Linguistics and NTS: Some Concerns (was "two models?")
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sat Oct 26 20:00:17 EDT 2002
I am resending this message to replace Joe's previous mailing which I have
deleted from the list's archives because of the garbled text resulting from
bad coding. I have corrected some formatting errors that I could discern.
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 17:59:01 -0400
From: JFantin at aol.com
Mike Burer said:
> . . . but I was not aware of the
> term you used (systemic functionalism). I also know that his
> theories of linguistics are not accepted by everyone. . . .
Mike's comments give me occasion to express a concern with the use of
linguistics in NTS. I preface my remarks by stating that I believe
linguistics is a permanent member of the exegete's toolbox and our field of
study is better for it. My desire is that we use the tool as accurately as
possible and for the right purpose(s).
Also, my comments are not directed toward anyone on the list specifically.
I have benefitted from many of the linguistically related posts on this
list. It merely is a general concern of what I have been observing in
various places. I hope this post can contribute to the use of linguistics
for understanding the text of the Greek NT.
There are many theories of linguistics. Many of the theories themselves
have undergone much change over the years. I am not sure whether biblical
scholars are aware of these significant differences both between and within
some theories. I personally would consider myself rather eclectic, favoring
certain theories and drawing from others. However, a scholar whose first
field is not linguistics claiming to use linguistic theories eclectically
may look to those whose primary field is linguistics like an amateur
theologian who takes from various theological traditions looks to us (e.g.,
a person claiming maintain both dispensational and amillennial
eschatological schemes). Sure there is much we can learn from other
theories but there are certain things that just cannot be harmonized. Of
course, some theories will share much more in common with one another.
Theories within a specific branch of linguistics-e.g., descriptive
(stratificational, tagmemics, etc.), functionalism (systemics, etc.), and
generative traditions-will all be closer to one another than theories in
other branches. Though it seems descriptive and functional approaches are
closer to each other than they would be to generative. In fact, the
theories of Pike (tagmemics), Lamb (stratificational), and Halliday
(systemics) developed around the same time and influenced one another. Also
conferences such as the annual Linguistic Association of Canada and the
United States provide an opportunity for many within these theories
(especially tagmemics and stratificational--though I believe Pike, Lamb,
and Halliday have each held the presidency of the group in the past) and
others to interact.
The significant differences in theories is vividly illustrated in
Christopher Butler's introductory systemic text. He warns the reader who
may be trained in Chomskyan and other theories that the reader may need to
suspend certain preconceptions, and to approach language afresh, if he is
to appreciate what Hallidayan linguistics has to offer (Systemic
Linguistics: Theory and Applications [London: Batsford Academic and
Educational, 1985], 1). This is quite a challenge. He sees a difference in
his theory that reaches to a very basic level of understanding.
In addition to the various different theories out there, it is also
important for us no to be as current as possible on a specific theory. Take
for example a linguist trained in Chomsky's 1965 Aspects model. Let us
assume that this individual decided to attend Woodstock in 1969. He enjoyed
himself maybe a little too much and is just now waking up in 2002. I
suspect that current generative works would be incomprehensible to him
(this may not be the case with other theories which have undergone
development but still would be comprehensible). Few if any of us would
maintain Bousset's view of Paul's influences (Hellenistic) today.
Therefore, to use him as a primary source for understanding Paul would be
seriously criticized. However, and my analogy is not perfect, if one wished
to defend a Hellenistic influence upon Paul he may be more solidly based
with support from recent work by Engberg-Pedersen. Thus, to use old
outdated (even abandoned) models of linguistics is to be avoided. Keep up
with developments, many of which may have modified original proposals.
My own experience in linguistics has demonstrated to me that theoretical,
methodological, and other differences within the field result in heated
debates similar to those theological debates we wish to avoid on b-greek.
For this reason (among others) I have been somewhat uncomfortable with the
use of linguistics on b-greek for some time. However, it seems to have been
profitable. I hope it will continue as theoretical differences emerge more
clearly. I recall years ago there was a list devoted to Hellenistic Greek
linguistics but I have not heard from it in a while. I believe b-greek has
taken over this discussion.
I do understand that we were primarily discussing discourse analysis in the
original thread. DA can be used in various ways by many different theories
for different purposes. My main point is related to general linguistic
theory which may undergird a specific application of DA.
Finally, I want to point out that my comments are primarily addressed to NT
scholars. Some on this list are formal linguists. You could probably teach
me much about the field. We must all keep in mind that understanding Greek
is only part of the exegetical process. Also, Many on this list are
primarily interested in simply bettering their Greek without scholarly
aims. This is a commendable goal. I hope my comments are helpful. I merely
want people to avoid avoidable problems. Linguistics is helpful. Careful
use of linguistics is essential. We all know how Greek is often used by
some lay people to prove things that are not in the text. We have all seen
abuses of tenses, root fallacies, etc., This list helps us to avoid these
errors. Linguistics can also be abused. The use of linguistics can also be
intimidating to the uninitiated (like the mention of Greek is to many
listening to a sermon).
Forgive me for not offering much in the way of solutions. I am sure I have
been too long winded as it is.
Sincerely,
Joe Fantin
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list