TIP OF THE DAY 102: Odds and ends - filling in early gaps; Speaking with style - beginning

MJ. Smith · December 18

I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day

QUESTION: In Biblical studies How do I judge the validity of a proposed symbolic interpretation of a name?

Skill: Evaluate suggested symbol

To judge the validity of a proposed symbolic interpretation of a name in biblical studies, you can consider the following criteria:

1. Contextual Consistency: Ensure that the symbolic interpretation aligns with the broader context of the biblical narrative. The symbolism should enhance or clarify the text rather than contradict it.

2. Scriptural Support: Look for other instances in scripture where similar symbols are used. Biblical symbolism often relies on established patterns and themes, so consistency with these can lend credibility to the interpretation.

3. Cultural and Historical Relevance: Consider whether the symbolic meaning is relevant to the cultural and historical context of the time when the text was written. Understanding ancient Near Eastern symbolism can provide insights into whether an interpretation is plausible.

4. Linguistic Plausibility: Evaluate whether the symbolic interpretation makes sense linguistically, considering the original language of the text (Hebrew, Greek, etc.). The symbolism should be coherent and meaningful within that linguistic framework.

5. Purpose and Function: Assess whether the symbolic interpretation serves a meaningful purpose, such as revealing deeper spiritual truths or moral lessons. Symbols are often used to convey complex ideas succinctly, so their interpretation should add depth to the understanding of the text.

6. Scholarly Consensus: Consider whether there is scholarly support for the interpretation. While not all interpretations will have unanimous agreement, those that are widely recognized or debated by scholars may have more validity.

By applying these criteria, you can critically assess whether a symbolic interpretation of a biblical name is valid and meaningful within its religious and historical context.1

1 and https://www.christadelphians.ns.ca/figures-of-speech-and-symbolic-language-in-the-bible/ and and https://community.logos.com/forums/t/225920.aspx https://www.gotquestions.org/biblical-symbolism.html https://www.proquest.com/docview/1921723799

QUESTION: Where does a person, e.g. Jesus, speak using classical figures of speech?

SOFTWARE: A Bible search with an argument similar to speaker:person:Jesus INTERSECTS figureofSpeech:* works. Unfortunately, the search results do not show the value of the figureofSpeech label.

QUESTION: How do I find the figure type associated with each reference, e.g. Mt 16:16?

SOFTWARE: Method 1: Guides

Open an instance of the Concordance Guide section set to Figure of Speech.

Enter the Biblical reference from the search.

Read the Description and Name of the figure of speech.

Method 2: Information panel

Open the Information panel from the Command Box, Tools > Lookup >Information, or Context menu at the bottom of the left side.

Click on the Bible reference in the search results. This will open your top priority Bible, if it is not already open. It will position you in the Bible panel at the Biblical reference.

Click (or hover) on the text highlighted in the search results.

Read the Description and Name of the figure of speech at Information > Other References > Figure of Speech.

Method 3: Context menu

Click on the Bible reference in the search results. This will open your top priority Bible, if it is not already open. It will position you in the Bible panel at the Biblical reference.

Select a portion of the text highlighted in the search results.

Right-click to open the Context menu.

Expand the labels, if necessary, to show Figure of Speech.

Read the description and name of the figure of speech.

QUESTION: Where do I find the definition for the figure e.g. hypocatastasis?

Software: Method 1: from Bullinger, Ethelbert William. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898. The source pointed to byParks, Jessica. Bullinger’s Figures of Speech: Dataset Documentation. Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2021.

Hypocatastasis; or, Implication

A Declaration that implies the Resemblance or Representation; or Comparison by Implication

Hy´-po-cat-as´-ta-sis. Greek, ὑποκατάστασις, substitution or implication; from ὑπό (hypo), underneath, κατά (kata), down, and στάσις (stasis), a stationing. Hence, a putting down underneath.

As a figure, it differs from Metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while, in Hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence Hypocatastasis is implied resemblance or representation: i.e., an implied Simile or Metaphor. If Metaphor is more forcible than Simile, then Hypocatastasis is more forcible than Metaphor, and expresses as it were the superlative degree of resemblance.

For example, one may say to another, “You are like a beast.” This would be Simile, tamely stating a fact. If, however, he said, “You are a beast” that would be Metaphor. But, if he said simply, “Beast!” that would be Hypocatastasis, for the other part of the Simile or Metaphor (“you”), would be implied and not stated.

This figure, therefore, is calculated to arouse the mind and attract and excite the attention to the greatest extent.

So well known was it to the ancients, that it received this significant name. But it is, to-day, unmentioned by literary men, though it is often unconsciously used by them. Thus, their language is enriched by its use, while the figure is unknown, even by name!

What a proof of the sad neglect into which this great subject has fallen; and what an example of the consequent loss which has ensued.

This beautiful and far-reaching figure frequently occurs in Scripture. The Lord Jesus Himself often used it, and that with wonderful effect.

Its beauty and force will be at once seen, if we compare one or two passages.

When, in Jer. 49:19, we read of the king of Babylon coming up against Edom, it says: “Behold, he shall come up like a lion … against the habitation of the strong”: etc. Here, we have a Simile, and the feelings are unmoved, as it is only against Edom that the assault is made.

But it is a very different case in Jer. 4:7, where the same king of Babylon is spoken of as coming up against Zion. In the heat of excited feeling he is not named, but only implied.

“The lion is come up from his thicket.”

So, in all the other cases, it will be well to contrast every example of Hypocatastasis with both Simile and Metaphor, in order to gather the full force of its meaning and the reason for its use instead of either of the other two . . .

Matt. 16:6.—“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the Sadducees.” There the word “doctrine” is implied. Had the Lord said, “the doctrine of the Pharisees is like leaven,” that would have been Simile, and a cold, bare statement of fact; but He did not say so. Had He said “the doctrine of the Pharisees is leaven,” that would have been Metaphor; much bolder, much more forcible, but not so true to fact though much truer to truth. But He did not say so. He took the word “doctrine” and put it down underneath, and did not mention it at all. He only implied it: and this was Hypocatastasis.

No wonder then that the attention of the disciples was excited and attracted. No wonder their interest was aroused: for this was the Lord’s object.

“They reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand?… How is it that ye do not understand that I spake not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Saducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (verses 6–12). This example is remarkable when we compare it with another, in the previous chapter, which we give next; and out of its textual order for the purpose of contrast.[1]

Method 2: through a smart all search, the synopsis:

Hypocatastasis is a figure of speech in which a comparison is implied by direct naming, involving the substitution of an unrelated item for a different item to create an implied comparison. This rhetorical device requires the listener or reader to grasp the intended item of comparison. An example of hypocatastasis can be found in the biblical context, where the image of falling into a pit is used to imply that the evil to which someone guides people will ultimately lead to their own destruction.2

From Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Richard D. Patterson. Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011.:

Hypocatastasis: figure of speech in which the comparison is implied by direct naming[3]

Method 3: silva rhetoricae

The excellent and comprehensive rhetorical site has no entry for this figure because it is not a traditionally recognized figure.

Method 4: Wikipedia: Hypocatastasis

Hypocatastasis is a figure of speech that declares or implies a resemblance, representation or comparison. It differs from a metaphor, because in a metaphor the two nouns are both named and given; while, in hypocatastasis, only one is named and the other is implied, or as it were, is put down underneath out of sight. Hence hypocatastasis is an implied resemblance or representation: that is an implied simile or metaphor. A hypocatastasis has more force than a metaphor or simile, and expresses as it were a superlative degree of resemblance.

Attribution for the creation of the term is given derisively to a Mr. Lord by G. Bush in 1850. The latter accuses the former of inventing this category of Biblical comparisons which do not seem to fit into the standard categories of metaphor or simile. Since then the term has mostly been confined to analysis of Biblical rhetoric, and it has never migrated to general public usage. It does not appear in the 2009 version of the Oxford English Dictionary.

[1] Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 745–746.

2 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 840. and Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, 2nd Edition, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2021), 668. and Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, For the Love of God’s Word: An Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015), 401. and Richard A. Taylor, Interpreting Apocalyptic Literature: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M. Howard Jr., Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2016), 203. and Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Pr 28:10.

[3] Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2011), 840.