενον ἔξω, “the whole crowd of people were praying outside [of the sanctuary]”; cf. :; Acts :. ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν, “he began to speak to the people.” ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν λαόν, “they feared the people”; cf. :. ἐναντίον τοῦ λαοῦ, “before the people”; cf. :. ἀκούοντος δὲ παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, “while all the people were listening.” εἶδεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα, “all the people saw him walking”; cf. : – . λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “while they were speaking to the people”; cf. :, , ; :, – . λόγος παρακλήσεως πρὸς τὸν λαόν, “a word of exhortation for the people”; cf. :.
3. The people gathered around a particular person: Luke : Matt : Luke : Luke : Luke : Luke : Acts : Acts :
προσδοκοῦντος δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ, “while the people were awaiting [Zacharias’s exit]”; cf. :, . πᾶς ὁ λαὸς εἶπεν, “all the people said”; cf. :. πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ, “a huge multitude of people [around Jesus]”; cf. :; :. πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας, “when all the people heard”; cf. :; :; : (ἅπας). εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, “for all these people.” εἱστήκει ὁ λαὸς θεωρῶν, “the people stood there watching [the crucifixion of Jesus].” Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος … ἀπέστησεν λαὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, “Judas the Galilean drew people after him.” ἐγένετο συνδρομὴ τοῦ λαοῦ, “there was a tumult of people.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
Acts :
271
ὁ Παῦλος … κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ, “Paul signaled with his hand to the people.”
§ 420. Sememe 4: When context refers to followers of Christ, various semes of λαός are omitted, |140-P such as historic identity, organization, and connection to a territory. Only the religious connection remains. As a result, the semantic formula is simplified and denotes solely the numerous (D) collective (Ent) and its connection (R). The object of the connection—the Christian faith—becomes connoted (Ent1):
[Ent + D] + R Ent D
humanity collectivity numerosity totality/partiality
[Ent1 = Ev] R Ent1 = Ev
connection religion Christianity
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who adhere to (R) Christianity (Ent1)”: [Christian] people. 1. Christians coming from Gentile backgrounds: Acts : Acts : Rom :
ὁ Θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “God saw fit to take a people for himself (lit. for his name) from among the Gentiles.” διότι λαός ἐστίν μοι πολὺς ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ, “because many of my people are in this city.” καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου, “I will call those who were not my people my people/I will call the ‘not-my-people’ my people”; cf. Hos :; :; Rom :; Pet :.
2. The totality of Christians. Some of these texts, inspired by Old Testament passages, apply to Christians expressions that had been attributed to the Jewish people: Cor : Tit : Heb : Heb : Heb : Pet :
ἔσομαι αὐτῶν Θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός, “I will be their God and they will be my people”; cf. Lev :. λαὸν περιούσιον, “a chosen people”; cf. Exod :; :. τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, “the sins of the people”; cf. :. ἀπολείπεται σαββατισμὸς τῷ λαῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “there remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God”; cf. Ps /:. κρινεῖ Κύριος τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “the Lord will judge his people”; cf. Deut :; Ps /:. λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, “a people purchased (sc. by God)”; cf. Mal :; Isa :. |-P
272
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
ἐξέλθατε ὁ λαός μου ἐξ αὐτῆς, “my people, come out from her [Babylon]”; cf. Isa :. αὐτοὶ λαὸς αὐτοῦ ἔσονται, “they will be his people”; cf. Ezek :.
Rev : Rev :
(3.) φυλή, -ῆς, ἡ § 421. As an unmarked term, φυλή (31 times in the New Testament) is applied in a broad sense to organized human collectives who descend from a common ancestor. In the semantic formula the following elements are denoted: the human collective (Ent) specified as numerous (D), the event of organization (Ev) and its relation of descent (R) from a common progenitor (Ent1), which is connoted.
[Ent + D] + Ev + R Ent D Ev
collectivity humanity numerosity organization
Ent1 R Ent1
descent individuality humanity
Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) collective of individuals (Ent) who descend from (R) a common ancestor (Ent1)”: tribe. § 422. Sememe 1 (depicted above): Matt : Rev : Rev :
κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn”; cf. Rev :. ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation”; cf. Rev :; :, . ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.” |-P
§ 423. Sememe 2: In other contexts, the explicit identification of the parent or the mention of Israel limits the denotation of φυλή to particular collectives, namely to specific Jewish people. For the Jewish people, a tribe is not an independent entity but rather part of a larger group of Jewish people. As a result, the formula contains new elements, including the determination (D1) of the parent and the relation (R′) to a group of people (Ent2, connoted), also named (D2):
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
273
[Ent1 + D1] [Ent + D] + Ev + R + R [Ent2 + D2] Ent
D Ev R R
collectivity humanity numerosity organization connection descent integration
Ent1 D1 Ent2 D2
individuality humanity paternality identity (Asher, Benjamin) collectivity humanity totality identity (people of Israel: twelve tribes)
Definition: “A numerous (D) and organized (Ev) group of individuals (Ent) who descend from a common (R), named (D1) parent (Ent1) that is part of (R′) the people (Ent) of Israel (D2)”: tribe. Luke : Acts : Matt : Rev :
ἐκ φυλῆς A ᾿ σήρ, “from the tribe of Asher”; cf. Heb :, . ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, “from the tribe of Benjamin”; cf. Rom :; Phil :. κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, “from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (a list of the tribes follows).
§ 424. The expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί, “the twelve tribes,” which refers to the totality of Israelites, is used metaphorically to refer to the group of Christians viewed as the New Israel. The traits of the Jewish tribes disappear, including the |143-P organization and the descent from a common ancestor. The figurative use changes several elements of the formula from sememe 2, including the organization (Ev), the relation of descent (R), and as a result the connotation of a common ancestor (Ent1 + D1). Logically, no tribe in particular is considered, but only the group as a whole. As a result, the denoted elements in the formula include the plural human collective (Ent) determined as numerous (D) and in a relation of identity (R) with the universal Christian community (Ent1 + D).
274
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
collectivity humanity plurality numerosity identity
Ent D R
Ent1 D1
collectivity humanity Christianity totality unity
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of Christians (Ent) who together constitute (R) the New Israel (Ent1 + D1)”: the twelve tribes. Jas :
ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “to the twelve tribes who are living dispersed.”
(4.) ἔθνος, -ους, τό § 425. In its most common contextual meaning, the term ἔθνος (162 times in the New Testament) refers to a human collective with the characteristic of race (Ent) and determined as a numerous totality (D). The denoted elements include organization (Ev) and the relation of connection to (R) a territory (Ent1), which is connoted. This structure can be expressed by the following formula and semic development:
[Ent + D] + Ev + R
Ent
D
collectivity humanity ethnicity totality numerosity
Ent1 Ev
R Ent1
organization sociality politicality connection territory
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of |144-P individuals of the same race (Ent) that is socially and politically organized (Ev) and connected to (R) a territory (Ent1)”: nation, an ethnic group; in the plural, nations, peoples. Context can influence this lexeme in various ways by presenting ἔθνος as a socio-political collective or by adding a seme pertaining to religion. The seme of collectivity can be specified as a group of individuals that have a certain religious affiliation. In that case, the notion of socio-political organization is omitted.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
275
§ 426. Sememe 1 (depicted above): According to context, one or another of the aspects contained in the definition is emphasized. When the ethnicity of the particular human collective is highlighted, it can be translated as “nation/people”: 1. Nation or nations in particular: Matt : Matt : Luke : Luke : John : John : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Rom :
Rom :
Rom :
Rev :
Rev :
δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς, “it will be given to a nation/ people³TN that will produce its fruits [those of the kingdom of God].” ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος, “because nation will rise against nation”; cf. Mark :; Luke :. ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “because he loves our nation.” τοῦτον εὕραμεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “we have found this man subverting our nation.” ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος, “our place [the temple] and our nation.” μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται, “so that the whole nation will not be destroyed”; cf. : – . τὸ ἔθνος ᾧ ἂν δουλεύσουσιν κρινῶ ἐγώ, “I will judge the nation they serve as slaves”; cf. Gen :. τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας, “the people of Samaria.” μαρτυρούμενος ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν Ἰουδαίων, “well-spoken of by the entire Jewish nation.” καθελὼν ἔθνη ἑπτὰ ἐν γῇ Χαναάν, “after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan.” διορθωμάτων γενομένων τῷ ἔθνει τοῦτῳ, “the improvements made for this nation”; cf. :. ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων εἰς τὸ ἔθνος μου, “to bring gifts to my nation”; cf. :. |-P ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to have some fruit among you, as among the rest of the nations” (the territorial aspect is predominant). πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, “I have appointed you to be the father of many nations/peoples”; cf. Gen :; Rom : (human collectives are highlighted). ἐγὼ παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπ’ οὐκ ἔθνει, ἐπ’ ἔθνει ἀσυνέτῳ παροργιῶ ὑμᾶς, “I will move you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will make you angry with a foolish nation”; cf. Deut :. δεῖ σε πάλιν προφητεῦσαι ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσι πολλοῖς, “you must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages, and kings.” τὰ ὕδατα … λαοὶ καὶ ὄχλοι εἰσὶν καὶ ἔθνη καὶ γλῶσσαι, “the waters are peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages.”
2. The mention of the priests emphasizes a seme of organization: John :
τὸ ἔθνος τὸ σὸν καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς παρέδωκάν σε ἐμοί, “your own nation/ people and the chief priests have given you to me.”
Translator’s Note: The alternate of “nation/people” is suggested in the original Spanish, but only in this first example.
276
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
3. Nations in a broad sense. When context neither adds a seme nor establishes an opposition that limits the meaning (i. e., in the plural with the article or with the totalizer πᾶς), ἔθνος denotes the group of collectives that constitute the human race: Acts : Acts : Acts : Gal :b Rev : Rev : Rev Rev Rev Rev Rev
: : : : :
Rev : Rev : Rev :
ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, “pious men from every nation under heaven.” ἐν παντὶ ἔθνει, “in every/each nation.” πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, “every/each nation of people/humans.” ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “through you every nation will be blessed”; cf. Gen :. ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation”; cf. Rev :; :. ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations.” τὰ ἔθνη ὀργίσθησαν, “the nations raged.” πεπότικεν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “she made all the nations drink”; cf. :. ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the king of the nations.” πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἥξουσιν, “all the nations will come”; cf. :. ἐν τῇ φαρμακείᾳ σου ἐπλανήθησαν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “by your witchcraft all the nations have been deceived”; cf. :, . ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, “in order to strike down the nations with it [the scepter]”; cf. :, . |-P περιπατήσουσιν τὰ ἔθνη διὰ τοῦ φωτὸς αὐτῆς, “the nations will walk by its (sc. the city’s) light.” εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “for the healing of the nations.”
§ 427. Sememe 2: Normally determined in the plural, in opposition to the Jewish people or used in the technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament,⁴ the term often refers to the nations that do not profess the Jewish religion. The denoted connection (R) connotes a territory (Ent1) as well as a Gentile religion (Ent2). The religion or group of doctrines is really a quasi-entity, viz. an event that is viewed as an entity because of its permanence and validity (Ent2 = Ev1).
Ent1 [Ent + D] + Ev + R
[Ent2 = Ev1]
“The nations” (τὰ ἔθνη) is a terminus technicus in the Old Testament for the pagan peoples (cf. e. g., Isa 2:2; 45:1; 66:19 f.; Ps 2:1– 8; 18/17:50; 46/45:7); it is used for the Hebrew goyim.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
277
Variants in the semic development include:
Ent
collectivity humanity ethnicity plurality
Ent2 = Ev1
religion Gentile
Definition: “A numerous (D) group of human collectives characterized by race (Ent), socially and politically organized (Ev) and connected to (R) a specific territory (Ent1) and to a Gentile religion (Ent2 = Ev1)”: the Gentile nations, the Gentile world. 1. In direct opposition to the (Jewish) people, “the (non-Jewish) nations”: Luke :a Acts : Acts : Acts :
φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν, “light for revelation to the nations” (contrasted with Israel, :b); cf. Acts :; :. εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations, with his people”; cf. Deut : LXX. ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “from the people and from the nations.” φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a light both for the people and for the nations.” |-P
2. According to the technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament, “the pagan people”: Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt : Mark : Mark :
Luke :a Luke :
κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ, “he will announce judgment to the nations”; cf. Isa :; Acts :. τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, “the nations will hope in his name/in him”; cf. Isa :; Rom :b. ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν, “you will be hated by every nation” (in relation to the universal mission of the disciples). συναχθήσονται ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “all the nations will be gathered before him.”⁵ μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “make disciples [of] all nations” (universal mission). οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “[the Jewish temple] will be called ‘house of prayer for all nations’”; cf. Isa :. εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the gospel must be proclaimed to every nation first”; cf. Matt :; Luke :; Tim :; Tim :. αἰχμαλωτιθήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “they will be led captive to all the nations”; cf. :b–c. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς συνοχὴ ἐθνῶν, “on earth anguish of the nations/peoples.”
The judgment of the (Gentile) nations was a common theme in the prophetic literature and was frequently expressed in the form of destructive punishment; cf. e. g., Isa 13; 14:5 – 30; 15:1– 9; 16:13 – 14; 17:1– 6; 19:1– 13; 21; 23:1– 14; 25:9 – 12; Jer 25:25 – 38; 46 – 51; Ezek 25 – 32; Amos 1:3 – 2:3.
278
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts :
Rom : Rom :b Rev : Rev :
ἱνατί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη; “why were the nations in uproar?” cf. Ps :. ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθνῶν, “[they brought the tabernacle] into Gentile territory.” ὅς … εἴασεν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πορεύεσθαι, “he allowed all the nations to follow their own ways.” πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐφ’ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομα μου ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, “all the nations upon whom my name has already been called/that already bear my name”; cf. Amos :. εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to [prompt] obedience of faith among all the nations”; cf. :; Gal :; :, , ; Eph :; Col :. ἐξομολογήσομαι σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν, “I will praise you/give you thanks among the nations.” δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “I will give him authority over the nations”; cf. :; :. |-P αἱ πόλεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἔπεσαν, “the cities of the nations collapsed.”
3. The mention of authorities indicates a kind of socio-political organization: Matt :
οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the leaders of the nations”; cf. Mark :; Luke :; Rom :a.
§ 428. Sememe 3: When [τὰ] ἔθνη (plural) is used in opposition to “[the] Jews” (also plural) or is the subject, recipient, or collective witness of conduct or action (contextual factors), it normally refers to “[the] Gentiles” as a group of individuals (i. e., as a distinct plurality or totality, equivalent to οἱ ἐθνικοί, cf. Matt 5:47). The semes of organization and connection to a territory are omitted, and religion is the only highlighted seme. The formula is thus simplified. Only the religious (Ent1 = Ev) connection (R) remains:
[Ent + D] + R
[Ent1 = Ev]
Changes in the semic development correspond to the omission of semes that have been mentioned. Definition: “A numerous (D) group of individuals (Ent) who profess (R) a Gentile religion (Ent1 = Ev)”: [the] Gentiles. Matt : Matt : Matt : Matt :
Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, “pagan Galilee” (because of its mixed population). ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν, “because the Gentiles strive for all these things.” εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε, “do not go the way of [the] Gentiles” (in contrast to πόλις Σαμαριτῶν and to υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ). εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.”
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
Matt : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Acts : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom : Rom :a Rom :a Rom : Cor : Cor : Cor : Cor :
279
παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “they will hand him over to the Gentiles”; cf. Mark :; Luke :; Acts :. ἐνώπιον ἐθνῶν τε καὶ βασιλέων υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ, “before Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.” καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου ἐκκέχυται, “the gift of the Holy Spirit is also poured out on the Gentiles”; cf. :, . ἰδοὺ στρεφόμεθα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, “thus, we will turn to the Gentiles”; cf. :; :. |-P ἐκάκωσαν τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, “embittering the minds of the Gentiles against the brothers.” ὡς ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων … ὑβρίσαι, “a plot arose from Gentiles and Jews to use violence.” ὅτι ἤνοιξεν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν θύραν πίστεως, “because he (sc. God) opened a door of faith for the Gentiles.” τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν τὼν ἐθνῶν, “the conversion of the Gentiles”; cf. :, , . λαβεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “to take a people for his name from among the Gentiles.” τοῖς κατὰ τὴν A ᾿ ντιόχειαν … ἀδελφοῖς ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “to the brothers in Antioch coming from a Gentile background (lit. from the Gentiles).” ὧν ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “that which God has done among the Gentiles.” ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως τοὺς κατὰ τὰ ἔθνη πάντας Ἰουδαίους, “you teach all the Jews [who live] among the Gentiles to renounce Moses.” ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, “because when the Gentiles, who do not have the law.” τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ δι’ ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because of you the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles”; cf. Isa :. ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ Θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; “Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too?” οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles.” ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην, “the Gentiles, who were not seeking righteousness.” τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because of their stumbling, salvation [has passed] to the Gentiles”; cf. :, . τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν Θεόν, “and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (opp. to the Jews, cf. :). λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, “a servant of the Messiah Jesus to the Gentiles”; cf. :b, . εἰ γὰρ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν ἐκοινώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, “for if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual [blessings].” Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν, “a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness for the Gentiles.” ἥτις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “such a kind [of immorality] that is not found among the Gentiles.” |-P οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε, “you know that when you were Gentiles”; cf. Pet :. κινδύνοις ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “dangers from the Gentiles.”
280
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
Gal : Gal : Gal : Eph : Thess : Thess : Tim : Pet : Rev :
ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, “we are Jews by birth/by nature and not sinners from (among) the Gentiles.” ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεός, “that God would restore⁶TN the Gentiles by faith.” ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ A ᾿ βραὰμ γένηται, “so that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles.” ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἐθνη ἐν σαρκί, “at one time, you, the Gentiles in the flesh (i. e., uncircumcised)”; cf. :. κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσι λαλῆσαι, “hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles” τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν, “the Gentiles, who do not know God.” διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, “a faithful and true teacher of the Gentiles.” τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “your conduct among the Gentiles.” ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because it was given to the Gentiles” (referring to the court of the Gentiles in the temple in Jerusalem).
§ 429. Sememe 4: Occasionally in the plural, τὰ ἔθνη is applied to Christians. In such a case it refers to the Christians with Gentile backgrounds in contrast to those coming from the Jewish religion. The term hints at the ancientness of the religion with which Christians are now connected. In addition to the determined (D) entity (Ent), the sememe denotes a relation of origin (R) by connoting the Gentile religion (Ent1 = Ev1). A second relation (R′) denotes the connection to Christianity (Ent2 = Ev2). The formula and the variations in the semic development are:
[Ent1 = Ev1] [Ent + D] +R + R [Ent2 = Ev2] R R
origin connection
Ent1 = Ev1 Ent2 = Ev2
religion Gentile religion Christianity
Translator’s Note: As this verse illustrates, Peláez normally avoids translating δικαιόω as “to justify” or “to make right.” I have sought to reflect his unique translation of δικαιόω as often as possible.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
281
Definition: “A numerous (D) human collective (Ent) from (R) a Gentile religion (Ent1 = Ev1) and connected to (R′) Christianity (Ent2 = Ev2)”: |151-P [Christians] of Gentile origin, former Gentiles/pagans. Rom : Rom : Gal : Eph : Eph :
ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to those of you with Gentile backgrounds I say.” αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the churches/communities [in Gentile territory and] of Gentile origin.” μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνέσθιεν, “he (sc. Peter/Cephas) ate with those of Gentile origin”; cf. :. ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the prisoner of the Messiah Jesus on behalf of those of you with Gentile origin.” εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη … συμμέτοχα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, “that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow-partakers of the promise in the Messiah Jesus” (i. e., those who give their allegiance to Jesus by accepting the Christian message).
§ 430. Sememe 5: The lexeme ἔθνος appears in the New Testament once in the singular when an Old Testament passage that characterizes Israel is applied to the Christian collective in its totality. Several semes disappear, including the ethnic identity, the social and political organization, and the connection to a territory. The sememe denotes the human collective (Ent) as a totality (D) and its connection to (R) Christianity (Ent1 = Ev). The semantic formula and its unique semes are:
[Ent + D] + R
D Ent1 = Ev
[Ent1 + Ev]
totality religion Christianity
Definition: “A collective formed by the individuals (Ent + D) who adhere to (R) Christianity (Ent1 = Ev)”: nation. Pet :
ἔθνος ἅγιον, “a holy, set apart nation”; cf. Exod :.
(5.) πατριά, -ᾶς, ἡ § 431. Like φυλή, the lexeme πατριά (three times in the New Testament) refers to a parent, but it differs from φυλή in that it does not necessarily |152-P have the semes of numerosity and organization. The human collective (Ent) and its relation of descent (R) are denoted, while the common parent (Ent1) is connoted:
282
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
Ent + R Ent R
collectivity humanity descent
Ent1 Ent1
individuality humanity
Definition: “A collective of human individuals (Ent) who descend from (R) a common parent (Ent1)”: family, nation. Luke : Acts : Eph :
ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δανίδ, “from the house and family of David.” πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς, “every family on earth”; cf. Gen :. ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, “from which every family in heaven and earth receives its name” (metaphorically, with reference to God as father).
For the metaphorical usage in Eph 3:15, the relation of descent is substituted for the reception (Ev) of a name (D).
Ent + [Ev + D] Ent Ev
collectivity plurality humanity reception
Ent1 D Ent1
name individuality divinity
Definition: “A group of human collectives (Ent) who receive their name (Ev + D) from God as father (Ent1).”⁷TN (6.) Summary § 432. The following summaries draw together the results of this chapter. Comparing them alongside each other clarifies the precision of the method we propose. When
Translator’s Note: It is surprising that this sememe does not include a relation. Perhaps a connoted relation of agentivity could be included, specifying that the name comes from (R←) God (Ent1).
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
283
the lexical meaning |153-P appears in the texts, it is integrated under sememe 1. The contextual meanings are accounted for by successive numeration (e. g., 2, 3, etc.). 1. δῆμος, -ου, ὁ (4) § 433. 1. “A group of citizens of a territory”: populace, multitude of citizens: In four New Testament texts, δῆμος appears as a group that is gathered and the seme of totality is excluded. 2. Occasionally gathered before Herod: multitude of citizens; cf. ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει, “and the people were shouting (out)” (Acts 12:22). 3. Institutionally gathered to deliberate: assembly of citizens; cf. ἐζήτουν αὐτοὺς προαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “they intended to bring them before the assembly” (Acts 17:5); εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, “to enter the assembly” (Acts 19:30); ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ, “he wanted to make his defense before the assembly” (Acts 19:33). 2. λαός, -οῦ, ὁ (142) § 434. 1. In general: “A numerous and organized human collective with a historical identity and connected to a territory”: people. When articulated in the plural or with the totalizer πᾶς, λαός can be translated as the peoples/all the peoples; cf. ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “[individuals] from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations” (Rev 11:9); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9; cf. 7:9; 13:7, 14). 2. In the singular, almost always determined, λαός is applied to the Jewish people: “A numerous and organized human collective with a historical identity and connected to the land of the Jews and their religion” [the] Jewish people; cf. ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει, “the people who were sitting in darkness” (Matt 4:16; cf. Mark 7:6; Luke 1:68; 17:16; John 11:50); χαράν μεγάλην … παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, “a great joy for all the people” (Luke 2:10; cf. Acts 4:10; 10:41; Heb 9:19 [twice]); ἀνασείει τὸν λαόν, “he stirs up the people” (Luke 23:5; cf. 23:14); ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ, “giving many generous gifts to the people” (Acts 10:2). a) By allusion to Psalm 2:1, λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ in Acts 4:27 refers to Israel. b) The Jewish people organized hierarchically; cf. συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, “gathering all the chief priests and scribes of the people” (Matt 2:4; cf. 21:23; 26:47; Acts 4:8; 23:5; Luke 19:47, οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ λαοῦ). |154-P c) In contrast to the pagan nations (τὰ ἔθνη); cf. φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim a light both for the people and for the na-
284
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
tions” (Acts 26:23); εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, “be glad, nations, with his people” (Rom 15:10; cf. Deut 32:43 LXX). d) The remembrance of their history underlines the people’s identity; cf. ηὔξησεν ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἐπληθύνθη ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, “the people increased and multiplied in Egypt” (Acts 7:17; cf. 7:34). Israel, the people of God: ἐπεσκέψατο ὁ Θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, “God has visited his people” (Luke 7:16; cf. Matt 2:6; Luke 2:32; Rom 11:1; Heb 11:25). e) Including the future Christian community; cf. αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, “because he will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21; cf. Luke 1:17, 68; Heb 8:10; 13:12). 3. In contrast to the leaders: “The part of the Jewish people without a leading role”: people, mass/multitude of people. a) Viewed as a unified whole; cf. θόρυβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ, “a tumult among the people” (Matt 26:5; cf. Mark 11:32; Luke 1:10; Heb 7:5). b) A part of a group; cf. εἰς πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, “for all these people” (Luke 9:13; cf. 11:53; v.l. ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ); ἤρξατο δὲ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν λέγειν, “he began to speak to the people” (Luke 20:9; cf. vv. 20, 26, 45; Acts 3:9); ὁ Παῦλος … κατέσεισεν τῇ χειρὶ τῷ λαῷ, “Paul signaled with his hand to the people” (Acts 21:40). 4. When the connection is to Christianity, λαός loses the seme of organization, historical identity, and connection to a land, and means “A numerous group of people who adhere to Christianity”: [Christian] people. a) Christians coming from Gentile backgrounds; cf. ὁ Θεὸς ἐπεσκέψατο λαβεῖν ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαὸν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, “God saw fit to take a people for himself (lit. for his name) from among the Gentiles” (Acts 15:14; cf. 18:10). b) The group of Christians as new Israel, by applying texts from the Old Testament to the Christian community; cf. ἔσομαι αὐτῶν Θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός, “I will be their God and they will be my people” (2Cor 6:16; cf. Lev 26:16); λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, “a people purchased (sc. by God)” (1Pet 2:9; cf. Mal 3:17; Isa 43:21); τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ, “the sins of the people” (Heb 2:17; cf. 4:9); λαὸν περιούσιον, “a chosen people” (Tit 2:14; cf. Exod 19:5; 23:22). 3. ἔθνος, -ους, τό (162)⁸TN § 435. 1. “A numerous group of individuals of the same race that is socially and politically organized and connected to a territory”: nation, an ethnic group; in the plural, nations, peoples. |155-P
Translator’s Note: Although this is listed here as 3., the discourse about ἔθνος above comes 4.
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
285
a) Particular nations; cf. δοθήσεται ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς, “it will be given to a nation/people that will produce its fruits” (Matt 21:43); ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος, “because nation will rise against nation” (Matt 24:7; cf. Mark 13:8; Luke 21:10); ἀγαπᾷ γὰρ τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν, “because he loves our nation” (Luke 7:5; cf. Acts 10:22; 24:2); τὸ ἔθνος τῆς Σαμαρείας, “the people of Samaria” (Acts 8:9). b) In a universal sense; cf. ἄνδρες ἐυλαβεῖς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν, “pious men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5; 10:35; 13:19); πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων, “every nation” (Acts 17:26); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς καὶ γλώσσης καὶ λαοῦ καὶ ἔθνους, “from every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9; cf. 7:9; 13:7, 14); ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν καὶ γλωσσῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν, “from [all] peoples, tribes, languages, and nations” (Rev 11:9). 2. Normally determined in the plural, in contrast to the Jewish people or used in the technical sense of τὰ ἔθνη in the Old Testament, the term frequently refers to the nations of the world that do not profess the Jewish religion: “A numerous group of human collectives characterized by race, organized socially and politically, and connected to a specific territory and to a Gentile world”: The Gentile nations, the Gentile world. a) In plain contrast to Israel, viz. to “the people”; cf. καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “he will proclaim (a light) both for the people and for the nations” (Acts 26:23; cf. Luke 2:32a; Acts 15:10; 26:17). b) According to the technical sense in the Old Testament; cf. κρίσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπαγγελεῖ, “he will announce judgment to the nations” (Matt 12:18; cf. Isa 42:3; Acts 26:20); τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, “the nations will hope in his name/in him” (Matt 12:21; cf. Isa 42:4; Rom15:12b); μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “make disciples [of] all nations” (Matt 28:19); εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη πρῶτον δεῖ κηρυχθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the gospel must be proclaimed to every nation first” (Mark 13:10; cf. Matt 24:14; Luke 24:47; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 4:17); αἰχμαλωτιθήσονται εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, “they will be led captive to all the nations” (Luke 21:24); δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, “I will give him authority over the nations” (Rev 2:16; cf. 12:5). c) Politically organized; cf. οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the leaders of the nations” (Matt 20:25; cf. Mark 10:42). 3. When [τὰ] ἔθνη (in the plural) is contrasted with “[the] Jews” (also in the plural) or when it is subject, recipient, or collective witness of a conduct or action, it normally refers to “[the] Gentiles” as a group of individuals (i. e., plurality or separate totality, equivalent to οἱ ἐθνικοί, cf. Matt 5:47). It omits the semes of organization and connection to a land. Only the seme of religion is highlighted: “A numerous group of individuals who |156-P profess a Gentile religion:” [the] Gentiles; cf. Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν, “Galilee of the Gentiles” (because of its mixed population) (Matt 4:15); ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν, “because the Gentiles strive for all these things” (Matt
286
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar Definitions
6:32); παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “they will hand him over to the Gentiles” (Matt 20:19; cf. Mark 10:33; Luke 18:32; Acts 21:11); ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον, “hearing [this], the Gentiles rejoiced” (Acts 13:48); ἐγένετο ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων, “a plot arose from Gentiles and Jews” (Acts 14:5); οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, “not only from among the Jews, but also from among the Gentiles” (Rom 9:24); ἔθνη τὰ μὴ διώκοντα δικαιοσύνην, “The Gentiles, who were not seeking righteousness” (Rom 9:30); Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν, “a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness for the Gentiles” (1Cor 1:23; cf. 2Cor 11:26; Gal 2:15; 1Thess 2:16; 4:5); τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “your conduct among the Gentiles” (1Pet 2:12); ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “because it was given to the Gentiles” (alluding to the courtyard of the Gentiles in the temple in Jerusalem) (Rev 11:2). 4. The plural τὰ ἔθνη can be applied to Christians. In such a case it refers to those from Gentile backgrounds, emphasizing the ancient religious affiliation: “A numerous human collective from a Gentile religion and connected to Christianity”: [Christians] of Gentile origin, former Gentiles/pagans; cf. ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “to those of you with Gentile backgrounds I say” (Rom 11:13); αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the churches/communities [in Gentile territory and] of Gentile origin” (Rom 16:4); μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν, “he (sc. Peter/Cephas) ate with those of Gentile origin” (Gal 2:12; cf. 2:14); ὁ δέσμιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν, “the prisoner of the Messiah Jesus on behalf of those of you from Gentile origins” (Eph 3:1; cf. 3:6). 5. The term is found in the singular once, applying the text of Exod 19:6—used in the Old Testament to characterize Israel—to the Christian collective. The ethnic identity disappears, as does the social and political organization and the connection to a land: “A collective formed by individuals who are committed to Christianity”: nation; cf. ἔθνος ἅγιον, “a holy, set apart nation” (1Pet 2:9). 4. φυλή, -ῆς, ἡ (31) § 436. 1. “A numerous and organized collective of individuals who descend from a common parent”: tribe. With the totalizer πᾶς or in the plural determined: the tribes, peoples of the earth; cf. κόψονται πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, “all the tribes of the earth will mourn” (Matt 24:30; Rev 1:7); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς |157-P καὶ γλώσσης, “from every tribe and language” (cf. Rev 5:9); βλέπουσιν ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν … τὸ πτῶμα αὐτῶν, “(individuals) from (all) people and tribe will see their corpses” (Rev 11:9). 2. In a narrower sense, tribe of Israel. Identifying the parent: ἐκ φυλῆς ᾿Aσήρ, “from the tribe of Asher” (Luke 2:36); ἐκ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, “from the tribe of Benjamin” (Acts 13:21). Indicating a totality; cf. κρίνοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλάς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, “to judge the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28); ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ, “from every tribe of the sons of Israel” (the list of the tribes follows) (Rev 7:4).
Chapter 11: Method: Determining the Meaning of Lexemes with Similar DefinitionsTN
287
In a figurative sense, the expression αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί is applied to the totality of Christians, viewed as the new Israel: ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, “to the twelve tribes who are living dispersed” (Jas 1:1). 5. πατριά, -ᾶς, ἡ (3) § 437. “A group of individuals who descend from a common parent”: lineage, family; cf. ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δανίδ, “from the house and lineage of David” (Luke 2:4); with πᾶς: πᾶσαι αἱ πατριαὶ τῆς γῆς, “every family on earth” (Acts 3:25; cf. Gen 12:3). Metaphorically, with reference to God as father: ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται, “from which every family/lineage in heaven and earth receives its name” (Eph 3:15). |158-P
Catalogue of Semes¹TN § 438. With the goal of facilitating the semic development of the formulas, I provide a list of the main semes that were used in the preceding analysis, organized by semantic domain. The semes, however, are not linked to a specific class. Rather, the same semes can be used to specify various elements of the formula. This list begins with the classemes (i.e., categorical semes), which are then specified by other possible occasional semes. Although some authors avoid using a meta- language when discussing semes,²TN I have opted to make use of abstract substantives in this text. The reader should thus not be surprised if new terms are often constructed. The symbol (:) indicates that the following seme can appear as a specification of the previous seme. The slash (/) separates alternative semes. Semes can also be constructed by considering the opposite seme.
Entity Class § 439. The semic development of an element in the formula that belongs to the entity class is made by applying the semantic categories of gender and number (cf. §§ 174– 80, 335 – 36). a) Semes of Gender: For animate entities, these semes consist of animality, humanity, and divinity. The last two semes (humanity and divinity) can be specified by the seme of personhood, which can be specified by the semes of masculinity or femininity. Inanimate entities are specified by semes of mineralness or vegetality. All of these semes comprise the entity class. b) Semes of number consist of (1) individuality, singularity, plurality, distributivity; (2) collectivity, corporativity; (3) globality: reality, virtuality; partiality. c) Occasional semes consist of materiality, corporeality, solidness, combustibility, bodiness, organicity, etc.³TN
Translator’s Note: This chapter corresponds to pp. 165 – 68 in Mateos, Método de análisis semántico. Translator’s Note: Cf. Lyons, Semantics, 1:326, who lists ANIMATE/INANIMATE and MALE/FEMALE as examples of classemes, as opposed to Mateos, who lists these as Animateness/Inanimateness and Masculinity/Femininity. Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) entity semes occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Accessibility, Angel, Astrality, Building, Citizenship, Coveredness, Demarcation, Edibility, Enclosure, Ethnicity, Extension, Feeling, Habitation, Imprintability, Invisibility, Judaism, Lowerness, Military, Multiplicity, Non-demarcation, Non-inhabitation, Objectness, Oldness, Opening, Property, Rationality, Residence, Ruralness, Self-containment, Spatiality, Territory. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-018
Event Class
289
Event Class § 440. The semantic category of aspect is first applied to events. Voice is then applied and, if necessary, mode (cf. §§ 181– 86). The corresponding classemes are thus obtained. a) Above all, aspect distinguishes between semes of stativity and dynamism. a. The semes of stativity are specified according to usage as: (1) a disposition / attitude, which in turn can be specified as favorability, benevolence, commitment, tendency, etc.; (2) situation: consciousness / unconsciousness; lack, privation; abundance / shortage; security / insecurity, etc.; (3) condition: vitality, infirmity; (4) position: verticality / horizontality; sitting, stability, etc.; (5) presence, etc.; (6) feeling, etc. b. The semes of dynamism will be specified as (1) continuity: durativity; (2) resultativity: instantaneousness, processuality, resultativity; (3) habituality can be signified by durativity and occasionality by discontinuity. Dynamism can be further specified as bodiness, mentalness, mobility, verbality, occurrence. i. Bodiness can be specified by semes of globality, totality / partiality; organicity, etc. ii. Mentalnesss can be specified by semes of (1) noeticity: cognitivity, reflection, intuition, comprehension, etc.; (2) voluntarity / involuntarity; regulation, obligation / spontaneity; (3) emotionality: feeling. iii. Mobility can be specified by semes of directionality / non-directionality; tendency / origin; beginning / completion; impulse, etc. iv. Verbality can be specified by semes of assertion / negation / question; formulation, qualification, meaningfulness, expositivity, reference, etc. v. Occurrence can be specified by semes of productivity, industriousness, production, domain, government, separation, elimination, etc. vi. If an event occurs without the involvement of an acting subject, then it has a seme of factuality. b) The classemes of voice are (1) activity; (2) passivity: receptivity; (3) subjectivity (lexemic middle): reflexivity, spontaneity; (4) neutrality. c) The classemes of mode are existence / non-existence; possibility, probability. ⁴TN
Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) event semes occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Assessment, Availability, Christianity, Civility, Combativeness, Confinement, Construction, Contact, Continuity, Death, Decision, Delegation, Deliberation, Disappearance, Displacement, Dissatisfaction, Endangerment, Experience, Habitation, Hostility, Impression, Inactivity, Inclination, Location, Luminosity, Modification, Multi-directionality, Musical vocality, Non-contact, Non-receptivity, Non-subjectivity, Officiality, Paganism, Perception, Politicality, Possession, Posteriority, Processuality, Radiation, Reception, Religion, Religiousness, Representation, Rhythmic movement, Ruin, Self-sufficiency, Self-sustenance, Sensitivity, Sociality, Succession, Survival, Temporality, Transitoriness, Transfer, Utilization, Vigilance, Wind.
290
Catalogue of Semes
Relation Class § 441. The class of relation consists of semes of location, temporality, possession, comparison, movement, transitivity, etc. a) The semes of location consist of (1) proximity: immediacy, contact; non-proximity: non- immediacy, |166-M, ⁵TN distance; (2) interiorness / exteriorness; depth, centrality; (3) demarcation, territoriality. b) The semes of temporality consist of (1) previousness / actuality / futureness; (2) simultaneousness / anteriority / posteriority; (3) durativity / transitoriness / instantaneousness. c) The semes of possession consist of availability, usability, employability, d) The semes of comparison consist of identity; equality / superiority / lowerness; similarity, parallelism. e) The semes of movement consist of successivity, progression, numeration, gradation. f) The semes of transitivity consist of (1) influence: causality, purpose, consecutivity; dependence / independence; (2) non-influence: towardness. g) Relation semes between subject and event consist of attribution / predicativity / agentivity. h) Other semes of relation include anaphoricity, reference, mediation, instrumentality, connection, origin, inclusivity, manifestivity.⁶TN
Attribute Class § 442. In the attribute class one must first identify whether semes of quality, quantity, dimension, etc. are discussed. a) Quality can be specified by various semes, including goodness / badness; justice / injustice; uprightness, faithfulness, rationality, dignity: royalty; luminosity; positivity / negativity; euphoria / dysphoria; coloration: whiteness / blackness, etc. |165-M
Translator’s Note: This was not the order in Mateos’s Spanish text. Since in the book, the order often followed entitiy, event, relation, attribute, and determination, this is the order I have chosen to maintain in the catalogue of semes. This meant that it was necessary to move the class of attributes to the next page. Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) relation semes occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Adequacy, Aimlessness, Appropriation, Beneficiality, Capability, Comparability, Competency, Conformity, Descent, Directionality, Elimination, Essentiality, Exclusivity, Expositoriness, Expressivity, Filiation, Habitation, Hierarchy, Historicity, Immediacy, Initiality, Integration, Mediacy, Non-immediacy, Opposition, Order, Organization, Paternality, Perceptivity, Possession, Presence, Residence, Solidarity, Specification, Support, Transference, Union, Verbality.
Determination Class
291
b) Dimension and quantity can be specified by semes of largeness / smallness; abundance / shortage; numerosity, intensity, sufficiency; totality / partiality, etc.⁷TN
Determination Class § 443. The semes that comprise the class of determination consist of identity, designation, identification, maximality, totality / partiality; numerosity; globality; distributivity; quantification, numerosity, unity / duality, etc.; previousness / subsequence; initiality / terminality; demarcation; importance, excellence. ⁸TN ⁹TN |167– 68-M
Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) attribute semes occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Abundance, Adulthood, Beneficiality, Benevolence, Cleanness, Communicability, Dimensionality, Durativity, Excellence, Externality, Harmfulness, Identity, Immediacy, Indispensability, Intellectuality, Maximality, Meaningfulness, Necessity, Non-cognition, Qualification, Kingliness, Partiality, Positivity, Possession, Priestliness, Reference, Suitability, Vitality, Visibility. Translator’s Note: In addition to these semes, the following (occasional) determination semes occur in the semic developments illustrated in this book: Depth, Duration, Exclusivity, Extremity, Foreignness, Identifiability, Intensity, Name, Nameability, Nominality, Non-authority, Non-numerosity, Partiality, Personhood, Priority, Singularity, Sufficiency. Translator’s Note: Numerous semes appear in more than one class. I list these here, noting the classes in parentheses: Abundance (Ev/A), Availability (Ev/R), Beneficiality (R/A), Benevolence (Ev/A), Building (Ent/Ev), Christianity (Ent/Ev), Contact (Ev/R), Corporeality (Ent/Ev), Demarcation (Ev/R/D), Depth (R/D), Directionality (Ev/R), Distributivity (Ent/D), Durativity (Ev/R/A/D), Elimination (Ev/R), Excellence (A/D), Expositoriness (Ev/R), Feeling (Ent, Ev), Globality (Ev/D), Habitation (Ent/Ev/R), Identity (R/A/D), Immediacy (R/A), Initiality (Ev/R/D), Instantaneousness (Ev/R), Intellectuality (Ev/A), Location (Ent/Ev/R), Lowerness (Ent/R), Luminosity (Ev/A), Maximality (A/D), Meaningfulness (Ev/A), Numerosity (A/D), Objectness (Ent/R), Organicity (Ent/Ev), Organization (Ev/R), Origin (Ev/R), Paganism (Ent/Ev), Partiality (Ent/Ev/A/D), Personhood (Ent/D), Possession (Ent/R/A), Posteriority (Ev/R/D), Rationality (Ent/A), Reference (Ev/R/A), Religion (Ent/Ev), Religiousness (Ent/Ev), Shortage (Ev/A), (Towardness (Ev/R/D), Transitoriness (Ev/R), Verbality (Ev/R), Wind (Ent/Ev).
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish) To assist the reader, I have sought to place every seme appearing in the book in this Alphabetical List of Semes. I have also placed the original Spanish semes in italics. The semes follow an alphabetical listing of the English terminology. Many of these semes are used for various classes; for a comprehensive list of these semes, see translator’s note 9 in the Catalogue of Semes. Abundance Accessibility Activity Actuality Adequacy Adulthood Affection Agentivity Aimlessness Anaphoricity Angel Animality Animateness Anteriority Appropriation Assertion Assessment Astrality Attitude Attribution Availability Badness Beneficiality Benevolence Blackness Building Capability Causality Centrality Christianity Citizenship Civility Cleanness Cognitivity Collectivity Coloration Combativeness Commitment Communicability Comparability Comparison Competency Comprehension
abundancia accesibilidad actividad actualidad proporcionalidad adultez afectividad agentividad aterminalidad anaforicidad angelicidad animalidad animidad anterioridad apropiación asertividad valoración astralidad actitud atributividad disponibilidad maldad beneficialidad benevolencia negrura edificación capacidad causalidad centralidad christianismo ciudadanía civilidad limpieza cognitividad colectividad coloración belicidad adhesión comunicabilidad comparatividad comparación competencia comprensión
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-019
Condition Confinement Conformity Connection Conscience Consecutivity Construction Contact Continuity Corporativity Corporeality Coveredness Death Decision Delegation Deliberation Demarcation Dependence Depth Descent Designation Dignity Dimension Dimensionality Directionality Disappearance Discontinuity Displacement Disposition Dissatisfaction Distance Distributivity Divinity Domain Duality Durativity Dynamism Dysphoria Edibility Elimination Emotionality Employability Enclosure
condición encierro conformidad vinculación consciencia consecutividad construcción contacto continuidad corporatividad somaticidad cubrimiento, cobertura muerte decisión delegación deliberación delimitación dependencia profundidad descendencia designación dignidad dimensión dimensionalidad direccionalidad desaparición discontinuidad desplazamiento disposición insatisfacción lejanía distributividad divinidad dominio dualidad duratividad dinamicidad disforicidad comestibilidad eliminación emotividad fruibilidad cercado
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)
Endangerment Entity Equality Essentiality Ethnicity Euphoria Excellence Exclusivity Existence Experience Expositoriness Expressivity Extension Exteriority Externality Extremity Factuality Faithfulness Favorability Feeling Femininity Filiation Foreignness Formulation Futureness Globality Goodness Government Gradation Habitation Habituality Harmfulness Hierarchy Historicity Horizontality Hostility Humanity Identifiability Identification Identity Immediacy Importance Impression Imprintability Impulse Inactivity Inanimateness Inclination Inclusivity Independence
peligrosidad entidad igualidad esencialidad etnicidad euforicidad excelencia exclusividad existencia experiencia expositividad expresividad extension exterioridad extrinsecidad extremidad factualidad fidelidad favorabilidad sentimiento feminidad filiación alienidad formulación futuridad globality bondad gobierno gradación habitación habitualidad nocividad jerarquicidad historicidad horizontalidad hostilidad humanidad identificabilidad identificación identidad inmediatez importancia impresión impresibilidad impulso inactividad inanimidad tendencialidad inclusividad independencia
Indispensability Individuality Industriousness Infirmity Influence Initiality Injustice Insecurity Instantaneousness Instrumentality Integration Intellectuality Intensity Interiority Intuition Invisibility Involuntarity Judaism Justice Kingliness Lack Landness Largeness Location Lowerness Luminosity Manifestivity Masculinity Materiality Maximality Meaningfulness Mediacy Mediation Military Minerality Mobility Modification Movement Multi-directionality Multiplicity Musical vocality Name Nameability Necessity Negation Negativity Neutrality Noeticity Nominality Non-authority
293
indispensabilidad individualidad laboriosidad enfermedad afectancia inicialidad injusticia inseguridad instantaneidad instrumentalidad integración psiquicidad intensidad interioridad intuición invisibilidad involuntariedad Judaísmo justicia regalidad carencia terrenalidad magnitud localización inferioridad luminosidad manifestatividad masculinidad materialidad maximalidad significatividad mediatividad mediación militaridad mineralidad movilidad modificatividad serialidad multidireccionalidad multiplicidad vocalidad, musicalidad denominación designablidad necesidad negación negatividad neutralidad noeticidad nominalidad no autoridad
294
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)
Non-cognition Non-contact Non-demarcation Non-directionality Non-existence Non-immediacy Non-influence Non-inhabitation Non-numerosity Non-proximity Non-receptivity Non-subjectivity Numeration Numerosity Objectness Obligation Occasionality Occurrence Officiality Oldness Opening Opposition Order Organicity Organization Origin Paganism Parallelism Partiality Passivity Paternality Perceptibility Perception Perceptivity Personhood Plurality Politicality Position Positivity Possession Possibility Posteriority Predication Presence Previousness Priestliness Priority Privation Probability
no cognitividad no contacto no delimitación no direccionalidad no existencia no inmediatez no afectancia no población no numerosidad no proximidad no receptividad no subjetividad numeratividad numerosidad objectividad obligatoriedad ocasionalidad facticidad oficialidad ancianidad apertura oposición orden organicidad organización procedencia paganismo paralelismo parcialidad no actividad, pasividad paternidad perceptibilidad percepción perceptividad personalidad pluralidad politicidad posición positividad posesión, posesividad, pertenencia posibility posterioridad predicatividad presencia, presencialidad preteridad sacerdotalidad prioridad privación probabilidad
Processuality Productivity Progression Property Proximity Purpose Qualification Quality Quantification Quantity Quasi-entity Question Radiation Rationality Reception Receptivity Reference Reflection Reflexivity Regulation Religion Religiousness Representation Residence Resultativity Rhythmic movement Royalty Ruin Ruralness Security Self-containment Self-sufficiency Self-sustenance Sensitivity Separation Shortage Similarity Simultaneousness Singularity Sitting Situation Smallness Sociality Solidarity Solidness Spatiality Specification Spontaneity Stability Stativity
procesualidad productividad progresividad propiedad proximidad finalidad calificación cualidad cuantificación cantidad cuasi-entidad interrogación irradiación racionalidad recepción receptividad referencia reflexión reflexividad normatividad religion religiosidad representatividad domicilio, residencia efectividad movimiento, ritmicidad realeza ruina ruralidad seguridad independencia autosuficiencia autoalimentación sensitividad separación escasez semejanza simultaneidad singularidad sesión situación pequeñez socialidad solidaridad solidez espacialidad especificación espontaneidad estabilidad estaticidad
Alphabetical List of Semes (English/Spanish)
Subjectivity Succesivity Succession Sufficiency Suitability Superiority Support Survival Temporality Tendency Territoriality Territory Totality Towardness Transfer Transference Transitivity
subjetividad sucesividad sucesión suficiencia idoneidad superioridad apoyo supervivencia temporalidad tendencia territorialidad territorio totalidad terminalidad traslación transferencia transitividad
Transitoriness Unconsciousness Union Unity Uprightness Usability Utilization Vegetality Verbality Verticality Vigilance Virtuality Visibility Vitality Voluntarity Whiteness Wind
transitoriedad inconsciencia unión unidad rectitud utilizabilidad utilización vegetalidad verbalidad verticalidad vigilancia virtualidad visibilidad vitalidad voluntariedad blancura viento
295
Glossary Attribute: The qualities or modalities attributed to being or doing. Classeme: Certain generic contextual semes that are characterized by their constancy (i. e., their presence in every context) and by their iterative character (i. e., affecting not just one lexeme, but several and therefore affecting syntagmatic units broader than the simple lexeme). The classemes are obtained by applying the semantic categories of mode, tense, aspect, voice, gender, and number, considered at the morphemic and syntagmatic level. Generic contextual semes: cf. classemes. Connotation: It is necessary to distinguish between objective and subjective connotations. Objective connotations are those which a concept necessarily requires due to conscious association. These connotations are identified by considering the relations implied by a lexeme, which can include presupposition, purpose, agent, recipient, etc. For example, the lexeme ‘to eat’ connotes (presupposes) ‘food.’ On the other hand, subjective connotations are emotive or associative and can therefore neither be called ‘necessary connotations’ nor included in a semantic analysis. They belong to narrative analysis. Contextual meaning: See Sememe. Definition: A paraphrase that accounts for the semes of a lexeme or sememe according to the order of their semic configuration. Denotation: The necessary and sufficient semantic features that make it possible to identify a concept according to its usage in a linguistic community. Denotation is practically equivalent to “meaning.” Determination: Lexemes or morpholexemes that narrow and designate a concept. Determination is brought about by numeric quantifiers of quantity or measure, and also by lexemes that signal moments in time or extensions in space. Designation presupposes an act of speaking (i. e., a speaking subject) that creates a situation, which is the space-time of the discourse. Determination lexemes actualize, identify, and situate in space and time. Dictionary: A book that contains the series of words in a language organized alphabetically, explains their meaning, and, in the case of bilingual dictionaries, also indicates their translational equivalents in another language. Entity: Nameable things, and by extension, also fictional things like “dragon,” etc. Entity lexemes classify and name spoken things. Event: States, actions, or processes that affect an entity or are brought about by it. They can also affect attributes, other events, and relations. Grammatical categories: Symbols that affect words, similar to the way that positive and negative signs, coefficients, and exponents affect quantities in mathematics. The grammatical categories include gender and number (nominals and verbals), mode, tense, aspect, and voice (verbals), and degree (conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs). Grammatical class: The so called “parts of speech,” which are distinguished as the main parts of speech (noun and verb), secondary parts of speech (adjective and adverb), by relations (prepositions and conjunctions) and by the auxiliaries (article and pronoun). Implication: A relation between two propositions by which, if the first is true, the second is necessarily also true. When the truth of the second implication implies the truth of the first, a double implication is present. Lexeme: An independent lexical unit with a semantic nucleus. Lexical Meaning: The set of semantic features (i. e., semes) of a lexeme. Lexicographer: An editor of a dictionary or a linguist who studies lexicography. Lexicography: A method of preparing dictionaries and the linguistic analysis of this method. Lexicology: The scientific study of vocabulary. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-020
Glossary
297
Lexicon: A book that contains the lexemes, morpholexemes, and paralexemes of a natural language. Lexicon is distinguished from “vocabulary.” Marked term: A term with a distinct quality or feature, as opposed to an unmarked term, which is used in a broader, more general sense. Meaning: The information contained and transmitted by a term in isolation and in context. In semantic terms it is “the group of distinct semes of a lexeme or sememe.” Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a lexeme is used in a sense that differs from its normal usage but which maintains a relation that is recognizable. Semantically, a metaphor is created by the suppression or suspension of one or several semes in the semantic formula, especially of the dominant seme. Metonymy: A figure of speech that consists in taking the effect for the cause, the instrument for the agent, the sign for the thing, the part for the whole, or vice versa. Semantically, it originates by a change of configuration in the formula: elements that were previously denoted become connoted, or vice versa. Morpholexeme: A lexical unit with its own semantic nucleus that does not exist independently but is always joined to an autonomous lexeme. Nuclear configuration: See semic configuration. Nuclear semes: Semes that appear in the semic nucleus and are obtained by the development of the semantic formula. Occasional contextual semes: Semes that do not depend on the semantic categories but on relations (such as dependence, presupposition, equality, and superiority) that a lexeme establishes with other lexemes in syntagms. There are occasional and peripheral semes that can be systematized, at least in part, according to specific contexts. Paralexeme: Syntagms whose meaning does not result from adding the meaning of each of the components. Paralexemes are thus semantic units whose meaning transcends the lexemic components that comprise them; cf. e. g., “son of perdition.” Presupposition: A relation between two linguistic units where the presence of one unit necessarily requires the presence of the other. For example, a determinant presupposes the presence of a name. Presupposition can be unilateral or reciprocal. Quasi-entity: Lexemes that do not denote real or fictional entities, but realities that are viewed as entities even though they are not really so. Examples include “law,” “standard,” and “decree.” Because these realities are sources of activities, processes, or actions, or are results of these, they seem to have a particular permanence and can be referred to as objects of perception. These events or results of events—viewed as entities—are represented with the symbol [Ent = Ev]. Reference: When a linguistic sign (a word) refers to a real or imaginary object (a referent) in the extra-linguistic world. This functions in a certain way due to cultural conceptions. There is a direct link between meaning (concept) and referent and an indirect link between a lexeme and referent. Reference is frequently used to designate the referential relation as the denotation of a sign. Referent: That which a linguistic sign refers to in the extra-linguistic world. The relation between the sign and the extra-linguistic reality should not be confused with the referent, since a word can refer to things that do not exist in the world (e. g., centaur). Related lexemes: Certain entity lexemes that do not necessarily maintain all of the generic semes of these entities. “Related lexemes” denote another semantic class along with an entity. They designate a part of a whole; e. g., “arm” as part of the body. Relation: Connections between semantic classes that are identified by semantic analysis. Semantic analysis: Focuses on the lexeme abstractly (the lexical meaning in langue) and helps determine the lexeme’s nuclear semes and semic nucleus.
298
Glossary
Semantic categories: Specify concepts based on binary oppositions that affect nominal and verbal lexemes or, depending on context, result from the morphemic and syntagmatic analysis. Among the semantic categories, gender and number affect entity lexemes, while aspect, time, and voice affect event lexemes. Semantically, degree is not a category but rather a relation. The application of the semantic categories is the first step for the analysis of lexemes. Semantic class: A set of words that have the same dominant semantic feature (seme). Semantic classes classify lexemes by noting the nature of their conceptual content. They are based on infra-linguistic concepts that break down a global, intuitive perception of reality. Individuals experience the world in which they find themselves. They express themselves from their point of view in order to orient and to situate themselves in it. For this they classify and name entities (Ent, things) and events (Ev, states, actions, processes), both of which are described by means of attributes (A, quality, quantity) rooted in established relations (R). These are actualized, situated, and objectified in time and space, for which we use the term determination (D). There are thus five semantic classes. Semantic formula: Consists of the set of semantic classes denoted by a lexeme plus the relations necessarily connoted by them. The semantic formula thus describes the elemental structure of the lexeme based on its semantic nucleus. Seme: A minimal, elemental semantic feature that cannot be broken down into other simpler features. In the process of the analysis, however, this theoretical definition is impossible to maintain, since we use terms as if they were semes that actually represent groups of elemental semes. Thus, the seme humanity can clearly be broken down into more simple semes (e. g., entity, corporality, vitality, sensitivity, rationality). However, to explain each of these semes every time that “humanity” is used would cause the semic developments to become repetitive and unintelligible lists. Sememe: A meaning that results from additions to the semic nucleus and/or from changes in the nucleus or nuclear configuration of a lexeme due to the influence of classemes and occasional semes. Sememes require a new definition and are synonymous to “contextual meaning.” Semic configuration: A lexeme’s generic and specific nuclear semes, arranged into a logical hierarchy. Semic configuration is synonymous with semic nucleus. Semic development: A list of the semes/semantic features that correspond to the denoted and connoted semantic classes of the formula. Semic nucleus: See semic configuration. Semiotic analysis: The analysis of the mutual relations between the lexemes that appear in context (i. e., parole) in order to identify the key for reading a text. Signifier: An acoustic image or phonological aspect of the series of sounds that constitute the material aspect of the sign. Signification: The production of sense as an action or the result of producing action. Translation: The act of rendering the semantic concepts and stylistic features from one language into another language. Usage: A set of grammatical rules that are relatively established and utilized by the majority of speakers in a given moment and in a socially determined mode. Vocabulary: An exhaustive list of words in a corpus. Secondly: a book that gathers the terms used by an author, by a science, or by a trade. Third: a bilingual dictionary that lists the lexical units of two languages in parallel fashion.
Bibliography Adrados, Francisco Rodríquez. “Reflexiones sobre semántica, sintaxis y estructura profunda,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y Teoría Literaria, 1 – 26. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988. — “Sintaxis y Diccionario,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria, 19 – 30. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988. — “La teoría del signo en Gorgias de Leontinos,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y Teoría Literaria, 61 – 69. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988. — “Sobre nombre y cosa en Platón,” in Nuevos Estudios de Lingüística General y de Teoría Literaria, 415 – 18. Ariel Lingüística. Barcelona: Ariel, 1988. Aland, Barbara et al., eds. The Greek New Testament: Fifth Revised Edition with the Greek-English Dictionary by Barclay Newman, 5th ed. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Stuttgart: The German Bible Society, 2014. Alfagame, Ignacio Rodríguez. Nueva Gramática Griega. Estudio de las estructuras morfosintácticas de la lengua griega. Madrid: Coloquio, 1988. Allenbach, Jean et al., eds. Biblia patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique. 4 vols. Paris: Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975 – 87. Alsop, John R., ed. An Index to the Revised Bauer, Arndt (Danker), Gingrich Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. Attridge, Harold W. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3112.pdf. Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 3 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1978 – 83. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, 2nd ed. Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1928. — Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, ed. Kurt and Barbara Aland, 6th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Busse, D. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Black, David Alan. Review of Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, by J. Louw and E. Nida. FNT 1 (1988): 217 – 18. Blomqvist, Jerker. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2001): 1 – 5. Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933. Carreter, Fernando Lázaro. Diccionario de terminus filológicos. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 6. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1977. Chase, Stuart. The Tyranny of Words. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959. Coenen, Lothar, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, eds. Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament. Wuppertal: Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1967 – 71. Coseriu, Eugeniu. “Lexikalische Solidaritäten.” Poetica 1 (1967): 293 – 303.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-021
300
Bibliography
— Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingüística General, ed. Dámaso Alonso. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1973. Cremer, H. Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der neutestamentlichen Gräcität. Gotha: F. A. Perthes 1866 (11th ed. 1923). Danker, Frederick William, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Third Edition (BDAG), based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed., eds. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Balley and Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, trans. Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1895. — Neue Bibelstudien: Sprachgeschichtliche Beiträge, zumeist aus Papyri und Inschriften zur Erklärung des Neuen Testaments. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1897. — Die sprachliche Erforschung der griechischen Bibel, ihr gegenwärtiger Stand und ihre Aufgaben. Vorträge der Theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen 12. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1898. — Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, trans. Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. — “New Testament in the Light of Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World I–V.” ET 18 (1906/07): 8 – 15, 57 – 63, 103 – 08, 202 – 21, 305 – 310. — Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. J.C.B. Mohr: Tübingen, 1908 (4th ed. 1923). — Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York/London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. — The Philology of the Greek Bible: Its Present and Future, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. du Toit, David S. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. Danker. Theologische Rundschau 68.3 (2003): 383 – 85. — Review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by J. Lee. Theologische Rundschau 70.4 (2005): 504 – 07. — Review of Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Setenta y Nuevo Testamento, by A. Á. García Santos. Gnomon 86.8 (2014): 691 – 95. Dubois, Jean et al. Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris: Larousse, 1973. — Diccionario de Lingüística. Madrid: Alianza, 1973. Dubois, Jean and Claude. Introdution à la lexicographie: le dictionaire. Paris: Larousse, 1971. Ebeling, H. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Hannover/Leipzig: Hahn, 1913 (3rd ed. 1929). Elliott, J. K. Review of Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, by W. Bauer. FNT 2 (1989): 100 – 02. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Fitzgerald, John T. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3108.pdf.
Bibliography
301
Fodor, Janet Dean. Semántica. Teorías del significado en la gramática generative. Lingüística. Madrid: Catedra, 1985. — Semantics: Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. New York: Crowell, 1977. Fries, Charles C. “Meaning and Linguistic Analysis.” Language 30 (1954): 57 – 68. Funk, F. X., and Karl Bihlmeyer, eds. Die Apostolischen Vä ter. Neubearbeitung der Funkschen Ausgabe. Tü bingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1970. Gallarte, I. Muñoz. “Los Sustantivos-Hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Classificación Semántico.” PhD Diss, Universidad Complutense de Madrid y de Córdoba, 2008. García Santos, Amador Ángel. Diccionario del Griego Bíblico: Setenta y Nuevo Testamento. Instrumentos para el studio de la Biblia 21. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2011. Gerber, A. Deissmann the Philologist. BZNW 171. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Godoy, P. Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010. González, D. Romero. “El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD diss., University of Cordoba, 2010. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. Maupassant: La sémiotique du texte, exercices pratiques. Paris: Le Seuil, 1976. — Maupassant: The Semiotics of Text, trans. Paul Perron. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988. — Sémantique structural. Paris: Larousse, 1966. — Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, trans. Daniel McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983. Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Joseph Courtés. Semiótica. Diccionario razonado de la teoría del lenguaje. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 10. Madrid: Gredos, 1990. — Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary, trans. Larry Crist and Daniel Patte. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982. — Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Hachette: Supérieur, 1979. Hasselbrook, David S. Studies in New Testament Lexicography: Advancing toward a Full Diachronic Approach with the Greek Language, ed. Jörg Frey. WUNT 2/303. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011. — “A Proposal for the Form and Content of the Next Generation of Printed New Testament Lexicons.” Paper presented at Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, Oct. 2012: 1 – 15. Heeschen, Claus. Grundfragen der Linguistik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. — Cuestiones fundamentals de Lingüística, trans. A. Alvarez. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica. Madrid: Gredos, 1975. Hemer, C. “Towards a New Moulton and Milligan.” NovT 24 (1982): 97 – 123. Horsley, G. H. R. “The Greek Documentary Evidence and NT Lexical Study: Some Soundings,” in Linguistic Essays. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5, ed. G. H. R. Horsley, 67 – 93. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989. — “The Origin and Scope of Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, and Deissmann’s Planned New Testament Lexicon. Some unpublished letters of G. A. Deissmann to J. H. Moulton.” BJRL 76 (1994): 187 – 216. — “Moulton, James Hope (1863 – 1917),” in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, ed. Stanley E. Porter, 230 – 31. London/New York: Routledge, 2007. Horsely, G. H. R., ed. Linguistic Essays. NDIEC 5. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1989. Horsley, G. H. R., and J. A. L. Lee. “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels. Some Interim Entries. Part 1.” FNT 10 (1997): 55 – 84. — “A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels. Some Interim Entries. Part 2.” FNT 11 (1998): 57 – 84. — New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre. North Ryde: Macquarie University, 1981 – 2012.
302
Bibliography
Katz, J. J. Semantic Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1972. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friederich. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1933 – 79. Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friederich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964 – 1976. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3111.pdf. Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Landau, Sydney. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Lanzilota, L. Roig. Diccionario de Personajes del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2011. Lee, John A. L. “The United Bible Societies’ Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning.” FNT 5 (1992): 167 – 89. — A History of New Testament Lexicography, ed. D. A. Carson. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Lewandowsky, Theodor H. Linguistisches Wörterbuch. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer Verlag, 1979 – 80. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Löbner, S. Understanding Semantics, 2nd ed. Routledge: New York, 2013. Louw, Johannes P. Semantiek van Nuwe Testamentiese Grieks. Pretoria: Beta Pers, 1976. — Semantics of New Testament Greek. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982. — “How Do Words Mean, If They Do?” FNT 4 (1991): 125 – 42. — “The United Bible Societies’ Lexicon and its Analysis of Meaning.” FNT 5 (1992): 167 – 89 — “The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography.” FNT 6 (1993): 139 – 48. Louw, J. P. ed. Lexicography and Bible Translation. Cape Town: Bible Society, 1985. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. — Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Lyons, John. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Malherbe, Abraham J. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3110.pdf. Marín, Marcos F. Aproximación a la Gramática Española. 3rd ed. Madrid: Cincel, 1978. Mateos, Juan. Método de análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 1. Cordoba: Ediciones el Alemandro, 1989. — “Análisis de un campo lexemático. Εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 1 (1988): 1 – 15. — El aspect verbal en el Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977. — “εὐθύς y sinónimos en el Evangelio de Marcos y demás escritos del Nuevo Testamento,” in Cuestiones de gramática y léxico en el Nuevo Testamento, 105 – 39. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977. Mateos, Juan, and Jesús Peláez. “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 84 – 94. Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego–Español del Nuevo Testamento. Análisis semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 1 – 5. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2012. Moliner, María. Diccionario de uso del español. 2 vols. Madrid: Gredos, 1977.
Bibliography
303
Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1957. Naselli, Andy. “Thoughts on Theology,” 2 Dec 2015, http://andynaselli.com/john-lee-on-nt-lexicography. Nicklas, Tobias. Review of A History of New Testament Lexicography, by J. Lee. RBL 7 (2004): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3244_3806.pdf. Nida, Eugene A. “The implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship.” JBL 91 (1972): 73 – 89. — Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures. Paris: La Haya, 1975. — Exploring Semantic Structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1975. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. United Bible Societies. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Nida, E. A., J. P. Louw, and R. B. Smith. “Semantic Domains and Componential Analysis of Meaning,” in Current issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. R. W. Cole, 139 – 67. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977. Ogden, C. K., and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 4th ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1936. Pabón, José M. Diccionario manual griego-español. Barcelona: Vox, 1967. Padilla, Carmen. “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 3 (1990): 67 – 74. Peláez, Jesús. Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 6. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1996. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E., and Donald A. Carson, eds. Biblical Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. JSNTsup 80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Pottier, Bernard. Linguistique génerále. Paris: Klincksieck, 1974. — Lingüística general: teoría y descripción. Biblioteca románica hispánica 246. Madrid: Gredos, 1977. Preisigke, Friedrich et al. Wö rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden: mit Einschluss der griechischen Inschriften, Aufschriften, Ostraka, Mumienschilder usw., aus Ä gypten. Berlin: Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925. Roberts, Terry. Review of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, by F. W. Danker. RBL 10 (2002): http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/1376_3109.pdf. Rübsam, W., ed. Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden. Supplement 3. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966 – 69. Schökel, Luis Alonso. “Sobre diccionarios bilingües,” in Text, Methode und Grammatik, Wolfgang Richter zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. W. Gross, H. Irsigler, T. Seidl, 1 – 10. Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1992. — Diccionario Bíblico Hebreo-Español. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 1998. Silva, M. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985. Thayer, J. H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005. Trench, R. C. Synonyma des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1907. Ullmann, Stephen. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. — Semántica. Introducción a la ciencia del significado, trans. Juan Martin Ruiz-Werner. Madrid: Aguilar, 1976.
304
Bibliography
Urbán F. et al. Estudios de Nuevo Testamento, vol. 2 of Cuestiones de Gramática y Léxico. Institución San Jeronimo. Madrid: Christiandad, 1977. Vines, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., eds. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: With Topical Index. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed., ed. P. Hacker and J. Schulte, trans. G. Anscombe, P. Hacker, and J. Schulte. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953. Zorell, Franz. Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti. 4th ed. Paris: Lethielleux, 1990.
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography by Members of GASCO (Grupo de Análisis Semántico de Córdoba) García Ureña, L. “Descripción de la especie semántica ‘Relación’,” in Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de Lingüística General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. J. D. Luque Durán, 811 – 17. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006. — “Arquitectura de las imágenes en el libro del Apocalipsis.” PhD diss., University of Cordoba, 2008. — “Areté en el DGENT,” in Traducción y tradición. Textos humanísticos y literarios, 355 – 64. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2010. — “El rigor del método. Una ayuda para el exegeta y traductor,” in Liber amicorum en honor del profesor Jesús Peláez, ed. L. Roig Lanzillotta and I. Muñoz Gallarte, 53 – 63. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2013. — “La Septuaginta, testigo de un proceso de lexicalización: σῶμα de cuerpo a esclavo,” in Séptimo Centenario de los Estudios Orientales en España, ed. A. Cantera et al., 371 – 82. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2013. — “The Influence of the Contextual Factor in the New Testament Adjectives,” in Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. G. Kotzoglou et al., 1495 – 1503. Rhodes: University of the Aegean, 2014. — “The Definitions of the Lexemes according to the Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT),” Exemplaria classica (forthcoming). Godoy, P. Diccionario geográfico del Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2010. Mateos, J. “Análisis de un campo lexemático. εὐλογία en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 1 (1988): 5 – 25. — Método de Análisis semántico aplicado al griego del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 1. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 1989. — “Análisis semántico de los lexemas σκανδαλίζω y σκάνδαλον.” FNT 2 (1989): 57 – 92. — “πάλιν en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 7 (1994): 65 – 80. — “ὑπακούω y términos afines en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 209 – 27. Mateos, J., and J. Peláez. “El adverbio ἄρτι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 8 (1995): 85 – 94. Mateos, J., J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Análisis semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 1 – 2. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2000, 2002. Mateos, J. (†), J. Peláez, and GASCO. Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Análisis semántico de los vocablos (DGENT). Fasc. 3 – 5. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2007, 2010, 2012. Merino, M. “La preposición διά en el griego del Nuevo Testamento. Ensayo de análisis semántico,” in In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero, ed. Muñoz Gallarte and Jesús Peláez, 243 – 65. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2016. — “La preposición ἀπό en el griego del Nuevo Testamento. Algunos casos de controversia.” Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 27 (forthcoming). Merino, M., and I. Gallarte. “El campo semántico de la educación en el NT: παιδεύω y διδασκαλία según el DGENT,” in Liber amicorum en honor del profesor Jesús Peláez del Rosal, ed. L. Roig Lanzillotta and I. Muñoz Gallarte, 1 – 26. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2013. Muñoz Gallarte, I. “Los sustantivos-hecho en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD diss., Complutense University of Madrid, 2009. — “La importancia del factor contextual.” Fortunatae 21 (2010): 101 – 25.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-022
306
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography
— “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Contextual Factors and some Practical Examples,” in Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, ed. G. Kotzoglou et al., 1152 – 64. Rhodes: University of the Aegean, 2014. — “The meaning of pistis in the framework of the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament,” in Getting into the Text, ed. T. W. Hudgins and D. L. Akin. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017 (forthcoming). Padilla, C. “Sobre el verbo ἀποκρίνομαι en el Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 3 (1990): 67 – 74. — “Ensayo de clasificación de la especie semántica ‘Atributo’ en la letra ‘Alfa’ del Diccionario del Nuevo Testamento.” FNT 4 (1991): 61 – 72. Peláez, J. Metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria 6. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 1996. — “Del lexema al lema. Pasos para la redacción del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento,” in Cien años de investigación semántica, de Michel Bréal a la actualidad: actas del Congreso Internacional de Semántica, ed. Ediciones Clásicas, 1151 – 61. Tenerife, ES: Universidad de la Laguna, 1997. — “El significado de la expresión ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου en el evangelio de Mateo.” Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 8 (1998): 43 – 52. — “El factor contextual como elemento determinante del significado de los lexemas. El caso de ἀπολείπω,” in La Biblia en el Arte y en la Literatura: V Simposio Bíblico Español, ed. Fundación Biblica Española, 411 – 17. Valencia-Pamplona: University De Navarra, 1999. — “Significado, Traducción y Definición de las palabras en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT),” in ΕΡΙΕΙΚΕΙΑ. Studia Graeca in memoriam Jesús Lens Tuero, ed. M. Alganza et al., 387 – 96. Granada, Athos-Pérgamos, 2000. — “La metodología del Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento,” in Memoria de los Seminarios de Filología e Historia, CSIC, ed. S. Torallas Tovar, 79 – 94. Madrid: Instituto de Filología, 2003. — “βασιλεία en el Nuevo Testamento. Factor contextual, definición y traducción.” FNT 16 (2003): 69 – 84. — “The definition of the lexemes in the New Testament Greek-Spanish Dictionary (DGENT): Basileía and related lexemes.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS. Barcelona, ES, 4 August 2004. — “La descripción semántica de la metonimia,” in Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de Lingüística General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. Juan de Dios Luque Durán, 787 – 803. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006. — “La definición de los lexemas en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT): βασιλεία y lexemas afines,” in Koinós Lógos. Homenaje al profesor José García López, ed. E. Calderón, A. Morales, and M. Valverde, 757 – 66. Murcia, ES: University of Murcia, 2006. — “Retraducción y culturas. Problemas de la traducción del Nuevo Testamento hoy,” in Retraducir. Una nueva mirada. La retraducción de textos literarios y audiovisuales, ed. J. J. Zaro Vera and F. Ruiz Noguera, 69 – 88. Malaga, ES: Miguel Gómez, 2007. — “El lexema verbal ἀποδίδωμι.” Fortunatae 18 (2007): 145 – 61. — “Principios básicos para la Redacción del Diccionario Griego Español del Nuevo Testamento.” Paper presented at the Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Valencia, ES, 22 – 26 October 2007. — “El Diccionario Griego-Espanol del Nuevo Testamento. Un proyecto en curso.” Paper presented at the Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos. Valencia, ES, 22 – 26 October 2007. — “Response to Dr. David du Toit, ‘After BAA/BDAG and Louw-Nida: Some Thoughts on the State of New Testament Lexicography and its Prospects’.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS. Lund University, SE, 1 August 2008.
Publications on Semantics and Lexicography
307
— “A new Method of Semantic Analysis, applied to New Testament lexicography. Four basic premises for the Greek-Spanish NT Dictionary.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS. University of Vienna, AU, 4 August 2009. — “Semantic procedures for the construction of definitions of the words in the Greek Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SNTS. University of Vienna, AU, 5 August 2009. — “Contextual factor and change in meaning of the lexemes in the Greek-Spanish NT Dictionary.” Paper presented at the International Meeting of the SBL and of the EABS. University of Tartu, EE, 27 July 2010. — “El Diccionario griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento.” Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of Spanish Lexicography. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, ES, 21 September 2010. — “Las preposiciones en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT). El caso de ἀντί,” in O Greco, Língua Universal de Cultura: Semântica e Léxico, ed. M. Alexandre Júnior, 32 – 45. Lisbon, PT: University of Coimbra, 2011. — “¿Hacia Dónde va la Lexicografía? Significado Lexical y Significados Contextuales de ἀρχή en el Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT),” in O Greco, Língua Universal de Cultura: Semântica e Léxico, ed. M. Alexandre Júnior, 107 – 25. Lisbon, PT: University of Coimbra, 2011. — “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT),” in Reflections on Lexicography. Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, ed. R. A. Taylor and C. E. Morrison, 265 – 75. Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2014. — “Definition of the Lexeme ἀγάπη in Greek New Testament Dictionaries: A comparative Study,” in In mari via tua. Philological Studies in Honour of Antonio Piñero, ed. M. Gallarte and Jesús Peláez, 267 – 79. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 2016. Pelaez, J., and I. Muñoz Gallarte. La clasificación semántica de los sustantivos en el Nuevo Testamento. Parte I. Sustantivos Entidad, Atributo, Relación y Determinación. Parte II. Sustantivos Hecho. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro (to be published soon). Piñero, A., and J. Peláez. El Nuevo Testamento. Introducción al estudio de los primeros escritos cristianos, En los orígenes del cristianismo 8. Cordoba, Ediciones El Almendro, 1995. — The Study of the New Testament. A Comprehensive Introduction, Tools for Biblical Study 3, trans. David E. Orton and Paul Ellingworth. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2003. Roig Lanzillotta, L. Quién es quién en el Nuevo Testamento. Diccionario de nombres propios del NT. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2009. — Diccionario de Personajes del Nuevo Testamento, Universidad y Ciencia 1. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro, 2011. — “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of the Lexemes; some practical examples,” in Reflections on Lexicography. Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, ed. R. A. Taylor and C. E. Morrison, 277 – 88. Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2014. Romero González, D. “Hacia una nueva clasificación semántica de los adjetivos pertenecientes a la especie semántica ‘Hecho’ en el Nuevo Testamento,” in Actas del V Congreso Andaluz de Lingüística General. Homenaje al Profesor José Andrés de Molina Redondo, ed. J. D. Luque Durán, 803 – 10. Granada: Granada Linguistica, 2006. — “El adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Clasificación semántica.” PhD diss., University of Cordoba, 2010. — Diccionario del uso del adjetivo en el Nuevo Testamento. Cordoba, Ediciones el Almendro (to be published soon).
Index of Greek Words The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages ἀγαθοποιέω XXXVI, 126, 251 ἀγαθός 111, 166, 237 – 38, 312 ἀγαθοσύνη 316, 318 ἀγαθότης 150, 166 ἀγαθουργέω 251 ἀγαθωσύνη 166, 309 ἀγαπάω 123, 304 ἀγάπη 148, 153 ἀγγελία 309 ἀγέλη 177, 322 ἁγιάζω 198 ἀγκάλη 318 ἀγορά 335 ἄγρα 339 ἀγρός 377, 378 – 83, 400 ἀδελφός 344 ἀδελφότης 350, 370 ᾅδης 377, 384 – 88, 403 – 05 ἀδικία 318 ἀδύνατος 183 ἀετός 335 αἵρεσις 349, 364 ἀκρίς 222 ἀκροατής 335 ἀκροβυστία 318 ἀλάλητος 114 ἀλλά 137 ἄμφοδον 335 ἄμωμος 114 ἀναβαίνω 245 ἀναγινώσκω 198 ἀναιρέω 185 ἀνάκρισις 318 ἀναλογία 318 ἀναστροφή 339 ἄνεμος 377, 389 – 94, 406, 408 ἄνθρωπος 104, 139, 221 – 23, 309, 316, 318, 320, 329, 335 – 36 ἀνίσταμαι 252 ἀνίστημι 252 ἀποθνῄσκω 198 ἀποκρίνομαι 132 ἀποκτείνω 119, 185, 198, 248, 252 ἀπόλλυμι 185, 248, 252 ἀπόστολος 328
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-023
ἄρα 183 ἀριθμός 311 ἅρμα 229 ἀρνέομαι 132 ἄρρητος 114 ἀρρωστία 152 ἀρχάγγελος 335 ἀρχή 146, 294 ἀσθένεια 152 ἀσθενέω 118, 198 ἀσθενής 110, 236 ἀσιάρχης 179 ἀσπίς 335 ἀστράπτω 116 ἀτενίζω 198 ἀτιμία 318 αὐλή 377, 395 – 99, 409, 411 αὔριον 143 αὐτός 138, 141, 284, 286, 305 βάλλω 198, 250, 313 βασανιστής 335 βασιλεία 306 βασιλεύς 106, 140, 232 βασιλεύω 121 βασίλισσα 335 βάτραχος 335 βδέλυγμα 318 βιβλίον 103 βίωσις 339 βλέμμα 339 βουνός 318 βραχύς 109 βρέχω 116 Γαλιλαία 316 γάρ 137 γε 183 γέλως 338 γεννάω 186, 265 γερουσία 351, 372 – 73 γῆ 320, 329 γίνομαι 186 γράμμα 311, 335
Index of Greek Words
γρηγορέω 257 γυνή 336 δαιμονίζομαι 185 δαιμόνιον 318, 335 δαίμων 335 δάκνω 341 δανειστής 335 δέ 137 δείκνυμι 128 δεύτερος 145, 293 δῆλος 183 δῆμος 177, 343, 350, 352, 413 – 15, 433 διά 278, 283 διάβολος 335 διαθήκη 311, 318 διακονέω 259 διαστολή 318 διάφορος 137 διδασκαλία 148 διδάσκαλος 103, 335 διδάσκω 128, 130, 268 διδαχή 148 δίδωμι 128 – 29, 156, 170, 263 – 64 δίκαιος 238, 305 δικαιοσύνη 148, 305 διότι 314 διψάω 258 δόγμα 311, 318 δοκέω 183 δόμα 170 δόσις 156, 158, 170 δότης 157, 170, 327 δουλεύω 259 δύναμαι 183 δύναμις 152 δυνατόs 183 δύο 144, 292, 315 – 16 δώδεκα 179 δωρεά 158 δῶρον 158, 170 ἔγγυος 326 ἐγγύς 136, 280 ἐγκοπή 318 ἐγώ 141, 171, 286 ἔθνος 177, 350, 352, 412, 424 – 30, 435 εἰ 183 εἰμι 163, 166, 198 εἰς 135, 276
εἷς 144, 292, 316 εἰσακούω 198 εἰσέρχομαι 120, 127, 256 ἐκ 135, 250, 277, 392, 394 ἕκαστος 144, 178, 291 ἐκβάλλω 250 ἐκεῖ 143, 288 ἐκεῖνος 142, 287 ἐλάχιστος 113 ἐμός/μου 138, 171, 284 ἐν 135, 274, 305 ἐνιαυτός 309 ἐντολή 238, 318 ἐξέρχομαι 120, 127, 256 ἔξω 135 ἐπαγγελία 318 ἔπος 318 ἐργάζομαι 249, 250 ἔρχομαι 120, 127, 245, 256 ἐρωτάω 132 ἐσθίω 199 ἑσπέρα 318 ἔσχατος 145 ἔσω 135 εὐαγγέλιον 311 εὐαγγελιστής 335 εὐθύς 136, 281, 314 εὐλογία 160 εὐποιέω 126 εὐπρέπεια 318 ἐφημερία 351, 376 ἔχω 124, 255 ἐσχάτως ἔχειν 255 κακῶς ἔχειν 255 ζάω 118, 167 ζητέω 198 ζωή 167, 265 ζῷον 167, 309 ζωοποιέω 265 ἡγέομαι 183 ἦθος 311 ἡλικία 311 ἡμέρα 295, 315 – 16, 318 θάνατος 339, 384, 387, 404 θανατόω 185 θεά 335 θέλημα 311
309
310
Index of Greek Words
θεός 335 θερισμός 315 ἰατρός 106, 335 ἱερεύς 306 ἱερόν 140, 230 – 31 ἱμάτιον 229 ἵνα 137 ἱππηλατέω 245 ἵππος 103 ἴσος 137 ἰσχύς 152 ἰσχύω 118 ἴσως 183 ἰχθύς 318 ἴχνος 311 καθαρός 110, 242 καθέδρα 105 καθεύδω 117, 198, 247, 257, 313 κάθημαι 198, 254, 256, 313 καί 137 καιρός 318 κακοποιέω 126 κακός 237 κάλαμος 330 κάμηλος 320 καρδία 298 – 302, 311, 344 καρπός 177, 330 κατά 178 καταλύω 185 καταργέω 185, 248 κατοικέω 124, 255 κέρας 330 κεφαλή 318 κῆρυξ 328 κλαίω 261 κλέπτης 318 κλισία 348, 356 κοινός 243 κουστωδία 349, 359 κόφινος 318 κρατέω 198 κρέας 330 κτάομαι 198 κτῆνος 322 κτίζω 186 κύων 104, 329
λαλέω 267 λαμβάνω 170, 198 λαός 177, 225, 350, 352, 412, 416 – 20, 434 λατρεύω 259 λέγω 128, 131 – 32, 266 – 67 λεῖμμα 349, 363 λειτουργέω 259 λευκαθίζω 162 λευκός 108, 149, 162, 234 – 35 λευκότης 149, 162 λέων 335 λήπτης 170 λίαν 144, 290 λίθος 104, 335 λόγος 103, 266, 311 λυπέω 198, 260 – 61 λύω 185 μαθητής 315 μακράν 136, 280 μακροθυμία 318 μακρόθυμος 237 μακρός 109 μακρότης 148 μανθάνω 133 μαστιγόω 270 μάστιξ 318 μεγαλότης 163 μέγας 109, 163, 235, 312 μέγιστος 113, 241 μείζων 113, 240 μεριστής 327 μεσίτης 326 μετά 135 – 36, 183, 279 μετάνοια 316 μῆκος 149 μίασμα 311, 318 μικρός 109, 235 μίλιον 315 – 16 μιμητής 335 μῖσος 153 ναός 231 νεανίας 335 νοέω 245 νομίζω 183 νόμισμα 318 νόμος 311 νόσος 152
Index of Greek Words
νοῦς 311, 318 νῦν 143, 289 ὁ, ἡ, τό 139, 285 οἰκετεία 349, 365 οἰκέω 124, 198, 255 οἶκος XXXVI, 105, 139, 226 – 30, 309 οἶμαι 183 ὀλίγος 113, 241 ὅμοιος 137 ὁμοιότης 309, 314, 318 ὄνομα 147, 296, 311 ὅραμα 339 ὁράω 198 ὀργή 13 ὃς ἄν 178 ὅτι 137, 283, 314 οὐ 183 οὗτος 142, 171, 287 ὄχλος XXXV, 224 πάθος 339 πανταχόθεν 314 παραχρῆμα 136, 281 παρέρχομαι 185 παρθένος 321 πᾶς 144, 291, 316, 417, 426, 434, 436 – 37 – πάντες 178 – πᾶς ὁ 178 πάσχω 198 πατριά 350, 352, 412, 431, 437 πατρικός 314 Παῦλος 316 πεινάω 258 πενθέω 261 πείθω 183 περιπατέω 198, 245 περίσσευμα 318 περιτέμνω 270 πιστεύω 122, 253 πλατύς 109 πλοῖον 229 πλούσιος 112, 151, 239 πλουτέω 125, 255 πλοῦτος 151 πνεῦμα 298, 300, 408 πνέω 408 πνοή 408 ποιέω 119, 169, 186, 249, 305, 313 ποίημα 169
ποίησις 169 ποιητής 169 ποιμαίνω 119 πολιτάρχαι 179 πολύς 113, 241, 315 πονηρία 150 πονηρός 111, 237 πορεύομαι 117, 168, 198, 245 ποτέ 143, 289 πού 143, 288 – 89 ποῦ 288 – 89 πρεσβεία 349, 357 πρό 136, 183, 275 πρός 135, 314 προσευχή 318 προσφορά 154 – 55 προφητεία 318 πρῶτος 145, 293 πτωχεία 151, 165 πτωχεύω 125, 165 πτωχός 112, 151, 165 πῶς 183 πως 183 ῥέω 198 ῥῆγμα 339 ῥιπτέω 250 ῥίπτω 250 σανδάλιον 335 σβέννυμι 248 σήμερον 143 σκορπίος 335 σκώληξ 335 σός/σου 138, 284 σπεῖρα 177, 351, 375 σποδός 318 στάχυς 330 στεῖρα 321 στενός 109 στρατιά 349, 360, 374 σύ 141, 286 σύν 135 συνέδριον 179, 351 συνετός 108 συνοδία 349, 358 σφαγή 339 σφόδρα 144, 290 σφραγίζω 271 σῷζω 303 – 04
311
312
Index of Greek Words
τάχα 183 τεκνογονία 339 τέλος 146, 294, 315 τετράγωνος 108 τετράδιον 348, 351, 371 τιμή 255 τινος 138 τότε 143, 183, 289 τράπεζα 229, 335 τραπεζίτης 335 τροφός 335 ὑγιαίνω 118, 164 ὑγίεια 152, 164, 236 ὑγιής 110, 164, 236 ὕω 116 ὑπακούω 343 ὑπογραμμός 318 ὑπολαμβάνω 183 ὑπόλειμμα 349
ὑπολήνιον 335 ὑπομένω 198 ὑψηλός 109 ὕψος 149 φαίνω 117, 246 Φαρισαῖος 140 φιλέω 123, 304 – 05 φυλή 350, 352, 412, 421 – 23, 431, 436 φῶς 103 χαρίζομαι 128 – 29, 264 χθές 143 χορτάζω 269 χρόνος 103, 233, 295 ὧδε 143, 171, 288 ὡς 137 ὡς 137 ὥσπερ 137, 28
Index of Subjects The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages absolute superlatives 113, 241 abstract attribute lexemes 149 abstract event lexemes 152 – 60 anaphoric 99 – 100, 134, 139 – 40, 142, 285, 287 article 73, 92, 309, 315 article, definite 99, 139 – 40, 159, 176, 285, 316 article, indefinite 139 aspect (grammatical category) 160, 173, 193, 333 aspect (semantic category) 193 – 96, 203, 211, 215, 244, 303 – 04, 332 – 34, 337 – 39 attribute 48, 73, 79, 93 – 96, 107, 113, 118, 172, 183, 309 – 10, 316 attribute lexeme 107 – 14, 149 – 51, 162 – 67, 220, 234 – 43, 290, 312 attribute noun 318 BAA 25, 29 – 35, 37 – 39, 42 BAG 23, 37, 42 BAGD 23, 30 – 31, 36 – 37, 40 – 42, 49 BDAG 36 – 44 BRAA 25 clarity 76, 209 class, grammatical XXXI – XXXII, 73, 92, 95, 101, 308 – 09, 316 – 17, 331 class, semantic 73, 79, 92 – 93, 95 – 102, 161 – 72, 218 – 19, 308 – 19, 331, 334, 438 – 443 classemes 72, 74, 83, 87, 89, 203, 215, 219, 334 collective entity noun 347 – 76, 413 – 31 comparative attribute lexemes 113, 240 componential analysis 14, 73, 75 connotation, connoted elements XXXIII, XXXVI, 51, 71, 105, 115 – 33, 160, 201, 210, 213, 216, 218, 234, 237, 239 – 41, 244 – 71, 319, 323 – 28, 331 – 32 constants 90, 210 – 14, 219 contextual meaning XXXI, XXXV, 20, 28, 33, 35, 51 – 52, 55, 57 – 59, 68, 72, 74 – 75, 89, 204, 206, 208 – 09, 215, 217, 228, 297, 307, 331, 341 – 46, 377 – 411
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-024
contextual semes 72, 74, 83, 89, 160, 215 – 17, 219, 255, 275, 291, 334 contextual seme, generic see classemes contextual semes, occasional (or peripheral) 74, 88 – 89, 215 – 17, 219, 331, 343 corpus (general) 2, 5, 42, 69, 74, 206, 217, 227, 307, 341, 343 corpus of the NT 26, 57, 69, 71 definitional (or contextual) analysis 27, 75, 209, 244 deictic determination morpholexemes 139, 142 deictic determinative lexemes 286 Deissmann, G.A. XXII – XXVII, XXX denotation XXXIII, 51, 320 – 22 determination 5, 73, 79, 93 – 95, 99 – 100, 113, 218, 310, 316 determination lexeme 139 – 47, 285 – 96, 315 determination noun 318 DGENT XXI – XXXVII, 5, 307 – 08, 317, 331 Diccionario Bíblico hebreo-español 2 Diccionario Griego-Español (DGE) 22, 25 dictionary (general) 2 – 5, 17, 19 – 22, 70, 72 dictionary, bilingual 1 – 6, 17, 19, 40 distinct(ive) features 21, 48, 51, 205, 412 ditransitive abstract lexemes 156 – 57 ditransitive event lexemes 128, 156, 170, 201 – 02 efficiency 76 encyclopedic dictionaries 26 encyclopedic knowledge XXXVI – XXXVII, 27 entity 95, 101, 103 – 06, 108 – 09, 119, 122 – 23, 141, 150, 169, 201, 221 – 39, 309 – 11, 329 – 30, 340 entity lexeme 103 – 06, 220 – 33, 311, 324 – 30, 336 – 37 entity noun 316, 318, 332, 336, 338 – 39 etymology 19, 81 event 73, 79, 93 – 95, 97, 101, 181, 183, 187 – 90, 194 – 97, 211, 236 – 38, 310, 316, 337, 339 event lexemes 115 – 33, 164 – 70, 201 – 02, 244 – 71, 313
314
Index of Subjects
event nouns 318, 338 – 39 event, dynamic 123, 153, 354 – 60, 365, 372 – 76 event, stative 123, 153, 361 – 65 functionality
76, 205, 208, 353
GASCO XXVIII, XXXIX – XL, 305 – 307 gender (grammatical category) 87, 173 – 74, 203, 333, 335 gender (semantic category) 83, 87, 174, 203, 211, 215, 221, 332, 334 – 35, 337, 347, 352, 355 generic contextual seme, see classemes gloss 31, 39 – 40, 42, 44, 52 Grimm-Wilke 37 Grundbedeutung 19, 51, 345 implication 5, 86, 105, 213, 297 intransitive verbs/lexemes 120, 127, 168, 248, 254, 256 – 58, 260 Louw-Nida (L&N) 24 – 25, 45 – 68, 73, 298, 307, 399, 402, 405, 408, 411 langue XXXI, 3, 5, 16 – 17, 72, 74, 204, 220, 228, 307, 315 lexeme 72 – 75, 77 – 78, 81 – 83 lexical meaning XXX, 20, 28, 35, 40, 47, 52, 55, 68, 340 – 76, 378, 385, 387, 389 – 90, 393, 396, 412, 432 lexicographer 5, 15 – 16, 31, 36, 40, 44 – 45, 47, 244 lexicography 5, 23, 31, 35, 307 lexicology 5 lexicon (book) 5 lexicon (technical linguistic term) 5 LSJ 25, 30 LXX 26, 29 – 30, 38, 42, 57, 259, 298, 300 meaning 10 – 15, 18 – 22 metalanguage 205, 355 metaphorical usage 344, 431 metonymy 296, 362, 364, 385, 392 – 94, 397, 399, 406 – 07 mode (grammatical category) 87, 173, 181, 333 mode (semantic category) 181 – 86, 203, 334 morphemes 79, 83, 333 morpholexeme 79, 134 – 37, 272, 275 – 79, 282, 285, 290 – 91, 314 – 15
name 12 – 14 nuclear configuration XXXI, 86, 89, 207, 213, 297 – 306, 344 nuclear semes 72, 74, 85 – 86, 89, 203, 206 – 07, 210 – 13, 216 – 17, 219, 225, 228, 252, 274, 297, 307, 331, 344, 354 nuclear seme, generic 210 – 11, 213, 218 – 19, 222, 234, 245 – 47, 249, 260, 263, 330 – 31, 340, 355 nuclear seme, specific 206, 210, 212 nucleus, generic 74 number (grammatical category) 74, 87, 173, 221, 333, 336 number (semantic category) 87, 175 – 80, 203, 211, 215, 221, 225, 332, 334, 336 numerals 39, 99, 144, 316 operational (or contextual) theory ordinal lexemes 195, 293
11, 14 – 16
paralexemes 3, 67, 80, 208 parole XXXI, 3, 5, 16 – 17, 74, 204, 228, 307, 315, 338 possessive lexemes 100, 284 presupposition 5, 86, 105, 213, 297, 323 principle of economy 76, 91 principle of expressiveness 91 quantifiers 99, 113, 292, 315 – 16 quasi-entity 103, 233, 295 quasi-entity lexeme 233, 311 quasi-entity noun 318 reference 5, 12, 14, 49 referent 5, 12, 48, 52, 311, 336 referential (componential) school 11 relation 172 relation lexeme 100, 134 – 38, 171, 272 – 84, 314 semantic category XXXIV, 172 – 203, 332 – 339 semantic domain 24, 48 – 49, 52 – 54, 59, 68, 71, 74, 211 – 12, 332 semantic formula XXXIII, XXXV, 74, 101 – 72, 206, 210, 218 – 19, 244, 297, 318 – 32, 340, 377 semantic formula, generic 262, 274 semantic structure 77, 91, 149
Index of Subjects
sememe XXXI, XXXV, 28, 51, 74 – 75, 89 – 90, 215, 217, 219, 297 – 302, 331, 343 – 44, 346, 353, 377 semes XXX, XXXII – XXXIII, 21, 32, 60, 72, 74 – 75, 84 – 88, 90, 172, 204 – 08 semic configuration, see nuclear configuration semic development XXXIII – XXXVI, XL, 52, 74, 172, 204 – 218, 329 – 339, 340 – 376, 438 – 443 semic nucleus XXXIV – XXXV, 72, 74, 85 – 86, 89 – 90, 204, 206 – 09, 213 – 14, 216 – 20, 227 – 28, 297, 307, 344 semiosis 5 sense 12 – 14 sign 5, 12 signified 5 signifier 5, 12 subdomains 47 – 48, 51, 53 – 54, 68 synonymy 51, 62, 75, 214, 412 syntactic explanation 31 syntagm 74, 87 – 88, 90, 309 syntagmatic relations 75
315
tense (grammatical category) 187, 203, 333 tense (semantic category) 187, 192, 203, 334 theory, analytical or referential (componential) 11 – 15 theory, operational or contextual 11, 15 – 16 thing (extralinguistic feature or event) 12 – 13 transitive verbs/lexemes 119, 154 – 55, 201, 248 – 52 translational equivalents 2, 4, 6 – 9, 19, 21, 31, 35, 39 – 40, 44, 48 – 49, 53, 60, 64, 353, 377, 412 usage
5, 11, 15, 35, 51, 206, 307
variables 90, 204, 215 – 17, 219 vocabulary 3, 5, 23, 48 voice (grammatical category) 74, 87, 173, 197, 333 voice (semantic category) 197 – 203, 211, 215, 332, 334, 337, 339
Index of Authors The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages Alfagame, I. R. 336 Allenbach, J. 25 Alsop, J. R. 23 Arndt, W. F. 23, 29, 35, 37 Attridge, H. W. 36, 42 Balz, H. 25 Barr, J. 19 Bauer, W. XXV, 23, 29, 31, 33 – 34, 38, 40, 42 – 44 Beyreuther, E. 25 Bietenhard, H. 25 Bihlmeyer, K. 30 Black, D. A. 24 Blomqvist, J. 36 – 37 Bloomfield, L. 13 Brandscheid, F. 26 Carreter, F. L. 2, 4, 335, 342 Chase, S. 15 Coenen, L. 25 Clement 25 Coseriu, E. XXVIII, 99, 205 Courtés, J. 3, 5, 203 Cyril of Jerusalem 25 Danker, F. W. 23, 25, 29, 35 – 44 du Toit, D. S. 36 – 37, 71 Dubois, J. 3, 5, 342 Dubois, J. and C. Dubois 4 Dubois, J. et al. 3, 5 Epiphanius 25 Elliott, J. K. 30 Eusebius of Caesarea
Greimas, A. J. XXVIII – XXIX, 3, 5 – 6, 72, 87, 187, 203, 228, 334 Harrison, J. R. 25 Hasselbrook, D. S. 43 Hetzenauer, M. 26 Horsley, G. H. R. XXVII, 25 Katz, J. J. XIX Kittel, G. 25 Klauck, H.-J. 36, 38 Lampe, G. 25, 30 Landau, S. 38 Lee, J. A. L. XXI, XXVII, 25, 28, 36 – 37, 40, 42 – 44, 55, 57, 60, 68 Lewandowski, T. 5 Llewelyn, S. R. 25 Louw, J. P. 18, 31 – 32, 55, 68 Louw, J. P. and Nida, E. A. XVI, 5, 21, 24 – 25, 35, 40, 45 – 68, 298, 307 – 308 Malherbe, A. J. 38 Marín, M. 92 Mateos, J. XXVII – XXVIII, XIX – XXX, XXXVI – XXXVII, 9, 63, 69, 101, 160 – 61, 172, 220, 270, 297, 306 – 07, 310, 352 Milligan, G., see Moulton, J. Moliner, M. 2, 4 Moulton, J. XXIV – XXV, 23, 25, 42 Naselli, A. 37 Newman, B. M. 47, 52 Nida, E. A. 52, 73, 310
25
Fanning , B. M. 338 Fitzgerald, J. T. 37 Fodor, J. D. XIX, 10 Friedrich, G. 25 Fries, C. C. 10 Funk, F. X. von 30 García Santos, A. A. 71 Gingrich, F. W. 23, 29, 35, 37
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-025
Ogden, C. K. Origen 25
10, 12 – 13
Pabón, J. M. 7 Padilla, C. 57 Peláez, J. XXVIII, 2, 23, 25, 35, 37, 63, 105, 266, 307, 340, 352, 355, 377, 400, 412, 428 Philo 26 Plato 12
Index of Authors
Porter, S. E. 338 Pottier, B. XXVIII, 87, 334 Preisigke, F. 23, 25 – 26 Preuschen, E. 23, 29, 37, 42 – 44
Taber, C. R. 73 Tertullian 25 Thayer, J. H. 37 Tischendorf 26
Reichmann, V. 25, 35 Richards A., see Ogden, C. K. Roberts, T. 36, 40, 44 Rodri´guez Adrados, F. 12, 16, 22 Rübsam, W. 25
Ullmann, S.
Saussure, F. 5, 12 Schneemelcher, W. 30 Schneider, G. 25 Schökel, L. A. 2, 5
Westcott-Hort 26 Wittgenstein, L. 15
317
10, 12, 14 – 15, 51
Vine, W. E. 48 Vogels, H. J. 26 von Soden, H. 26
Zerwick, M. 26 Zorell, F. 23 – 30, 46, 68, 307 – 08, 318, 400, 403, 406, 409
Index of References The arabic numbers refer to sections (§§) not pages
Old Testament Genesis
135/134:14
12:3 426, 431, 437 15:14 426 17:5 426
Job
Exodus
Wisdom of Solomon
19:5 420, 434 19:6 430, 435 22:27 418 23:22 420, 434 27:9 409 27:9 ff. 398n5 32:6 418
16:13
Leviticus 26:16
420, 434
Deuteronomy 18:19 418 32:21 426 32:36 420 32:43 418, 427, 434
Psalms 2:1 418, 427, 434 2:1 – 8 427n3 4:25 418 15:10 404 18/17:50 427n3 28/29:2 398n5 46/45:7 427n3 83/84:3 398n5 83/84:11 398n5 89/88:49 385 91/92:14 398n5 94/93:14 418 95/94:11 420 117/116:1b 417 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110408973-026
38:17
420
404
385, 404
Isaiah 2:2 427n3 6:9 418 6:10 418 10:22LXX 363 13 427n4 14:5 – 30 427n4 14:11 404 14:15 404 15:1 – 9 427n4 16:13 – 14 427n4 17:1 – 6 427n4 19:1 – 13 427n4 21 427n4 23:1 – 14 427n4 25:9 – 12 427n4 28:11 418 28:15 404 29:13 418 38:10 385, 404 42:3 427, 435 42:4 427, 435 43:21 420, 434 45:1 427n3 48:20 420 52:5 428 56:7 427
Jeremiah 19:14 398n5 25:25 – 38 427n4
Index of References
31:33 418 39/32:12 398n5 39/32:2 398n5 39/32:8 398n5 40/33:1 398n5 46 – 51 427n4 49:36/25:35LXX 406
Amos 1:3 – 2:3 427 9:12 427n4
Malachi 3:17
420, 434
Ezekiel
1Maccabees
8:16 398n5 25 – 32 427n4 32:18 – 32 385 37:27 420
9:54
Daniel
4Maccabees
7:2
15:32
406
398n5
3Maccabees 5:51
385, 404
407
Hosea
Psalms of Solomon
1:6 27 1:10 420 2:23 27 2:25 420
16:2
385, 404
New Testament Matthew 1:20 1:21 1:23 2:1 2:3 2:4 2:6 2:8 2:10 2:11 2:16 2:18 2:21 2:23 3:2 4:3 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:13 4:15
246n19 418, 434 279n86 295n121 291n109 291n109, 418, 434 418, 434 335 235n8 158 290n107 278n83 256 255 306n19 57 290n105 263n43 259 255 428, 435
4:16 418, 434 4:18 292n113 4:23 27, 418 5:1 189 5:4 189, 261 5:4 – 5 305 5:6 95, 258n40, 269, 269n57, 305 5:7 298n3 5:8 242n14 5:12 275n74 5:13 189 5:14 183 5:19 – 20 306n15 5:22 291n111 5:25 56 5:31 263n43 5:42 270n60 5:45 270n59 5:47 428, 435 6:5 246n19, 304n11 6:7 282n96 6:8 275n74
319
320
Index of References
6:9 296n123 6:10 306n16 6:11 263n44 6:24 259 6:28 379, 383, 400 – 02 6:30 250n27, 379, 383, 400 – 02 6:32 428, 435 6:33 305 7:4 – 5 250 7:8 178 7:18 177n3 7:22 250 7:23 249n25 7:25 390, 406 – 07 7:27 235n8, 390, 406 – 07 8:11 306n15 8:12 208 8:13 274n69 8:15 par. 259 8:18 367 8:20 288n100 8:25 303n9 8:26 256, 390 8:26 – 27 407 8:27 390 8:29 275n74 8:30 280n94 8:32 274n65 8:34 270n60 9:11 33 9:15 261 9:18 267n55 9:19 200n6 9:21 303n9 9:22 par. 303n8 9:28 253n34 9:33 267n51 9:37 241n10 10:2 146n20, 296n122 10:5 428 10:18 428 10:19 267n53 10:22 276, 303n9 10:28 252 10:34 250n29 10:40 178, 188 10:41 296n123 11:1 270n60 11:7 390, 394, 406 – 07 11:10 275
11:16 335 11:18 33 11:23 385, 403 – 04 12:1 33 12:2 274n69 12:18 427, 435 12:20 252n31 12:21 427, 435 12:22 267n51 12:25 – 26 306n15 12:34 267n53 12:35 237 12:36 267n53 12:40 295n120, 298n6, 344 12:45 255 12:47 267n54 12:50 178 13:2 291n109 13:3 267n55, 274n72 13:15 418 13:16 381 13:17 381 13:24 381, 383, 400 – 01 13:27 381, 401 13:31 381, 401 13:32 274n67 13:34 267n55 13:36 381, 401 13:38 208, 381 13:41 306n15 13:43 289n104, 306n15 13:44 380 13:52 188 14:5 200n6 14:9 260 14:20 269 14:24 390 14:30 303n9, 390 14:32 390 14:35 191 15:8 298n3, 418 15:18 298n3 15:27 33 15:30 250 15:31 267n51 15:32 274n70 15:33 269 15:37 269 16:8 274n66 16:18 385, 403 – 05
Index of References
16:19 306n15 16:20 270n60 16:24 191 16:25 303n9 16:28 306n17 17:1 295n119 17:6 290n107 17:7 200n6 17:11 180n4 18:9 96 18:17 282n96 18:31 260 18:35 291n112, 298n3 19:23 – 24 306n15 19:28 423, 436 19:29 380, 400 – 01 20:19 428, 435 20:23 159 20:25 427, 435 20:27 293n116 21:23 435 21:24 274n72 21:28 249, 292n115 21:31 306nn15.19, 418 21:32 253n32 21:39 199 21:43 306n19, 426, 434 22:5 380 22:12 270n58 22:17 263n44 22:25 293n114 22:34 270n58 22:37 298n3 23:5 291n110 23:6 304n11 23:7 270n58 23:13 306n15, 419 23:16 99 23:18 99 23:21 255 23:23 99 23:35 238 23:37 51 24:7 426, 435 24:9 427 24:14 427, 435 24:18 401 24:21 294n118 24:30 241n11, 422, 436 24:31 392, 394, 406 – 07
24:40 381 24:41 381 24:45 365 25:8 252n31 25:24 292n113 25:32 427 25:35 258n40 25:44 259 26:1 291n110 26:3 397, 399, 409 – 11, 418 26:5 419, 434 26:10 249, 249n24 26:15 55n83 26:17 293n114 26:18 279n87 26:22 260n41 26:26 199 26:27 180n4 26:29 306n15 26:32 160, 410 26:38 279n87 26:47 190, 241n10, 418, 434 26:48 304n12 26:52 274n72 26:53 55n83, 374 26:55 268 26:57 – 68 396 26:58 397, 399, 409 – 410 26:60 410 26:69 396, 409 26:72 279n89 27:1 418 27:5 250 27:7 380 27:8 380 27:10 380 27:16 289n104 27:18 278n83 27:35 419 27:59 242n13 27:60 235n6 27:64 419 27:65 359 27:66 271n62, 359 28:2 254 28:8 279n89 28:11 359 28:19 270n58, 427, 435
321
322
Index of References
Mark 1:1 97, 146n20, 294n118 1:2 98, 275 1:4 95 1:6 222 1:10 276n77 1:13 98, 279n84 1:15 306n16 1:21a 256n38 1:21b 63n89 1:23 369 1:27 96, 270n60 1:29 63n89, 281n95 1:31 259 1:32 96 1:45 241n11 2:2 267n55 2:6 255, 298n4 2:7 267n53 2:8 298n4 2:12 190 2:14 191, 254 3:2 98, 190 3:4 251 3:5 279, 279n89, 298n4 3:6 190 3:16 58, 296n122 3:17 208 3:21 190 3:35 178 4:1 98, 268 4:2 268n56 4:3 199 4:6 190 4:10 176 4:14 266, 266n49 4:16 279, 279n89 4:26 250n30 4:32 235n6 4:37 390, 407 4:38 247n20 4:39 390 4:41 390 5:9 374 5:14 382, 400 – 02 5:15 374 5:18 185 5:22 296n122 5:23 96, 255 5:36 253n35
5:39 247n21, 335 5:43 270n60 6:11 256n38 6:14 296n124 6:23 306n15 6:27 270n60 6:36 382, 400 – 01 6:39 270n60 6:41 276n76 6:48 55n83, 390 6:50 279n86 6:51 390 6:52 298n4 6:56 303n10, 382 – 83, 400 – 02 7:2 243n17 7:5 243n17 7:6 418, 434 7:27 250n27 7:32 270n60 7:33 250 7:37 274n65 8:34 188 9:22 250n28 9:23 253n35 9:31 252 9:41 270n59 9:43 190 10:3 270n60 10:29 397 10:29 – 30 380, 401 10:32 260n41 10:33 428, 435 10:34 252 10:37 183 10:40 263n44 10:40 – 45 242n13 10:42 427, 435 10:48 241n12 11:2 98 11:8 380 11:10 306n16 11:17 230n4 11:17 427 11:18 98 11:19 256n38 11:29 253n32 11:32 27, 419, 434 11:32 434 12:9 263n44 12:28 293n116
Index of References
12:34 96, 280n94, 306n15 12:50 267n53 13:1 99, 256 13:2 235n6 13:3 255, 276 13:8 294n118, 426, 435 13:10 427, 435 13:11 267n53 13:13 296n125 13:13b 190 13:16 381, 401 – 02 13:27 391, 407 13:28 280n93 13:33 257 13:36 247n22 14:4 260n41 14:19 260 14:28 159 14:32 296n122 14:35 183 14:38 270n60 14:43 367 14:44 263n44, 304n12 14:53 393 14:54 409 14:54a 392 14:54b 394 14:60 99 14:62 255 14:64 246n19 14:66 409 15:8 – 14 396 15:16 395, 410 15:21 381, 400 16:2 290n106 16:4 290n105 16:10 261 16:12 382, 400
Luke 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:10 1:13 1:17 1:20 1:26 1:33
376 98 376 27, 419, 434 98 298n5, 418, 434 253n33 296n122 306n16
1:51 298n5 1:63 270n60 2:4 431, 437 1:66 279n86 1:68 418, 434 2:10 235n8, 418, 434 2:13 63, 360 1:75 305 1:76 275 1:77 418 2:27 160 2:31 417 2:32 418, 434 2:32a 427, 435 2:32b 427 2:36 436 2:44 358 3:15 419 3:18 419 3:21 419 4:5 306n15 4:9 250 4:15 268 4:25 292n113 4:30 98 4:35 250 4:39 259 4:43 306n16 5:30 33 6:9 251 6:17 419 6:25 261 6:32 251 6:35 251 6:44 291n112 7:1 419 7:5 426, 435 7:16 418, 434 7:21 264n47 7:24 390, 394, 406 – 07 7:29 419 7:42 264n48 7:43 183 7:44 263n44 7:45 263n44 8:1 179 8:15 97, 298n5 8:23 390, 407 8:24 390 8:25 390
323
324
Index of References
8:28 270n60 8:30 374 8:34 382, 400 – 01 8:47 419 8:55 270n60 9:2 306n16 9:11 306n16 9:12 382, 401 9:13 419, 434 9:14 356 9:31 55n83 9:60 306n16 10:2 270n60 10:15 385, 404 10:16 188 10:20 260n41 11:13 263n46 11:21 409 – 11, 419 11:21a 397 11:21b 397 11:26 255 11:29 306n15 11:31 274n70 11:38 283n98 11:53 419, 434 12:11 294n118 12:17 180n4 12:19 276 12:28 379, 400 12:32 109 12:49 250n29 13:4 252, 255 13:15 270n59 13:16 270n58 14:18 380, 401 14:32 357 14:33 98 14:43 279n88 15:13 109 15:15 381, 383, 401 15:20 280n94 15:25 355, 381, 400 15:29 259 16:3 200n6 16:8 208 16:11 253 16:23 386, 388, 403 – 05 16:23 – 25 386 16:24 386, 388 16:31 95
17:16 418, 434 17:27 33 17:31 381, 401 17:36 381 18:6 96 18:13 48 18:23 290n105 18:32 428, 435 18:43 419 19:11 280n92 19:12 109, 306n17, 400 19:14 357 19:15 306n17 19:47 418, 434 19:48 419 20:9 419, 434 20:13 183 20:19 419 20:20 434 20:26 419, 434 20:36 208 20:37 – 38 386n3 20:45 419, 434 20:46 304n11 21:10 426, 435 21:23 418 21:24 435 21:24a 427 21:24b–c 427 21:25 427 21:34 63 21:36 291n111 22:2 419 22:11 256n38 22:15 275n74 22:25 427 22:47 123, 304n12 22:49 274n72 22:55 396, 399 23:2 263n45, 426 23:5 418, 434 22:66 373, 418 23:14 418, 434 23:26 381, 400 23:27 419 23:42 306n17 23:43 28 23:55 419 24:5 279n84 24:19 418
Index of References
24:23 24:38 24:47
160 200n6 427, 435
John 1:1 1:5 1:6 1:12 1:16 1:17 1:22 2:11 2:16 2:19 2:22 2:24 3:5 3:8 3:16 3:33 4:10 4:13 4:20 4:22 4:27 4:36 4:44 5:4 5:5 5:7 5:11 5:17 5:21 5:24 5:25 5:30 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:18 6:27 6:28 6:33 6:39 7:1 6:63 7:12 7:35
266, 266nn49.50 246n18 296n122 263n43 199, 283n97 263n44 263n43 294n118 227 274n71 253n33 253 306n15 288n101 123 271n62 158 291n111 274n67 283n97 279n86 177n3 255 279n90 255 250n28 249n26 249 265 255 199 238 280n93 283n98 109, 291n110 390 271n62 249 263n44 252 252 267n55 237 362
8:20 274n68 8:23 259 8:26 276n76 8:29 279n86 8:56 295n121 9:11 200n8 9:15 200n8 10:1 398 – 99, 409 – 10 10:16 398, 409 – 11 10:36 283n98 10:50 418, 426 11:9 274n70, 292n113, 295n120 11:18 280n92 11:48 426 11:50 292n113, 418, 434 11:51 – 52 426 11:54 279n85 12:26 259 12:27 289n104 12:36 208 12:40 298n5 13:2 298n5 13:18 279n87 13:33 279n85 14:2 98 14:14 249n26 14:26 268n56 15:13 242n14 15:14 270n60 15:21 276 16:19 55n83 17:5 275n74 17:12 208 18:3 177, 279n88 18:14 418 18:15 397 18:19 397 18:29 256 18:35 426 18:36 306n17 19:1 270 19:20 280n92 20:25 250 20:27 250 20:29 283 21:11 235n6 21:25 178, 183
Acts 1:3
159, 278n80
325
326
Index of References
1:15 296n125 1:18 200n7 1:29 255 2:4 267n51 2:5 255, 426, 435 2:9 255 2:17 388 2:24 183 2:27 385, 403 – 04 2:31 385, 388, 403 – 05 2:44 243n16 2:47 303n10, 418 3:9 419, 434 3:11 – 12 419 3:14 264n47 3:23 418 3:25 431, 437 4:1 419 4:2 419 4:8 418, 434 4:9 303n8 4:10 418, 434 4:16 313 4:17 419 4:21 419 4:25 427 4:27 418, 434 4:36 208 4:37 383, 400 – 01 5:12 418 5:13 418 5:17 364 5:19 278n81 5:20 419 5:21 371 5:25 – 26 419 5:37 419 5:40 296n125 6:2 259 6:7 290n108 6:8 418 6:10 267n53 6:12 97, 418 7:4 159, 289n104 7:7 426 7:17 418, 434 7:34 418, 434 7:42 360 7:45 427 8:1 235n8
8:9 426, 435 8:20 200n7 8:22 183 9:2 369 9:14 64 9:15 96, 428 10:2 418, 434 10:14 243n17 10:22 426, 435 10:28 243n17 10:35 249n25, 426, 435 10:41 159, 418, 434 10:42 418 10:45 428 11:1 428 11:8 243n17 11:18 428 12:4 371, 418 12:6 275n73 12:11 291n110, 418 12:14 275n73 12:22 413 – 14, 433 13:15 419 13:17a 418 13:17b 418 13:19 426, 435 13:21 423, 436 13:31 418 13:40 274n66 13:43 369 13:44 380 13:45 428 13:46 428 13:47 427 13:48 428, 435 14:2 428 14:5 428, 435 14:13 275n73 14:16 427 14:17 251 14:19 160 14:21 270n58 14:27 428 15:3 428 15:5 364 15:7 428 15:10 427, 435 15:12 428 5:12 – 13 9 15:13 159
Index of References
15:14 15:17 15:19 15:22 15:23 16:3 16:26 17:5 17:5 ff 17:8 17:10 17:26 18:6 18:10 19:2 19:4 19:30 19:31 19:32 19:33 19:35 19:40 19:41 20:16 20:17 20:23 20:29 20:31 21:11 21:19 21:21 21:26 21:28 21:30 21:34 21:36 21:37 21:39 21:40 22:5 22:9 22:10 22:11 22:28 23:1 23:5 23:9 23:12 23:31 24:2
420, 428, 434 427 428 176 428 270 63 176, 413, 415, 431 26 179 176 426, 435 428 420, 434 183 418 176, 413, 415, 431 179 415 368n12, 413, 415, 431 176 176 368, 368n12 183 176 178 279n90 279, 279n89 428, 435 428 428 155 418 419 278n83 419 183 419 419, 434 371 176, 199 276n76 276n77 200n7 179, 237n9 418, 434 109 190 176 426, 435
24:10 24:14 24:17 25:11 26:4 26:17 26:20 26:23 27:1 27:4 27:7 27:14 27:15 27:19 27:20 27:24 27:29 27:40 28:17 28:26 28:27 28:28 28:31
426 364 426 – 27 264n47 426 418, 435 427, 435 418, 427, 434 – 35 177 390, 407 390 390 390 250 159 264n47 250, 288n103 303n10 418 418 418 427 291n110
Romans 1:5 427 1:10 183 1:13 8, 426 1:16 305n13 1:17 160, 305 2:14 428 2:24 428 3:4 98 3:18 160 3:21 98, 305, 305n14 3:21 – 22 305 3:22 305 3:26 305 3:29 428 4:13 160 4:17 426 4:18 426 4:19 288n103 5:7 183 5:12 95, 98 6:4 95 6:6 96, 259 6:13 305 6:19 95
327
328
Index of References
7:8 95 7:11 252 7:12 238 7:18 159 8:19 95 8:21 95 8:32 183, 264n47 9:18 270n58 9:24 428, 435 9:25 420 9:25 – 26 27 9:26 420 9:27 363 9:30 305, 305n14, 428, 435 10:2 418 10:19 426 10:21 418 11:1 418, 423, 434 11:5 363 11:11 428 11:12 428 11:13 429, 435 11:14 183 11:25 428 12:7 268 12:8 95 12:10 95 12:18 183 12:19 95 12:20 270n59 14:14 243n17 14:17 306n16 15:8 428 15:9a 428 15:9b 427 15:10 418, 434 15:11 417 15:12a 427 15:12b 427, 435 15:16a 428 15:16b 428 15:18 428 15:25 259 15:27 428 15:28 271n62, 278n79 15:29 9 16:4 429, 435 16:18 9 16:26 427
1Corinthians 1:5 291n110 1:6 160 1:12 291n112 1:18 303n10 1:23 428, 435 2:6 66, 274n66 3:1 – 2 66 3:15 278n79 4:5 160 4:9 183 4:12 249, 249n23 4:15 278n82 4:20 306n16 5:1 428 5:2 261 5:8 95 7:12 – 13 255 7:14 270n58 7:26 183 8:7 160 9:4 33 10:1 278n79 10:4 28 10:7 418 11:27 279n90 11:28 33 12:2 428 14:7 263n44 14:21 418 14:39 159 15:28 291 15:45 293n114 15:47 145n19 15:55 387, 403 – 05 16:2 178
2Corinthians 1:22 2:2 2:5 2:10 2:13 3:3 3:8 5:3 5:5 6:16 7:8
271n62 260n42, 270n58 260n42, 270n58 264n48 160 259 183 183 291 420, 434 260, 260n42
Index of References
8:14 313 9:5a 8 9:7 157 10:5 160 10:13 341 11:20 270n58 11:26 428, 435 12:2 275n74 12:21 261
Galatians 1:16 2:2 2:4 2:8 2:9 2:12 2:14 2:15 2:21 3:4 3:8 3:8b 3:11 3:14 4:6 4:15 5:15 6:16
427 427 270n58 427 427 429, 435 429, 435 428, 435 305 183 428 426 183 428 283n97 183 341 341
Ephesians 1:13 1:21 2:4 2:5 2:8 2:11 2:15 3:1 3:6 3:8 3:10 3:15 4:13 4:14 4:17 4:21 4:30 5:14
271n62 294n118 239 303n8 303n8 428 95 429, 435 429, 435 427 294n118 431, 437 178 393 – 94, 406 – 08 428 183 260n42, 270n58, 271n62 247n21
6:12 6:16
96 252n31
Philippians 1:6 1:20 2:9 3:5 3:6 3:9 3:11 3:15 3:21 4:7 4:15
183 260n41 58, 264n47, 296n123 423 305 305, 305n14 183 66 96 160 156
Colossians 1:16 1:22 1:23 1:27 1:28 2:13 2:18
294n118 96 183 427 66 264n48 160
1Thessalonians 2:2 26 2:12 306n15 2:16 276, 428, 435 4:5 428, 435 4:13 260 5:10 247n21 5:13 55n83
2Thessalonians 2:17
237
1Timothy 2:7 2:8 2:12 3:16 4:1 4:5 4:14 6:2
428 160 268 427, 435 160 270n58 373 55n83
329
330
Index of References
2Timothy 183, 276 290n108 427, 435
1:12 4:15 4:17
Titus 1:4 243n15 2:14 420, 434 2:15 55n83
Philemon 15
10:22 10:29 10:30 11:6 11:10 11:25 11:26 12:15 12:17 12:28 13:10 13:12 13:18
242n13 243n17 420 183 259 418, 434 160 96 9 306n15 259 418, 434 270n60
183
Hebrews 1:3 96 1:4 296n123 2:3 294n118 2:6 288n102 2:11 270n58 2:17 420, 434 3:8 270n58 3:12 96 3:15 270n58 4:4 288n102 4:9 434 5:3 418, 420 5:12 160 6:7 9 6:16 188 6:18 183 7:5 418 – 19, 434 7:11 418 7:13 423 7:14 423 7:24 159 7:27 418 8:5 259 8:10 418, 434 9:2 293n117 9:3 279n91 9:7 418 9:19 418, 434 9:22 274n72 10:4 183 10:10 154 10:14 154 10:18 154 10:21 235n6
James 1:1 1:17 2:1 2:5 3:4 3:10 4:9 5:9 5:12 5:18
27, 362, 424, 436 158 96 239 390 9 261 275n73 275n75 180n4
1Peter 1:1 1:6 1:12 1:14 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:15 2:17 3:17 3:18 3:20 3:21 4:3 4:8 4:18 4:19
362 260 259 96 420, 430, 434 – 35 27, 420 295n121, 428, 435 270n58 370 183 265 313 303n10 428 275n75 303n9 259
2Peter 1:13
183
Index of References
2:1
418
1John 1:5 188 3:7 305 4:16 188 5:4 95
2John 4 290n107 12 278n82
3John 15
296n125
Jude 3 243n15 5 418 12 390 23 303n10
Revelation 1:1 1:3 1:6 1:7 1:9 1:16 1:18 2:16 3:1 3:4 4:4 5:1 5:9 5:10 6:8 6:13
263n44 280n93 306 279n84, 422, 436 306 246n18 385, 403 – 04 427, 435 296n124 296n125 254 254 417, 422, 426, 434 – 436 306 387 – 88, 403 – 04 390
7:1 406 – 08 7:1a 391, 394 7:1b 391 7:3 ff. 271n62 7:4 423, 436 7:9 417, 422, 426, 434 – 35 10:3 282n96 10:4 271n62 10:11 417, 426 11:2 396, 399, 409 – 11, 428, 435 11:3 295n119 11:9 417, 422, 426, 434 – 36 11:18 426 12:5 427, 435 13:7 417, 422, 427, 434 – 35 13:14 422, 434 – 35 14:6 417, 426 14:8 426 15:3 238, 426 15:4 426 16:10 306n15 16:19 427 17:15 417, 426 18:1 235n7 18:3 426 18:4 420 18:15 261 18:19 261 18:23 426 19:15 426 20:3 271n62, 426 20:8 426 20:13 387, 403 20:13 f. 404 20:14 387, 403 21:3 420 21:24 426 21:26 426 21:27 243n17 22:2 426 22:10 271n62 22:15 304n1
Greek Authors Homer
Plato
Il. 5.138 398n5 Od. 14:5 398n5
Gorgias 482e ff.
9
331